After many posters on here were more than pleased to see former coach Neale Daniher implement the revolutionary "run and carry" at the beginning of 2007, how many want to see it return in 2008?

It'd want to be a vastly improved version of Run and Carry to be remotely worthwhile. And I don't think we have the neat, pacey midfielders like Geelong do to implement it.

So a big fat no from me.

After many posters on here were more than pleased to see former coach Neale Daniher implement the revolutionary "run and carry" at the beginning of 2007, how many want to see it return in 2008?

How do you mean run & carry?

How do you mean run & carry?

That's what most of us are still trying to figure out...

Where's the "get over it" option?

Where's the "get over it" option?

But Jaded, in all you football wisdom you were such a fan of "run and carry".

If it is so good, then why not use it again in 2008?

I have no real problems with run and carry, when implemented well ( and wisely ) but surely its only one bow in the quiver and not THE complete style of play .

but surely its only one bow in the quiver and not THE complete style of play .

That's what we hoped prior to the NAB Cup and Round 1.

However, comments made by Rivers confirmed that Daniher was too focussed on "run and carry". Thus, Melbourne were too reliant on one tactic, not suited to the type of players Melbourne had / has.

However, comments made by Rivers confirmed that Daniher was too focussed on "run and carry". Thus, Melbourne were too reliant on one tactic, not suited to the type of players Melbourne had / has.

Did not like it b4 and after watching it unfold in the preseason, i puked.

It just does not suit our players. Play to your strengths.

ND's gone so no need to bag ppl.

But Jaded, in all you football wisdom you were such a fan of "run and carry".

If it is so good, then why not use it again in 2008?

I wasn't a fan of "run and carry", I was a fan of trying new thing.

I thought it was silly trying to implement a new game plan on the MCG, but I could see the merit in taking this sort of plan interstate.

Wonder if things would have been different had we had a full team available for the majority of the season.

For the love of god, let it go!

I saw its merit at the time and still do. The fact that it was very poorly implemented (and this is the responsibility of both the players and the coach) does not mean it was a bad idea.

That said, like Jaded I'd definitely be voting "get the hell over it" if there were such an option.

After many posters on here were more than pleased to see former coach Neale Daniher implement the revolutionary "run and carry" at the beginning of 2007, how many want to see it return in 2008?

I know you’re throwing out bait for larger fish (like horned African land mammals), but I’ll bite.

Daniher had to do something. His fast-attack game plan had been thwarted as seen time and again in his entire tenure at the club. He had also introduced a more tempo style football in 2005/2006 which was adding another facet to the players' game. But the results of late season fadeouts and 3 mediocre finals appearances in four years, coupled with the fact he was in the last year of his contract forced him to try and develop a new strategy to the team. As it turns out, it was his last gasp and it failed but not because it is inherently bad. The side played it poorly (which could be Daniher’s fault) and was only one of many factors attributable to a poor 2007.

I defended you at the time, but Pedro, your continual persistence in raising this issue and even adopting it as your moniker as if you’ve had some kind of victory over other posters on this board, just reveals you as a small-minded, petty, chest-beatimg monkey. It also explains a lot as to why the posters that you are continually baiting, now simply ignore you on this issue.

any game is a horses for course adventure. The track and needs will change during the game. At teh right time , right circumstances R & C is a weapon of availabilty.Needds to be used well though. its like any other as pect of the game...Tempo, Flood..etc.. all have their place !!!

I saw its merit at the time and still do. The fact that it was very poorly implemented (and this is the responsibility of both the players and the coach) does not mean it was a bad idea.

That said, like Jaded I'd definitely be voting "get the hell over it" if there were such an option.

Totally correct.

After many posters on here were more than pleased to see former coach Neale Daniher implement the revolutionary "run and carry" at the beginning of 2007, how many want to see it return in 2008?

The runaway premiers Geelong (1.2) along with the 2006 premiers West Coast (1.1) had the highest handball to kick ratio in 2007.

Don't hear too many complaints about their gameplans.

We implemented poorly but the idea is sound.

I saw its merit at the time and still do. The fact that it was very poorly implemented (and this is the responsibility of both the players and the coach) does not mean it was a bad idea.

It was a bad idea because it was brought in to fix a problem that wasn't there. People said that Melbourne brought it in to play the bigger grounds like Subiaco and AAMI better. That because Melbourne didn't "run and carry" the ball they weren't able to play those grounds well.

