Why doesn't Malthouse make tactical changes during a game?

[greening22]

I have just watched a full replay of last night's game and it appeared to me that it was obvious that:

1. Heath Shaw was being not only tagged and taken away from the ball for most of thenight by his Brisbane opponnent/s (as has ocurred in a number of games against Carlton in 2007/08).

2. Travis Cloke was being forced to go kick-chasing down to the wings in pursuit of kicks a la Tarrant in the past.

3. Ben Reid was being out-muscled by Jonathan Brown.

4. Simon Black who was dominating out of the centre was effectively unmanned or untagged for all of the night.

5. Ben Johnson was butchering the ball again from the half-back flank (as was O'Bree from around the ground for most of the night).

6. Chris Dawes was ineffective in the forward line.

All of these were clear by mid-way through the 3rd quarter but Malthouse did not make any radical or left-of-centre moves.

For example why not put Cloke on Jonathan Brown and move Reid or Maxwell to centre-hald forward (or even full-forward) just to make Brisbane think or at least change the structure of the team.

Or why not put Heath Shaw into the middle to either run free or perhaps alternatively tag Black and so get him to the ball?

Or give Dawes a run on the ball a la Hawkins at Geelong as he would have been far more physical than Wood in ruck contests and around the ground.

Or put Ben Johnson on to Black as a tagger during the second half?

Or run Swan and/or Didak off the back flanks so as to change their tags?

Or even change the ruckmen - Jolley and Wood- at full-forward so rather than try to be cute and kick it into our half-forward line, we would occasionally kick it long.

And why all allow Travis Johnstone to run free all night from their half-back line? For example why not tag him with either Ben Johnson or Shaw or even Toohey so as to change the dynamic if the game. Moreover allow us to become pro-active rather than re-active.

In conclusion, I think that from a tactical perspective it must be very easy to coach against Malthouse as he very rarely makes any changes to the announced team. Forwards tend to always play in the forward line and backmen in the backline. I cannot remember over the last 11 years since he has been coaching the team when he has made some radical structural changes during a game so that the opposition has to re-think their strategy and/or tactics. In addition, he places too much faith in players who are beiing either beaten or simply being tagged out of a game. Sometimes you have to throw players around positionally when things are not working out according to plan. You may recall Sheedy's master stroke in the 1984 Grand Final putting Paul Weston to full-forward (from the half-back line) in the last quarter against Hawthorn. He kicked goals and the Bombers stormed home after looking down and out at 3/4 time.

This is why I cannot see us winning a flag with MM. Far too conservative and inflexible and unimaginative as a coach for mine.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

3rd quarter?

I had the game pegged as over in the SECOND quarter. Forget the scoreboard, on the field we were getting DESTROYED. It was only a matter of time before Brisbane got in front.

Watch the replay, it all started in the second quarter.

By the way, after 10 years, you should know MM has no plan B when Plan A doesn't work. Watch the Bulldogs employ the same tactics the Cats, Lions and Saints employed.

Get numbers back, and run it out of the forward 50 with ease. That's when they're not smashing us out of the cnetre like they always do of course.

 

[daics cousin]

So we are all starting to see Now after 10 years why Malthouse has not won a flag with Collingwood.

Most of the successful coaches, always make moves when a game plan is not working.Sure you have to rely on the players to stick to the plan and carry it out but Malthouse is always too predicatable and that's why we get beaten and have not reached the pinnacle of winning a premiership.

Malthouse is to reliant on the same plan and other teams work it out straightway,and moves are made to outmanouvre us and it works.

Come on down Nathan Buckley the quicker the better.
He will shake things up and try diffrent things.The collingwood we saw over two weeks ago ,you know the one that tackled hard ran hard and created immense forward pressure,was due to Buckley's coaching and
Malthouse has put a stop to that and reverted back to his old ways and look at the results we lose 2 weeks in arow.
A player can only carry out what he can,when players are mismatched or playing out of position its not their fault its waht they are told by what to carry out by the coach.

