What is our game plan?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I find it difficult to know what we're trying to do. For instance, we seem to struggle bringing the ball out of the backline. There's no system - it's just bomb the ball long to the boundary line. Is the idea to create a stoppage where Boyd/Cross/Cooney/Griffen can win setup to win the ball? Either way, it's not working.

The forwards really have struggled this season. At times, they don't work hard enough to present an option and are too deep. Thus, we have no options at half forward to kick the ball to. How many times have we seen 2-on-1's, 3-on-1's etc this year? At other times, our forwards push up the ground too far, and we've got nobody to kick the ball to inside 50. This lack of consistent system is staggering. We have too many players flat footed - Grant is the worst of them all. We rarely give leads.

We're fairly unaccountable, particularly the midfield. How many times do we run to the player AFTER they have received the ball, only for them to loop the ball over their head, and to a free opposition player? It's amazing how much this happens to us. Whatever 'zone' we have is not working.

So I ask, what is our game plan? What are we trying to do? Because from where I sit, all I see is long bombs and wild handballs out of packs to nobody.

[bresker]

I've been overseas for about 5 years and apart from the odd game I saw streamed on the net, I haven't seen many games.

I'm not impressed with the changes Eade has made to the gameplan in that time.

Maybe some of it has been forced on him by the list turnover, but we're such a dull, negative side these days.

Back when he first arrived, Rocket developed a gameplan based on speed of foot and quick decision making - running the ball from one end to the other, lightning handballs, rebounding.

Now we're just so slow and laboured. It's awful to watch the deterioration in our style of play. I realise that gameplans need to change as other coaches work us out.

But what are we supposed to be doing? I can't work it out either.

We take an age to kick the ball in, we knock it about a bit, and then we kick the ball to a contest. Almost our entire midfield and forward line seems to get sucked into this contest. Sometimes a giant ugly pack forms. If we're lucky, we come away with the ball, and then we kick it forward - but why? Because there's hardly ever anyone there. If we're very lucky, Sherman might get a hold of it - lucky, because he's the only bloke who looks like he knows how to kick a goal at the moment.

But most of the time, we're a reactive side - we seem to love giving the ball away so we can tackle. Hey, we're quite good at that. But the object of the game is to play with the ball, not without it.

[Doc26]

The forwards really have struggled this season. At times, they don't work hard enough to present an option and are too deep. Thus, we have no options at half forward to kick the ball to. How many times have we seen 2-on-1's, 3-on-1's etc this year? At other times, our forwards push up the ground too far, and we've got nobody to kick the ball to inside 50. This lack of consistent system is staggering. We have too many players flat footed.


Agree TBB.

We still have not addressed the need for a small crumbing forward ala Blair, Betts, Ballantyne, Milne. To this point all recent attempts have fallen short e.g Hooper, Rose, Djerrkura and Vez has still not presented. We need this dimension to break up what has become a predictable set up. Was pleased to see Dahlhaus's progression with his showing yesterday - his development may be as important as most with a forward line made up of of Jones, Grant & Roughead

[Greystache]

I think our game plan is well out of date and we're routinely bettered by the structure of other top teams, but any suggestions will just get shouted down by the one-eyed types.

One thing is for sure, we're not an attractive team to watch live.

[MrMahatma]

Don't forget, the game has changed a lot in the past 5 years. Gone from flooding, to rolling zone, now the forward press/zone. Big differences. Rather than being able to waltz out of HB on a fast break becasue 70% of the opposition are sitting behind the ball, they're all there, tackling and stopping the next possession.

What we don't seem to have is guys with clean enough hands through the HB/midfield. Libba is an exception. Cross/Boyd get their hands on it a lot, but their hand balls often end up at the player's knees, or they bang it on the foot and it ends up with the opposition.

I don't think the gameplan is a problem, I think the excecution is. The question is, at what point do you say "sorry guys, you just aren't up to it" and ship blokes on? Can we win a flag with Cross AND Boyd in the midfield? Not saying they aren't good players - among our most consistent and best performed. But is their best good enough?

