PLAN B

[CursingFijian]

The last week has been peppered with posts that suggest we failed to implement the ever elusive Plan B against Melbourne. And it got me wondering what does Plan B even look like? Do we need two Plan B's? One if we're winning but just lost momentum and another if we're getting pasted on the scoreboard? Or is that a Plan B and C?

Bernie Vince said on the footy show that they started either 6 or 9 players at the back of the square and then just ran them forward at the bounce in response to our first quarter. And it seemed to work and so they kept doing it (and maybe they might keep doing it but he's suspended for hitting a man in the back of the head so he really doesn't care).

I thought I might ask some of our more learned posters here what they actually thought our plan should be. I'd genuinely be interested to hear some alternative setups and structures.

 

[saintkildaman]

Not so much structure change but I would love to see us test Savage on the wing. Leave Joey and JWeb as designating ball users from defence and use Sav as more of an offensive weapon, something I feel as though we lack in our midfield.

 

[FQFjt]

There are basic structural changes, like an extra man back or extra man at stoppages, that we do use from time to time. It's the more substantial changes in ball movement and pace of the game that we don't seem adept at changing.

Another important aspect of a plan B is positional changes, beyond the usual rotation of midfielders between centre, wing, forward. There are many examples but to name a few that might be useful depending on just how desperate things are becoming:

• Carlisle forward/ruck
• Gilbert midfield/forward
• Joey midfield
• Billings back
• Riewoldt forward (when he starts on a wing)

 

[hayes]

Winning the bloody pill would be a nice plan B. Should be plan A really.

 

[Ceanag]

Plan B ...Work harder on Plan A

 

[cooperrules]

Make gumby next captain

 

[Keg on legs]

Barrack for someone else

 

[Impatient Saint]

Make like an 'ostrich'!

 

[The Enemy Within]

There never will be a plan B, all coaches stick to the same rigid structure whether it works or it doesn't all coaches are stubborn people. they don't wont to be seen as wrong look at Malthouse king of stubbornness.

 

[Brains Trust66]

The last week has been peppered with posts that suggest we failed to implement the ever elusive Plan B against Melbourne. And it got me wondering what does Plan B even look like? Do we need two Plan B's? One if we're winning but just lost momentum and another if we're getting pasted on the scoreboard? Or is that a Plan B and C?

Bernie Vince said on the footy show that they started either 6 or 9 players at the back of the square and then just ran them forward at the bounce in response to our first quarter. And it seemed to work and so they kept doing it (and maybe they might keep doing it but he's suspended for hitting a man in the back of the head so he really doesn't care).

I thought I might ask some of our more learned posters here what they actually thought our plan should be. I'd genuinely be interested to hear some alternative setups and structures.

Plan b would be just to man up on those players and then see what happens . Chances are the side will stop doing it if all their players are maned up on because there is no point . Or plan c the saints do exactly the same and they try a British bulldog approach. Plan d just do nothing .... oh that's what they tried lol.


Sent via HAL

 

[Sir Skid]

Plan B

 

[CursingFijian]

Purely from recollection, not having watched a replay, didn't we shift Mav to the middle at centre bounces in the third and fourth? I have a rugby background, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty, that I understand this beautiful game. But, if you start 6-9 behind the ball and stream forward, then you really need to be dominant in the ruck clearance. Given that Melbourne were dominant in this area dshouldn't the players man up to remove any advantage.

I do like the earlier comment of we should just be able to win clearances though.

 

[CursingFijian]

Plan b would be just to man up on those players and then see what happens . Chances are the side will stop doing it if all their players are maned up on because there is no point . Or plan c the saints do exactly the same and they try a British bulldog approach. Plan d just do nothing .... oh that's what they tried lol.


Sent via HAL

I'd make Plan D log on to big footy to get some coaching tips, maybe do nothing could be Plan E.

 

[Baldur]

If they have 6-9 off the back of the square, they are absent everywhere else. There must be a way to use this even if we are not winning the clearances. If I knew what it was I would be an AFL coach.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Barrack for someone else

BOOOoooooo

 

[Keg on legs]

BOOOoooooo

 

[VDS66]

There never will be a plan B, all coaches stick to the same rigid structure whether it works or it doesn't all coaches are stubborn people. they don't wont to be seen as wrong look at Malthouse king of stubbornness.

Ange says hi.