Its not rocket science.....On the weekend game is in the balance we have Brisbane out manouvered.Voss plays possesion footy , the obvious counter to that was man up to force a contest,and apply heaps of forward pressure.Brisbane would have easily coughed up the ball.

I have said this before we won't win the flag with malthouse coaching.
Bring on Buckley,he won't settle for mediocrity,and some of the senior players in our team they know who they are.the usual suspects that always fall away whnen the going gets tough .Buckley will make the hard call and in my opinion will revolutionise the game and win us flags.

Dangerfield,knights,Boak Collingwood chase them hard...We need players that can hit targets not players that can't hit the side of a barn.
Until then we won't win the flag ,stop kidding yourselves.

 

[bergs83]

I agree 100% with Daics Cousin. Malthouse will never win us a flag, we will make finals, probably finish top 4 and then bow out at the semi or prelim yet again. OUr game plan is so predictable, around the boundry line for how many years now? Let the players have a go and move it and run down the center, which would give a forwards a much better chance. Honestly how many times did the lions move it with so much ease and no pressure down the center, so furstrating. You could tell we were going to loose the game halfway through the 2nd qtr, it was only a matter of time.

It's time for buckley!!!

 

[jonesy86]

you guys mean like at half time of the semi final last year against Adelaide?

the coach and numerous players had a bad one on the weekend

 

[notorious_zhang]

I have just watched a full replay of last night's game and it appeared to me that it was obvious that:

1. Heath Shaw was being not only tagged and taken away from the ball for most of thenight by his Brisbane opponnent/s (as has ocurred in a number of games against Carlton in 2007/08).

2. Travis Cloke was being forced to go kick-chasing down to the wings in pursuit of kicks a la Tarrant in the past.

3. Ben Reid was being out-muscled by Jonathan Brown.

4. Simon Black who was dominating out of the centre was effectively unmanned or untagged for all of the night.

5. Ben Johnson was butchering the ball again from the half-back flank (as was O'Bree from around the ground for most of the night).

6. Chris Dawes was ineffective in the forward line.

All of these were clear by mid-way through the 3rd quarter but Malthouse did not make any radical or left-of-centre moves.

For example why not put Cloke on Jonathan Brown and move Reid or Maxwell to centre-hald forward (or even full-forward) just to make Brisbane think or at least change the structure of the team.
Why would you put Cloke, who never plays as a defender, on someone like Jonathon Brown. When our forward line wasn't working, why would you put an even worse forward (a defender) up in the forward line?
Or why not put Heath Shaw into the middle to either run free or perhaps alternatively tag Black and so get him to the ball?
Heath Shaw doesn't tag, basically no one from Collingwood tags. Who would replace Shaw in the backline?
Or give Dawes a run on the ball a la Hawkins at Geelong as he would have been far more physical than Wood in ruck contests and around the ground.
I really don't like the idea of Dawes to be running around the ground doing the Ruck contests
Or put Ben Johnson on to Black as a tagger during the second half?
This one seems like a fair idea, however I don't know but I don't think Malthouse likes to tag
Or run Swan and/or Didak off the back flanks so as to change their tags?

Or even change the ruckmen - Jolley and Wood- at full-forward so rather than try to be cute and kick it into our half-forward line, we would occasionally kick it long.
We do that all the time
And why all allow Travis Johnstone to run free all night from their half-back line? For example why not tag him with either Ben Johnson or Shaw or even Toohey so as to change the dynamic if the game. Moreover allow us to become pro-active rather than re-active.
We made the wrong decision to play John Anthony, he is too slow and doesn't have enough defensive pressure.
In conclusion, I think that from a tactical perspective it must be very easy to coach against Malthouse as he very rarely makes any changes to the announced team. Forwards tend to always play in the forward line and backmen in the backline. I cannot remember over the last 11 years since he has been coaching the team when he has made some radical structural changes during a game so that the opposition has to re-think their strategy and/or tactics. In addition, he places too much faith in players who are beiing either beaten or simply being tagged out of a game. Sometimes you have to throw players around positionally when things are not working out according to plan. You may recall Sheedy's master stroke in the 1984 Grand Final putting Paul Weston to full-forward (from the half-back line) in the last quarter against Hawthorn. He kicked goals and the Bombers stormed home after looking down and out at 3/4 time.

