Prediction The MCG

[Ishmael_]

So I've heard that we're not that great at the MCG.

Tbh our away form isn't that bad, but at that ground it's abysmal. So what is the problem?

The question is:

Is it game plan or purely above the ears?

And how do we change this?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

We've been mentally soft for years. I blame that. Our players can't handle pressure, it's pathetic.

 

[Ishmael_]

We've been mentally soft for years. I blame that. Our players can't handle pressure, it's pathetic.

It does seem like that, i don't agree we're flat track bullies - you'd have to bully someone first.

If it's purely mental, it has to be the biggest mental hangup in the league.

Short of delisting the squad, how do you break that? Hawthorn's turn around after Geelong dominated them for so many years shows it's possible, but our crumbling at the G was almost comical in how according to script it went.

 

[mad_eagle]

Next two away games - Port @ AO and Essendon @ ES.

Not at all surprised if we win both of those, MCG has us mindf**ked at this point in time.

 

[EagleEgo]

It might be the way the Eagles players and staff handling their working away from Perth in Victoria affecting their performance.
Dealing with personal activities before and after the game can distract the concentraction.

 

[MWPP]

The prediction tag made me expect a prediction, but there isn't one, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold one:
We'll play exactly one more game at the MCG this season (during the finals ) , and we'll win it

 

[The wily weagle]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/rev...s/news-story/a82d211d6f9c7fd883f5cd4d60dee997



This is entirely on point, and a brutal breakdown of our continued MCG misery and its main culprits

The most daunting this about this, is that these are the guys at the club that are supposed to be our leaders

 

[eagles rule]

When will the guys show leadership and thrash out a meeting and make commitments to each other on how they will approach the game ..

This should be player driven and not involving coaches or staff ..

 

[dajesmac]

I don't think it's the extra pressure. Hell, we lost to Richmond and nearly Carlton last year at the MCG. The MCG is a wide ground and our spread and defensive running is terrible. It's that simple IMO.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Yeah ground dimensions make a big difference. The MCG is the roundest major ground in the comp, Subi the most oval/longest. So naturally, a game plan that excels on a narrower ground may not work so well on a rounder one and vice versa. With the new ground it'll be interesting to see if this becomes less of a problem. It was suggested in the match report on the AFL site that the Eagles have done well at AO because it has more similar dimensions to Subi.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Simmonds Stadium, aka Kardinia Park in Geelong, has similar dimensions to Subi/Domain yet we still suck there...and Geelong play decently at the MCG, though they get more practice. We also get so few opportunities to play there.

 

[Dylan82]

This is an area I have been looking into and will post further in-depth upon it in the near future.

In short, we struggle at the MCG due to it's additional width which causes the "web" zone to push closer to defensive goal than it does at other venues and this causes knock-on effect problems further up the ground.

 

[Matera92]

Can't close the space down quick enough, couple that with us wanting to play the wings which results in slower ball movement allowing the opposing team to flood back and clog up our forward line means the web just plain doesn't work on that ground.

We need a plan B for there otherwise nothing will change, the last three games against the hawks, if you take out the dates all play almost identical. Its not that we're just being beaten, but its in the same way every time.

 

[jesterwester]

I think it's pretty obvious the bigger ground has an impact on the web. That in itself is an issue- but you'd think we'd be working on some plans for that.

What is most concerning is the lack of effort we have put up at the MCG in the last few years. We have been utterly smashed at the contest. When we do get the ball, our ball use is terribly stagnant and predictable.

I don't think you can blame the web for that- For mine it is about mindset. Not quite sure how you fix that though?

 

[Falco]

Agree with Matera92 about a Plan B. The 92/94 players commented on the fact that Malthouse stated to them that you had to have a game plan that worked at the MCG because thats where you play finals. Its no good having the web work everywhere else except where it really counts. They coaching staff are smart guys, I'd back them into to creating either a modification of the web, or a different game plan for the MCG.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't think the ground dimensions have anything to do with it. It's just a nice excuse.
It is all in the head and our players simply do not perform there, any pressure and they fold so easily. That has nothing to do with ground size.
In Fact our game plan should suit the MCG better than anywhere as we love big open spaces.
Stop buying what the media are selling you, our record is bad at the G because we are mentally weak not because the dimensions are different.
Because we play there so rarely it is always pumped up to be a big game, the opposition know and embrace the big game and just put enormous pressure on us and guess what, we fold. Both Worsfold and Simpson have said it has nothing to do with the dimensions it's all above the shoulders.

 

[EagleEgo]

I don't think the ground dimensions have anything to do with it. It's just a nice excuse.
It is all in the head and our players simply do not perform there, any pressure and they fold so easily. That has nothing to do with ground size.
In Fact our game plan should suit the MCG better than anywhere as we love big open spaces.
Stop buying what the media are selling you, our record is bad at the G because we are mentally weak not because the dimensions are different.
Because we play there so rarely it is always pumped up to be a big game, the opposition know and embrace the big game and just put enormous pressure on us and guess what, we fold. Both Worsfold and Simpson have said it has nothing to do with the dimensions it's all above the shoulders.

