Jump to content

CHANGES: Rd 18 vs Port Adelaide

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

6 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Having two talls up in packs is deliberate and part of the game plan. 

Strange gameplan having two talls flying for the same ball spoiling each other

 
2 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Please tell me why that is. 
Here’s an idea - what if they spread out instead and offered a choice of 2 targets rather than one dirty big pack, where our mids and smalls never seem to prosper from the failed pack mark?

For a fast break we obviously want to kick to leading players one on one and play checkers.

But, for a slow play (when the opposition zone is set) having only one up means that the opposition can block our tall out and have their third man up take the mark. A lot of our set up is long kicks to our giant talls and having Petracca, Oliver, Viney and/or ANB at the front of the pack for the gentle crumb.

Going inside 50 (when they have numbers back) the coaches obviously feel there is too much risk if we target a one on one with a short kick. (The risk is conceding a counterattacking goal.)

    • Like 2

    I'd put Max in the forward line for most of the game and let Dogga ruck the majority.

    Whilst Max gets a lot of taps, the oppo mids are used to working off them. We were less predictable when Dogga and even Weid were leading the ruck.

    And for God sake can we please lower the eyes going i50. Geelong showed that either scrubbed, chaos entries or low, precision kicks prevent damaging intercepts. If we only have BBB as a tall target (usually with 2 or 3 opponents), what's the point of long bombs to their kpds?

    Out: Bedford, Bowey

    In: Hunt and Chandler (or if they want a taller forward line, Weid)

    • Like 1
    • Love 1
     
    3 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

    For a fast break we obviously want to kick to leading players one on one and play checkers.

    But, for a slow play (when the opposition zone is set) having only one up means that the opposition can block our tall out and have their third man up take the mark. A lot of our set up is long kicks to our giant talls and having Petracca, Oliver, Viney and/or ANB at the front of the pack for the gentle crumb.

    Going inside 50 (when they have numbers back) the coaches obviously feel there is too much risk if we target a one on one with a short kick. (The risk is conceding a counterattacking goal.)

    My thoughts too. So much of our gameplan is based around the playing percentages. We clearly value kicking to the pack and backing our mids and smalls to win any groundballs rather than risk kicking to one-on-ones and having it marked by an opposition player who can then begin to counter attack through the corridor. Same when we kick to the pocket - we would rather have it spill out of bounds than risk allowing the opposition an easy mark in the centre of the ground. This works when we are fit and firing, but when we can't lock the ball in our forward 50 and aren't applying pressure around the ground, it can be frustrating to watch.

    • Like 2

    Time to try Rivers on ball or forward for Casey. When Smith and Turner return there is backup for defence. Maybe Smith or Petty get a run in the forward half until Macdonald returns.


    54 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

    Having two talls up in packs is deliberate and part of the game plan. 

    The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

    Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

    What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

    Edited by Lucifers Hero

    • Like 1

    If Oliver is out, it will continue the long tradition of Geelong players doing whatever bodily harm they please to our players with zero consequences. I could scream with rage at how much I despise that club! 

    • Like 2
    • Angry 1
    43 minutes ago, demoncat said:

    My thoughts too. So much of our gameplan is based around the playing percentages. We clearly value kicking to the pack and backing our mids and smalls to win any groundballs rather than risk kicking to one-on-ones and having it marked by an opposition player who can then begin to counter attack through the corridor. Same when we kick to the pocket - we would rather have it spill out of bounds than risk allowing the opposition an easy mark in the centre of the ground. This works when we are fit and firing, but when we can't lock the ball in our forward 50 and aren't applying pressure around the ground, it can be frustrating to watch.

     

    24 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

    Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

    What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

    Both excellent posts.

    We back our system.. Great but it would be nice to see another system every now and then if only to keep the opposition guessing.

     

    • Like 3
     
    35 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    The problem with that last night was Geelong had a player in front of the contest facing the marking players and one roughly behind/side of the contest. 

    Time and time again their tall would knock the ball down to the player in front, he got it to the player behind/side, who then turned inward and they were off, usually down the middle and our players had not time to set up the defence and they were often still over near the boundary line where the contest had been.

    What surprised me is that our coaching box didn't adjust for this tactic, or much else that wasn't working from what I saw.

    I would have to re-watch (which I won't because we lost) to see if there is a solution other than Gawn taking more marks. 

    I think some options would be to kick short down the centre occasionally. Or for a long option we could put Petracca and/or Oliver one-on-one on the opposite wing, with Kossie and kick that side and try to get off to the races.