This is why I cannot see us winning a flag with MM. Far too conservative and inflexible and unimaginative as a coach for mine.

All of the moves you have mentioned are too bold and with such a close game I don't think Malthouse would like to play a player out his preffered position. Why play a player on game-day or even in a tight game where they have no experience at all? Sure it worked for Sheedy but would you be willing to roll the dice with the odds against it working?

 

[TradeDraft]

I agree 100% with Daics Cousin. Malthouse will never win us a flag, we will make finals, probably finish top 4 and then bow out at the semi or prelim yet again. OUr game plan is so predictable, around the boundry line for how many years now? Let the players have a go and move it and run down the center, which would give a forwards a much better chance. Honestly how many times did the lions move it with so much ease and no pressure down the center, so furstrating. You could tell we were going to loose the game halfway through the 2nd qtr, it was only a matter of time.

It's time for buckley!!!

Spot on with MM everyone knows his gameplan and he is MR Predictable.

Still think him being friend with Eddie is Wrong

 

[hellfire]

And what if we moved Cloke onto Brown, Reid forward... and Cloke got SMASHED and Reid didn't get a kick. We would be abusing him saying "What was he thinking?!"

Yes, he certainly is stubborn with tactical changes, but some changes just shouldn't be made. Heath Shaw into the midfield? Absolutely. Hell, I would even try Maxwell into the midfield to try to win us some bloody clearances. But tampering with our key position structure is a massive gamble, given the inexperience of those players down the other end [except Reid].

The only changes I would have liked to have seen are:

1. Heath Shaw on to a wing to escape the tag.

2. Hard tags on Simon Black and Luke Power from Macaffer and Johnson.

3. Swan to the forward line, Obree / Beams into the midfield. Sounds stupid, but Obree is too one-dimensional to play anywhere forward, Swan is excellent overhead and is a much tougher matchup. And on the night, their disposal wasn't much different.

4. Cloke to the goal-square. The man is strong. Put him there, and stop making him chase kicks.

 

[greening22]

And what if we moved Cloke onto Brown, Reid forward... and Cloke got SMASHED and Reid didn't get a kick. We would be abusing him saying "What was he thinking?!"

Yes, he certainly is stubborn with tactical changes, but some changes just shouldn't be made. Heath Shaw into the midfield? Absolutely. Hell, I would even try Maxwell into the midfield to try to win us some bloody clearances. But tampering with our key position structure is a massive gamble, given the inexperience of those players down the other end [except Reid].

The only changes I would have liked to have seen are:

1. Heath Shaw on to a wing to escape the tag.

2. Hard tags on Simon Black and Luke Power from Macaffer and Johnson.

3. Swan to the forward line, Obree / Beams into the midfield. Sounds stupid, but Obree is too one-dimensional to play anywhere forward, Swan is excellent overhead and is a much tougher matchup. And on the night, their disposal wasn't much different.

4. Cloke to the goal-square. The man is strong. Put him there, and stop making him chase kicks.

Well in relation to the Cloke and Reid changesthat I suggested, well they do not have to remain in place for the entire game. However we were beaten regardless and unless you try these things you will never know to what degree players can play in alternative positions. A good example would be Waite at Carlton. You hcannot know that they will be "smashed" unless you try things! Moreover I think that in the modern era you have to develop players who can play in alternative positions. Sometimes you have to gamble! Other teams and other coaches do it and they have not all been smashed! I had the smae view of Malthouse in relation to James Clement who originally started his career at Fremantle as a full-forward and one day against Essendon at Waverley he kicked 5.4 goals in 1998. However I can never remember MM playing him in the forward line on any occasion whilst at Collingwood when the forward line was struggling. Anyway that is what I think about our coaching philosophy at the present time under our current coach.

