If you were Dean Bailey this week....

[Dry Rot]

What the hell would do on the track this week and on gameday?

[GVGjr]

What the hell would do on the track this week and on gameday?

He has talked about the training schedule for this week and it will be competitive. No bigger challenge than to play the Cats either. What does he have to lose this week because no one is expecting much from them?

His real test comes at the selection table.

I thought White look good as a forward last week so perhaps a forward set-up of White, Neitz, Roberston and Sylvia plus potentially Bate might settle them down and give the midfield some targets.
Meesan in the ruck is worth considering and I would look to move Dunn to CHB.

They can't win it so they just have to fight it out for 4 quarters.

[LostDoggy]

First and second quarter:

Flood. Then flood some more. Tackle like mad and forget scoring, just play negatively. Then kick it back and forth in your backline. Then flood. Don't kick to any contests. Then flood. Players have to have the discipline not to follow the ball out of their defensive 50 and shut down every skerrig of space, even if it leaves you vulnerable to the occasional long bombed goal. Have three or four players do nothing but patrol the 50 metre arc and tackle or smother anything that looks like coming in. Slow the game right down. If in any pressure in the backline immediately concede a rushed behind. Leave Neitz one out at full-forward and give him a genuine old fashioned one-one-one chance at kicking a goal. Play only your negative, shut down players and leave your best creative players on the bench as much as possible to rest them up for the last quarter assault.

Choose an arbitrary four/five minute period in the second quarter (somewhere at the 10 minute mark) to cut loose and try to ambush a couple of goals, and shut down immediately after. If it's not working, shut down immediately.

The last thing you want to do is let the game become a shootout because you would be twenty goals down at halftime. If you can keep the Cats below five goals in the first half it would be a moral victory, and anything can happen, as the Cats' players are probably expecting to win in a landslide and a close scoreline at that point will put some doubt into their heads.

Third quarter:

Shut the game down completely down. Numbers at every ball up, hold up the game. CANNOT let the score blow out in the third quarter as the Cats will come out after half-time all guns blazing to put a score on the board. Keep the game scoreless for the entire quarter if possible, except for rushed behinds. Rush everything behind. Just keep possession by kicking backwards and sideways to a free player for as long as possible.

Final quarter:

Move more players to the forward line at an appointed time depending on the score. Put on the rested and fresh creative players to try to exploit a tiring Geelong. Still play predominantly negatively unless momentum really shifts. If Geelong look like breaking out just cut your losses and shut the game down again.

---

A less than 3 goal loss will be considered a 'miracle' by the media and you will get some breathing space the next week to plan forward. The only chance of a Melbourne win is if they can keep the score to below ten or so goals each.

You will be crucified for a terrible spectacle, but compared to being crucified for the third near 100 point loss in three weeks, it's the lesser of two evils.

[LostDoggy]

ps. To really mess with the Cats' minds, don't even contest some bounces or ball-ups. Concede possession outside the 50 and just get numbers behind the ball. It's amazing how well a team can carry out a negative game plan when it's applied single-mindedly, and amazing what it does to the opposite team that is used to an opponent playing generally on even terms. Essentially Melbourne have to come not to play footy but an entirely different game altogether, because they will be massacred in a footy match.

[LostDoggy]

pps. I know I'll be crucified here for suggesting the above... I know it does nothing for any team's long-term development, but I don't think Dean Bailey can be thinking too much beyond the next couple of weeks if he wants to keep his job.

[Twodogs]

pps. I know I'll be crucified here for suggesting the above... I know it does nothing for any team's long-term development, but I don't think Dean Bailey can be thinking too much beyond the next couple of weeks if he wants to keep his job.


I agree with you. It's a shocking gameplan to watch, does nothing for a players development except picking up bad habits and if it doesnt work it's going to get ugly but he has to find out a few things about his team.

Last saturday it looked to me like their 'plan' was to kick it forwards and hope for the best. Bailey has to give them a plan where they have to work hard as a team and not play like a bunch of individuals. If they can just keep possession it will start to frustrate Geelong and when frustration sets into the opposition you're always half a chance.



