Wanted:

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

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.

I was going to cover this but RR got to it before me. Re-read his points if you want to know what I think, particularly the one about forward fifty entrances being a function of the midfield/HBFs.

I've got no problem with trying something new in terms of game-plan. God knows we're not going to improve on last year by repeating EVERYTHING we did in season 2006. My problem was ND's lack of foresight to change things around when it was clear the hand-balling crap was going to lose us the game. It was apparent to all and sundry at half time, yet we continued with it in the 3rd quarter and by then it was too late. I would say it was half and half. ND should have changed things up quicker, and the players should have run harder to receive. Brown does this well, play him.

IMO, and I stress this is just my opinion CB, I would prefer to see Neitz and Robbo given the ENTIRE forward fifty more often than not. Obviously it's not going to work all the time, but they both excel when given that part of the ground to work in. What you call a weakness here is actually something I want to see the footy department pursue. Pagan's paddock has worked for many forwards, and Neita shines when he's given that kind of room. Our best footy is played with Robbo leading behind Neita, and Davey standing stationary outside the fifty, then running towards goal if there's a spillage. He finds room where there is none so often he must be allowed the opportunity. But other than that, the forward fifty is a no-go zone for all.

Having said that, it won't work all the time. When there's a resting ruckman, or Robbo/Neita/davey are benched etc etc. Certain teams/grounds won't allow it either... but in general...

Just my thoughts. Not a rebuttal.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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?

I've already addressed my views on the game plan on this site. Go read them. Its like talking to a parrot that continually asks the same question.

[CarnTheDees 52]

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.

Correct DD. The full-forward line of Robbo and Neitz did a remarkable job considering the circumstances. My gripe is not with them but the half-forwards. Guys like Davey, Yze, Miller who lined up at each centre bounce in the forward line but then played half-back/midfield, while their opponents zoned off them and sat in front of Neitz and Robbo. I'm not sure if this occurred through direct instruction or the players getting lost and going kick chasing. Either way, it was a massive blunder.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Are you sure?

Let me respond to this again with further explanation seeing as you do not understand.

I am looking at the cause because I am looking at before the players even kicked the ball. That is, they got the ball, looked up and saw no one to kick it to. As a result they over-used the ball. Yes, players like TJ and McLean (before injury) were not at their best. However the KEY problem for Melbourne was the lack of forwards.

Like I said, Melbourne only had 22 less disposals than St Kilda. That is, they were getting the ball. Like you mentioned they used the ball badly.

Why did they use the ball badly? This is what needs to be asked. Maybe each and every player just happened to have a bad night. There is a chance of that. This is an unlikely scenario none-the-less.

As a result you are looking at the next step, the symptom of what I just explained. That is, you are looking at the actual disposal by the players. Again, maybe every player just happened to have a bad night. But from my view of the game it was bleatingly obvious that the problem was not the kicking.

It was before this step.

There was nothing to kick to.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

There was nothing to kick to.

That's exactly how I feel when I or others try and discuss basic football concepts with you.

You havent got a clue.

It would be amusing if you were taking the p!$$. But you are seriously miss the wood for the trees. The cart is miles ahead often no where near the horse

I glad you enjoy going to the football. Heavens knows how much more you would get out of it if you actually understood what was happening.

For starters, rather than focussing on what happens before they kick the ball, focus on what is happening on who gets the ball first (a little clue: after the first 15 minutes it wasn't us) and why the opposition got it more than us what they did with it and what they were doing when they did not have it and we did.

Amazing how you can continually condemn football strategies and yet repeatedly fail to grasp basic concepts.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

That's exactly how I feel when I or others try and discuss basic football concepts with you.

You havent got a clue.

It would be amusing if you were taking the p!$$. But you are seriously miss the wood for the trees. The cart is miles ahead often no where near the horse

I glad you enjoy going to the football. Heavens knows how much more you would get out of it if you actually understood what was happening.

I'll continue this when you have the ability to argue the point.

Without resorting to weak personal insults.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'll continue this when you have the ability to argue the point.

Without resorting to weak personal insults.

They were meant to be serious observations about your style.

I note you dont want to address the issue of what happens before they get the ball.

Just bursts the balloon and does not help a misguided cause.

Ca la vie!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

They were meant to be serious observations about your style.

I note you dont want to address the issue of what happens before they get the ball.

Just bursts the balloon and does not help a misguided cause.

Ca la vie!

I'm more than willing to discuss it.