I'm not sure. I think something's missing, definitely, and from looking at our games I think it's a lack of composure and clean hands that are the biggest issue.

[Remi Moses]

Agree entirely ^^every game now you don't see a player more than one kick from the play.
The stay at home FF is going the way of the dodo bird,it's all about decision making, poise under pressure and good execution. Something sadly we haven't shown as yet.

[The Underdog]

I think our game plan is well out of date and we're routinely bettered by the structure of other top teams, but any suggestions will just get shouted down by the one-eyed types.

One thing is for sure, we're not an attractive team to watch live.

It was noticeable from the first game this year that we couldn't handle the structure of Essendon and despite the vow to try and add forward pressure it's not happening. For a coach noted for his tactical prowess Eade does seem to be struggling to institute a game plan that works. Whether that's because his game plan is poor or because his players refuse to follow it is the other question.
It's a shame about our "attractiveness" because a few years ago I don't think I'd enjoyed watching a Bulldog team play more, regardless of result.

[ReLoad]

Its an interesting thought.

however, the last few years we have come bloody close to making a grand final, so saying hat Eade isnt tactically good enough, or our game plan over the last 5 years since Eade took over is no good, simply isnt true.

We all know just how close we got and given more luck with injuries and the like and we would have made a big dance.


So now, what about the today? judging on what we have seen so far this season in our 5 games? Firstly the core better players from our team are sorely underdone. Cooney and Lake who one could say are our best 2 guys have had no pre season and are totally out at sea right now. Throw in other guys not being around (gia/shaggy), and it certainly doesn't help.

Now injuries are one thing, but right now we are robbing ourselves. Having to play Murphy down back hurts us really badly as we have NO CHF, and we have very little presentation across the CHF line. We are also now predictable in that if things are not going well what we are going to do.

So lets change it around some more, lets try Lake at CHF at times, roll the dice on Murphy being forward a bit more often, things like that. We tried it last night and got found out, but these are the things with an undermanned team we have to try.

Given the cattle and the team we have I firmly believe that the MC and the coaching panel are trying everything they can. But at some point doesn't the execution rely on the players? i.e. Cooney kicking those goals vs freo, Jones nailing one in the last to put us in front etc etc

[Grantysghost]

Agree TBB.

We still have not addressed the need for a small crumbing forward ala Blair, Betts, Ballantyne, Milne. To this point all recent attempts have fallen short e.g Hooper, Rose, Djerrkura and Vez has still not presented. We need this dimension to break up what has become a predictable set up. Was pleased to see Dahlhaus's progression with his showing yesterday - his development may be as important as most with a forward line made up of of Jones, Grant & Roughead

Sherman has kicked 7 in the last two games, alot of those crumbing.

[chef]

I thought we look at our best when we played on at all costs and kick it long to a contest in the forward line. But then we undid all our great work by allowing Brown to have those three shots at goal(plus not being able to put a hand on Krakauer(?)).

[Sedat]

Now injuries are one thing, but right now we are robbing ourselves. Having to play Murphy down back hurts us really badly as we have NO CHF, and we have very little presentation across the CHF line. We are also now predictable in that if things are not going well what we are going to do.
Surely the midfield need to take the blame for the 70 to 42 inside-50 count and not our forward line. Also, whilst we were hammered in general play in the 2nd qtr we still managed to slice Collingwood open 3-4 times, but our midfielders then proceeded to butcher the final ball into forward 50 - again, how is that the fault of the forward line?

With Harbrow gone, we desperately need some run and creativity down back - Bob is needed down there, and quite frankly we will be shortening his career by a couple of years if we allow him to be bashed up at CHF.

In answer to the OP, I reckon our game plan is Collingwood-lite. That's not a criticism per se, just the reality of our playing group being unable to display the necessary discipline to completely buy in to the forward press/numbers at the contest game plan that the Pies have perfected. Perhaps we (and the MC) are over-rating our midfield group? Collingwood has unheralded guys like Blair and Sidebottom who are extremely effective in a) finding space and b) also helping Swan and Pendles by making most 50-50 contests around the ground a numerical advantage to Collingwood. Our mids are very one-dimensional by comparison, and that is to not even mention Collingwood's top-shelf a-graders who can find space and extract the ball out of congestion better than almost anybody in the competition.