I reckon the line bet of 10 goals is extroadinary value.

[mjp]

He has come in with a plan and a game style that he wants to promote. I wouldn't have thought abandoning 6-months of pre-season because of two-weeks results would be super-productive.

Stick to the plan. Identify to his players the areas where the Cats are strong and where they can be taken advantage of. Set them really small goals based around effort not skills - for example, %rebound 50's the cats are able to get that are under pressure > 80%, missed tackle %, perhaps something around scores under pressure.

The players wont be expecting to win, so they need to have something to hold onto and target. So give them some things that they can be successful at. Give them a focus. With the flooding plan, not competing at centre bounces etc I basically hate it as the coach is telling his players that after just two weeks he believes that they are not good enough and dont possess a competitive spirit - he will loose them if he does this.

Stick to the plan. He is a good coach and has been involved in two pretty succesful programs...why would you throw everything you have worked for away this early in the year? Plus, when everyone thinks a 10-goal loss is a win, you have a fair bit of slack to work with.

[Twodogs]

With the flooding plan, not competing at centre bounces etc I basically hate it as the coach is telling his players that after just two weeks he believes that they are not good enough and dont possess a competitive spirit - he will loose them if he does this.





Or he could be finding out who has a real competitive spirit in the atmosphere of a real match. Who's prepared to sacrifice their game for the good of the team, how well they stick to the plan-that sort of stuff.

[mjp]

Or he could be finding out who has a real competitive spirit in the atmosphere of a real match. Who's prepared to sacrifice their game for the good of the team, how well they stick to the plan-that sort of stuff.

Players need to believe that you have a plan and you believe in them. Not too many coaches can successfully sell a completely new - and very negative - game plan in a single week.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Try and sneak your interchange players on the ground without being noticed.

Lantern, you aren't really Garry Hocking are you?

[Mofra]

He has come in with a plan and a game style that he wants to promote. I wouldn't have thought abandoning 6-months of pre-season because of two-weeks results would be super-productive.
Agree 100%. Regardless of win lose or draw, the younger guys getting an idea of executing the gameplan during actual gametime is something which can be built upon even if the whole year is unsuccessful. He has publically stated that he believes in the Dees forwardline and their abiklity to take grabs - personally I think this is a little optimistic when you consider Neitz has looked every day of his age, and is up against Scarlett, and Dunn & Newton still look rather raw.

[LostDoggy]

I totally agree with everything you say mjp and Mofra, but the realist in me says that after the media mauling Dean has been getting, another massive loss (and they face the Kangaroos in Round 4, so that's potentially four 50/90+ point beltings in a row before facing Carlton in a must-win game), there would be massive external pressure on the club to do the obvious short-term thing and sack the coach. Regardless of how committed a club is to a coach, there are points where a situation becomes untenable, and Bailey has no track record to speak of at this level to have anyone believe that he can turn it around. I'm suggesting that pragmatism demands that he make his position a bit more secure to get the breathing space he needs to go forward. It's no good having three year plans if you're sacked five games into your first season.

If he manages to pull one out of the fire this week he'll get a huge amount of trust (real trust, not just 'in-front-of-the-media' trust) from the board and playing group. Nothing puts belief back into a club like winning, regardless of how it happens.. and one can talk all they want of 'long-term plans', a club that gets belted by nearly 100 points on a weekly basis is not going anywhere. I did tip them to finish last this year, but a good coach gets the best out of their team on a weekly basis WHILE building the team, not 'two years from now', and you can't tell me that a good coach gets belted by 100+ points weekly from Round 1, regardless of the list they inherited (what the heck did they do in pre-season?). Tactics exist for that reason, surely, and coaches exist for that reason. Otherwise we might as well just have CEOs and recruiting managers to build a list over three/four years, which is a flawed philosophy to begin with anyway (thus the Saints and Carlton not managing to win anything despite all the draft concessions in the world, and West Coast, Sydney and the Cats being premiership challengers without ever having bottomed out).