Just not when you make false accusations about me.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Melbourne only had 22 less possessions than St Kilda.

Yet they had more disposals per goal than the Saints.

That is, there disposal was inefficient and just plain crap (as you've mentioned).

Obviously Melbourne could have improved by winning more of the ball.

Again, it's all very well getting a lot of the ball, but what you do with it is what really matters.

So why, in your opinion was their disposal so bad?

[Elmag 5]

Very simple - they hung onto the ball too long - too scared to kick quickly 50 metres down the field to a one on one - they're drilled not to kick to a contest - by the time they had to kick they were under pressure having to make pin point passes - in the last quarter they blasted down quickly to one -on-ones and got a few goals - the ST Kilda defence hadn't had time to drop back. Too often in the first three quarters St kilda had two or three loose players in defence because we moved the ball too slowly

About time we pushed up the ground and re-created the pagan paddock - give Neitz and Miller a chance one-one to mark or bring the ball to ground - give Davey and bate a chance to swoop and pick up - time to take risks and change the game - we can't win a grand final with the current game plan - perhaps a radical change exploiting the no hands in back rule will work - move the ball quickly into the forward line with long kicks.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

..........

Obviously Melbourne could have improved by winning more of the ball.

Bravo.

Again, it's all very well getting a lot of the ball, but what you do with it is what really matters.

Bollocks. If you not getting the ball......you're not getting it......you're not getting possession of it.....the opposition are getting it...{I let you fill in the blanks).

We controlled less of the ball than St Kilda and when we did have it we squandered it with poor implementation of the plan (note: Coaches responsibility), lack of leadership (Bruce, Green and White), lack of preparedness to run make space, tackle shepherd.

So why, in your opinion was their disposal so bad?

Inability to execute basic foot skills across the ground.

Opposition pressure of players.

Lack of willingness of MFC players to make a contest and do the harder things left too many players unprotected and one out.

Lack of confidence in what they were doing.

Inability to create effective movement of the ball from defence to the back line

Team possessed a couple of armchair passengers who cheated their teammates by not running and doing the 1%s.

Losing ruck gave St Kilda first clean use of the ball.

[mauriesy 6,883]

They harried our run and carry.

Result: harikari.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Losing ruck gave St Kilda first clean use of the ball.

This has gone unmentioned (as far as I can tell, may have missed a post or two) so far. Stunning oversight by demonland posters, but at least partially forgiveable due to the fact there were so many things to pick fault with at the end of the match on Friday. One of the reasons we won against these guys last year was ruck dominance due to the fact that they had no-one of note, and we had Jeff. Fast forward to this year and they've recruited a guy that gave our ruck division a bath when he played last year with Adelaide. I don't rate Clarke, but he can go with Jeff at least. That's all he needed to do. As it turns out, that, and the loss of Brock stole most of our midfield dominance from the final last year. Consequence? Well... just look at the result.

RR, your list of causes there hints at one you didn't specify. Are these players even capable of playing a handball game? Forget the coach, the gameplan, the development of the side etc etc. These guys were recruited/retained because they have a number of strengths, among them kicking (Trav, Yze, Green, McLean, Sylvia, CJ, Moloney, Jones, Bate, White). Why do players like Black/Cross/Harvey/Miller/West handball so much? Because it's a strength. They CAN kick (some of them) but they opt not to whenever it's appropriate, and most of them are successful. I know people have said we didn't play to our strength on Friday, that's been suggested more than almost anything over the past 3 days. But I'm going to go further. If the pre-season and round one have shown anything it's that these players, good as they are, just aren't CAPABLE of playing this game-plan, even when taught by the best.

Am I going too far here? Perhaps it's too early to suggest this given the plan's only been seen for 5 matches? Maybe they're a bit too young to show any signs that the lessons have been learned?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

This has gone unmentioned (as far as I can tell, may have missed a post or two) so far. Stunning oversight by demonland posters, but at least partially forgiveable due to the fact there were so many things to pick fault with at the end of the match on Friday. One of the reasons we won against these guys last year was ruck dominance due to the fact that they had no-one of note, and we had Jeff. Fast forward to this year and they've recruited a guy that gave our ruck division a bath when he played last year with Adelaide. I don't rate Clarke, but he can go with Jeff at least. That's all he needed to do. As it turns out, that, and the loss of Brock stole most of our midfield dominance from the final last year. Consequence? Well... just look at the result.

