Straight Sets Simon

I also dare Dean Bailey to have Melbourne play man-on-man football with no zones and no loose players in defence.

This is purely about tactics and nothing to do with players. I don't car who the players are, I just want to see Melbourne try this once.

6. Davey 5. Green 4. Bruce 3. Morton 2. Martin 1. Rivers

I dare Dean Bailey to play six (6) players (preferably forwards) in the forward line (where goals are kicked), whereby a minimum of four (4) players must always be within the forward 50 at all times, two (2) of which within five (5) metres of the goal line for a whole quarter of football. What a joke it was to see Aaron Davey stream out of defence, take a bounce and look up to see no players in front of him.

That's really interesting to hear because when Melbourne first moved down to Casey I thought that it would be great to have a junior Demons team down there. The main issue being that the local teams are already well established and have their own identities, but from adversity can come opportunity.

One last thing, as I mentioned in another thread after the North game. What worried me was at the very start of the third quarter (when the scores were almost level) was seeing Melbourne start the half with just three forwards to North's five defenders. That's just a negative thinking and when a team has scored a total of 131 points in two games then they need all of the forward options they can get.

I 100% agree. The point is, address the problems in the midfield but don't stuff the forward line structure in the process. Adding more players (forwards and their opponents) into the midfield doesn't help IMO.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I take what you're saying (and by core I didn't mean build a team around as such, but most will be there for at least a few years), but at the end of the day I think that each year there are a number of teams who have players that are capable of winning a Premiership. It often comes down to the coaches ability to get the best out of those players (and playing to their key strengths) come game day. Nonetheless, it is an interesting topic and one that harps back to the chicken and the egg argument in a way. I really hope that we so see more improvement this year and that it is just a case of getting more talent in the team for the structure and tactics to work.

As usual RR you have completely missed the point. Let me S-P-E-L-L it out for you. The key point in all of this is, most (if not all) Premiership winning strategies (in recent years at least) are devised by coaches playing to the strengths of their particular teams. I'm talking about tactics here and not the quality of the players, which for each Premiership team over recent years has obviously been very good. But each year there are several teams that have players capable of winning a Premiership, the difference is IMO in the coaching and which coach can get the best out of that particular team. The point is, you can't just take a team of good players and just expect them to get results. The players from Sydney, West Coast and Geelong were/are all very good, but they are good in different ways and have different strengths. The coaches played to these strengths through the tactics that they employed. I never said that Thompson didn't have an influence, in fact what I was saying was on the contrary. His gameplan was very much about letting the players play and like I said less is more, but that doesn't mean he didn't do anything. Like you said, because they were so well drilled and disciplined (thanks to Thompson) he could afford to do this and this was the most effective tactic. I'm not for any second suggesting that Melbourne's 2007 team would win a flag, but the fact remains that a core number of that list has and will remain for at least the next few years. Players such as Jones, McLean, Moloney, Buckley, Bate, Rivers, Davey, Petterd, Garland, Johnson, Green, Frawley, Jamar, Warnock, Miller, Bruce, Dunn (maybe), Bell (maybe), Bartram (maybe) and Sylvia (maybe). Therefore, a coach can't just decide to make a team play a certain way because he thinks it's the best strategy. It has to be the best strategy for his team and his core group of players. With regards to Bailey, maybe he does think that his tactics are the best for his team, but I've not seen it yet. EDIT: I really do hope to see it and I am willing to give him more time, because as far as player development goes he is clearly very good, I just worry about match day tactics.

Those players alone didn't win Sydney a flag. Yes, they are/were all good players but it was Roos that got the best out of him. Roos quickly identified that the overall strength of the playing group was their ability to play disciplined, contested football with a lot of stoppages, "tempo football" and flooding (now known as a "rolling zone"). It wasn't as if one day Roos woke up and decided that he would just start employing these tactics because they were the best tactics that any team could use, they were the best for the group of players as a whole that he had in the team. West Coast had midfielders who were quick, ran hard and ran for a long time. Therefore, Worsfold got the team to play a "run and carry" type plan as the forward line was relatively weak. This suited that team and was best for them. In 2007, Mark Thompson knew that he did have a strong list and therefore he would just let them play. There wasn't a great emphasis on playing a certain way (besides the need to play on and move the ball quickly) and this was good coaching. Sometimes less is more. The point is, you can only turn over a list so much and there comes a point when you have to look at the team as a whole and decide what is the best approach for them and then to carry that out as best as possible. There is no one best gameplan or tactic, it's about matching the plan to the team. Otherwise, coaches would spend years constantly drafting and delisting players in search of some sort of perfect formula, by which time some new fad ("run and carry", "tempo football" and "rolling zone") has come and gone. By all means, at years end look to draft and trade players who fit this strength*, but don't go chasing players to fit a playing style that is not currently the best for the current group (of which a majority will still be on the list in the following year) *This doesn't mean drafting "skillful players" as all players who are drafted should have good basic kicking and handballing skills.