[Ozza]

Surely the midfield need to take the blame for the 70 to 42 inside-50 count and not our forward line. Also, whilst we were hammered in general play in the 2nd qtr we still managed sliced Collingwood open 3-4 times, but our midfielders proceeded to butcher the final ball into forward 50 - again, how is that the fault of the forward line?

With Harbrow gone, we desperately need some run and creativity down back - Bob is needed down there, and quite frankly we will be shortening his career by a couple of years if we allow him to be bashed up at CHF.

In answer to the OP, I reckon our game plan is Collingwood-lite. That's not a criticism per se, just the reality of our playing group being unable to display the necessary discipline to completely buy in to the forward press/numbers at the contest game plan that the Pies have perfected.

Completely agree with your post Sedat. Just with Bob down back - I agree he is needed and very effective down there - but one thing I'd like to see change is him taking the kick outs. Rather than Bob taking them and going long pretty much every time - I'd prefer to have him be the target player for our kick out - and see if we can get him the ball from a short pass a few times - and let him try and slice through the oppositions haf forward line.

[Mantis]

Completely agree with your post Sedat. Just with Bob down back - I agree he is needed and very effective down there - but one thing I'd like to see change is him taking the kick outs. Rather than Bob taking them and going long pretty much every time - I'd prefer to have him be the target player for our kick out - and see if we can get him the ball from a short pass a few times - and let him try and slice through the oppositions haf forward line.

Who would you like to see used in this role instead of Bob?

[Ozza]

Well thats the big question I guess - but any one of our back six can kick the ball 50 metres long and high to a contest on the back flank - so if the plan is to bomb it - then anyone - because we aren't ever looking to hit up players within the 50m arc anymore.

Any idea why we have changed from being a team that looks for a target - to a team that goes for the old school long bomb kick out? Its like watching local footy at the moment the way we do it.

[Mantis]

Any idea why we have changed from being a team that looks for a target - to a team that goes for the old school long bomb kick out? Its like watching local footy at the moment the way we do it.

I could only think that the reason is the half ground zone the opposing teams are now implementing is making it extremely difficult to find holes to spot up targets.... the fact that our players are quite stationary doesn't help either.

[Greystache]

In answer to the OP, I reckon our game plan is Collingwood-lite. That's not a criticism per se, just the reality of our playing group being unable to display the necessary discipline to completely buy in to the forward press/numbers at the contest game plan that the Pies have perfected.

That's the key issue for me Sedat. With a team orientated structure just one or two players failing to perform their role means the whole team gets cut up, just look at St Kilda this year. I watch us set up our "lite" press and routinely there's 2 or 3 players that don't make the effort to get to their position, usually just standing where they were when the ball was turned over with their hands on their hips. The biggest problem is it's not the same players everytime, more often than not it's one of our senior players but not usually the same ones twice in a row. The setup simply doesn't work unless everyone is 100% committed to it and 72 inside 50's proves they're not.

The problem is it's not going to change, our team reminds me of the Australian cricket team of a couple of years ago, if you're a fringe player you'll get turned over repeatedly even if you're overall form has been good, but if you're a senior player it's almost impossible to get dropped. The players know this so they know there's no repercussions for them if they don't get to where they should be a few times per game. The MC haven't made statements to the senior group and I can't see them ever doing it in it's current state.

[chef]

Who would you like to see used in this role instead of Bob?

I would like Markovic to be given the opportunity as he seems to have good foot skills.

[LostDoggy]

I've been overseas for about 5 years and apart from the odd game I saw streamed on the net, I haven't seen many games.

I'm not impressed with the changes Eade has made to the gameplan in that time.

Maybe some of it has been forced on him by the list turnover, but we're such a dull, negative side these days.