 

[Pie eyed]

I'm really starting to think we got done by 100 points.

 

[daics_35]

Black kills us everytime and mick refuses to tag him everytime, its a bloody discrase. he has been at the club for 10 years and he continuous to think that one game plan could win us a flag. We need more then 1 back up plan. he simply refuses to put a tag on who ever is killing us or refuses to change things when they are not working. So many time i have seen an unguarded coridor when we are going forward with lose men from our team there and who ever has the ball doesnt even look there, it has to be done around the bloody boundry line. I dont see the point of it. Last time we played the dogs we played really well and used the corridor very well and it worked, if we play this boundry bull s**t on sunday we will not win we will get belted by more then 5 goals.

 

[notorious_zhang]

Well in relation to the Cloke and Reid changesthat I suggested, well they do not have to remain in place for the entire game. However we were beaten regardless and unless you try these things you will never know to what degree players can play in alternative positions. A good example would be Waite at Carlton. You hcannot know that they will be "smashed" unless you try things! Moreover I think that in the modern era you have to develop players who can play in alternative positions. Sometimes you have to gamble! Other teams and other coaches do it and they have not all been smashed! I had the smae view of Malthouse in relation to James Clement who originally started his career at Fremantle as a full-forward and one day against Essendon at Waverley he kicked 5.4 goals in 1998. However I can never remember MM playing him in the forward line on any occasion whilst at Collingwood when the forward line was struggling. Anyway that is what I think about our coaching philosophy at the present time under our current coach.

You don't experiment new things during a tight game where it could go either way. Maybe if we were getting belted in the last quarter, but experimenting tends to be done in the NAB Cup.

 

[shawthing09]

I am not a huge defender of Malthouse but I think in terms of the zone to man to man defence some people don't appreciate how hard that transition is. It take a hell of a lot of time to drill a team to play that zone style of defence well and it's also something that I think would be pretty hard to untrain. On top of that you select a side to play a certain way and changing that would throw out the team balance.

If your game plan is to play a zone defence switching to man on man because your not playing your zone well enough isn't likely to help much. The way we played on the weekend zone, man on man, tag or no tag wasn't going to help us. We played poor, We don't have a tagger worth using so we don't use one it's that simple.

Changing your defence style because your team is playing poorly is similar to a captain setting a field for bad bowling in cricket.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

Cloke onto Jonathon Brown? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Shaw to the wing I would have done. Making some kind of effort to stop Black and Power I would have done. I would have tried a number of things o get our marking targets into the game. I would have played Didak off the HFF much earlier and that would probably be his main position. I would have sent Reid to Fev before I sent Max. We played average after qtr time and terrible in the second half. We only lost by 8 but we didn't look like winning with the way we moved the ball forward but I think some people need to chill out. Everytime we lose it is as though the sky is falling.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

The collingwood we saw over two weeks ago ,you know the one that tackled hard ran hard and created immense forward pressure,was due to Buckley's coaching and
Malthouse has put a stop to that and reverted back to his old ways and look at the results we lose 2 weeks in arow.

Why is it that everything good that Collingwood do is because of Buckley and everything bad is because of MM. I swear I've seen Collingwood play good footy before Buckley was assistant but maybe my memory is failing me.
I've never seen an assistant coach get so much praise for the good results and then escape when the bad results happen. I can't quite remember the game on the weekend but I'm guessing the forwards must have functioned perfectly.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

If your game plan is to play a zone defence switching to man on man because your not playing your zone well enough isn't likely to help much. The way we played on the weekend zone, man on man, tag or no tag wasn't going to help us. We played poor, We don't have a tagger worth using so we don't use one it's that simple.

This is such a cop out. I understand that if players aren't playing well its going to be difficult for anything to work but I still think coaches should try something. Your post is an endorsement for coaches to sit back, close their eyes and hope the players sort themselves out.

