Prediction The MCG

[The Dodger]

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

That guarantees each defender 400% more intercept marks.

 

[The Dodger]

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.

We have a great record at Adelaide oval and some of those teams have been good teams with good midfields.
We have played good teams at Etihad like the Bulldogs and it doesn't result in an insipid 8 - 10 goal loss.

Carlton's midfield wasn't good last year nor were they a good team and they nearly got us.

Do you think they just dont want to tackle at the MCG? They dont move into position at the MCG?

 

[RookiePick]

Width means the zone is less densely populated. If the opposition work hard to provide options and they can execute their kicking we get picked through with uncontested marking. At some point they are deep enough to kick over the back of the zone for a Joe the Goose attempt.

I guess the intent of the broader frontal press is to force any switch to go backwards and give the zone time to reposition.

I think the key with the zone is that we occupy the field position but the pressure still needs to be manic around the drop of the ball to force the turnover or the next possession to be rushed. When we don't bring the pressure it's uncontested possession and clean ball which puts the defence under massive pressure.

 

[The Dodger]

Width means the zone is less densely populated. If the opposition work hard to provide options and they can execute their kicking we get picked through with uncontested marking. At some point they are deep enough to kick over the back of the zone for a Joe the Goose attempt.

I guess the intent of the broader frontal press is to force any switch to go backwards and give the zone time to reposition.

I think the key with the zone is that we occupy the field position but the pressure still needs to be manic around the drop of the ball to force the turnover or the next possession to be rushed. When we don't bring the pressure it's uncontested possession and clean ball which puts the defence under massive pressure.

An option but I dont think the teams are Hawthorn style chipping their way through it...ok maybe Hawthorn are but the other games Ive noticed like Tigers this year and last quarter Blues game last year etc is the run and carry its not the chipping its the players backing themselves to run off kick long over the web and it working. Its dangerous and we always get our share of ball because of it but then when we have the ball its this slow telegraphed ball movement which results in squat well at least not as many / not as good shots on goal as the team taking the risks.

 

[RookiePick]

An option but I dont think the teams are Hawthorn style chipping their way through it...ok maybe Hawthorn are but the other games Ive noticed like Tigers this year and last quarter Blues game last year etc is the run and carry its not the chipping its the players backing themselves to run off kick long over the web and it working. Its dangerous and we always get our share of ball because of it but then when we have the ball its this slow telegraphed ball movement which results in squat well at least not as many / not as good shots on goal as the team taking the risks.

I agree but I think it's still usually set up with a shallow kick to a mark between the first and second lines of the zone. Then they run in numbers to provide options to the mark and exploit the lack of density. ie they have 3+ players running the ball in/near the centre corridor and we can only get a couple of defenders into the play if our forwards haven't gone with them. It can result in a pretty clean kick out the back of the zone and then we are under real pressure.

Opposition are also getting much better at working to cover our loose zoning men when they are in possession if they are not in the play. This holds up our rebound if Gov/Barrass etc take the intercept. Again, this is a work rate issue if our guys don't run and provide options.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

combination of both the web not working on the wider ground with our slow midfielders who cant close down the space, and now its in their heads they cant win there.

Id like to see Priddis and Mitchell roaming from full back to half-forward, with our speedier players only entering the forward 50m for stoppages who can chase out of defense if need be. Even playing a bit more 1 on 1 throughout the 1st half might breathe a bit of life into the team. Pick just 1 ruckman and have 4 runners on the bench. Every melbourne based team knows our web doesnt work on the G and they just exploit our zone every single time.

Change it up Simmo.

 

[wing it]

They do say that width is more important than length, after all.

 

[Galileo9]

We have a great record at Adelaide oval and some of those teams have been good teams with good midfields.
We have played good teams at Etihad like the Bulldogs and it doesn't result in an insipid 8 - 10 goal loss.

Carlton's midfield wasn't good last year nor were they a good team and they nearly got us.

Do you think they just dont want to tackle at the MCG? They dont move into position at the MCG?

I don't think really port or adelside had "good mids" up until this year. No depth. Neither of those teams compare to hawks mids or collingwoods. Our mcg draw against these teams makes it very hard.