That's crap. The reason Melbourne didn't play well on those grounds was because they couldn't get their plan A in order, let alone plans B and C. David Parkin recently said that the the size of grounds doesn't and shouldn't even come into consideration.

Anyone remember the game against Adelaide last year? Melbourne for the first time tried to use a more "run and carry" orientated gameplan and consequently lost to an injury depleted Adelaide by around ten goals.

Why was it poorly implemented? IMO it is because it is a style of play that didn't / doesn't suit the players that Melbourne had / have.

It was a bad idea because it was brought in to fix a problem that wasn't there. People said that Melbourne brought it in to play the bigger grounds like Subiaco and AAMI better. That because Melbourne didn't "run and carry" the ball they weren't able to play those grounds well.

That's crap. The reason Melbourne didn't play well on those grounds was because they couldn't get their plan A in order, let alone plans B and C. David Parkin recently said that the the size of grounds doesn't and shouldn't even come into consideration.

Anyone remember the game against Adelaide last year? Melbourne for the first time tried to use a more "run and carry" orientated gameplan and consequently lost to an injury depleted Adelaide by around ten goals.

Why was it poorly implemented? IMO it is because it is a style of play that didn't / doesn't suit the players that Melbourne had / have.

How do you explain Geelong's and West Coast's recent success with a strongly handball oriented gameplan?

How do you explain Geelong's and West Coast's recent success with a strongly handball oriented gameplan?

I wouldn't say that their game plan's were strongly handball "orientated". Yes, they handballed a lot, but it wasn't a main focus. Their main focus was getting the ball into their forward line quickly that a ) always had a good number of forwards in it and b ) had the right mix of talls and smalls.

One of my major concerns with "run and carry" was that Melbourne would be too focussed on using that tactic and forget about everything else.

If anything, the high number of handballs that Geelong have are just a byproduct of how they play. However, for Melbourne they were seemingly conscious of looking to handball at every opportunity, even it if it wasn't the best option.

One of my major concerns with "run and carry" was that Melbourne would be too focussed on using that tactic and forget about everything else.

So is that a problem with the tactic, or a problem with Melbourne's implementation?

See where I'm going?

So is that a problem with the tactic, or a problem with Melbourne's implementation?

See where I'm going?

As Jared Rivers pointed out, the coaching staff were too orientated with it during the pre-season with their training.

I made mention early in the year that it looked like Melbourne had focussed on it too much at training as I could tell by the way they played. That was without actually seeing them train. Rhino then told me that was crap because I hadn't seen Melbourne train but later Rivers confirmed my suspicion on ABC 774.

If the coaching staff are too focussed on one tactic / style / whatever you want to call it then so will the players.

I wouldn't say that their game plan's were strongly handball "orientated". Yes, they handballed a lot, but it wasn't a main focus. Their main focus was getting the ball into their forward line quickly that a) always had a good number of forwards in it and B) had the right mix of talls and smalls.

One of my major concerns with "run and carry" was that Melbourne would be too focussed on using that tactic and forget about everything else.

If anything, the high number of handballs that Geelong have are just a byproduct of how they play. However, for Melbourne they were seemingly conscious of looking to handball at every opportunity, even it if it wasn't the best option.

Oh boy! I should know better by now.

Oh boy! I should know better by now.

Well you should becuase your old mate Neale isn't around anymore.

I would like to select Jaded's "get over it" option.

Failing that, a "sod off Clint Bizket" option would do.

Why is it when learned posters try to engage you in meaningful discussion you refuse to take the blinkers off.

Perhaps Daniher should have instituted a plan of simply bombing it long to Clint Bizzell in the goalsquare.

Would that have made you happy ?

is this the same run and carry that got us into 14th?

As Jared Rivers pointed out, the coaching staff were too orientated with it during the pre-season with their training.

If the coaching staff are too focussed on one tactic / style / whatever you want to call it then so will the players.

A quote from Chris Johnson in the article at http://melbournefc.com.au/Season2007/News/...px?newsId=52360 and though it doesn't deal with whether or not it was implemented properly or if it was/is a good game plan or not it's still a little bit interesting to hear it from one of the players

Johnson’s concerns don’t just rest with his own performance. Though still just 21, and yet to establish himself as a senior player, Johnson has plenty of ideas on how the side can improve.

“Last year our pre-season was more to do with run and carry. We focussed on that so much that we didn’t really get in to play the game and win the ball,” he said.

“Because of that we couldn’t get the ball inside 50 and our scoring opportunities were limited.”