Game Plans and Players

I wrote in a thread earlier today about how I like Neeld's tough and uncompromising way, however that maybe there wasn't any flexibility in the game plan which might be needed. This has also been mentioned over at Demonology.

I just switched on the Sunday Footy Show and Shane Crawford and Matthew Lloyd were talking about this. Basically, they were saying it looked at times that Melbourne players had no variety (too focused on going down the boundary), they were too predictable and even looked like they were too worried about where to stand (structures) and didn't play their natural game enough.

Essentially, this gets back to an old argument I have had with many on here whereby I believe that game plans should to a large degree be dictated by the type of list a team has (based on strengths and weaknesses). The reason being that it takes years to delist, trade and draft the right players a coach wants to fit a certain game plan. By then, senior players are too old and for the most part a team will never have 100% of their list fit and available. By all means a team can tinker with the list to get a certain type of player (Mitch Clark), but the idea of getting a whole list together to fit a certain game plan is almost impossible with the restriction of player movements in the AFL.

Therefore, back in the days when I was arguing against "run and carry" (which by the way was proven to be rubbish for Melbourne) my point was that there is no one best way to play football and the best teams do tinker with lists, but essentially develop plans to get the best out of the players right now. At that time, "run and carry" did not suit Melbourne at all. For example, Hawthorn and Collingwood are quite even but they play a very different style, each of which plays to the strengths of their list. Factors such as pressure on the ball carrier, contested football, gut running and tackling are always important for any plan, so I don't see these as tactics as such. Shane Crawford today said even before the 2008 Hawthorn flag, Clarkson was always tweaking the plan to get the best out of a list at the time each year.

Again, whilst I like the ruthless nature of Neeld, I just hope he doesn't do a Bailey and waste a number of years trying to find the perfect mix of players to fit perfectly with his ideal style of play. In theory, all game plans are great, but the fact is at no time will they ever be executed perfectly, so this must be taken into consideration.

I think a large part of the issue here is that everybody is still learning about the system but also about each other. The vast majority of posters on here don't like to make judgement on players, systems, coaches etc until the real season starts. Well, it has and like all of us, the coach especially, has had 1 'real' game to see what the players do, how they play, how they prepare, how they do/don't respond. At this poiint it is impossible to adjust a game plan that nobody has even absorbed the basics of.

The first half of the season will be basically made up of Neeld and, even moreso, the line coaches learning about the players abilities, tendencies, motivations, discipline and personalities to follow the plan. Once they have been found, the plan can be tinkered with to suit the personnel that have shown their importance to the team.

Unfortunately, a lot of the players have failed the second step which is to play hard and to do it when your back is against the wall. But you have to remember, the players chosen for Round 1 were the ones that did the best in the first step - preseason indicators. The remainder of the first 11 games will be surely used to assess who is best at step 2 and many of them may be those that didn't fare so well in step 1 - such is sport. Some train well and play s&*t, some train s&*t and play well.

Once the front running, uncommitted, selfish softies are picked out and possibly replaced by less talented but harder, discilplined players then we will see the alternative options in the plan. But this can't happen until the 'automatic' decisions are those that are the core of the 'big picture'.

It's pretty easy to pick out the nuances of a new game plan in game 1 when the players have not yet developed the bread and butter of the plan. Of course some of them are still looking a little lost. They can't play instinctively until their instincts are the game plan.

For those of you that have been waiting almost forever to see some positive signs, it is always darkest before the dawn. Right now it's about 5:30am.

Edited April 1, 2012 by mrtwister

Agreed 100%, Clint. There should be an unwavering focus on tackling, contested possession and defensive structures. Everything else should be tailored to your players strengths.

I think (hope) that we are just seeing phase one of the game plan. Kick it long then win the contested ball with hard, head over the ball play.

Neeld says that the full game plan is complex so it must be more than has been apparent so far - footy was played with long bombs into the forward line in the 1960s. The game has moved on a bit from then!

The worry is whether we have the players capable of phase one and what we do if we continue to be smashed using just phase one.

When strong bodied players like Maloney get smashed as they did yesterday then you have be concerned.

However, one swallow doesn't mak a summer and one game doesn't make a season. Neeld needs a chance. Not too many easier games on the horizon though.

.................

Essentially, this gets back to an old argument I have had with many on here whereby I believe that game plans should to a large degree be dictated by the type of list a team has (based on strengths and weaknesses).

............................

No argument with me Clint; I remember making the same point early in Bailey's time. Something along the line of: "if you have a team of plumbers, you can't turn them into electricians (or lawyers)".

Depends how inflexible Neeld's plan is/are in terms of the need for specific types of players. You'd have thought that it CAN'T be that specific.

Can we please get the club to organise a 'fundraiser' where the 'gameplan' is explained to the members. I'm pretty tight with my dosh but I'd gladly throw in a hundred bucks or so to actually know what the gameplan is.

I'm watching the west coast vs bulldogs game right now, and I think west coast has a similar style of game plan to the way we are trying to play, but the difference is they have a A+ full forward and players like Daniel Kerr and Priddis that can take clearances consistently.