I would not underestimate Matthew Clarke. IMO he is far better pick up than the flaky and injured Gardiner. I was really disappointed with White's work around the ground and this failed to make up for his poor performance in the centre.

RR, your list of causes there hints at one you didn't specify. Are these players even capable of playing a handball game? Forget the coach, the gameplan, the development of the side etc etc. These guys were recruited/retained because they have a number of strengths, among them kicking (Trav, Yze, Green, McLean, Sylvia, CJ, Moloney, Jones, Bate, White). Why do players like Black/Cross/Harvey/Miller/West handball so much? Because it's a strength. They CAN kick (some of them) but they opt not to whenever it's appropriate, and most of them are successful. I know people have said we didn't play to our strength on Friday, that's been suggested more than almost anything over the past 3 days. But I'm going to go further. If the pre-season and round one have shown anything it's that these players, good as they are, just aren't CAPABLE of playing this game-plan, even when taught by the best.

A couple of things........

1. Run and Carry is not the "handball" game. What we executed was not R & C but gameplan borne of the reasons I stated above.

2. Modern footballers these days a readily adept at both hand and foot skills especially midfielders who would have such skills at the higher end in either foot and/or hand skills. While many may favour one over the other, all should be competent to execute such skills under game pressure. Christ that is what they train and do 11 months of the year. I disagree with your separation of players based on those who "kick" and those that "handball" due to strength. Players like West and Black are handballing because they are inside players in contested traffic who win the hard ball and dish off by handball to teammates in close proximity. They dont have the luxury of being a freeloader like Yze that gets soft possessions on the receive and gets more kicks playing outside. BTW, Miller handballs because he's a flaky kick and when he does get the ball (6 to 8 times a game) he is usually running from goal and it may (may not) be the best option to move the ball. I would not label it a strength.

3. If a team is going to seriously challenge for top 4 and hopefully a flag it is expected that they can be a variety of oppositions, on a variety of surfaces in a vareity of conditions. What works some weeks with some sides does not work with others. Over the past two to three years, MFC have been blown away in Adeliade and WA where the grounds are long and narrow. If we are going to be successful at the highest level, we must be able to win at these grounds. Over the years when we played a visually aesthetic style of corridor football it was successful for a short period until oppositions began to develop other tactics to combat this (eg flooding). When it did not work the "know - alls" on the site cried "Daniher has no plan B". We successfully introduced tempo football into our game plan to break the flood and ensure more judicious entry in the F50 than just bombing it long to a contested situation. Remember that tempo football also took a couple of weeks to get right and provide us with worthy tactical support. The success of Run and Carry is squarely on Daniher. His future clearly rests on it. But I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water after one week. The same as last year. But he and his cohorts have a lot of work.

4. Let me see MFC have Rivers, McLean, Bruce, Green, Neitz, Robinson, McDonald, Whelan, White, Bate, Jones, Sylvia, Pickett, Moloney for starters and you dont believe they are capable of executing a game plan? On that basis, we dont have the calibre of player to compete at the highest level and it is pipedream to think we are a flag opporunity in the next couple of years. What were we all thinking??

Am I going too far here? Perhaps it's too early to suggest this given the plan's only been seen for 5 matches? Maybe they're a bit too young to show any signs that the lessons have been learned?

I think you are going off the trail. I think there is definitely time to address these issues. Do the sums on the age profile and experience of MFC? They are entering the stage that if they are good enough they should be seriously challenging for the flag. Not everyone is Matthew Bate's age!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Bravo.

Bollocks. If you not getting the ball......you're not getting it......you're not getting possession of it.....the opposition are getting it...{I let you fill in the blanks).

But Melbourne only had the ball 22 times less than the Saints.

Yet they had more possessions per goal.

That means they weren't using the ball effectively which was clearly the case on Friday night.

IMO, all of those problems you mentioned can all be linked back to Melbourne not having the options up the ground when they looked to move the ball forward.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

All sound points RR. Each and every one. My point is simply this. Throw this newfangled gameplan at any other list in the AFL, besides maybe Richmond and Hawthorn, and you'll seeresults sooner. We've had a whole pre-season, a pre-season comp and round 1 and we've shown NO signs of improvement. Yes, Daniher may well have learned his lesson and may revert back to round 1 tactics when the time is right (AAMI, Subi), but will we be more effective? Has the team shown that they are at least improving this tactical methodology? I would argue that they've had time (5 weeks) to show improvement and have done nothing of the sort.