This is where I have a problem. Let's just say that the ball is in Melbourne's defensive 50 and the Melbourne forwards all push up to around the middle of the ground to as you say. "increase pressure". This is all very well in theory, but when the forwards push up they bring their opponents with them, meaning that they have no advantage in numbers to the ball, however this is not the main problem for me. The main problem is that by the time the ball gets back to the middle, the forwards are pushing back to the forward line to try and create an option. My point is, why push up at all? The forwards don't necessarily create more pressure as they are bringing their opponents with them and more often than not they don't even touch the ball in the middle as they are busy trying to get back (to the forward line) to provide an option. On top of this, a forward is far more effective when he as running towards the ball out from goals than when he is running with the flight of the ball.

I'd love to know why too. In two games, Melbourne has scored 131 points, total. That's scary.

What do you mean "TOO different"? Teams were doing it for the past 149 years!

Get your hand off it. I was just calling it like I see it and as someone who used to a be a big Newton fan, I didn't see anything too different from him.

I was at the game, saw most of the last three quarters. Here's just a few observations: Jurrah: I really like the look of him, he just glides across the ground and his skills are very good as are his hands. At one stage he was third man up in a ruck contest and he managed to fly about a metre above everyone else to smash the ball forward 20 metres. As has been mentioned he still lacks fitness but is my bet as a smokey to play in the coming weeks. Maric: Great skills, great poise, ran hard and was clearly a cut above the rest. He will add a lot when he comes back into the Melbourne forward line. Bail: The first time that I've seen Bail, he moves well and used the ball quite well running off halfback. Valenti: Another player who is clearly a cut above the rest, always seems to find space in even the most congested situations and his hand and foot skills are first rate. He has great penetration in his kicking and is very good on his left foot. Dunn: Was played in the middle, his long kicking a highlight but I find it hard to get excited by him when he is playing in the middle as he really is a natural forward. He threw his weight around a bit which was good but just doesn't have the same polish that he seemed to have earlier in his career. Newton: Nothing new from Newton for me, I saw him kick at least one goal (there may have been more), he gave away a stupid 50 metre penalty by literally throwing an opposition player A over T after he disposed of the ball and gave just another Newton performance. McKenzie: I didn't see a lot of McKenzie, but that doesn't mean he didn't get the ball much I was just getting used to all of the Casey players and new number for everyone. Meesen: Was good without starring, his skills are still a bit rough but he showed good hands and was pretty good in the ruck contests. Robertson: I didn't see a lot of Robbo but he looked to be moving freely and I arrived in time to see him take a screamer which shows that he still has some spring in his step.

When played in the forward line close to goal, Davey can get half the number of possessions and yet be three times as damaging.

This is the bit that needs to be fixed. I first brought it up over two years ago, nothing has changed.

Spot on. I wasn't at the game yesterday so I can't really comment on the structure of that game, but there were several times that the commentators mentioned that Melbourne players had no options ahead, as in there was literally no teammates in front of them. What I don't understand is why every single forward has to push up the ground? Why not leave one or two, right on the goal line. Moreover, rest a Green a Bruce or a Davey up there instead of coming off every two minutes. No defender is going to leave their opposing forward on their own in their forward line. If they do, then up the other end of the ground the ratio is 17:18 which is hardly much of an advantage for the opposition.

Good or bad news, if it involves Collingwood it sells papers, sad really.

Three Collingwood fans charged over alleged bashing What sick pricks. If the allegations are correct then this is truly disgusting and truly dampens any happiness that Collingw&%$ would have otherwise felt today. I wish Mr. Jones a speedy recovery.

Maric was terrible in the stands today.

Were there options for him in the first place? There was one massive rundown where he got caught in the middle, but why was he waiting? Were there options for him ahead?

On TV, Martin and Warnock looked the best. My main problem with Frawley is that he doesn't seem big enough to play on talls but is too big to play on small forwards. Medhurst is probably the perfect match-up for him but he just lacked the required spark to keep up with him at times.

I didn't make it to the game today, I had to work and just watched the replay but from what I could tell on TV the same problem have having few options up field was there? Can anyone confirm this?