 

[greening22]

I am not a huge defender of Malthouse but I think in terms of the zone to man to man defence some people don't appreciate how hard that transition is. It take a hell of a lot of time to drill a team to play that zone style of defence well and it's also something that I think would be pretty hard to untrain. On top of that you select a side to play a certain way and changing that would throw out the team balance.

If your game plan is to play a zone defence switching to man on man because your not playing your zone well enough isn't likely to help much. The way we played on the weekend zone, man on man, tag or no tag wasn't going to help us. We played poor, We don't have a tagger worth using so we don't use one it's that simple.

Changing your defence style because your team is playing poorly is similar to a captain setting a field for bad bowling in cricket.

According to that logic you would never make any changes. I mean these guys are full-time professionals who should be able to adapt to different positions across the field. Zone defence or not when you are playing badly you need to be pro-active and not re-active. Otherwise the very well-paid coaches may just as well get some rosary beads each and pray for divine assistance.

 

[No SPIN]

MM can't win with some people:

We were smashing teams, with a more attacking NEW game style, and there were complaints that we were leaking goals.

We play a more defensive game limiting Saints to 7 & goals and Geel to 10, and he gets compalints we should have been offensive.

2 Weeks ago the bandwagon was full of people saying this was our year -now its MM will never win a flag, he has no plan B.

All I can say is look up the word "perspective" folks, it might help you in all aspects of your life.

 

[Visions]

Zone defences are useless if opposition teams are skillful, and can pinpoint passes. They can hit the target every time. All you will be doing is backtracking.

Notice how the Lions held onto the ball and kept on looking for an option to present itself and then pinpoint the pass. All Collingwood did was run around tiring themselves out with the zone defence.

 

[Dylz48]

Alot of you just hate Malthouse if he had of made all those moves and we still lost there would be threads saying Malthouse has no faith in players. Sure Mick didn't have a great night but bringing in Buckley would change nothing. Buckley is no gonna give us a premiership on a silver platter and anyone who thinks at this point in time that he has any more impact Paul Hudson, Mark Neeld and Scott Watters is naive

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Malthouse hasnt ever had a plan B.

He coached well against the saints, right up until the time Riewoldt hurt himself, St kilda went searching for new attacking avenues and malthouse didnt react in time, or react at all.

Forget making tactical changes during a game, how about developing a game plan that isnt the safe old 'win 60% of your games' that he has persisted with and developa game plan that the likes of St kilda and geelong are doing the chasing, not being hunted as we tend to do against them. Against the very best sides he coaches to contain, he doesn't necessarily coach to win.

He is a backman my nature, very conservative and very safe and he coaches accordingly. We will win a majority of games, but we struggle to be the dominant team because his game plan is not about dominance, its about structues and systems, with little flair.

 

[No SPIN]

Malthouse hasnt ever had a plan B.

He coached well against the saints, right up until the time Riewoldt hurt himself, St kilda went searching for new attacking avenues and malthouse didnt react in time, or react at all.

Forget making tactical changes during a game, how about developing a game plan that isnt the safe old 'win 60% of your games' that he has persisted with and developa game plan that the likes of St kilda and geelong are doing the chasing, not being hunted as we tend to do against them. Against the very best sides he coaches to contain, he doesn't necessarily coach to win.

He is a backman my nature, very conservative and very safe and he coaches accordingly. We will win a majority of games, but we struggle to be the dominant team because his game plan is not about dominance, its about structues and systems, with little flair.

You don't get the scoring ability that we have shown this year, by using last years game plan.
We have developed a far more offensive game plan, to complement the defensive game plan we have used previously - surely you have noticed this.
The problem as I see it - we need to have the confidence to use the offensive game plan as we did to get ahead against the CATS in the 3rd QTR last week for a far more sustained period. It can work against the Cats as FREO and Carlton shown, as did Ess v Saints.

 

[Grumpy Bum]

You don't get the scoring ability that we have shown this year, by using last years game plan.

