Straight Sets Simon

Last time Melbourne played at AAMI against Adelaide they tried a predominantly "run and carry" / "tempo" style of play. Remember, West Coast had beaten Adelaide the week before using "run and carry" so Melbourne thought that it too would work for them. However by the time they realised that they don't have Judd, Kerr and Cousins in their team it was too late. How much did Adelaide win by again? Nice misquote by the way.

My Round One team. EDIT: Assuming Pickett is fit. FB: Whelan Holland Carroll HB: Bizzell Rivers Bell C: Johnstone Jones Green HF: C. Johnson Dunn Bruce FF: Robertson Neitz Davey Foll: White McLean McDonald Int: P. Johnson Bate Pickett Moloney The team I predict to be chosen. EDIT: Assuming Pickett is fit. B: Whelan Carroll Holland HB: Ward Rivers Bell C: Johnstone McLean Green HF: Yze Miller C.Johnson FF: Robertson Neitz Davey Foll: White McDonald Bruce Int: Jamar Moloney Pickett Jones

Well then what's the point of having a "fan forum" if fans can't give an opinion? No one here has "full information", except for CAC of course. Miller may not be favoured as a leader but he is still in favour to get a game. Yze was dropped from the leadership even earlier yet has played every game since. Popular opinion is that Miller has played badly (taking into account his interrupted pre-season last year) in recent times. It is "informed" because everyone has seen it for themselves!

You're right, Melbourne really should have played him more straight after he did his ankle...

I think it's more of a case of practicing what works best. And you would hope that what works best results in a win.

Fair point.

Any chance that some VFL games could be played before the AFL games? I know that is not the key issue with bringing back the Reserves but it would be good from the spectators point of view.

I though that I would give this thread a timely bump as it is relevant to what ND said recently in a Herald Sun interview. The quote, which caught my eye, in particular was: "This is a long-term project" Are Melbourne still "rebuilding"? (Obviously, long-term planning is always going on, but when does the FD see Melbourne's best chance at winning a Premiership?) If so, when will it be their time?

"Apparently" I did say that... I don't want "run and carry" to become a key tactic, like it was in the Adelaide game and like it has been in the pre-season (as meaningless as these games are). I have merely expressed my concern that IF it becomes a key tactic (i.e. their first option is to always handball and run instead of kicking) then Melbourne will struggle during the H&A season. I would prefer to see a long, fast direct approach as a key option. The fact that "run and carry" has it's own name gives the "tactic" more credit than it deserves. ND hasn't re-invented the wheel here with the notion of running with the ball and I have never been against it as an option, when it is the best option at a particular point in time. I would much prefer to be in a 15 on 17 situation in my own forward line than in a 1 on 3. Especially with the likes of Davey, Bruce, Pickett, Bate and Green down there. You're tactic sounds awfully tiring as well, what with all that running from end to end. Be careful not to run "out of legs".

That sounds pretty normal for Daniher IMO. (I'm not having a go at him, it just sounds like what we have come to expect to hear from ND)

I found the final quote interesting. "This is a long-term project."

That's what I've said all along. I'm not worried the slightest about the results of the practice games. I am worried however that Melbourne will try and impliment this "run and carry" as a key tactic in the H&A season. We saw Melbourne try this against Adelaide late last year. The result says it all. You would be happy with one full forward against three defenders?