Nearly nearly. So a loss is a loss and a near win is also a loss? We nearly beat Richmond. Should have. Fact that Carlton nearly won shows it's mental. They also beat Geelong last year. Won a few games actually. They weren't a wreck (not sure what football u watch).

For me, opposition's hands breaking free from our tackles, bumping instead of tackling, not running hard enough back is purely mental. That's why we lose. Mentally we don't come to play. No work rate. Too soft.

And for me, biggest issue is when coaches take a player in forward line and throw him in midfield as an extra, when losing that battle. Means we are outnumbered in attack and forward pressure is lost making whole thing worse.

 

[PerthBoy86]

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.

I disagree it has NOTHING to do with ground dimensions. I think it is a factor. And it was pre 'Web' too. But having said that, I agree that it shouldn't be used as an excuse, yet Adam Simpsons and the Eagles coaching staff seem to just dismiss it as a factor, which is a problem to me.

I think the atmosphere at the MCG when a side with a strong supporter base like Collingwood and Richmond IS a factor too. The Eagles and Dockers have probably the biggest difference between home and away games: the dimensions, supporter base (90% Eagles at Subi), and obviously the dynamic is different to the Vic club, where many games aren't really true home or away games. Yet the amount of Eagles supporters in Melbourne is definitely large. I've been to games here where the stadium almost seemed half Eagles supporters. Especially against teams like the Bulldogs or Saints.

 

[The Dodger]

I don't think really port or adelside had "good mids" up until this year. No depth. Neither of those teams compare to hawks mids or collingwoods. Our mcg draw against these teams makes it very hard.

Nearly nearly. So a loss is a loss and a near win is also a loss? We nearly beat Richmond. Should have. Fact that Carlton nearly won shows it's mental. They also beat Geelong last year. Won a few games actually. They weren't a wreck (not sure what football u watch).

For me, opposition's hands breaking free from our tackles, bumping instead of tackling, not running hard enough back is purely mental. That's why we lose. Mentally we don't come to play. No work rate. Too soft.

And for me, biggest issue is when coaches take a player in forward line and throw him in midfield as an extra, when losing that battle. Means we are outnumbered in attack and forward pressure is lost making whole thing worse.

Port Adelaide mids are largely unchanged from the side that nearly beat the Hawks in '14. Boak, Wines, Gray, Wingard, Polec, Hartlett & Ebert. They could play the MCG well. So they do compare to the Hawks mids as they nearly stopped the juggernaut in its prime at the MCG.
Also as far as Collingwoods good midfield goes the team that beat us last year were very young. Their leading possession winners included...Adams, Smith & Aish. Pendlebury & Treloar being their quality mids.

Yes we had the game against Carlton sewn up until they decided to run and play on etc. They killed us in the last quarter. A young inexperienced very average side nearly run over the top of us on 1 quarters good work. And that last quarter had all the hallmarks of the other games we play at the MCG. Timid ball movement and being run around like we weren't there. Didn't say they were a wreck but surely a team that finished 14th after finishing 18th the year before aren't good right? They were so young that game they were missing Murphy, Thomas, Casboult & Walker out of an already very young side.

"For me, opposition's hands breaking free from our tackles, bumping instead of tackling, not running hard enough back is purely mental. That's why we lose. Mentally we don't come to play. No work rate. Too soft."
But only at the MCG? We lost to a very good midfield in the Bulldogs by 8 points at Etihad. But at that ground the oppositions hands don't break free from our tackles? We tackle instead of bumping, we run hard enough?

I find it a bridge too far to believe the players think differently at that ground even when they have managed a 5 goal lead against an average club at 3 quarter time and that its us that just dropped our bundle and not Carlton throwing caution to the wind and playing on at all costs and nearly getting the result from it.

I can imagine the GF still has scars against the Hawks and once it seems to take a familiar path the players drop their bundle no problems with that. But the ball movement regardless of the quality we play or the game situation is always the same... slow and rudderless.

 

[ronpingwins]

Mentally soft Trapezoids that can't win at the MCG