I'm not suggesting being negative weekly is the way to go, mind you.

[LostDoggy]

He has come in with a plan and a game style that he wants to promote. I wouldn't have thought abandoning 6-months of pre-season because of two-weeks results would be super-productive.

Stick to the plan. Identify to his players the areas where the Cats are strong and where they can be taken advantage of. Set them really small goals based around effort not skills - for example, %rebound 50's the cats are able to get that are under pressure > 80%, missed tackle %, perhaps something around scores under pressure.

The players wont be expecting to win, so they need to have something to hold onto and target. So give them some things that they can be successful at. Give them a focus. With the flooding plan, not competing at centre bounces etc I basically hate it as the coach is telling his players that after just two weeks he believes that they are not good enough and dont possess a competitive spirit - he will loose them if he does this.

Stick to the plan. He is a good coach and has been involved in two pretty succesful programs...why would you throw everything you have worked for away this early in the year? Plus, when everyone thinks a 10-goal loss is a win, you have a fair bit of slack to work with.

Definitely agree with the small goals area -- focus on process not big-picture results essentially. I don't necessarily think that telling players not to contest bounces is telling players you don't believe in them, but actually trying to use your players to their best effect. If you can even sell it as conspiratorial ie. completely shocking and 'innovative', so to speak, you are actually 'teaching' the player HOW to beat their opponent by thinking/tactically, instead of just going out there to bash and crash and 'beat' their opponent physically. It's not as if you're teaching them how to 'lose' a game. Like you said, mjp, most of the guys don't believe they can beat Geelong anyway with a conventional game plan, so something innovative and out of the box may just give the guys a glimmer of hope and therefore something to play for.

You are up against it though with your conventional footy player, I suppose, to convince them that there ARE other ways of playing footy.

I mean, I can't believe that every coaching innovation (rolling interchanges etc.) has to be rubbed out by rule changes (where is the role of natural tactical evolution? Players and traditional coaches whinge because they just don't want to have to change and adapt), but that's a debate for another time.

[mjp]

All fine Lantern. But what if he plays negative footy and still loses by 20 goals. Then what?

If he abandons his plan, he had better be successful - and by that I mean 'WIN' - otherwise I cannot see how the club could put any faith in him at all. He sold them on a plan and a gameplan to get the job. Going away from it now is, to me, just a bad, bad idea.

As for 'copping it' in the media, has the criticism been directed at the coach or the lack of direction being shown by the club, from the prez down?

[LostDoggy]

Good points. If he plays super-negative footy and STILL loses by 20 goals he's gone, and should be. It would have to be pretty ordinary for that to happen and would definitely prove he can't coach at this level, in a way.

I guess it's a bit of a roll of a dice when you put it like that. If he gets even close, though, he'll be hailed as a bit of a tactical 'genius'. Realise, I'm only advocating it because they are playing Geelong this week and in a sense have nothing to lose. If they played negatively against Carlton or Richmond then he should be criticised, but I can't see him being pilloried for being pragmatic against the Cats the way they are going at the moment.

And the club has copped it all round, hasn't it. Probably makes the prez more trigger-happy than not, to take the heat off himself. It would be counter-productive to sack Bailey, of course, but logic tends to go out the window when clubs are under the pump.

[LostDoggy]

I mean, he's going on about 'attacking' the Cats. It's one thing to be courageous, but is it just macho bravado? There's absolutely nothing to be gained by going on a suicide mission.. I doubt any of the kids will learn anything by getting smashed by a thousand points.

I'm not advocating negativity to simply limit a loss but also try to sneak a win. It's negative, yes, but it's an 'attacking' philosophy, in another sense, because it's trying to win with the available resources.

