Our gameplan...

[mdc]

Obviously the Brisbane game was pretty hard to watch, and it's no good just putting it down to "a bad day" as malthouse seemed to want to do. We are generally a very competitive side but in the last few years have been prone to total annihilations by teams with good "inside" players in the centre. St.Kilda comes to mind, Melbourne as well...(or WB in last year's final)

Obviously losing Pendlebury didn't help, and some players had absolutely terrible games - but I feel this might be something more systematic. The way we bring the ball up most times (i.e. chipping it up the wings) is tailored to avoiding contested situations, and generally means we don't turn it over as much as some teams. But in turn, it generally means that most of our list is fairly inexperienced in tight, contested situations.

Now, I think that our current style probably gets the most out of what is a very weak list in the centre (i.e. Ruck + Inside mids, Pendles aside)...but I just can't see us winning a flag this way.

The main problem as I see it (aside from not developing ball-winners), is that if you take the ball up the wing, and say successfully find Swan on one of the HF flanks up near the boundary - his options are then basically limited to either going short along that same boundary, or bombing to Rocca. The opposite boundary line/flank is absolutely useless, and the opposition can run numbers away from there, into the small area into which Swan could kick.

Whereas if you run the ball through the centre as brisbane were doing (and WCE and Geelong generally do), you have all the space in the 50 at your disposal, and it's much harder to block up all that space.

Obviously, atm we don't have a midfield good enough to win a flag, but supposing in the next year or two we get it to a standard where it's at least not easily-smashable - do we then abandon (our somewhat restrictive) style and try to be more attacking through the middle? Is this even possible to do since players would have gotten used to it?

As I said, I do think it's probably the best style for the short-term because it keeps sides from exploiting our shthouse midfield...but I think it will eventually need to be addressed.

 

[Coin_Toss]

It needs to be addressed NOW. We are too predictable.

 

[WakeUpPies]

MM needs a plan B, well done to brisbane, flooded out forward line then quickly rebounded and scored goals, MM went one on one in the backline even though they were beaten from the word go, and their mids did what the doggies did to us last year, they ran in packs up the corridor and we just got splificated

 

[Big Bucks]

MM needs a plan B, well done to brisbane, flooded out forward line then quickly rebounded and scored goals, MM went one on one in the backline even though they were beaten from the word go, and their mids did what the doggies did to us last year, they ran in packs up the corridor and we just got splificated

Not the gameplan that is the problem,it`s our sub-standard mid-field as i have been saying for a while now.
O`bree is shit, couldn`t hit the side of a barn door from 15 metres.
Licuria how he won 2 Copelands shows how weak our midfield is and has been.
Lonie,i would rather have Liz Ellis .
Our Rucks are non-existence aside from Josh around the ground.
To top it all off you have a coach who does not believe in a true ruckman.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Not the gameplan that is the problem,it`s our sub-standard mid-field as i have been saying for a while now.
O`bree is shit, couldn`t hit the side of a barn door from 15 metres.
Licuria how he won 2 Copelands shows how weak our midfield is and has been.
Lonie,i would rather have Liz Ellis .
Our Rucks are non-existence aside from Josh around the ground.
To top it all off you have a coach who does not believe in a true ruckman.

She'd put her head over the ball at least.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Obviously the Brisbane game was pretty hard to watch, and it's no good just putting it down to "a bad day" as malthouse seemed to want to do. We are generally a very competitive side but in the last few years have been prone to total annihilations by teams with good "inside" players in the centre. St.Kilda comes to mind, Melbourne as well...(or WB in last year's final)

Obviously losing Pendlebury didn't help, and some players had absolutely terrible games - but I feel this might be something more systematic. The way we bring the ball up most times (i.e. chipping it up the wings) is tailored to avoiding contested situations, and generally means we don't turn it over as much as some teams. But in turn, it generally means that most of our list is fairly inexperienced in tight, contested situations.

Now, I think that our current style probably gets the most out of what is a very weak list in the centre (i.e. Ruck + Inside mids, Pendles aside)...but I just can't see us winning a flag this way.

The main problem as I see it (aside from not developing ball-winners), is that if you take the ball up the wing, and say successfully find Swan on one of the HF flanks up near the boundary - his options are then basically limited to either going short along that same boundary, or bombing to Rocca. The opposite boundary line/flank is absolutely useless, and the opposition can run numbers away from there, into the small area into which Swan could kick.

Whereas if you run the ball through the centre as brisbane were doing (and WCE and Geelong generally do), you have all the space in the 50 at your disposal, and it's much harder to block up all that space.

