Our third quarters

[Wonaeamirri33]

Lol. Yeah, I don't mean to play down the importance of the coach's role in getting the lads in the right frame of mind to come out firing.

Just trying to point out that I don't think it's a technical coaching (eg game-plan) issue, but a mental/communication/emotional issue instead.

And a strength and conditioning/fitness issue. Still got some way to go on that front. It seemed like a fair number of the playing group ran out of gas early in the third term

As I said in the GDT- less energy -> less run & spread and less work in the contest -> more turnovers -> less confidence...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Have officially renamed the third quarter, it is now known as Clown Time.

We will be re-entering the ground to Benny Hill music crammed into a small car. This will be followed by 30 minutes of comedic acts including pointless falling over and chasing their own tails, providing light comedy relief in these dark times.

EFA

 

[Cudi_420]

The Neeld apologists are out in force in this thread...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The implication that somehow Neeld told them at the main break to stop what they were doing and completely change it, after a half where we were finally competitive, and looking like a cohesive unit on the field for the first time in weeks, doesn't hold much currency from where I'm sitting.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

The Neeld apologists are out in force in this thread...

The posters who have nothing constructive to add are now out in force in this thread...

 

[CowboyFromHell]

The implication that somehow Neeld told them at the main break to stop what they were doing and completely change it, after a half where we were finally competitive, and looking like a cohesive unit on the field for the first time in weeks, doesn't hold much currency from where I'm sitting.

It holds no currency mate. None at all. Neeld is far from blameless in all of this but the suggestion that what happened after half time was basically a direct instruction from him is laughable.

 

[maxmustard]

I didn't get to see the game (because I was at work), but I was told that we went back to old tactics in the third and it cost us dearly. No longer did we run and carry the ball, even using the corridor, but instead we begun kicking it to the wings, and 9 times out of 10 to Jamar. Neeld's 'game plan' returned and we lost. Why must we use the boundary this way? FRUSTRATING!

We put loose players back in the third. The first half was one on one all over the ground, and each player had a direct opponent. It was an attempt at damage limitation that backfired imo, even Mitch Clark was loose in the backline at some point.

 

[d33my]

And a strength and conditioning/fitness issue. Still got some way to go on that front. It seemed like a fair number of the playing group ran out of gas early in the third term

As I said in the GDT- less energy -> less run & spread and less work in the contest -> more turnovers -> less confidence...

Interestingly Trengove has come out and said that match fitness wasn't the issue, that Misson rates them on par with other sides he's been with, etc.

I do wonder though, you can have all the training fitness and good times for 3k runs and stuff, but how well does that translate to actual match fitness? I have heard players say before that nothing really prepares you for the intensity of an actual game.

The reality, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle: not quite AFL level match fitness coupled with not quite AFL level skills and decision making.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

And not quite AFL level application and mental resiliance.

 

[bing181]

It's well known that Neeld despises that style, hence threatening to drop anyone who played through the corridor to Casey last year.

Come on then, where and when did Neeld threaten to drop anyone who plays through the corridor?

You continue to come up with these ridiculous suppositions, with absolutely nothing whatsoever to back them up. So here's your chance to show us that you're not just hot air ...

 

[Tulip]

Come on then, where and when did Neeld threaten to drop anyone who plays through the corridor?

You continue to come up with these ridiculous suppositions, with absolutely nothing whatsoever to back them up. So here's your chance to show us that you're not just hot air ...

I can't remember where I read the quote, but I'll look it up.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

I'm sure you read it on demon land dude (I know I've seen it thrown around by the Neeld haters over there).

But I'd also be pretty confident it was "overheard" or some such, and that there is no proof of it having been said.

 

[Yze13]

We won the contested possession in the first half and we were only 1 or 2 behind in the centre clearances . The Third quarter was a blurr after the fourth goal to me , no system no structure. Chip was running into two West Coast forwards trying to beat the tackles . We couldn't clear it outside our defensive 50 and when we did it was coming back with interest. I have sat behind the goals for the last 3 weeks and the amount of times I've seen the ball kicked to a 3 on 1 , along the Northern Stand side . Knowing that a little more central to the kick there are 2 to 3 free players easily better targets to kick to. I'm not sure why they keep doing this , if 's a directive from Neeld or a set play it has to change.

 

[AFL is Number One]

unfortunately, we are just not strong or fit enough to match it with the better sides at the moment.

 

[MarcMaverick]

unfortunately, we are just not strong or fit enough to match it with the better sides at the moment.

