If anyone knows the whereabouts of Melbourne's forward line could they please contact the MFC football department ASAP.

Key features:

- It consists of at least six players

- It is most effective when entered long and directly

Reward:

- Four premiership points each week

Please help!

I would just like to add how pleasing it was to see Bruce, Yze and Davey in the back line during the second half.

That really put Melbourne in a match-winning position!

Melbourne not having a forward line and allowing St Kilda to play a loose man in defence was the reason that Melbourne lost.

I don't even blame "runs and curry" because to be honest the players were forced to play that way.

Why?

Because Melbourne moved most of it's team (including match-winners like Davey and Bruce) to the back half of the ground, even if the ball was in the centre.

Therefore, as we all saw last night when a Melbourne player got the ball and looked up, all he saw was one, two or if he was lucky three forwards to kick it too. However, there were always more St Kilda defenders there to pick off the easy pass.

Because of this, the Melbourne players were forced to hand pass (in an attempt to move the ball forward) amongst themselves but as many of us have been saying for the past month now, it doesn't work!

At the start of the game when Melbourne were leading when they had a forward line.

At the end of the game they didn't.

"Runs and curry", over-possessing the ball and kicking sideways were only the symptoms on this occasion.

Not having a forward line was the cause.

HAHAAHAHA amusing yet so sad and so true really i dont know whether to laugh or cry!

100% True.

While many supporters would lambast the players for the overuse of handball through the midfield, the reality of the situation is that on most occasions they had no-one to kick to further afield. The Mebourne half-forwards (either by instruction or trying to chase a kick) played mostly across the centre or half back, and often their opponents sat off them and create a wall across our half forward line. So when possession is won on half back or in the centre, we look up and see Neita and Robbo with 4 defenders on them. Then we look around for other options and every other teammate is either next to or behind us, so handball is the only option.

From the mismatched numbers in our forward line, one might be forgiven for thinking that Lyon was employing a super-flood. Actually those extra players were the St Kilda half-backs whose opponents had left them alone.

The most frustrating aspect of this for me is that Daniher is not playing a style of football that matches up well with our list. The most obvious thing from last night is that Melbourne's strongest area on the ground is its forward line (when present). St Kilda had no idea how to contain Neitz and Robertson in a contested situation, and yet too often the rest of the forward line, especially the crumbers (Davey, Yze, CJ) were nowhere to be seen.

drdrake summed it up perfectly in another thread: This Melbourne team plays its best football when it plays open, attacking and direct. We need to make the most of the strength of our forwards by ensuring even numbers at the contest, this is best achieved through quick ball movement so that the opposition doesn't have time to get back in numbers. We're getting too caught up with the idea of trying to create the perfect buildup and pinpoint passing inside 50. Sure, you should always look for a free man first, but if there's no obvious option why not bomb it in to Neita, Robbo and Davey all one-out against their opponent, and see what happens? Instead, we pass backwards and sideways around the 70 metre arc while the defenders flood back and clog up the space.

All Daniher's hard work in spruiking the club and trying to drive membership sales is being undone by this ugly, boring and most importantly unsuccessful game plan. I attended the game with 2 people last night who have never been members before, but are considering signing up for this year. They tried to buy their memberships before the game but the membership tent didn't accept EFTPOS, and they left the game at the end saying how glad they were that they didn't cough up because they have no intention of becoming a member of a team that plays that brand of football.

How very true-- sad indictment on the team of last night, especially on ND

I am not sure where the forwardline was last night, but I know where they will be in 21 weeks time if they are still missing. the will be nestled in the bottom four of the afl ladder!

Yeah. Funny stuff. But to be honest I can't help but admire Neitz and Robbo for what they were able to extract from just 33 entries into fifty. The forward-line players themselves weren't to blame. IMO you had Gehrig kicking 4.3 to Neita's 3.2. That's only 2 more scoring shots with about 20 more inside fifties. He was for the entire match up against Carroll one out, which is a challenge for any defender. And if you say we were lucky Gehrig didn't slot those posters? Well Neitz missed 2 pretty straightforward shots too. Given the dominance of the Saints' half backs and midfield Gehrig was always going to have the lion's share of forward entries. If Neitz had the same midfield delivering to him he would have kicked 8.4.

If anyone knows the whereabouts of Melbourne's forward line could they please contact the MFC football department ASAP.

Last night our forward line was at one of those long thin grounds like Subiaco or AAMI. It certainly wasn't at the G!