Back when he first arrived, Rocket developed a gameplan based on speed of foot and quick decision making - running the ball from one end to the other, lightning handballs, rebounding.

Now we're just so slow and laboured. It's awful to watch the deterioration in our style of play. I realise that gameplans need to change as other coaches work us out.

But what are we supposed to be doing? I can't work it out either.

We take an age to kick the ball in, we knock it about a bit, and then we kick the ball to a contest. Almost our entire midfield and forward line seems to get sucked into this contest. Sometimes a giant ugly pack forms. If we're lucky, we come away with the ball, and then we kick it forward - but why? Because there's hardly ever anyone there. If we're very lucky, Sherman might get a hold of it - lucky, because he's the only bloke who looks like he knows how to kick a goal at the moment.

But most of the time, we're a reactive side - we seem to love giving the ball away so we can tackle. Hey, we're quite good at that. But the object of the game is to play with the ball, not without it.

Our natural style is not dull or negative though, in fact its the opposite. The zone or press or flood has killed the way we like to play and we have no answers for it, other than to join the party and try and play a gamestyle that others have been implementing better, for longer.

Remember we would routinely beat St.Kilda until they perfected their flood a couple of years ago and from then on we could never beat them. We got close to beating them last year in that horrible low scoring game at etihad and in that prelim the year before by not playing our natural style and getting sucked in and turning the ball over.

I'm disappointed we have no answers to the way footy is played in 2011 as i still believe
our list is in good shape.

[Sedat]

Remember we would routinely beat St.Kilda until they perfected their flood a couple of years ago and from then on we could never beat them.

Apart from the 2 victories we had over them in 2008, we haven't beaten St Kilda since Peter Rohde was coach. That is why Grant Thomas doesn't rate Rocket or the Dogs becauser they have toyed with us for the best part of a decade.

[LostDoggy]

Our game plan was good in 2008/09

Now its a little irrelevant and needs to be re-jigged

[Ozza]

I could only think that the reason is the half ground zone the opposing teams are now implementing is making it extremely difficult to find holes to spot up targets.... the fact that our players are quite stationary doesn't help either.

It was frustrating to watch Collingwood hit up a short target on almost every occasion and then we make the kick ins look like chinese algebra. Maybe it is a case of the players being too stationary - there certainly isn't enough guys providing an option and actively looking like they want the ball at a kick in.

Its also frustrating when someone perfectly capable of kicking the ball in, puts the ball on the ground in the goal square and we wait for Murphy to get back and take the kick - at which point the opposition zone is 100% set up.

[comrade]

The problem is it's not going to change, our team reminds me of the Australian cricket team of a couple of years ago, if you're a fringe player you'll get turned over repeatedly even if you're overall form has been good, but if you're a senior player it's almost impossible to get dropped. The players know this so they know there's no repercussions for them if they don't get to where they should be a few times per game. The MC haven't made statements to the senior group and I can't see them ever doing it in it's current state.

Love him or loathe him, Ross Lyon drew a line in the sand early in his tenure by dropping two established senior players because they weren't adhering to his team-first game plan. We haven't done anything of the sort over the past 4 years and I think it has bred some complacency.

We rely on acts of individual brilliance to get us over the line. That's fine against lowly teams who allow it, but the best teams stifle creativity and it's only the hardest working, most cohesive team that buy into the game plan that win the big games.

We have a mix of naturally talented footballers who don't work hard enough (Cooney, Grant, Higgins, Hill, Gilbee, Lake to an extent) and hard working footballers who aren't as naturally talented (Cross, Boyd, Hudson, Picken, Williams, Minson, Addison, Morris) which I think is why we're playing in such a disconnected manner. The silk isn't strong enough and the strong isn't silky enough.

Collingwood has plenty of naturally talented guys who work their butts off (Pendles, Thomas, Wellingham, Shaw, Cloke, Dawes) combined with the blue collar guys who also commit 100% and are made to look better than the actually are due to the silk around them (Maxwell, Johnson, Blair, Ball). They have very few who waver in their output week to week - there is no lottery.