He attacks against the poorer sides, but when he comes up against a side that uses the ball well and the corridor even better, he is left looking like a deer in the headlights. St Kilda took 3 qtrs and then found corridor access to their goals, Geelong stepped up not one gear, but two at the 10 min mark of the 3rd qtr and we were left with our tyres spinning, looking on. He does nothing to cut out that corridor run of certain sides. Even Melbourne last QB and this year carved us up thru the corridor when they got it. The corridor exposes us badly.

And as I mentioned, we will win 60% of our games, that's a no brainer, the game plan will allow that. But we don't get to play the likes of the bottom 8 in finals, but we do however have to contend with some of these teams that carve us up in the corridor.

We have developed a far more offensive game plan, to complement the defensive game plan we have used previously - surely you have noticed this.

The 2 sides we have to beat in finals: Geelong and St Kilda, he has resorted to ultra defensive style football right from the outset. Do you think that style will win a flag?

We can crush all the bottom sides any and every day, get into the finals, that's the easy part. What are we going to do in finals that will blow away the top 2 sides? We have shown that we cant wear them down. We might hang on to them for a majority of the game, and then in 15 mins, we have been blown out of the water.


The problem as I see it - we need to have the confidence to use the offensive game plan as we did to get ahead against the CATS in the 3rd QTR last week for a far more sustained period. It can work against the Cats as FREO and Carlton shown, as did Ess v Saints.[/QUOTE]

Firstly we could not sustain that against Geelong, they had 2 extra gears and just stopped us getting the ball. Offensive or defensive, its no good if the other side can and will starve you of the ball and pretty much toy with you when they decide to turn it on. Which they did. If it's talking about how St kilda and geelong have been beaten this year, that is by the one method we don't ever use, quick movement of the ball by foot, by hand and thru the corridor. We allow certain sides in our defensive game modes to corral us in when we have the ball, we don't try and run thru their zones or move the ball quickly and long over their zones. They end up strangling us within a ever decreasing smaller area where we move the ball around in circles trying to bust out. We do not bring the ball quickly into our forward area quickly in these games, the opposition run back thru the corridor while we move the ball slowly along the corridor, using 3 or 4 times the manpower to move the ball into the pockets. Its like driving melb to Darwin via perth while the opposition drive thru Alice Springs. And we wonder why they are waiting for us when we get to darwin.

As I said, yeah we win a lot of games against poorer sides. Its what we do and how we lose against the very best that shows us up. And both significant losses ( forget the bris loss) we have been blown away in small periods of time, with no reaction from the box to put a halt to it.

 

[No SPIN]

He attacks against the poorer sides, but when he comes up against a side that uses the ball well and the corridor even better, he is left looking like a deer in the headlights. St Kilda took 3 qtrs and then found corridor access to their goals, Geelong stepped up not one gear, but two at the 10 min mark of the 3rd qtr and we were left with our tyres spinning, looking on. He does nothing to cut out that corridor run of certain sides. Even Melbourne last QB and this year carved us up thru the corridor when they got it. The corridor exposes us badly.

And as I mentioned, we will win 60% of our games, that's a no brainer, the game plan will allow that. But we don't get to play the likes of the bottom 8 in finals, but we do however have to contend with some of these teams that carve us up in the corridor.



The 2 sides we have to beat in finals: Geelong and St Kilda, he has resorted to ultra defensive style football right from the outset. Do you think that style will win a flag?

We can crush all the bottom sides any and every day, get into the finals, that's the easy part. What are we going to do in finals that will blow away the top 2 sides? We have shown that we cant wear them down. We might hang on to them for a majority of the game, and then in 15 mins, we have been blown out of the water.


The problem as I see it - we need to have the confidence to use the offensive game plan as we did to get ahead against the CATS in the 3rd QTR last week for a far more sustained period. It can work against the Cats as FREO and Carlton shown, as did Ess v Saints.