  Dappa Dan said:

Yeah. Funny stuff. But to be honest I can't help but admire Neitz and Robbo for what they were able to extract from just 33 entries into fifty. The forward-line players themselves weren't to blame. IMO you had Gehrig kicking 4.3 to Neita's 3.2. That's only 2 more scoring shots with about 20 more inside fifties. He was for the entire match up against Carroll one out, which is a challenge for any defender. And if you say we were lucky Gehrig didn't slot those posters? Well Neitz missed 2 pretty straightforward shots too. Given the dominance of the Saints' half backs and midfield Gehrig was always going to have the lion's share of forward entries. If Neitz had the same midfield delivering to him he would have kicked 8.4.

I'm not blaming the players at all.

I'm blaming the coach for not putting anyone in there!

As much as I hate "runs and curry" and "tempo football", they were not the cause of the problems last night, although they did only make things worse.

However, the cause of it all was that Melbourne did not have a forward line!

I'm confused CB. You say you blame the coach then say the cause of it all was having no forwardline. So you're saying ND told them all to vacate our forward fifty? Neita and Robbo were a damn good forward line on the day. I'd say our midfield was the section that went missing. Bruce, Yze, Bate, Green. They were nearly as much to blame as Davey, and they all had time in the guts.

You are right that there was always 1 forward against 3 guys, but IMO that's just a symptom of a far greater problem. Everyone ran back to help out the defence and still Carroll was on his own against Gehrig? If they weren't in our forwardline, and they weren't in their forward line where were they?

Oh, I'm getting a headache. My god we were crap.

  Dappa Dan said:

I'm confused CB....

At the start of each quarter, there were no more than four Melbourne players in their own forward line (coaches tactic). That's because Melbourne were playing a loose man in defense and they had an extra player on the wing. This is before the ball was bounced.

Where were all the players you ask? If you notice with many of the stoppages around the ground, Melbourne often had eleven or twelve players gathered around the ball. So when they did win possession, they would look up and see no forwards (or an outnumbered Neitz or Robertson) and so then they were forced to hand pass amongst themselves and move the ball sideways until an option presented it self. We all know how this ended up...

Surely, it must be the coach’s instructions for the players to push up the ground. Otherwise there would have been runners running out to the players telling them to get back in the forward line.

Not having a forward line isn't a speculation or a theory of why Melbourne lost. The fact is they didn't have a forward line. We could see this with our own too eyes.

  Clint Bizkit said:

Not having a forward line isn't a speculation or a theory of why Melbourne lost. The fact is they didn't have a forward line. We could see this with our own too eyes.

Our biggest issue was the manner which our midfield and half backline could not generate the run to create efficient and effective movement of the ball coupled with our lousy ball disposal. We were slow and inept and allowed St Kilda to flood back up easy possession From the limited opportunities Neitz and Robbo had they did well. If we have been more slick in the movement and delivery of the ball we would have had Neitz and Robbo on 1 on 1s. It also might have help if Davey and Yze actually did something on the ground as well. There is no rule as to how many or how you structure the forward line so long as it allows you to convert to goals from effective possession and disposal up the ground. We did not have effective possession or disposal through the midfield

Dappa Dan was spot on. Our midfield was atrocious with few exceptions. We poor elsewhere as well.

My biggest concern was the failure of the players to implement the game plan with any confidence or skill. The coaching panel have a lot to do over the next 9 days.

  Rhino Richards said:

Our biggest issue was the manner which our midfield and half backline could not generate the run to create efficient and effective movement of the ball coupled with our lousy ball disposal. We were slow and inept and allowed St Kilda to flood back up easy possession From the limited opportunities Neitz and Robbo had they did well. If we have been more slick in the movement and delivery of the ball we would have had Neitz and Robbo on 1 on 1s. It also might have help if Davey and Yze actually did something on the ground as well. There is no rule as to how many or how you structure the forward line so long as it allows you to convert to goals from effective possession and disposal up the ground. We did not have effective possession or disposal through the midfield

There was no one to kick it to in the first place. When there was an option they were usually outnumbered thanks to the extra man in defense.

Of course they were slow, because they had to wait for the forwards to get back to the forward line. Not to mention the fact that the "runs and curry" tactic does not work for this current side.

I don't blame Yze and Davey as they were positioned too far up the ground. If ND had of left them in their best positions (in the forward line) they would have done better. Moreover, they would have provided more options for the midfield going forward and there would have been less hesitation with their disposal. At one point they had Davey at full back FFS. And when he did go forward thats when he started to create some opportunities.