Obviously, atm we don't have a midfield good enough to win a flag, but supposing in the next year or two we get it to a standard where it's at least not easily-smashable - do we then abandon (our somewhat restrictive) style and try to be more attacking through the middle? Is this even possible to do since players would have gotten used to it?

As I said, I do think it's probably the best style for the short-term because it keeps sides from exploiting our shthouse midfield...but I think it will eventually need to be addressed.

There's no doubt we have to get better around the stoppages, especially given that Burns hasn't got much football left in him. But I don't think this is the reason we always skirt the boundary line. Look at all of MM's sides. WCE during their dominant era played the chip-around-the-boundary-line style that we do. That wasn't because they lacked players who could win in tight. It's MM's coaching style. The rationale is that turning the ball over on the boundary line is less damaging than turning it over in the middle of the ground, for exactly the reasons that you think we should transfer the ball through the middle when in attack: it opens up the field.

I'm not saying you're wrong, MDC, but that's why we do it. As a coach MM is a defence-first type. He tries to minimise risk, then go from there. To play the high-handball through the corridor style that Geelong and WCE etc play, I think we'd need not just a different coach but more pace through the middle. We're treacle-slow through the middle at the moment.

So I agree that we need to get some kamikaze inside mids, but I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that this will lead to us playing the centre corridor.

 

[SunKing]

Have to say i was amazed MM didn't alter the plan when it clearly wasn't working. When they showed him he was like a deer caught in the headlights,totally in shock.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Have to say i was amazed MM didn't alter the plan when it clearly wasn't working. When they showed him he was like a deer caught in the headlights,totally in shock.

If the players players don't work hard enough, your style of play doesn't matter.

 

[mdc]

There's no doubt we have to get better around the stoppages, especially given that Burns hasn't got much football left in him. But I don't think this is the reason we always skirt the boundary line. Look at all of MM's sides. WCE during their dominant era played the chip-around-the-boundary-line style that we do. That wasn't because they lacked players who could win in tight. It's MM's coaching style. The rationale is that turning the ball over on the boundary line is less damaging than turning it over in the middle of the ground, for exactly the reasons that you think we should transfer the ball through the middle when in attack: it opens up the field.

I'm not saying you're wrong, MDC, but that's why we do it. As a coach MM is a defence-first type. He tries to minimise risk, then go from there. To play the high-handball through the corridor style that Geelong and WCE etc play, I think we'd need not just a different coach but more pace through the middle. We're treacle-slow through the middle at the moment.

I agree with most of this, and like I said it does help keep turnovers down...but my problem is this - we have some guys that can break the lines down the centre and carry...but the only guy that's prepared (allowed?) to do it is Ben Johnson. And I know Malthouse won't completely abandon his game plan, but we need a balance (look at a side like Adelaide for example).

If you exclude O'Bree and Licca, I don't necessarily think pace is the problem (it's the problem for those 2, obviously). If you look at Brisbane, none of their main midfield guys are incredibly quick - but Leigh Matthews always manages to get his players up to a fantastic standard in contested situations. So they're happy to back themselves and run. We need to allow our young players to do this at least some of the time, otherwise they'll lose all natural ability in this area, so by the time some decent mids finally come around it'll be too late.

 

[Jabso]

Our gampelan is a very simple yet effective one that has worked all year. It's also a flexible one, against Brisbane at the Gabba we played a different style as well as a more choking style against Sydney at TS. It's nigh on impossible to tell whether it's a fundemental flaw of our gameplan after just one bad loss. Every other loss we were relatively competitive (except maybe Melbourne IMO), and the gameplan was never to blame. It is even more impossible to put a finger on what went wrong fundamentally against Brisbane beacuse we were never in it. There was never a sniff of a period where we had control to actually test our gameplan out. Even if MM is inflexible and has no plan b you can't prove it based on last night because Brisbane had a big lead so quickly, we were playing awful that by the time he could do anything the players would've given up and decided not to follow any gameplan.

Sometimes it is just a simple matter of us playing as bad as we can play, and them playing as good as they can play. If we drop a few more we can analyse it better.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

The Problem was Brisbane matched us in what we do best. Pressuring the opposition ball carriers and relentless tacking. We played there game not ours and that's why we got flogged. Also I think the players thought the game was a shoe in and plus there was a tear in the banner

 

[mdc]

Every other loss we were relatively competitive (except maybe Melbourne IMO), and the gameplan was never to blame.