Firstly we could not sustain that against Geelong, they had 2 extra gears and just stopped us getting the ball. Offensive or defensive, its no good if the other side can and will starve you of the ball and pretty much toy with you when they decide to turn it on. Which they did. If it's talking about how St kilda and geelong have been beaten this year, that is by the one method we don't ever use, quick movement of the ball by foot, by hand and thru the corridor. We allow certain sides in our defensive game modes to corral us in when we have the ball, we don't try and run thru their zones or move the ball quickly and long over their zones. They end up strangling us within a ever decreasing smaller area where we move the ball around in circles trying to bust out. We do not bring the ball quickly into our forward area quickly in these games, the opposition run back thru the corridor while we move the ball slowly along the corridor, using 3 or 4 times the manpower to move the ball into the pockets. Its like driving melb to Darwin via perth while the opposition drive thru Alice Springs. And we wonder why they are waiting for us when we get to darwin.

As I said, yeah we win a lot of games against poorer sides. Its what we do and how we lose against the very best that shows us up. And both significant losses ( forget the bris loss) we have been blown away in small periods of time, with no reaction from the box to put a halt to it.[/quote]

Its easy to say that GEEL stepped up a gear in the 3rd QTR, - our mids stop running forward and offensive game plan stopped when they scored because we went back into our shells. We are a young team and lacked the confidence to keep up the offensive pressure. GEEL would not take comfort in the fact that we missed so many easy chances. The fact that as late as the last 10 minutes of the game we were missing easy chances - is a sure sign of lack of confidence. Against the Saints we won the stats in all the important areas but kicked badly and should have won.
Re defensive game plan, as a student of the game I'm sure you know that a defensive game plan is critcal to finals success, but creating scoring chances and not missing easy shots is vital eg Saint 2009, Geel 2008.

I'm sure you would agree if we had kicked accurately both CATS and SAINTs would be our scalps today, and to that extent our offensive game against these benchmarks sides has been sound.

So you can't critisce the Game Plan - the goal kicking is another matter

 

[Grumpy Bum]

Its easy to say that GEEL stepped up a gear in the 3rd QTR, - our mids stop running forward and offensive game plan stopped when they scored because we went back into our shells. We are a young team and lacked the confidence to keep up the offensive pressure. GEEL would not take comfort in the fact that we missed so many easy chances. The fact that as late as the last 10 minutes of the game we were missing easy chances - is a sure sign of lack of confidence. Against the Saints we won the stats in all the important areas but kicked badly and should have won.
Re defensive game plan, as a student of the game I'm sure you know that a defensive game plan is critcal to finals success, but creating scoring chances and not missing easy shots is vital eg Saint 2009, Geel 2008.

I'm sure you would agree if we had kicked accurately both CATS and SAINTs would be our scalps today, and to that extent our offensive game against these benchmarks sides has been sound.

So you can't critisce the Game Plan - the goal kicking is another matter

of course you can easily criticse the game plan, it hasnt won us a flag in any incarnation since Malthouse has been at the club. If there is one certainty about Malthouse, it is his game plan and that it wont win a flag. he's tried it for 10 , now 11 yrs.

Kicking accurately is but one problem. Getting the ball to the goal kickers in better position other than consistantly on angles which limit their already poor kicking on goals is a by product of malthouse taking the long way home. If a coach is to coach a team to mitigate their weakness, and goal kicking accuracy is an obvious weakness, why would you persist with boundary riding tactics?

We had chances in those games, but your not looking at the game in how momentum changes a game. We lose momentum against the very best sides time and time again. Our scoreboard pressure is rarely enough to put any good sides away. So we have to have other strings to our bow, and this game plan he persists with, especially when momentum has changed against us, will not beat these very best sides. How many times do we need to be blown away in minutes of football to see that Malthouse has very little other than a game plan that hasnt changed in the from 2002 onward?

When he can have us 6 goals down against a Geelong and turn that around, then I will say he is on the right path. But with him, its always a valiant struggle to get a marginal lead and its a 5 minute procession to lose it in a big way. That is the result of malthouse's game plan