[LostDoggy]

Jake Niall in the Age today http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/game-plan-is-lost-on-demons/2008/04/02/1206851012519.html(I've just read it) suggests that Melbourne don't have the cattle to carry out Bailey's game plan anyway, and that the stubborn path would be to slowly weed out players that can't adapt to his plan. That's just bad coaching and bad logic. By the time you weed out the players (who may have been perfectly serviceable under a different plan) your game plan would be a year or two out of date anyway and you would be even further behind than you already are. The ONLY reason a club/coach can be so stubborn is because of the mirage of our flawed draft system that promises "rewards" even if (or especially if) you have horrendous years, so much so that 'rebuilding years' are now an enshrined part of the competition, which is just a mockery of the whole damn thing. A club should actually be PENALISED for having crappy years, thus ensuring that clubs actually try to win most of the time. If that were the case, you can be certain that Bailey would be doing what any responsible/competent coach should be doing anyway, which is:

CREATING/TAILORING A GAME PLAN TO FIT THE PLAYERS YOU HAVE IN ORDER TO CREATE A WINNING CULTURE, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY UPGRADING YOUR LIST TO BECOME PREMIERSHIP CONTENDERS THROUGH GOOD SCOUTING AND DRAFTING.

This sentence should be tacked in big bold letters in the Carlton, Richmond and now Melbourne rooms. That's exactly how the SUCCESSFUL clubs go about it.

[LostDoggy]

What the hell would do on the track this week and on gameday?

... not turn up and say my car broke down on Geelong Road ... poor Dean Bailey.

[hujsh]

I doubt Melbourne could play that defensive style. I bet if they hold onto the ball in the backline the Cats will get a goal.

[mjp]

I doubt Melbourne could play that defensive style. I bet if they hold onto the ball in the backline the Cats will get a goal.

I agree. I also think if they flood you will see Geelong use multiple up-back leads inside the forward 50 (some players start high, some low, lead in opposite directions) to split it open and score a MASSIVE total.

Jake Niall's article was interesting, but I still think it focussed on the wrong thing. Poor disposal through the midfield by heavy possession winners (Jones and McLean) is costing them as dearly as whatever the hell those forwards are doing. I love the way Jones goes at it, but there is more too it at senior level than swinging a leg at it...I cannot see how he is the great white hope...the great white workhorse maybe, but he needs to morph into a handball first player and QUICK.

[LostDoggy]

The beauty -- if that's the right word -- of a proper zoned flood is that there should be no space to lead into. You'll have your man on man taggers following people around, but with massive numbers back zoning players play the space and not the man and leading players and their followers will run into their space clogging up everything. It only works with total defensive discipline, but maybe stay-at-home discipline is easier to learn in a week than how to beat Gary Ablett Jnr in a one on one situation at ground level.

There was no better team at hitting mobile targets inside their forward 50 than the 2001 Bombers, but Wallace's uber-flood certainly clogged up enough space that it wasn't quite the cakewalk they were expecting or used to.

Of course the Cats will still open up the defence sometimes -- it's not a foolproof plan -- but it's almost certain that in a conventional contest the Cats will definitely open up the forward 50 with their multiple leads in any case and score a massive total anyway.

---

(Just to clarify, now I'm just debating tactics for the sake of debating tactics because I love such things. I'm hardly suggesting that Bailey HAS to go down my route or Melbourne is doomed, or that your views, mjp and hujsh, are more wrong or right than mine. Just trying to debate the stance I've taken to see if it can be logically applied. Thought I'd clarify before anyone misunderstands and thinks that I'm being a stubborn s.o.b. and gets personally offended.) :)

[mjp]

(Just to clarify, now I'm just debating tactics for the sake of debating tactics because I love such things. I'm hardly suggesting that Bailey HAS to go down my route or Melbourne is doomed, or that your views, mjp and hujsh, are more wrong or right than mine. Just trying to debate the stance I've taken to see if it can be logically applied. Thought I'd clarify before anyone misunderstands and thinks that I'm being a stubborn s.o.b. and gets personally offended.) :)

I figured that...but I can pretend to be upset if it helps the debate!

[hujsh]

(Just to clarify, now I'm just debating tactics for the sake of debating tactics because I love such things. I'm hardly suggesting that Bailey HAS to go down my route or Melbourne is doomed, or that your views, mjp and hujsh, are more wrong or right than mine. Just trying to debate the stance I've taken to see if it can be logically applied. Thought I'd clarify before anyone misunderstands and thinks that I'm being a stubborn s.o.b. and gets personally offended.) :)

I think the tactics could work. The team is the problem.