    20 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

     

    Both excellent posts.

    We back our system.. Great but it would be nice to see another system every now and then if only to keep the opposition guessing.

     

    Good point and the rest of this year will be a real test of our 'system at all costs' strategy. We've all seen what our system can accomplish when all players are fit and firing - and I'm still firmly of the belief that should we play that way come finals that there is no team that can stop us.

    Having said that, we have to make the top four first, and the risk of this strategy is that we cost ourselves too many games during the home and away season. I'm still backing us in, but we're going to have to show our class and hopefully time our run in the last three or four games like we did last year.

    If we crash and burn, we'll have to reconsider how we approach both individual games and the entire season in 2023. But until that happens, we do what we did so well in the first place.

    Edited by demoncat


    5 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

    I would have to re-watch (which I won't because we lost) to see if there is a solution other than Gawn taking more marks. 

    I think some options would be to kick short down the centre occasionally. Or for a long option we could put Petracca and/or Oliver one-on-one on the opposite wing, with Kossie and kick that side and try to get off to the races.

    Or occasionally switch to JJ's side of the ground which Geelong wouldn't have expected then caught on the 'wrong' side, limiting their defensive set ups on the JJ side.. 

    20 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Or occasionally switch to JJ's side of the ground which Geelong wouldn't have expected then caught on the 'wrong' side, limiting their defensive set ups on the JJ side.. 

    This... You think you would split your talls to both sides of the ground.Kicker can give coded signal as to which way he is kicking.

    In the modern day you would think most players could kick both feet. In the old days the high level players would use their other foot for a year or two at junior level to develop the skill

    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    This... You think you would split your talls to both sides of the ground.Kicker can give coded signal as to which way he is kicking.

    In the modern day you would think most players could kick both feet. In the old days the high level players would use their other foot for a year or two at junior level to develop the skill

    Or do it with short kicks and some run down the boundary. 3-4 kick/handballs and it is in the hands of Fritsch 40m out!

    Edited by Lucifers Hero

    The most amazing thing about this thread is how amazed I am when reading it.

    • Like 2
    7 hours ago, Sydee said:

    M Brown kicks bags in the VFL regularly - gets promoted and can't deliver at AFL level 

    There is a trend here - the leap is huge from VFL to AFL listen to any debutant such as Turner recently 

    agreed which accounts for Weid


    Hard to believe this break into the Port game is the same length as our mid season break.

    In - Weid, Rivers, Dunstan

    Out - Bedford , Bowey, Oliver, Hunt (sub)

    Haven’t totally written off Clarry due to the long break.

    Laurie just played a ripping game, must be close

    IN: Hunt, JVR
    OUT: Oliver, Bedford

    Brayshaw to the GUTS

    • Like 1

    2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

    IN: Laurie, Dunstan, Weid, JVR

    OUT: Spargo, Clarry, Ben Brown, Bedford

     

    Dropping Ben Brown for Weid off the back off Weids pretty poor performance tonight?

    Laughable. 

    • Like 2

    JVR and Laurie just played blinders for Casey (didn't see the first half) - could we risk debuting two players in an important game?  

    JVR actually took contested  pack marks in the forward line in the wet - maybe we couldn't cope with that?

    • Like 2
    1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    Dropping Ben Brown for Weid off the back off Weids pretty poor performance tonight?

    Laughable. 

    Poor performance? Catch Benny's last 3 quarters yesterday?

    Tell me how we'd be worse with Weid and JVR instead of Brown and Bedford. (Rhetorical)

     
    2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

    Poor performance? Catch Benny's last 3 quarters yesterday?

    Tell me how we'd be worse with Weid and JVR instead of Brown and Bedford. (Rhetorical)

    Brown played his best football in months in the first half last night.

    I'm not suggesting a half of football is sufficient, but it's finally a trend in the right direction, so if we've stuck with him to now, I suspect we're going to give him another game at least after last night.

    • Like 2
    1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

    Brown played his best football in months in the first half last night.

    I'm not suggesting a half of football is sufficient, but it's finally a trend in the right direction, so if we've stuck with him to now, I suspect we're going to give him another game at least after last night.

    Yep, that's what I suspect Goody might do, but we're putting the changes we'd make yeah? For the sake of pressure and contested marks I'd be dropping Brown this week personally. Gives us a change up and gives Brown a chance to get some form before finals when we'll need him.

    Edited by Lord Nev


    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • 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.

      • 24 replies
      Demonland

    • 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.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • 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? 

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thumb Down
      • 232 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All