This is precisely the point. Our gameplan is a defensive one, so we will be competitive most of the time. But we'll also rarely put sides away, and we'll tend to fall short against most good sides who back their players.

I'm not isolating the Brisbane game here. I actually thought it was just a really unfortunate first quarter (bad decisions, unlucky bounces) - which led to Brisbane getting a shi tload of momentum and carrying it the rest of the game. My problem with the gameplan is a long-term one, namely that it robs potentially great players of their ability to put their imprint on games.

As an example, consider Kerr in our system. IMO, he'd still be seen as a very good ball winner etc, but he wouldn't be a Top 5 mid as he is now.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I agree with most of this, and like I said it does help keep turnovers down...but my problem is this - we have some guys that can break the lines down the centre and carry...but the only guy that's prepared (allowed?) to do it is Ben Johnson. And I know Malthouse won't completely abandon his game plan, but we need a balance (look at a side like Adelaide for example).

If you exclude O'Bree and Licca, I don't necessarily think pace is the problem (it's the problem for those 2, obviously). If you look at Brisbane, none of their main midfield guys are incredibly quick - but Leigh Matthews always manages to get his players up to a fantastic standard in contested situations. So they're happy to back themselves and run. We need to allow our young players to do this at least some of the time, otherwise they'll lose all natural ability in this area, so by the time some decent mids finally come around it'll be too late.

Yes, that's true. Like you say, I'm not sure that Brisbane or Geelong are super-quick through the middle. But I have no doubt that the quicker you are through the middle the easier it is to play the handball-and-carry sort of game that Geelong and WC have become masters of.

What Brisbane can do with a machine like Black winning the contested ball is cheat a little by peeling off the packs, safe in the knowledge that an elite inside mid like Black is gonna win the ball or at least fight an honourable draw in the clinches. If our mids aren't on their toes, they get burnt by going to the contest and letting their opponents get goalside of them in space.

This is how the Bulldogs have done us over the last couple of times. West and Cross are able to win at the contest, their downhill skiers, instead of being the third or fourth man into a pack, stand off the pack a little or even run forward of the ball when it's still in dispute. If Cross or West then win the ball, we're in a power of trouble because their runners are in space and we simply don't have the footspeed to chase them down or even pressure their disposals.

It's a difficult situation. We have trouble breaking even against the likes of Black and West at the coalface, so the natural instinct is to commit more men to the contest. But if we don't win the ball or at least kill it, that leaves us in even more trouble.

 

[MarkT]

Game plan is one thing but we will always battle for hard faught wins without a ruckman. Same old problem year in year out and the problem lies with the philosophy of the coach. We need a quality tap ruckman first, formost and desperately.

 

[Ron]

Game plan is one thing but we will always battle for hard faught wins without a ruckman. Same old problem year in year out and the problem lies with the philosophy of the coach. We need a quality tap ruckman first, formost and desperately.

Agreed, and i hope we have the balls to trade something of value to make it happen.
But we all know that it never will.

We'll probably pick up Ackland next year

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Agreed, and i hope we have the balls to trade something of value to make it happen.
But we all know that it never will.

We'll probably pick up Ackland next year

Yes, our likeliest response is to simply multiply the number of hack ruckmen on our list rather than investing picks or players in someone who's any fricking good.

 

[mdc]

Yes, our likeliest response is to simply multiply the number of hack ruckmen on our list rather than investing picks or players in someone who's any fricking good.

I think the expression is sad but true, yes?

 

[prO]

If the players players don't work hard enough, your style of play doesn't matter.

I concur

Our gampelan is a very simple yet effective one that has worked all year. It's also a flexible one, against Brisbane at the Gabba we played a different style as well as a more choking style against Sydney at TS. It's nigh on impossible to tell whether it's a fundemental flaw of our gameplan after just one bad loss. Every other loss we were relatively competitive (except maybe Melbourne IMO), and the gameplan was never to blame. It is even more impossible to put a finger on what went wrong fundamentally against Brisbane beacuse we were never in it. There was never a sniff of a period where we had control to actually test our gameplan out. Even if MM is inflexible and has no plan b you can't prove it based on last night because Brisbane had a big lead so quickly, we were playing awful that by the time he could do anything the players would've given up and decided not to follow any gameplan.

Agree with this also. Our game plan changes according to who we play and MM has already demonstrated against good coaches this year that he isn't a one trick pony.

It wasn't a matter of gameplan this week. It was a matter of hunger, and the good thing about hunger is - you get your appetite back.