Diamond_Jim

As the good sergeant used to say... "I know nothing" but I hope we have a good plan B in place. It is obvious that we will offer Hogan very good dollars. If he goes I will be upset but I will be even more upset if we do not use those dollars to acquire the services of an A grade player. Now how that Plan B plays out from a timing viewpoint is obviously of some difficulty. In other threads people talk of a window in which Hurley may be available. Personally I think he will stay at Essendon. If however we want to have a go at Hurley and the money makes it an either/or proposition between Hogan and Hurley it may make sense to put some pressure on now for Hogan to answer.

I can remember the Collingwood game and being very happy at the end only to have a middle aged disgruntled female Collingwood supporter turn around and say to me that we would not win again. ( From that day on Collingwood supporters have had a special place in my heart.) While the Collingwood match was at the MCG, the Carlton match was at Waverley. There was rain on and off during the second half if I remember correctly. Not sure but I think it was reasonably close all day until we kicked away in the last 5-10 minutes. Went a small way towards erasing the memories of the previous year at the same ground (now that is a game that will never be forgotten.) The next week in the Grand Final we were beaten by quarter time and the dream was ended. All in all the nineties was a good time for the club. I have always thought we could have won the flag in 1990. There were a number of teams including ourselves that were relatively equal. (Unlike 1988 and 2000 where we came up against outright favourite teams at the peak of their form.)

Just finished reading this article. As often the case the comments make as good reading as the article itself. Loved this one on Dermie: " Dermott commenting on a players set shot for goal "its starting to rain and it's coming from the players left side, so the droplets on the ball will pull it left" classic Derm "

I can remember the Northey days very well. One of the joys was that supporters were welcomed into the rooms before and after a match. Just ordinary supporters mind. No need to be a member of a special coterie or the like. You could hear the fire in Northey's voice as he encouraged the players. After more than 20 years of mediocrity it was a special time.

As I understand it the "Diamond" is an offensive strategy that is utilised at disputed ball opportunities such as centre and near centre bounce. It may also be utilised at throw ins but I am not sure. Where the opposition is in a static kicking position (free kick or mark) the zone or press is what we adopt. As in the illustration given by Fox Footy the zone "ignores" the players who are beyond the perceived danger zone. (Around 60 metres from the kicker.) If however the opposition "penetrates" or "breaks" the zone these outside zone players have an easy receive. Not sure why we keep complaining about 1 or 2 defensive players who are on the extreme of the zone. The zone often falls down because it is penetrated at its inner core thus allowing disposal beyond the zone. While this may make the outer zone player look inept perhaps the failure is with others. Perhaps also as many writers suggest the zone as a tactic is too easily broken by teams with good foot skills. Not sure what the answer is. I have considered having an outrider that or two that sits beyond the "non dangerous" opposition players but I assume the problem is that it weakens the zone.

Hi as usual I find the tactical discussions wonderful. I came across this article from Fox Footy discussing the Eagles defensive zoning of last year. It appears to be a good explanation that I can understand. Would be very interested in comments on the similarities/differences to the zone defence that Melbourne is trying to implement. The illustration which shows five Richmond players goal side of the defensive zone is of particular interest. Thanks http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/weagles-web-fox-footys-gerard-healy-breaks-down-west-coasts-defensive-tactics/news-story/3f7bc9e8ce8bc81f09e977cda243a56d

Very good point mo64. Could explain why even with that number of possessions some writers did not name him amongst the best players. (This was one of the things the 3AW commentators were complaining about.)

You are right it is a long established UK paper with a reputation for being liberal (left) ...similar perhaps to the Age. A few years back it started publishing a US and Australian version and now have several good writers. The political comments are indeed a bit less respectful. (It has some great articles on TV shows with ensuing commentary. The ones on Game of Thrones I consider a "must read.")

Was listening to 3AW on the weekend and they were commenting on the importance of Heath Shaw to the Giants. In the game against the Bulldogs he had 38 possessions across the half back line. Apparently he was just sitting back mopping up the helter skelter forward moves from the Bulldogs. Another interesting stat was that of his 38 possessions he had 36 kicks and only two handballs. Even in a losing game against the Crows he had 26 odd possessions of which 24 were kicks. I was wondering in our defensive system who if anyone is our equivalent of Heath Shaw or are the Giants playing a different zone ?

Hi now that many of the newspapers have introduced paywalls I have become an avid reader of the online Australian edition of the Guardian. No paywall and unlimited access. Moreover it allows comments which frequently make for better reading than the articles. Anyway today is one of the first opinion pieces I have seen on the MFC. Shows we are "making waves". It talks of our game plan amongst other things including the dreaded MFCSS Here is the link if anyone is interested: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/30/fear-of-another-false-dawn-lingers-at-melbourne-after-demons-loss-in-alice

Thanks Dr Gonzo....... great and simple explanation. That explains perfectly why teams who have players who can run and carry for say twenty to thirty metres such as Harvey at North Melbourne are so vital to overcoming a zone defence. Similarly while over commitment to a zone (moving up too far) can come back to bite you so easily. Another question.... how many players are usually playing the zone defence at any one time. I realise it can vary but in this thread we are criticizing our backs in the main whereas the zone seems to encompass a few more than 4-6 players.

Amazing to consider the change in personnel since that game. Including Grimes there are 10 players in that team that are either uncertain or definitely not in the coming weekend's team.

Hi I have been following this site for many years including the down years which seem to have lasted most of my life !! Would just like to say that I love threads like this where rather than one line comments, many knowledgeable posters have taken the time to analyse the tactics employed by the team. I must say I have difficulty imagining how a zone defence works on such large expanses as the MCG by comparison to a basket ball court or even an NFL field. In the first example one is a relatively small sized court while with NFL each play starts with players in an almost identical position as compared to the previous play. By contrast in AFL the permutations for where a ball can come from and how it can arrive are enormous. Keep it up and many thanks to the administrators for this valuable and entertaining resource.