One forum member has pointed out that a wilder ground does have a bigger zone area and as such defending by guarding spaces requires more men for the same density in the MCG than the Subi. However, Zone can be played by guarding men within the zone rather than spaces. We did that in the first quarter of the Port Adelaide game. (that‘s why the commentater said"it is almost a man on man defence".)
There are other possible reasons why we have played poorly in the MCG. For example:
1. How the players (and coaches) were conducted in Melbourne before and after the game. Are they really focused?
2. The host opposite teams we played at the MCG were mostly stronger Melbourne teams with hostile fans base, compared to the Etihad Stadium.

 

[Milenko]

2. The host opposite teams we played at the MCG were mostly stronger Melbourne teams with hostile fans base, compared to the Etihad Stadium.

Well we've beaten Collingwood at Etihad in 2015 and then lost to them at the MCG in 2016, when they were arguably poorer than the year before.

Same set of hostile fans.

 

[EagleEgo]

Well we've beaten Collingwood at Etihad in 2015 and then lost to them at the MCG in 2016, when they were arguably poorer than the year before.

Same set of hostile fans.

May be Dockland is a few kilometres too far for Collingwood to be the warlord; but MCG is just next door to their training ground?!

 

[The Dodger]

Personally I find it difficult to believe that 1 ground makes the players not prepare or get their headspace right. Also teamed with our record at the SCG which gets lost a bit due to playing their rarely and Sydney being strong side for over a long time. Both grounds are wide and watching games our ball movement ends up lost in the wings with no way home. Even on the much shorter SCG.
I dont believe its the web. We beat Richmond easily in 2015 when they were going ok (but perhaps they had been drinking their own bath water) with the web in its prime. Its our ball movement. The MCG is really a ground that you cant defend on for 4 quarters at some point you need to play quite a bit of Russian roulette and our risk adverse average skilled mids struggle when the game does open up for brief periods.
We had Carlton cooked last year but the moment they started taking the game on when all looked lost we couldn't keep up and had that game gone for another 2 minutes we lose. The crowd wasn't fierce that game, we had built a lead against an average opponent so no shell shock kicking in. If people run the ball and take risks against us there our game comes apart.

 

[frenchconnection]

I don't think it's the extra pressure. Hell, we lost to Richmond and nearly Carlton last year at the MCG. The MCG is a wide ground and our spread and defensive running is terrible. It's that simple IMO.

As Wayne Carey said last night on Talking Footy - WCE players don't like Wings!!

 

[WCE_phil]

Mentally soft, We zone too narrowly and because of the narrow zone combined with our lack of leg speed we get cut up on the spread. Watching from an above ground view we zone in a rectangular shape about 15-20 metres wide by 40-50 metres long. I really think we need to zone up more in the shape of a triangle, 50 metres long, 10 odd metres wide at the mark, 30 metres wide at the 50m mark, move the zone focus so you run the straight line towards the boundary line. That way you leave it slightly more open giving them the option of the boundary side of the ground but it makes scoring harder and in doing that, thats where you zone a primary tall to.

 

[Quinz]

Mentally soft, We zone too narrowly and because of the narrow zone combined with our lack of leg speed we get cut up on the spread. Watching from an above ground view we zone in a rectangular shape about 15-20 metres wide by 40-50 metres long. I really think we need to zone up more in the shape of a triangle, 50 metres long, 10 odd metres wide at the mark, 30 metres wide at the 50m mark, move the zone focus so you run the straight line towards the boundary line. That way you leave it slightly more open giving them the option of the boundary side of the ground but it makes scoring harder and in doing that, thats where you zone a primary tall to.

You're right about the zone. But I'm more of a trapezoid guy.

 

[Galileo9]

Mentally soft, We zone too narrowly and because of the narrow zone combined with our lack of leg speed we get cut up on the spread. Watching from an above ground view we zone in a rectangular shape about 15-20 metres wide by 40-50 metres long. I really think we need to zone up more in the shape of a triangle, 50 metres long, 10 odd metres wide at the mark, 30 metres wide at the 50m mark, move the zone focus so you run the straight line towards the boundary line. That way you leave it slightly more open giving them the option of the boundary side of the ground but it makes scoring harder and in doing that, thats where you zone a primary tall to.

Mentally soft yes.

Rest garbage. width is irrelevant as the zone isn't across entire width of ground to start with. Moves with any switch kick. Opposition can't kick longer at mcg than at subi, therefore we would have same problems if zone too narrow.

Problem is our guys either don't tackle, weak tackles or don't work hard enough to move into position. A lot of times guys half commit to contest and if we don't win it, we r out of position.

We also essentially have played hawks and collingwood at mcg. Hawks all time great team and collingwood with significantly superior midfield which is our bogey. We lost to Richmond but we kicked ourselves to the loss. 8.17? It's not the ground.

 

[WCE_phil]

Mentally soft yes.

Rest garbage. width is irrelevant as the zone isn't across entire width of ground to start with. Moves with any switch kick. Opposition can't kick longer at mcg than at subi, therefore we would have same problems if zone too narrow.

Problem is our guys either don't tackle, weak tackles or don't work hard enough to move into position. A lot of times guys half commit to contest and if we don't win it, we r out of position.

We also essentially have played hawks and collingwood at mcg. Hawks all time great team and collingwood with significantly superior midfield which is our bogey. We lost to Richmond but we kicked ourselves to the loss. 8.17? It's not the ground.

Just because my opinion is different doesn't mean it's garbage. Having the zone wider the further away it is allows coverage of more width and faster during a switch.