BhimaWylie

Does it matter that the boundary line advertising at the MCG (and on level 1) is now a highly distracting, moving image LED light show promoting the game's wonderful sponsors? I'm just basically trying to ascertain if it bothers anyone else out there that there is effectively continuous advertising during the football which takes my attention away from play against my will? If I'm alone on this, that's fine, I'll leave it go, but wanted to put it out there: - Does this enhance the game as a television broadcast? - Does it make no difference? - Does it make the game worse to watch? Don't get me wrong, it's not advertising I have an issue with here, it the fact that it is projected on our screens to the detriment of the game as a spectacle. It strikes me as a similar situation to the price of food at the footy - something that everyone hated but didn't think anything could be done to change it? I'd be willing to continue following this up, but the respone here should be a good guide as to whether or not it's worth the effort. Cheers

I thought I'd follow up on my original post on Saturday which was prior to the Dees game. What was of most interest to me was not that the Dees were playing a zone similar to the Saints, but that they weren't playing a zone at all. For the most part of the game on Sunday the Dees went man on man when the opposition were kicking out of defensive. The coast to coast goals that Carlton kicked were made possible by the lack of zone. But I'm not complaining. Neeld had flagged in his post match press conference last week that the game was moving back to man on man style, which was possibly his way of justifying the significant change of gameplan that we saw on the weekend. While the Dees were disappointing on Sunday, for the most part it was shocking disposal and decision making that most contributed to the loss, which is likely due to playing man on man. I have suggested previously that we do not have the fitness to play a zone and then run hard ahread of the ball. I feel moreso now that we don't have the team ethic/appropriate continuity of players to play to do this. The second quarter on Tuesday was the best of the season from the Dees, in my mind, where we actually raised the intensity of the game and took it up to the Blues. Neeld was prepared to change the gameplan on the weekend. What else might begin to change, I shall watch on with interest.

Watters and Neeld both left Collingwood for new clubs at the end of 2011. Watters inherited a team which is well drilled defensively and has 3200 games experience. Neeld inherited an offensively minded team which has 2000 games experience. What was clear to me last night was that Watters has taught the Saints how to zone effectively, but they don't have the ability to counterattack to full effect. The Dees have neither against fully fit teams. It has been a feature of Melbournes disappointing start to the season - both watching live at the game and on television - that when opposition teams are bringing the ball out of defence, Melbourne players leave their direct opponent to position themselves in a rehearsed zone. The disappointing aspect is that the zone is static, with stationary Dees allowing the opposition to work around or over it as they might play a game of checkers. What interested me last night was St Kildas defensive zone. When Collingwood were coming out of defense, St Kilda players, like the Dess, positioned themselves away from Pies players into a zone position. What was different, however, was that when a Collingwood player ran into space between the St Kilda players, the St Kilda player would man up on him. Rather than having a static zone, they would start in a zone and then man up depending on where the Collingwood players ran. They also positioned Mcevoy down the line so that when Collingwood kicked long around the boundary, St Kilda had an extra tall at many of the contests. I wondered as I was watching whether or not this is in fact what Neeld wants the Melbourne players to do, or if Neeld is working on a different formula. It was noted on the telecast that although St Kilda were effective in stopping Collingwood from scoring, they were exhausting themselves with their defensive style. They could stop the Pies, but the fitness required to do this left them fatigued when attacking, as was evident in their poor kicking efficiency. Melbourne looked good against GWS when Bail and Evans were actually running ahead of the play and providing an uncontested target. The bombers are excellent at both defending and then running ahead of the ball. The struggle for the Demons gameplan is not only getting the defensive zone correct like Saint Kilda did but also running towards goal. The one thing that gives me hope this week is the improved running capacity of the team selected. Watts, Blease, Rodan, Pedersen, Jamar and Davey are notable for their lack of ability to run hard both ways. Strauss, Nicholson, Viney, Spencer and Kent are runners. We wont win until we get our defensive zone right. St Kilda showed last night what is possible. They also showed that without supreme fitness (despite Riewoldt), attacking is made all the more difficult with the Malthouse gameplan. I just want to see us on equal footing physically, to at least give the gameplan a chance.

Recently I posted that a loose defensive press was the key reason for the high margin of Melbourne's losses this season (Winter is Coming if you're interested) I just read this in The Age, in an article 'Carey's Carlton Warning' (see link below). I have replaced only the names Mick Malthouse, Carlton and Brett Ratten with Mark Neeld, Melbourne and Dean Bailey - otherwise it is word for word (with some editing for continuity - see article for reference) "AFL great Wayne Carey has suggested Mark Neeld may have to alter his defensive game plan if Melbourne is to rebound from a winless start to the season. There are concerns aplenty less than a month into the season. What will particularly worry Neeld is that the Dees have conceded more than 100 points in each of their games. They look good when playing attacking football, as they did before half-time against West Coast at various stages on Saturday. Advertisement The Dees continue to give their opponents too much space, prompting Carey to declare: ''Melbourne don't have the defensive attitude.'' Carey said, unlike in his years at Collingwood, Neeld did not have the list necessary to enforce his famed defensive mantra. ''You have got to look at your cattle. I think Mark Neeld is starting to realise, 'Hang on, this side can't play the defensive footy that I like','' Carey said on Triple M. ''They don't have the personnel Collingwood had when he got to Collingwood. "He has gone to Collingwood, they had some mature bodies. ''This [Melbourne] is a young, fast, take-on style game of footy. I think he is realising that they just can't play the style of game that he wants.'' The Demons had more of an attacking mantra under Neeld's predecessor, Dean Bailey." Ultimately, it reaffirmed my view that a team unequipped to play a defensive zone will feel significant short term pain, regardless of who is coaching. Neeld may be as good a coach as Malthouse tactically, but if he is to persist, he must have backing from the board they will not sack him in the face of the further big losses Melbourne will undoubtably receive. It will be interesting to see how Neeld and Malthouse respond if the losses keep coming, and how the board responds. It makes me feel that Neeld needs more time and with a third pre-season under Misson, we may see the improvement we are craving. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/careys-carlton-warning-20130414-2htve.html#ixzz2QUxdfmxl