In my eyes, we currently only have a select few that are both naturally talented and mentally focused at working at 100% - these are Griffen, Sherman, Ward and Murphy. In time, guys like Libba, Wallis, Wood, Roughy and Jones should also fit into this category.

There are too few blue chip players working at full capacity and it's no wonder we're ugly to watch.

[the banker]

Love him or loathe him, Ross Lyon drew a line in the sand early in his tenure by dropping two established senior players because they weren't adhering to his team-first game plan. We haven't done anything of the sort over the past 4 years and I think it has bred some complacency.

We rely on acts of individual brilliance to get us over the line. That's fine against lowly teams who allow it, but the best teams stifle creativity and it's only the hardest working, most cohesive team that buy into the game plan that win the big games.

We have a mix of naturally talented footballers who don't work hard enough (Cooney, Grant, Higgins, Hill, Gilbee, Lake to an extent) and hard working footballers who aren't as naturally talented (Cross, Boyd, Hudson, Picken, Williams, Minson, Addison, Morris) which I think is why we're playing in such a disconnected manner. The silk isn't strong enough and the strong isn't silky enough.

Collingwood has plenty of naturally talented guys who work their butts off (Pendles, Thomas, Wellingham, Shaw, Cloke, Dawes) combined with the blue collar guys who also commit 100% and are made to look better than the actually are due to the silk around them (Maxwell, Johnson, Blair, Ball). They have very few who waver in their output week to week - there is no lottery.

In my eyes, we currently only have a select few that are both naturally talented and mentally focused at working at 100% - these are Griffen, Sherman, Ward and Murphy. In time, guys like Libba, Wallis, Wood, Roughy and Jones should also fit into this category.

There are too few blue chip players working at full capacity and it's no wonder we're ugly to watch.

Right on

[Desipura]

I would like Markovic to be given the opportunity as he seems to have good foot skills.

Are you serious? If yesterday was anything to go by, he butchered on a number of times with no pressure whatsoever.

[Hotdog60]

Does Rocket start playing hardball with our senior players, if we don't have a good Finnish this year there is every chance his contract won't be renewed. So he really has nothing to loose.

On a side note if Rocket doesn't get reappointed (I love Rocket I think he has done wonders for our club), I would like the club to chase L. Matthews. He got Collingwood a premiership and took the Lions to 3 in a row, could be what we need.

[chef]

Are you serious? If yesterday was anything to go by, he butchered on a number of times with no pressure whatsoever.

Didn't they all.

[1eyedog]

Well thats the big question I guess - but any one of our back six can kick the ball 50 metres long and high to a contest on the back flank - so if the plan is to bomb it - then anyone - because we aren't ever looking to hit up players within the 50m arc anymore.

Any idea why we have changed from being a team that looks for a target - to a team that goes for the old school long bomb kick out? Its like watching local footy at the moment the way we do it.

I don't know but the nearest that I can understand it is that we are trying to kick over the press and get the ball out of D50 at all costs. Clearly, quick handballs out of the back half are a thing of the past, there is too much risk, same with the short kick in a lot of instances, especially with a high intensity team like Collingwood who place a premium on the opposition in their F50.

At best it seems we are trying to create the old Pagan's paddock behind the press with a loose man and then a play on at all costs scenario to a one on one contest in the forward line. Trouble is we need a strong one on one contested player like Jack Riewoldt in this contest to mark the ball (hopefully Jones if he can kick straight), or someone who makes things happen at ground level, like Gia/Higgins in theory. Worst case scenario with a long bomb over the press is to create a stoppage (rather than turn the ball over in D50) and then win the clearance (which we haven't been doing we lost the clearance count to the Suns!).

If anyone can enlighten me on any of the above I would be much appreciated because I am also at a bit of a loss as to how teams are attempting to beat the press.

[Topdog]

Who would you like to see used in this role instead of Bob?

With the way we move it out (just kick long to a boundary) it really doesn't matter who takes it.

[LostDoggy]

We look good with a small forward line, but for some reason we can't win a flag with it.