It was bleatingly obvious that Melbourne did not have a forward line and this was the cause of their problems.

  Clint Bizkit said:

There was no one to kick it to in the first place. When there was an option they were usually outnumbered thanks to the extra man in defense.

.......

It was bleatingly obvious that Melbourne did not have a forward line and this was the cause of their problems.

We did not get enough possession of the ball and we did not move it quck enough. After the first 15 minutes of the game we were flogged in the clearances. Our inept and slow movement of the ball just killed us. It would not matter if you have 20 blokes up there. If you are slow and sloppy in the delivery of the ball into the forward line you will allow the opposition to flood back, zone off and man up.

  Rhino Richards said:

We did not get enough possession of the ball and we did not move it quck enough. After the first 15 minutes of the game we were flogged in the clearances. Our inept and slow movement of the ball just killed us. It would not matter if you have 20 blokes up there. If you are slow and sloppy in the delivery of the ball into the forward line you will allow the opposition to flood back, zone off and man up.

The reason they were "slow and sloppy" was that they had no one to kick it to in the first place. If there was a forward line all they would have to do is throw the ball on their boot to get the ball down to forwards. Instead they were forced to chip, hand pass and try and run the ball around until there were options up forward.

St Kilda did not need time to flood back because they were starting with loose men in defense in the first place. Moreover, Melbourne only had a few forwards to begin with. A tactic which makes your mate, old55 "happy".

You're looking at the symptoms. I'm looking at the cause.

Rhino, do you have any association with anyone within Melbourne's football department?

You are never willing to admit their mistakes. Always blaming the players.

CB I reckon we're arguing the same thing at the heart of it. Demons we're terrible.

We took guys out of our forward-line to do what you said, put one somewhere around the wing or the middle, and another as a floating defender. My position is that when MFC have done that in the past, and certainly when we did it last year, eventually our numbers won out through the middle. We would have more forward movement, the opposition would drop their heads, probably have to remove a forward or two themselves, and in the end we would dictate terms. Where this plan fell down on Friday was NOT in the forward line. They were surprisingly effective. It was our half-backs and midfield that couldn't get enough of the pill, and when they had it, overused it.

I'm happy for Neitz to be up there against 3 defenders like L. Fisher, S. Fisher and an unfit Maguire. If that's the case then Neita will destroy all three in every play like a tidal wave, Robbo will be lurking one-out or on his own (dangerous to say the least), and then if there's any half forwards in and around it they'll feast on the devastation wreaked by the big man (Trav, Green, Davey... though I'm not absolutely certain Aaron played). This game worked ok for us in the first final last year because we KICKED instead of doing all this rubbish we saw two days ago.

For my part, the problem is mostly with the flankers who went missing, but also with many players in the midfield rotation that were non-events. The biggest issue being that if we dropped all the midfielders who had bad games, we'd have to bring in guys like Godfrey, and we'd be just as assured of failure.

  Dappa Dan said:

CB I reckon we're arguing the same thing at the heart of it. Demons we're terrible.

We took guys out of our forward-line to do what you said, put one somewhere around the wing or the middle, and another as a floating defender. My position is that when MFC have done that in the past, and certainly when we did it last year, eventually our numbers won out through the middle. We would have more forward movement, the opposition would drop their heads, probably have to remove a forward or two themselves, and in the end we would dictate terms. Where this plan fell down on Friday was NOT in the forward line. They were surprisingly effective. It was our half-backs and midfield that couldn't get enough of the pill, and when they had it, overused it.

I'm happy for Neitz to be up there against 3 defenders like L. Fisher, S. Fisher and an unfit Maguire. If that's the case then Neita will destroy all three in every play like a tidal wave, Robbo will be lurking one-out or on his own (dangerous to say the least), and then if there's any half forwards in and around it they'll feast on the devastation wreaked by the big man (Trav, Green, Davey... though I'm not absolutely certain Aaron played). This game worked ok for us in the first final last year because we KICKED instead of doing all this rubbish we saw two days ago.

For my part, the problem is mostly with the flankers who went missing, but also with many players in the midfield rotation that were non-events. The biggest issue being that if we dropped all the midfielders who had bad games, we'd have to bring in guys like Godfrey, and we'd be just as assured of failure.

We saw on Friday night that Neitz did not destroy his three opponents.

I agree that Melbourne were hopeless in the midfield.

Why were they hopeless?

Because, when they did get the ball they no options up the ground. (Yes players such as Trav and McLean (before being injured) did have off nights but there is much more to the story.)