I've never said to kick it long "ALL of the time". If an opposition started with an extra two players in Melbourne's forward line then straight away they are putting up the white flags and conceding that they are taking a negative approach to the game. . I like to be more positive, and trust the players’ ability. As a general rule (variations depending on opposition and the Melbourne side selected) I'd move two extra players into Melbourne's forwardline (someone like Jamar who is capable of taking a big pack mark and even Bruce who can take a grab and roam the pack if the ball comes to ground). The forwardline would obviously be a bit crowded but I would instruct the players to look for a leading forward and if noting is available to then go for the "hot spot" (around 15 - 25 metres out from goal), kick it directly into there, and trust the forwards to take a mark (Jamar, Neitz, Robertson etc) or at least bring the ball to ground (Bruce, Davey, Pickett, Yze etc). Moving the two extra players into the forward line means that the opposition no longer has a numbers advantage in Melbourne’s forward line. It does mean however that the oppositon have a relatively open forward line, and that’s the gamble you have got to make. If for example the opposition has a hard leading forward like a Lloyd or a Williams then I would look to move one of the players otherwise moved into the forward line across the center or even to half back where (if absolutely needed they can fill in some space if the ball is rebounded quickly). I do however trust the backline The key is to move the ball fast, and directly into the forwardline to put the backmen under as much pressure as possible and prevent any further flooding from occurring. Moreover, the first option should be the leading forward (Neitz, Robertson, Green etc) however if it is quickly clear that nothing is available then kicking it deep into Melbourne’s forwardline should be the next option, because as I said earlier the ball only needs to come to ground for the likes of Davey, Pickett or Yze (if he can be bothered) to weave their magic. All the pressure is on the opposition now because the ball is so close to Melbourne’s goals. If Melbourne have the ball in the back pocket then I would encourage the half forwards to push up into the midfield to provide an option. Two things could happen here. Either the opposition defenders will follow their opponents leaving a much more open forwardline for the likes of Neitz and Robertson to lead into. Or some of the opposition defenders could stay back leaving Melbourne with extra numbers through the midfield. Now would be a good time to use the extra numbers and even the use of a “run and carry” style play to build up a bit of momentum before looking for a leading Neitz, Robertson or possibly even Green in the forwardline. Moreover assuming the players running through the midfield have the time, space and no other option is available; I would also encourage shots from around the forward 50, which most Melbourne midfielders and forwards are capable of. For this to work it requires a lot of trust in the players but again I do trust their ability and there is more to be gained from being positive than there is to being negative. Yes, it will concede some goals (as all plans do), however IMO it is the best option for success for the current Melbourne side. What would you do in this situation Old?

This common sense thing could really take off one day. Great post.

I don't see what Fred Durst or Clint Bizzell have to do with any of this...

I'll admit that I haven't been positive very in regards to ND, more specifically his game day tactics. But for good reason. I would love nothing more than to be proved well and truly wrong and for and for ND's "run and carry" and "tempo" tactics to win Melbourne a Premiership. However, I just don't see it happening. In terms of the playing group, I think that Melbourne are the strongest they've been in a long time, thanks partly to ND. However as a coach that's only half the job done. But like I said before, I would love nothing more than to be proved wrong.

Please let it be true.

Exactly. And this "run and carry" tactic hasn't been successful...

I would prefer if Channel Seven just had Bruce, Dennis and someone on the boundary who can find out information about injuries and alike. IMO a "Special Comments" person is not needed.

Well said.

The best way to beat the "flood" is through moving the ball quickly so that opposition sides don't have time to flood their own backline line. A ball travels much faster if it is kicked 50 metres than if it is run and handpassed for 50 metres. Long, direct kicking beats the flood. Jaded, This "tempo" footy may (and I say that with a great degree of uncertainty) won a few games. But it cost Melbourne a lot more. I hope you're right though. I do hope that they find a "balance between kicking and handballing". We'll wait and see.

The problem is the tactic itself. If players are struggling with the "execution" of the plan then there's your first hint that maybe it doesn't work for this side. If Melbourne had Judd, Kerr and Cousins then it would probably be a different story. Anyone remember the Adelaide game at the end of last year? It would make much more sense if the team went out with the game plan, I've nicknamed "football". Moreover, instead of trying to use a "run and carry" tactic, a "kick it long tactic" or whatever it may be, players are instructed to play "football". Meaning that they utilise all the skills they have acquired over the years (in order to get to this elite level) and in turn use the most appropriate skill (i.e. kick, handball etc) in the most appropriate situations. It's crazy I know, but it just may work. Because from what I have seen and heard, this "runs and curry", I mean "run and carry" stuff just doesn't seem to be holding up.

I don't really care that much, but I did have to put up with a lot of crap talkback to find this out. <_<

You can't listen to the game online. What a joke.

I really liked the photo of the Leadership Group on the old site. It's a shame they didn't make another one for the new site.