Look. We still have to win premiership points. We threw away 4 of them last weekend. ND's core idea was good in theory, but it turned out to be more than problematic as soon as the second quarter. Is this really the time to be teaching? But I digress.

And you embellish. I never said that list of guns wasn't able to execute a gameplan. I said the current squad IN IT'S ENTIRETY has shown that it MORE than struggles when it comes to R&C only.

And given the age of some of these vitally important cogs, is it a case of trying to teach old dogs new tricks? We've seen Archer struggle with new interretations and rules, and whil I rate our list as an extremely "smart" gourp, even in the AFL, last Friday has sewn a seed of doubt in my mind. But only for THIS gameplan, and only for MFC in 2007. Not beyond.

But yes. As you can tell, I think I was venting a little bit. It would put the fear of life into me to see us start with this brand of footy on Monday. Not only do I have no confidence in it on the 'G, but I would safely predict a loss, even against the Hawks of last Saturday night. If run and carry beats the Toigs, it wouldn't surprise me greatly, but just because we beat teams with a low skill level doesn't mean it'll magically work on the appropriate grounds. The whole thing just makes me nervous for 2007.

Nice post though, and I concede that MFC is at least trying to take us one step further than last year by addressing faults in a sensible logical manner. I hope we don't lose too much ground in the mean-time.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

There is nothing anymore complicated about Run and Carry than other strategies. With players of the ability we are talking about it is a matter of comfort,composure and confidence. The same as it is for any strategy.

[rumpole 483]

But Melbourne only had the ball 22 times less than the Saints.

Yet they had more possessions per goal.

That means they weren't using the ball effectively which was clearly the case on Friday night.

IMO, all of those problems you mentioned can all be linked back to Melbourne not having the options up the ground when they looked to move the ball forward.

I don't believe I'm reading this.

[Nasher 33,183]

But Melbourne only had the ball 22 times less than the Saints.

They had so many possessions because they handballed it and stuffed around with it coming out of defence! Having as many possessions as the opposition is a useless stat, it doesn't say anything about where the possessions were or how they were used.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But Melbourne only had the ball 22 times less than the Saints.

Yet they had more possessions per goal.

That means they weren't using the ball effectively which was clearly the case on Friday night.

IMO, all of those problems you mentioned can all be linked back to Melbourne not having the options up the ground when they looked to move the ball forward.

Given the game is littered these days with cheap meaningless disposals I cant see anything meaningful drawing conclusions about the reasons for the outcome of a game by looking at total disposals. I am at a further loss why you keep on about it as it establishes nothing and your attempts to draw some semblance of a insightful conclusion is naive and perilous at best.

We did not use the ball effectively for reasons I gave and it does not imply your case that the forward line was issue.

Start looking at stats that actually give you some insight into the game. Total disposals per game aint it.

F50s 53 to 33.

Scoring shots......The end result flattered us. We should have been beaten by 10 goals if they kicked straight. The game was played on their terms after the first 15 minutes not ours. Its got little to do with forward line as it has where the game was mainly played in the midfield and on our half back line.

I' ll leave it at that. Geez I tried to make some headway with you but honestly you really struggle it. Thats not a false accusation. Its a my valid observation and seemingly that of others too.

Good luck with whatever it is you think is happening out there .

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I' ll leave it at that. Geez I tried to make some headway with you but honestly you really struggle it. Thats not a false accusation. Its a my valid observation and seemingly that of others too.

I've already explained why there were so few entries into the forward fifty. Why kick it there if there is no one to kick it to?

This is a valid observation by me too.

Just as it was for about 20 or 30 people sitting around me at the game. Both St Kilda and Melbourne supporters.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

This is a valid observation by me too.

Just as it was for about 20 or 30 people sitting around me at the game. Both St Kilda and Melbourne supporters.

Hardly.

BTW, I dont find the average Tom at the football a very good judge of what going on.

You've just proven it.

[nomed 107]

Does anyone else think the "run and carry" game plan looks similiar to the Neil Balme game plan from 10 years ago.

Remember how sucessful that was!

[beelzebub 22,492]

Does anyone else think the "run and carry" game plan looks similiar to the Neil Balme game plan from 10 years ago.

Remember how sucessful that was!

Balme had a plan ?? interesting :-)

I propose we ban any further Neil/Neale 's from coaching Melb

[mordja 187]

Possessions mean Sweet FA. Its use that counts. Ask P or J Bowden about it. Not much good for anything but dream team stats.