[LostDoggy]

Haha!

So can I... :mad:

[LostDoggy]

I think the tactics could work. The team is the problem.

No kidding.

[hujsh]

No kidding.

I mean they couldn't implement them. We all know how crap they've been.

[mjp]

I have a bit of an issue with the Wallace 'uber-flood' example. Our players:

1/.Weren't totally terrible, and had come off a few years of finals footy.
2/.Believed in Wallace.

Melbourne aren't at that stage yet. If the 'Rev' was in charge, I would give the flood a go, but I cannot see how Bailey can do it without basically telling his players he has not faith in them.

The other thing about the uber-flood used by Wallace - that was at Telstra Dome. There is a fair bit of difference between trying to do it there and trying it at Kardinia park - which is absolutely massive. It is also very windy. The uber-flood would need to push right out to the 60m area when Melbourne kicked into...to much space. And if they get the ball, and have to run...they will be out on their feet by half time playing a full flood on that ground - assuming of course they actually try to score on the turnover.

Like I said. Keep the faith. Show faith in the group. Set them targets that they CAN achieve based on work-rate not the scoreboard. And be positive about the challenge ahead.

There is no better time to play Geelong than when coming off a big loss. Essendon won round 1, copped them round 2 and must be doubting where they are at after such a huge loss - after all, they were in form...didn't they just win? Maybe their gameplan will only work against bottom sides. Melbourne - they have been smashed and everyone expects them to lose. Stick to simple things and it will be OK.

Whatever I say about Melbourne, I still reckon the team that they are running out with is a stronger unit than the one we trotted out towards the end of last year - say the West Coast game for example.

[LostDoggy]

I mean they couldn't implement them. We all know how crap they've been.

I know. I was agreeing with you. It's definitely the team that is the problem.

Yet, there is always going to be some talent in an AFL level side, especially in these days of equalisation policies. There has to be enough cattle to implement SOME sort of matchday plan. It just seems that Bailey has brought a plan to Melbourne and is trying to fit square pegs into round holes without any thought as to the players he has at his disposal.

First thing Rocket did when he came to a dysfunctional Dogs team was sort out what our strengths were (running, speed, foot skills) and create a gameplan that tried to play to that, and allowed a natural evolution to the gameplan, seeing where it succeeded and failed, and continually modified it so that weaknesses and holes are rectified gradually so that we've ended up with a more balanced gameplan this year, adding players where needed while retaining a lot of our better players, a little over three years into his tenure. A gameplan simply has to be developed out of a side's current list and modified accordingly as the list grows, as a gameplan is a lot easier to modify and change than overhauling an entire 22 player list to fit some arbitrary gameplan that does not guarantee anything in itself anyway (many different teams have won premierships playing different styles so while there are common factors there is no one 'correct' gameplan, so to speak).

[LostDoggy]

I have a bit of an issue with the Wallace 'uber-flood' example. Our players:

1/.Weren't totally terrible, and had come off a few years of finals footy.
2/.Believed in Wallace.

Melbourne aren't at that stage yet. If the 'Rev' was in charge, I would give the flood a go, but I cannot see how Bailey can do it without basically telling his players he has not faith in them.

The other thing about the uber-flood used by Wallace - that was at Telstra Dome. There is a fair bit of difference between trying to do it there and trying it at Kardinia park - which is absolutely massive. It is also very windy. The uber-flood would need to push right out to the 60m area when Melbourne kicked into...to much space. And if they get the ball, and have to run...they will be out on their feet by half time playing a full flood on that ground - assuming of course they actually try to score on the turnover.

Like I said. Keep the faith. Show faith in the group. Set them targets that they CAN achieve based on work-rate not the scoreboard. And be positive about the challenge ahead.

There is no better time to play Geelong than when coming off a big loss. Essendon won round 1, copped them round 2 and must be doubting where they are at after such a huge loss - after all, they were in form...didn't they just win? Maybe their gameplan will only work against bottom sides. Melbourne - they have been smashed and everyone expects them to lose. Stick to simple things and it will be OK.

Whatever I say about Melbourne, I still reckon the team that they are running out with is a stronger unit than the one we trotted out towards the end of last year - say the West Coast game for example.


Very good points especially re: Kardinia. You've sold me, coach. You've got me believing in you more than in Bailey!

ps. interesting that you're comparing them to us last year. Were we really that bad? (And both of us picked the Dogs to win 14 games this year, so I know we have similar views about our list THIS year)...

[mjp]

ps. interesting that you're comparing them to us last year. Were we really that bad? (And both of us picked the Dogs to win 14 games this year, so I know we have similar views about our list THIS year)...

No, we weren't THAT bad for the year. Late we were though - we copped some absolute hidings. I remember laughing at some people telling me we were a chance against West Coast that infamous Friday night - and suggesting we might not actually SCORE.

If I could figure out where to look up the team I would post it here, but there were a heap of players in that night who were either not ready, never would be ready or were never going to be ready again.

I remain pretty upbeat about this year. Griffen and Gilbee back, Hahn and Murphy over their knees, Aker settled, I was expecting big things from Ray and Higgins (so scratch that) and have always been a believer in Hudson.

I maintain Cooney is a developing superstar, and his season last year (on no pre-season) was way better than it ever deserved to be...and you dont go from a top 4 candidate at the start of 07 to a bottom 4 candidate in 2008 with a better, fitter list. Sure, we won games without playing well in early 2007...but isn't that the sign of a GOOD team?

That said, I expect to split our games with the saints this year, and would not be that surprised if we didn't get up tomorrow.

[LostDoggy]

No, we weren't THAT bad for the year. Late we were though - we copped some absolute hidings. I remember laughing at some people telling me we were a chance against West Coast that infamous Friday night - and suggesting we might not actually SCORE.

If I could figure out where to look up the team I would post it here, but there were a heap of players in that night who were either not ready, never would be ready or were never going to be ready again.

Oh boy I know what you mean. After the hiding against the Cats the week before I just had a terrible, sinking feeling. We had been smacked by the Eagles in the finals the year before while close to top form ourselves so our injury wracked, completely imbalanced team was on a hiding to nothing.

... the line "players who ... were never going to be ready again" fills me with a deep nostalgic sadness, actually. Didn't know you were also a poet, mjp! Poor Darcy, really. (I did my left ACL exactly the same week he did his first one and we both went to the same surgeon, actually.. I was so worried when he did his second that I didn't run for a whole month after and just did bike work).


...and you dont go from a top 4 candidate at the start of 07 to a bottom 4 candidate in 2008 with a better, fitter list. Sure, we won games without playing well in early 2007...but isn't that the sign of a GOOD team?

Couldn't have said it better myself. The media just latch on immediate trends without examining anything in depth or logically (I think it's called 'generalising from the specific' or some such thing).. I mean, so many 'experts' who picked us to finish low also said that the 'story of the year' would be whatever it was that very week and no one even remembers it anymore.

Definitely a better team this year than the start of last year. Really hope we get up tomorrow night, if only for the membership numbers.

[Sockeye Salmon]

If I could figure out where to look up the team I would post it here, but there were a heap of players in that night who were either not ready, never would be ready or were never going to be ready again.


Jason Akermanis
Matthew Boyd
Adam Cooney
Luke Darcy
Nathan Eagleton
Andrejs Everitt
Daniel Giansiracusa
Jarrod Harbrow
Ryan Hargrave
Brian Lake
Shaun Higgins
Josh Hill
Brad Johnson
Jordan McMahon
Dale Morris
Robert Murphy
Sam Power
Farren Ray
Wayde Skipper
Stephen Tiller
Cameron Wight
Tom Williams


Missing: Grant, Cross, West, Hahn, Gilbee, Griffen, Minson

[Go_Dogs]

I was pleased to see Austin W named on the extended bench for the Dees.