It's all very well to get possessions (just ask Joel Bowden), but the most important thing is what the player does with the thing. In this case, the players had almost no decent options, the result being the "runs and curry" and chipping around that resulted in turnovers, which frustrated every one of us.

ANd that's where we disagree. You think the forward line weakness caused the midfield headaches. I reckon the midfield mediocrity put too much pressure on the forward line. Simple really. Just a difference of opinion.

And hey. Neitz did destroy his three opponents. Any 2 marking forwards who can kick 6.5 from 33 entries is doing a bang up job. If they continue that form I'm happy for our two main forwards to get 1 scoring shot for every 3 times we go into fifty. What we NEED is more entries into fifty, and, as you say, more room for Neita and co to lead into that isn't occupied by half the opposition's players!

  Dappa Dan said:

ANd that's where we disagree. You think the forward line weakness caused the midfield headaches. I reckon the midfield mediocrity put too much pressure on the forward line. Simple really. Just a difference of opinion.

And hey. Neitz did destroy his three opponents. Any 2 marking forwards who can kick 6.5 from 33 entries is doing a bang up job. If they continue that form I'm happy for our two main forwards to get 1 scoring shot for every 3 times we go into fifty. What we NEED is more entries into fifty, and, as you say, more room for Neita and co to lead into that isn't occupied by half the opposition's players!

If two forwards kicked 6.5 from 33 entries, just imagine how many goals five or six forwards would have kicked!

Moroever, there would have been more entries into the forward fifty if there were more forwards to kick to.

St Kilda only had 22 more disposals than Melbourne for the game.

You're right, let's just agree to disagree.

  Clint Bizkit said:

You're looking at the symptoms. I'm looking at the cause.

Are you sure?

  Clint Bizkit said:

Rhino, do you have any association with anyone within Melbourne's football department?

No.

  Clint Bizkit said:

You are never willing to admit their mistakes. Always blaming the players.

I will repeat what I said before.

"My biggest concern was the failure of the players to implement the game plan with any confidence or skill. The coaching panel have a lot to do over the next 9 days."

The lack of skill and confidence of the players falls in the lap of the coaches. The ball is in the coaches corner to turn it around. Well and truly.

However to exonerate the poor performance of the players is naive and misleading.

  Rhino Richards said:

Are you sure?

Yes.

  Clint Bizkit said:

If two forwards kicked 6.5 from 33 entries, just imagine how many goals five or six forwards would have kicked!

THere is no evidence that we would have kicked anymore goals nor is there a linear association with the number of players you have up forward. Many of those inside 50s were plain horrible and with perfoming deadwood like Yze, Miller, Davey its unlikely they would have turned it around.

  Clint Bizkit said:

Moroever, there would have been more entries into the forward fifty if there were more forwards to kick to.

Entries in the forward 50 are a function of possession and disposals by the midfield and to an extent the HBF.

  Clint Bizkit said:

St Kilda only had 22 more disposals than Melbourne for the game.

Given the triteness and sheer wastefulness of many of the MFC possesions especially the overuse of handball. I cant think of more meaningless statistic.

A more meaningful statistic to start with is the score after we were 3.2 to 0.2

St Kilda 13.13 to MFC 6.7. 26 scoring shots plus a couple on the full to 13 scoring shots (some of those in junk time). DD is right. We got slaughtered in the midfield and that together with poor execution of the game plan (not coaches responsbility even more than the players), some truly [censored] poor performance from some senior players and excruciating disposal.

If St Kilda had kicked straight we could have been beaten by 10 goals. And the main reason.......the forward line....Its beggars belief

  Clint Bizkit said:

You're right, let's just agree to disagree.

Bravo.

  Rhino Richards said:

THere is no evidence that ...

So are you saying that the game plan / field positions were fine?

Just poorly executed?

1. I have already said the coaches have lot to do in the next nine days after that effort. You do miss alot

2. I have no problem with have space for two key forwards where the players do execute the plan properly. They did not and when they did have the ball the disposal was often appalling. But the game was lost before the ball crossed our forward 50.

3. The main issue we got beaten was we were flogged (especially in the midfield) by a more disciplined team that were more prepared to contest, commit to their plan and work hard.

You said: "My biggest concern was the failure of the players to implement the game plan with any confidence or skill. The coaching panel have a lot to do over the next 9 days."

Where do you say that the game plan was bad?

The coaching panel do have a lot to do.

But in what way?

Training the players so they do implement the plan better? Or coming up with another plan?

Do you think the game plan was a good one?