I hope you are referring to our mental aspect of our structure. If you are then I will accept this premise.

 

[AFL is Number One]

I hope you are referring to our mental aspect of our structure. If you are then I will accept this premise.

Yes ...mentally we seem to drop our bundle.

 

[Tulip]

I'm sure you read it on demon land dude (I know I've seen it thrown around by the Neeld haters over there).

But I'd also be pretty confident it was "overheard" or some such, and that there is no proof of it having been said.

Could have been tbh.

My dislike for Neeld is obviously putting a few noses out of joint, but remember that we do all love the Melbourne Football Club and it's making me sick to see us losing by 100 points weekly, and finding positives from the beltings to boot.

 

[Bluelegs]

We won the contested possession in the first half and we were only 1 or 2 behind in the centre clearances . The Third quarter was a blurr after the fourth goal to me , no system no structure. Chip was running into two West Coast forwards trying to beat the tackles . We couldn't clear it outside our defensive 50 and when we did it was coming back with interest. I have sat behind the goals for the last 3 weeks and the amount of times I've seen the ball kicked to a 3 on 1 , along the Northern Stand side . Knowing that a little more central to the kick there are 2 to 3 free players easily better targets to kick to. I'm not sure why they keep doing this , if 's a directive from Neeld or a set play it has to change.

We won almost every stat in the first half. Only thing we were behind in was the tackles, and clearances I believe, and obviously scoreboard.

 

[Bluelegs]

Well, here's the thing.

What I saw in that first half was very BaileyBall. No defensive accountability, but fluid attack and decent manning up from the defenders.

It's well known that Neeld despises that style, hence threatening to drop anyone who played through the corridor to Casey last year.

There was a clear difference between the way we played in the first and second halves, something beyond our players all becoming dog shit again at the exact same time.

That's pretty far-fetched considering the players, and Neeld were going on about how the first half was exactly how the club wanted to play straight after the match, and the third quarter was a disgrace. The First half I saw a gameplan, the third quarter I saw nothing, the last quarter was neither here nor there. I'm as much of a Neeld sceptic as the next person but what you're saying is the exact opposite of what is coming out of the club. I get the issue with finding positives out of a 90 point loss but it was an 11 goal quarter that did that to us. Why did we play like that in the third? I don't know and it must be addressed but if you can't look at the first half of the match and see some good things then no one can help you.

 

[Tulip]

I looked at the first half and saw positives, but watching sides like Port and Richmond I just realised that those 'positives' were bare minimums for a competent football club.

To have this headline on our site after a 94 point loss on our home patch is disheartening.

Dees show grit: Neeld
Coach Mark Neeld says he was proud of players against the West Coast Eagles

 

[d33my]

Disheartening yes but get used to it. Can't have 'Neeld says players are rubbish' every week, can we?

Footy media should be taken with a grain of salt (even the stuff on our own site), what they say to us and what they say behind closed doors are different things.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I looked at the first half and saw positives, but watching sides like Port and Richmond I just realised that those 'positives' were bare minimums for a competent football club.

To have this headline on our site after a 94 point loss on our home patch is disheartening.

Dees show grit: Neeld
Coach Mark Neeld says he was proud of players against the West Coast Eagles

We were a 9 goal better side than last week... it's the closest thing to a positive out of the game.

 

[melbournemartin]

Are you crazy mate? The defensive accountability (whatever you actually mean by that) was fantastic during the first half. That's the point, they were defending like crazy, forcing WCE to stress, panic, turnover and then they were attacking with confidence and numbers.

It's not one or the other. They have to defend like crazy AND attack with speed and confidence. They are inextricably linked.

We did still give up 60 points though which is a fair bit for one half. The defence was there and it wasn't. When it came to close in tight and everything we scrapped like we haven't all years. Our defensive structures were rubbish at time though and we still make some fundamental defensive errors, e.g. letting Hurn bomb it from 60.

 

[Tulip]

We were a 9 goal better side than last week... it's the closest thing to a positive out of the game.

Just makes me sad to think about the red and blue when I see 'proud' associated with a 94 point loss.

 

[Tulip]

Disheartening yes but get used to it. Can't have 'Neeld says players are rubbish' every week, can we?

Footy media should be taken with a grain of salt (even the stuff on our own site), what they say to us and what they say behind closed doors are different things.

Watching last weeks pre-match address, you'd hope that was a dummy talk for the camera. *Shudder*.