Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

Not sure if anyone will agree with this.

I think that the new kick in rule has been a not insignificant part of the team's improved performance this year. 

Until this year, the team's kick in strategy from behinds (if you could call it a strategy) was appalling. Other teams seemed to easily move the ball out of FB to the centreline with little trouble, whereas the Demons always strugged.

The additional distance allowed to the full back to run before kicking the ball has allowed the boys (usually May or Salem) to transition the ball to the centreline without too much trouble. This has pretty much fixed the problem of past years. 

 

I agree it has helped us mix it up a little bit more through our improved foot skills and elevate the ball getting locked in our defensive half.

In my 51 years, Travis Johnstone occasionally nailed the kick in, but the rest of the time, my fingernails have suffered 80's90's00's10's20's etc, totally happy for first time ever with kick ins. 

Edited by DaisyDeeciple
and my hands look great

 
44 minutes ago, Stevienic23 said:

I'd still like to see the huddle brought back. Especially if it gets langdon or hunt out on their own

Way too easy to counter. Just have sweepers on either flank and the centre square. Depending how many of your players go into the huddle, you also leave yourself very vulnerable to the defensive 50 space with a turnover or intercept.


Being one of the teams that adapted to the kick in change and the general 'stand' on the mark rule it helped us early in the season. 

It certainly helped us transition the ball end to end.  How many times did we see Langdon and Hunt speed and overlap down the wing.  It was a joy to watch.  We are still going end to end but (without checking stats) it doesn't seem so  frequent .

There were a few teams that also made the most of the extra distance at kick-ins and the ''stand' rule in general: Bulldogs, Port and Sydney. 

However, most clubs have now developed tactics to defend both the kick in and the territory around the man standing the mark in general.  And learnt how to use the new rules to their advantage.  These are key reasons why Cats and Lions have improved so much in the last 4-6 games.

It is no coincidence that those teams that adapted to the new rules in the season so far, are the top 7 on the ladder  Not sure Richmond have adapted but they are the 'Bradbury' team at the moment in 8th spot.  They will adapt.

We had a head start but we need to keep refining our tactics and adapt to counter tactics. 

The tests will come vs Lions, Port, Bulldogs (x2), Eagles, Cats (again).  They will be fascinating games to watch as they have the best and smartest coaches.  They will put a lot of work into us and our game plan. 

From now on I don't see the rule changes giving us an advantage.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

24 minutes ago, A F said:

Way too easy to counter. Just have sweepers on either flank and the centre square. Depending how many of your players go into the huddle, you also leave yourself very vulnerable to the defensive 50 space with a turnover or intercept.

What about having a number of players start on the flank(s) and converge towards the centre when the full back indicates he is going to kick it up the middle in an atempt to create an outnumber in the centre?  (I wouldn't put me in change of strategy)

Somethings in the game don't change greatly no matter the rule changes.  One of those things is that most teams will look for their ruckman when kicking in - as they are normally the team's biggest player and therefore as a good a chance as anyone to take a contested mark.  There's exceptions of course as for some ruckmen, contested marking isn't a big feature of their game (Grundy, Nik Nat etc).

But we have the best in the game and so we kick Max's side EVERY TIME.  We can be predictable because he is that good.  Now that we have TMac, Weid and Brown in the team, we have some serious aerial options - and there's been a number of times in recent weeks where the focus has been on Max only to allow one of the others to chop in and take them mark.

The other added benefit is that if teams traditionally kick to their ruckman, then they're likely to be kicking it in max's vicinity which is dangerous!  So they either try that or have to come up with a new strategy when they play us.

 
8 hours ago, DaisyDeeciple said:

In my 51 years, Travis Johnstone occasionally nailed the kick in, but the rest of the time, my fingernails have suffered 80's90's00's10's20's etc, totally happy for first time ever with kick ins. 

Agree with this. Travis is about the only player on my lifetime who I’ve trusted with kick ins.

Thankfully we’ve been better this year. We still just bomb to the flank where Gawn is too often for my liking, especially when he’s not marking it. The last few weeks Gawn has been hopeless around the ground and his one dominant contested marking has deserted him. We need to find other avenues for when he’s not playing well. We miss Jackson creating a contest IMO.

I've noticed a couple of teams (St Kilda when we played them, for example) seem to persist with the short kick out from the goal square to the pocket. That strategy seems much more fraught these days as it doesn't make the best use of the 15 metre goal square plus 15 metre run that is available to whoever has the kick-in duties. We occasionally, but now very rarely, go to the pocket. I don't mind us doing that, though, as long as it remains infrequent, as the unpredictability makes us harder to defend against.  

 


I think we are also taking the risk with the kickout of not going so close to the boundary. This makes it harder for the defender to knock the ball out of bounds and brings Oliver etc into play if the tall doesn't take the mark

Makes sense because the pack position is now almost 80 metres from goal thus making it that bit harder to be punished on the rebound

Accchhhh!!! Discussions about kick ins inevitably lead me to the horror memories of Stephen Febey's kick outs in the 2000 Grand Final. He could not kick out so that Melbourne got a possession. Every single kick out ended up in Essendon's hands and just went straight back in either for him to kick out again or a goal. Gives me the heebies just thinking about it again. Glad to say things have moved on now. Very confident we won't be seeing that this year in the big dance.  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 53 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies