Plan B, strategies, tactics

[stefoid]

Puzzling in retrospect to see the players and maybe the coaching staff go to water vs the geelong barrage.

All year we have been playing a two speed game where we are prepared to chip the ball around in the face of a fully formed zone, and its common knowledge that the other side cant kick 10 goals on you if they dont have the ball. And our 'points against' has benefited as a result.

Why didnt Eade and/or the leaders on the ground initiate plan B when Geelong got on a roll? Damage control, control the footy, regroup, etc...

and I wonder - I only saw the game on tele, but the commentators were refering to a geelong zone or press which is unusual for the geelong side, but I think the zone has been recognised as a problem for us for a while, particularly this year. did Mark Thompson instruct his players to abandon 1:1 which is their normal style, and adopt a zone defence specifically designed to trouble us? If so, it worked spectacularly well - a zone defence to stifle our scoring combined with geelongs attacking capability.

I think this was pretty much the perfect storm for us - eade outcoached, some important OUTs, some players labouring under injury and/or the flu, and an unexpected burst of dominance which threw panic threw the side and the coaching box, such that neither was able to counter it before half time.

[LostDoggy]

Agreed. It was extremely disapointing to see not only the players but he coaching staff go to water in that second quarter.

If Harbrow comes back this week, i believe Murphy must be moved forward. Yes it's easier on his knees/body in the backline, but IMO we need him in the forward line if we are to do some damage in september.

Murphy has been fantastic in the backline this year and was one of our only shining lights on Saturday night. But with him playing down there it's making Gilbee play up the ground which just has never worked.

Gilbee must be apart of the back 6. We all know how good his foot skills are, but at the moment him getting the ball 15 times a game is no where near enough. I believe moving Murphy forward and Gilbee back is a win win. We don't really lose anything in the backline.. Gilbee / Harbrow / Hargrave / Wood / Lake there is plenty of rebound there, even if 1 of them cops a forward tag. Whilst on the other hand our forward line injects some much needed pace and a forward who can lead up outside 50 all day and turn to deliver to our leading forwards with precision.

Over the years Gilbee has shown us he can play on small/taller opponents and well and truely hold his own defensively. I'm positive he could play on a Stokes or Byrnes and do a pretty good job. As well as rebound and get 25 touches.

There's no doubt we look a much better side when Murphy comes out on the lead, does he's little quick step inside and delivers the ball into the forward 50. He is the perfect type of player to roam at CHF, especially against the top 3 sides, because they mostly zone off.

[stefoid]

Any reason not to play Murph and Gilbee back there?

I reckon most scoring is done these days either from the centre bounce or an extremely quick and effective transition. Get the ball to someone near to half forward before the rest of the opposition has flooded into the F50.

Once you have managed that, thats the hard bit -- regardless of who is up forward, a good scoring chance should result.

I reckon we have a better chance of setting up a scoring chance with Murph delivering the ball rather than receiving it.