We had this argument under Bailey when we moved to run-and-carry style in 2008 that we sucked at. But it was rather better in 2010...

My point isn't that Bailey's style is more suited, but that a coach has got to play the style of game he thinks will win a flag. He has to keep drumming it into the boys until they know it backwards.

It's painful to watch them running around not knowing where to go but that is life, there will be quick learners and there will be VFL players.

We don't have top 4 calibre players so they don't get to dictate how we play - the coach does.

For better or worse.

Edited April 1, 2012 by rpfc

My point isn't that Bailey's style is more suited, but that a coach has got to play the style of game he thinks will win a flag. He has to keep drumming it into the boys until they know it backwards.

Yes, but if that style of game doesn't play to the strengths and weaknesses of the team it is useless.

For example, there is no point trying to have the team play a Hawthorn style of short, fast and skillful kicks if that style of play doesn't suit your list. Yes, you can train them (good skills should always be there), delist, trade or recruit players who fit that style, but again it takes years to do so.

There will always be changes to the list, but at some point a coach needs to say this is the list for year 201X, like it or not, now my job is to get the best out of this list right now. Like what Crawford said, Clarkson was always tweaking the game plan, it was an evolution based on the players he had at his disposal. There are always non-negotiable factors (tackling, skills, pressure and alike) but there is not one game plan that will win a flag above all others.

By the way, run and carry was introduced in 2007, it was trying to replicate the style of play that saw West Coast win a flag. The difference was West Coast's greatest strength was their fast and hard running midfield which suited that style of play.

I just want to add, I am not saying that Neeld isn't taking into consideration the strength and weaknesses of the list, I just hope there is some flexibility and his style is open to change to get the best out of the team.

I just want to add, I am not saying that Neeld isn't taking into consideration the strength and weaknesses of the list, I just hope there is some flexibility and his style is open to change to get the best out of the team.

The fact that he put Jack Watts into the midfield at this stage of his development shows that he is playing to the strengths of some of his players. Watts is a winger/mid in my mind, and his accurate disposal and pace is better than anything currently offered by the blind, mute pack of turtles currently gracing our midfield.

The fact that he put Jack Watts into the midfield at this stage of his development shows that he is playing to the strengths of some of his players. Watts is a winger/mid in my mind, and his accurate disposal and pace is better than anything currently offered by the blind, mute pack of turtles currently gracing our midfield.

Chook that is the first time Anything to do with the MFC has bought a smile to my face.

Keep them coming

I just want to add, I am not saying that Neeld isn't taking into consideration the strength and weaknesses of the list, I just hope there is some flexibility and his style is open to change to get the best out of the team.

I think this will happen. First thing to do though is find out what the soldiers you have got are like in the heat. Changes will be made each week till this is answered.

I read the Game in Time of War by Martin Flanagan last year. One of the things that jumped out for me was the chapter on Peter Schwab as coach of Hawthorn in early 2000s.

Flagan said in regards to Schwabs philosophy/gameplan:

"As I understood it, at a time when the game was becoming more planned and preprogrammed, with more and more of the thinking being done by men in glass boxes and not the players on the ground, Schwab was trying to develop a side in which the players made the decisions themselves. His team had proved erratic, one observer describing them as a 'collection of unhinged athletes', Others questioned their hardness at the ball..."

This sounds an almost identical description of the Demons under Bailey. Which would seem a strange approach of Bailey to take given it largely failed to deliver anything at Hawthorn until the Line in the Sand game and all that has happened since under Clarkson. The parallels with Neeld and Clarkson are quite similar I would think so i take some hope from this. Also, if the players were supposed to make decisions themselves (from all I have heard/read this sounds very plausible) under Bailey, then no doubt the more regimented approach under Neeld would be quite a drammatic change and you would have to expect some time for it to become second nature for the players.

Now I would really like to know what was behind 186, because whatever it was it is still festering away

There seems to be some unfinished business going on here

Now I would really like to know what was behind 186, because whatever it was it is still festering away

There seems to be some unfinished business going on here

Funny Dc I have been thinking the same for a while now.

Whatever happened that week has never been explained

and as all but a couple of the combatants are still at the MFC one could assume the problem still lives.

I might add another 186 is not impossible this year after watching yesterday.

Imagine what happens when we front at Geelong on May 5th, MCG on May 11th or next saturday for that matter.

Why is a CEO sacked on Friday and re employed on Sunday.

I have never heard an answer on that one.

Seems like the MFC hopes that if they ignore it for long enough it will go away.

Funny Dc I have been thinking the same for a while now.

Whatever happened that week has never been explained

and as all but a couple of the combatants are still at the MFC one could assume the problem still lives.

I might add another 186 is not impossible this year after watching yesterday.

Imagine what happens when we front at Geelong on May 5th, MCG on May 11th or next saturday for that matter.

Why is a CEO sacked on Friday and re employed on Sunday.

I have never heard an answer on that one.

Seems like the MFC hopes that if they ignore it for long enough it will go away.

My version from the facts stated above for that week are

A) the senior players go into bat for bailey and speak to the MFC heirachy about the state of problems between the CEO and the football department.

B. these issues are then discussed at board level(or McLardy and Stynes), and it is decided that Schwab will lose his job.