[chef]

We look good with a small forward line, but for some reason we can't win a flag with it.

When have we had a small forward line lately?

[LostDoggy]

When have we had a small forward line lately?

We took Roughead off yesterday & went pretty small once again in the forward line.

[chef]

We took Roughead off yesterday & went pretty small once again in the forward line.

We still had Jones, Grant and occasional Minson in there.

[LostDoggy]

We still had Jones, Grant and occasional Minson in there.

I thought the impact of Gilbee, Sherman & Cooney floating through changed the game a bit, we turned back into that small unpredictable forward line.

[Sedat]

I thought the impact of Gilbee, Sherman & Cooney floating through changed the game a bit, we turned back into that small unpredictable forward line.
He didn't get a lot of it, but Gilbs looked quite dangerous and creative in the forward line for us in the 2nd half. Mind you when it goes in there 40 times in 120 minutes, you are on a hiding to nothing to make a serious impact as a forward.

[LostDoggy]

What is our game plan is a ligament question. It is also something that the board should be asking about. We as supporters can see somethings off. Then surely the board members should be asking the coaching staff to answer some of the basic questions asked on here.

[chef]

I thought the impact of Gilbee, Sherman & Cooney floating through changed the game a bit, we turned back into that small unpredictable forward line.

To me it was more kicking it long and deep at the tall targets instead of pussy footing around looking for the perfect lead. Plus we were moving the ball forward as quickly as we could which also helps our forwards.

[LostDoggy]

Did anyone else notice everytime which got a behind (which was only in the 2nd half i believe) Collingwood pretty much strolled out of our defence with ease and within a few seconds there would be a stoppage in there forward line which allows them to set up.

Where as which has already been mentioned numerous times here, Murphy just took his time and constantly went long to the boundary.

Every other team uses the new rule of being able to bring the ball in play straight away to there advantage, whereas we wait for murphy as he jogs in from 50 metres away to take the kick-in. By this time teams have had time to set-up there zone to perfection.

Why are we not using this rule as an advantage like every other team. Whoever is closest to the goal line should grab the ball and look for an option straight away. It's not hard. With every team implementing this 18 man forward press it's impossible to get the ball out cleanly unless you manage to get the ball in before teams get a chance to set up.

It happens to us every game why don't we try it!

[cambo]

can anyone else remember our game 2 years ago when we were 88 points up on Hawthorn at half time, thats the best I have ever seen the dogs play and since then we have never been able to replicate that game plan
Why do our forwards have to get sucked so high up the ground when we have an outstanding defence, every time we win the ball and look up ahead there is no one to kick to
That game against Hawthorn everyone stayed in the areas and we smashed them

[LostDoggy]

Paul Roos wrote an article on the weekend on how teams can (and have) responded to the Collingwood forward press. Basically kick long to the side of the boundary about 55-60 out from goal and set up a good contested marking player or kill the ball. This is typical Paul Roos, strategically acute but low risk and defensive.

As a tactic it allows a team to nullify the press just not to beat it, and given Collingwood's strong capabilities in contested marking with Brown, Jolly, Dawes and Cloke, and noted clearance play, it is hardly a winning tactic. St Kilda tried to use this tactic in GF 1 and 2. in GF 1 it worked well because Gardiner helped them break even at clearances and in the air, however McEvoy could not replicate this in GF 2 and they got killed.

We certainly used this strategy on the weekend given that we perceived a stoppage advantage with Minson over Wood however, we dod not play well enough to make it really pay off. One adaptation we saw a couple of times was that Murphy would take a quick tap and set up to execute the boundary line kick, and then at the last second hooked it to the 50, 20 metres in from the boundary where we had players leading in from the flanks. This worked a couple of times but when it did not come off we got hurt on the rebound.

The only other ways to break the zone are to try and pinpoint a short pass 20-30 metres in and then kick long, which is very hard to do, to play on quick and then hanball your way out, also hard to do, or kick long up the guts to a leading target, very very hard to do. Our ability to effect any of these tactics is somewhat compromised by the players we had in defense. We are far more likey to pull this off with Murphy, Wood, Gilbee, Hargrave and a fully fit Lake, then with Hill, Addsion, Markovic, Murphy, Williams and Brian at half pace.