As Bailey was of the Geelong School which focussed on playing at all costs and moving the ball through - or close to - the corridor, it's no surprise that Melbourne chose an understudy from the team that invented the press. Bailey's game was effectively self-destructive against good defensive zones, as it played directly into their hands, and had a disastrous impact on players such as Frawley and Grimes, who had previously had the freedom to run and carry the ball, and where now turning the ball over repeatedly (was it 7.11 Hawthorn kicked against in a quarter early in the 2010 season?). It will be interesting to monitor the progress of the large number of assistants who worked not only under Malthouse and Thompson, but also Roos and Williams. These former assistants now make up the majority of senior coaches across the land. Playing lists obviously play a large part in outcomes, but coaching styles make a difference. The question then is, if we were to choose a new coach, who would it be and what style would be want to emulate? Although my original post is fairly depressing in its sentiment, my real feeling is there is plenty of upside to out current performance, but whether the current coaching personnel can bring out the best in their players, I have my doubts. Neeld has had a horrible journey the whole way, to turn this boat around would be remarkable, but I can only hope. I genuinely loved being at the game on the weekend, and I'll be there throughout Winter, regardless of how cold it gets.

Winter is Coming One of the more engaging ideas in George RR Martin's Game of Thrones is the looming Winter that finally comes after a decade long summer, and with the winter, the lifeless and violent 'White Walkers' who descend from the North. For the people of the Northern lands, in Winter, the body suffers and the mind grows weak. In our great Southern Land, after record temperatures over the Pre-season, and record losses to start to the season proper, a long Winter is coming for the Melbourne Football Club. I would posit that the combined skills, talent and experience of our playing list has not been reflected in our results, losses of 78, 148 & 94 points. This implies that something other ability is contributing to our poor performance. After being 'privileged' enough to view the Dees first hand at the G over the past three rounds, here are my humble observations as to what these contributing factors are: Gameplan + Fitness: The body suffers. Neeld has brought a gameplan to the Dees, fundamentally built on 'Team Defense', which for him is validated by the success of this approach during his time as both defensive and midfield coach at Collingwood, the 2010 Premiers. What has become apparent in all three games this season is that Melbourne's defensive zone is too easily penetrated by rival clubs. Whether or not his defensive zone works in theory, his desire to implement at a time when his players are not appropriately fit for AFL (as he has himself admitted) is a key reason for such high losing margins. This was particularly evident this week. After a competitive half against the Eagles, it became clear to me (at least) that the players were unable to sustain the intensity required to make a defensive zone effective - primarilly due to fitness. By leaving their opponents and setting up a zone, yet unable to generate defensive pressure, Melbourne is allowing opponent teams to move the ball, uncontested, from end to end. Mentally, this eases the pressure on opposing teams and the Wall breaks...cue the 'White Walkers'. Mindset: The mind grows weak. Football has become increasingly complicated and mentally challenging for players. Young men are micro-managed by a bevvy of coaching and fitness staff. For many young Demons, the weight of expectation that comes with being high draft picks, the suffocating media analysis that follows losing performances - or in-house and off-field issues - compounds the natural anxiety which arises from fear of failure. A lack of fitness cannot simply explain the appalling first half defensive efforts against Essendon and Port Adelaide. Many players, if not all, seem to to remain psychologically scarred from the enormous losses that ended Dean Bailey's career as coach. We cannot know all the reasons why the Melbourne mindset is so weak, and many theories are well documented, but it clearly continues to contribute to our losses. We do not know what happens inside the club, but it seems fair to suggest that Neeld has been unable to rebuild the mental strength of the players, and is possibly adding to the psychic wounds by persisting with a gameplan that the players cannot implement over four quarters. Playing List: Winter is Coming: For the Dees, it will be a long winter, regardless of gameplan or mindset. Our playing list lacks the skills, talent and experience to have any serious impact on season 2013. When players cannot hit targets by foot over short distances, handball behind or above teammates running past to receive, and drop uncontested marks in the backline, gameplan and mindset are not relevant. Confidence does matter, and with confidence comes improved play, but we remain disappointingly poor at the fundamentals of the game, despite endless of hours of coaching and development. Neeld has chosen to slowly rebuild by giving the 2011 team a chance to display their wares, before culling heavily at the end of 2012. He does not have to answer to criticism for poor skills and decision making by players with 50 plus games experience. What Next? A Winter of Wonders For me, reducing the pain over the coming Winter will depend on the path Neeld and the coaching staff choose to take. I am certain that if a simplified gameplan - man on man defense for example - was implemented, the losing margins would significantly reduce, as opposition teams would face an extended contest across the ground. The issue here is that Neeld came to the club with the promise of a gameplan. To give up on his beloved defensive zone would be difficult, and make his job position highly vulnerable to attack based on his failure to 'bring a gameplan'. To not give up his gameplan would possibly leave him even more vulnerable to an early season sacking. Even if his gameplan will one day work, losses to teams such as GWS and the Suns would likely end his career. I do wonder what will happen next, and can only hope Neeld and his men find the appropriate strategy, but hold no illusions that the coming cold will somehow be to our benefit. Note: Much of what is written here has been written elsewhere and I acknowledge all those who contribute their ideas on this site. For my own sanity, I needed to write it down so as to hopefully stop thinking about it.