Straight Sets Simon

Melbourne only had 22 less possessions than St Kilda. Yet they had more disposals per goal than the Saints. That is, there disposal was inefficient and just plain crap (as you've mentioned). Obviously Melbourne could have improved by winning more of the ball. Again, it's all very well getting a lot of the ball, but what you do with it is what really matters. So why, in your opinion was their disposal so bad?

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm more than willing to discuss it. Just not when you make false accusations about me.

I missed their game the other night and my memory of the Grand Final is a little sketchy. Also, when you don't follow a team so close, it's hard to notice any changes they may make.

I'll continue this when you have the ability to argue the point. Without resorting to weak personal insults.

Exactly. Why kick it into the forward line if there is no one the to receive it? That's the problem Melbourne had. They had no one to kick it to in the first place. To use a stupid example like you did. Why buy a boat if you live in the desert? Why kick it into the forward line if there is no (or a couple of out-numbered forwards) to kick it to? The core problem was the lack of forwards. The number of entries into the forward fifty can be irrelevant if nothing happens when the ball is down there. Why would the midfielders want to kick the ball down there if there is no one down there to receive the ball, or the players down there (as good as they are) are far more likely to lose out to sheer numbers? You tell me the answer.

Let me respond to this again with further explanation seeing as you do not understand. I am looking at the cause because I am looking at before the players even kicked the ball. That is, they got the ball, looked up and saw no one to kick it to. As a result they over-used the ball. Yes, players like TJ and McLean (before injury) were not at their best. However the KEY problem for Melbourne was the lack of forwards. Like I said, Melbourne only had 22 less disposals than St Kilda. That is, they were getting the ball. Like you mentioned they used the ball badly. Why did they use the ball badly? This is what needs to be asked. Maybe each and every player just happened to have a bad night. There is a chance of that. This is an unlikely scenario none-the-less. As a result you are looking at the next step, the symptom of what I just explained. That is, you are looking at the actual disposal by the players. Again, maybe every player just happened to have a bad night. But from my view of the game it was bleatingly obvious that the problem was not the kicking. It was before this step. There was nothing to kick to.

You're right. Another flawless coaching effort by Daniher.

That's exactly what I was trying to find out. Thanks QueenC.

Thanks for that DD. Glad to hear someone getting excited about Newton.

You said: "My biggest concern was the failure of the players to implement the game plan with any confidence or skill. The coaching panel have a lot to do over the next 9 days." Where do you say that the game plan was bad? The coaching panel do have a lot to do. But in what way? Training the players so they do implement the plan better? Or coming up with another plan? Do you think the game plan was a good one?

So are you saying that the game plan / field positions were fine? Just poorly executed?

Yes.

That made me laugh. Thank you.

All I want to know is, do Sydney and West Coast change their tactics so dramatically depending on where they play?

I think you'll find that most posters are upset with the coach and not the players.

There is all this talk about changing the team tactics depending on the ground. For example, using "runs and curry" at AAMI and Subiaco. My question is, do teams like Sydney and West Coast change their tactics depending on what ground they are playing and who they are playing? I haven't seen enough of these two teams recently, so if there is anyone out there who has, is there a notable shift in their game plans?

If two forwards kicked 6.5 from 33 entries, just imagine how many goals five or six forwards would have kicked! Moroever, there would have been more entries into the forward fifty if there were more forwards to kick to. St Kilda only had 22 more disposals than Melbourne for the game. You're right, let's just agree to disagree.

We saw on Friday night that Neitz did not destroy his three opponents. I agree that Melbourne were hopeless in the midfield. Why were they hopeless? Because, when they did get the ball they no options up the ground. (Yes players such as Trav and McLean (before being injured) did have off nights but there is much more to the story.) It's all very well to get possessions (just ask Joel Bowden), but the most important thing is what the player does with the thing. In this case, the players had almost no decent options, the result being the "runs and curry" and chipping around that resulted in turnovers, which frustrated every one of us.

The reason they were "slow and sloppy" was that they had no one to kick it to in the first place. If there was a forward line all they would have to do is throw the ball on their boot to get the ball down to forwards. Instead they were forced to chip, hand pass and try and run the ball around until there were options up forward. St Kilda did not need time to flood back because they were starting with loose men in defense in the first place. Moreover, Melbourne only had a few forwards to begin with. A tactic which makes your mate, old55 "happy". You're looking at the symptoms. I'm looking at the cause. Rhino, do you have any association with anyone within Melbourne's football department? You are never willing to admit their mistakes. Always blaming the players.

There was no one to kick it to in the first place. When there was an option they were usually outnumbered thanks to the extra man in defense. Of course they were slow, because they had to wait for the forwards to get back to the forward line. Not to mention the fact that the "runs and curry" tactic does not work for this current side. I don't blame Yze and Davey as they were positioned too far up the ground. If ND had of left them in their best positions (in the forward line) they would have done better. Moreover, they would have provided more options for the midfield going forward and there would have been less hesitation with their disposal. At one point they had Davey at full back FFS. And when he did go forward thats when he started to create some opportunities. It was bleatingly obvious that Melbourne did not have a forward line and this was the cause of their problems.

Agree.

At the start of each quarter, there were no more than four Melbourne players in their own forward line (coaches tactic). That's because Melbourne were playing a loose man in defense and they had an extra player on the wing. This is before the ball was bounced. Where were all the players you ask? If you notice with many of the stoppages around the ground, Melbourne often had eleven or twelve players gathered around the ball. So when they did win possession, they would look up and see no forwards (or an outnumbered Neitz or Robertson) and so then they were forced to hand pass amongst themselves and move the ball sideways until an option presented it self. We all know how this ended up... Surely, it must be the coach’s instructions for the players to push up the ground. Otherwise there would have been runners running out to the players telling them to get back in the forward line. Not having a forward line isn't a speculation or a theory of why Melbourne lost. The fact is they didn't have a forward line. We could see this with our own too eyes.

I'm not blaming the players at all. I'm blaming the coach for not putting anyone in there! As much as I hate "runs and curry" and "tempo football", they were not the cause of the problems last night, although they did only make things worse. However, the cause of it all was that Melbourne did not have a forward line!

I think you would find that if you went back and watched the games from last year (easier said than done) you would find that in most of the games Melbourne lost, their main tactic wasn't to kick the ball long and quickly through the middle of the ground. People have been complaining about "tempo football" and now "runs and curry" because we see that it doesn't work. On the other hand we see how Melbourne played against Collingwood, Fremantle at the MCG and St Kilda (the first half of the first game) and realise just how well they play when they play long, direct football. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that all these games were played at the MCG is what helped them play that much better than their opposition sides.