C) then 186 happens, and powers have a rethink and actually feel they have been duped, and that indeed Schwabby has been the one right all along about his concerns about Bailey, and the sacking is reversed onto Bails.

D) I believe the flow on effect of these events has had the likes of Green, Moloney and Davey on the outer in terms of leadership roles at the club this year.

This is basically my "Pelican Brief" on the events of last year.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Jerry Lundergard

My version from the facts stated above for that week are

A) the senior players go into bat for bailey and speak to the MFC heirachy about the state of problems between the CEO and the football department.

B. these issues are then discussed at board level(or McLardy and Stynes), and it is decided that Schwab will lose his job.

C) then 186 happens, and powers have a rethink and actually feel they have been duped, and that indeed Schwabby has been the one right all along about his concerns about Bailey, and the sacking is reversed onto Bails.

D) I beieive the flow on effect of these events has had the likes of Green, Moloney and Davey on the outer in terms of leadership roles at the club this year.

This is basically my "Pelican Breif" on the events of last year.

If that is correct then the playing group had a strange way of supporting DB.

However if you are correct then The three players should be removed at the end of this year.

Green is at the end anyway, Davey is well past it, tell him to go to whoever will take him and get his large salary of the books.

Move Moloney on for whatever we can get.

If that is correct then the playing group had a strange way of supporting DB.

However if you are correct then The three players should be removed at the end of this year.

Green is at the end anyway, Davey is well past it, tell him to go to whoever will take him and get his large salary of the books.

Move Moloney on for whatever we can get.

I have no knowledge of what actually went on, just my theory.

What i cant understand is the lack of defensive efforts

Fair enough we cant really grasp the attacking along the boundary stuff as yet as its completely different to what weve done before.

But Neeld said " we would be hard to play against", and there would be "defence all over the ground".

But the amount of times Brissie players were on their own was a joke.

Our players were left in their wake far too often....zero pressure .

Funny Dc I have been thinking the same for a while now.

Whatever happened that week has never been explained

and as all but a couple of the combatants are still at the MFC one could assume the problem still lives.

I might add another 186 is not impossible this year after watching yesterday.

Imagine what happens when we front at Geelong on May 5th, MCG on May 11th or next saturday for that matter.

Why is a CEO sacked on Friday and re employed on Sunday.

I have never heard an answer on that one.

Seems like the MFC hopes that if they ignore it for long enough it will go away.

I'm starting to worry that next week may be something similar.

from what i saw yesterday - they didn't stick to hardly any part of the gameplan. Kicking it down the line should be the last option not the first

Even hearing greeny on the sunday footy show, he said that everyone was basically taking the easy option and kicking it down the line and passing the buck onto the next player who then has to try and win a contest.

The players will have trouble working out where to zone and how to structure up. There is no way we were going to get it right in a couple of NAB cup games and playing against each other at training.

I hate the fact it's going to take time. But until it's second nature to the team, we're going to have to watch them learn and grow again.

from what i saw yesterday - they didn't stick to hardly any part of the gameplan. Kicking it down the line should be the last option not the first

...

I hate the fact it's going to take time. But until it's second nature to the team, we're going to have to watch them learn and grow again.

What I find strange is that the long kicking down the line element of their game is the new bit. If anything, kicking down the line to a contest is unfamiliar to how the team played under Bailey who was more corridor focused.

My version from the facts stated above for that week are

A) the senior players go into bat for bailey and speak to the MFC heirachy about the state of problems between the CEO and the football department.

B. these issues are then discussed at board level(or McLardy and Stynes), and it is decided that Schwab will lose his job.

C) then 186 happens, and powers have a rethink and actually feel they have been duped, and that indeed Schwabby has been the one right all along about his concerns about Bailey, and the sacking is reversed onto Bails.

D) I believe the flow on effect of these events has had the likes of Green, Moloney and Davey on the outer in terms of leadership roles at the club this year.

This is basically my "Pelican Brief" on the events of last year.

yes, we have heard all that before but no details

what were the actual issues between DB,FD and CS?

why were the players involved or how did they even know of these issues?

what about the secret report we have never heard about? did it play a role?

and again how were players involved in this and why?

I didn't want to know all these details when the great reorganisation occurred assuming it was no longer relevant but now it seems that something is still festering in the player group, else how could you explain their their apparent inability to cope.

I could be barking up the wrong tree but i smell a rat

My version from the facts stated above for that week are

A) the senior players go into bat for bailey and speak to the MFC heirachy about the state of problems between the CEO and the football department.

B. these issues are then discussed at board level(or McLardy and Stynes), and it is decided that Schwab will lose his job.

C) then 186 happens, and powers have a rethink and actually feel they have been duped, and that indeed Schwabby has been the one right all along about his concerns about Bailey, and the sacking is reversed onto Bails.

D) I believe the flow on effect of these events has had the likes of Green, Moloney and Davey on the outer in terms of leadership roles at the club this year.

This is basically my "Pelican Brief" on the events of last year.

I think this may be the case-add Rivers .

Balme ,Daniher and Bailey were too matey with the players -those days are over .