[bornadog]

Paul Roos wrote an article on the weekend on how teams can (and have) responded to the Collingwood forward press. Basically kick long to the side of the boundary about 55-60 out from goal and set up a good contested marking player or kill the ball. This is typical Paul Roos, strategically acute but low risk and defensive.

As a tactic it allows a team to nullify the press just not to beat it, and given Collingwood's strong capabilities in contested marking with Brown, Jolly, Dawes and Cloke, and noted clearance play, it is hardly a winning tactic. St Kilda tried to use this tactic in GF 1 and 2. in GF 1 it worked well because Gardiner helped them break even at clearances and in the air, however McEvoy could not replicate this in GF 2 and they got killed.

We certainly used this strategy on the weekend given that we perceived a stoppage advantage with Minson over Wood however, we dod not play well enough to make it really pay off. One adaptation we saw a couple of times was that Murphy would take a quick tap and set up to execute the boundary line kick, and then at the last second hooked it to the 50, 20 metres in from the boundary where we had players leading in from the flanks. This worked a couple of times but when it did not come off we got hurt on the rebound.

The only other ways to break the zone are to try and pinpoint a short pass 20-30 metres in and then kick long, which is very hard to do, to play on quick and then hanball your way out, also hard to do, or kick long up the guts to a leading target, very very hard to do. Our ability to effect any of these tactics is somewhat compromised by the players we had in defense. We are far more likey to pull this off with Murphy, Wood, Gilbee, Hargrave and a fully fit Lake, then with Hill, Addsion, Markovic, Murphy, Williams and Brian at half pace.

A tactic used by Essendon against Collingwood, was to have Fletcher kicking out and literally passing to the ruckman.

Basically, the ruckman would stand about 60 metres from goal, and that could be directly in front or on a bit of an angle to the goal square. Instead of kicking the ball long to a marking contest, he would drop the ball in front of him, just a few metres so that the ruckman can run in and mark on his chest. They must have done this several times during the match and it worked every time.

[w3design]

can anyone else remember our game 2 years ago when we were 88 points up on Hawthorn at half time, thats the best I have ever seen the dogs play and since then we have never been able to replicate that game plan
Why do our forwards have to get sucked so high up the ground when we have an outstanding defence, every time we win the ball and look up ahead there is no one to kick to
That game against Hawthorn everyone stayed in the areas and we smashed them

I think we played like that in our wins against Freo and Carlton last year, the great ball movement and pinpoint passing. At the time we were battling Freo for a top 4 spot and won by 80+ points. Carlton had also been traveling well. They were better wins than later history might suggest.

I think the problem has been that style has not stood up in finals or maybe we just haven't been able to get the balance between dour defense and attacking footy. E.g. The loss to saints early last year when, having strangled them, we then could not flick a switch to attack and putting the game well out of reach. So now we seem to have lost the exhilarating attacking style but aren't a naturally defensive team, yet we are trying to adapt to a new footy landscape. Caught in a no mans land.

Having said that for the 10 minutes we went crazy against the pies it was with that unpredictable kamikaze attack into the forward line. Come to think of it were ANY of our goals from traditional big mark and kick plays. I think they were just about all on the run..apart from gilbee's bomb.

[LostDoggy]

The only other ways to break the zone are to try and pinpoint a short pass 20-30 metres in and then kick long, which is very hard to do, to play on quick and then hanball your way out, also hard to do, or kick long up the guts to a leading target, very very hard to do. Our ability to effect any of these tactics is somewhat compromised by the players we had in defense. We are far more likey to pull this off with Murphy, Wood, Gilbee, Hargrave and a fully fit Lake, then with Hill, Addsion, Markovic, Murphy, Williams and Brian at half pace.

I do agree but I think it's important to note that Markovic has been outstanding and Addison has only played very limited time in the ones. I still think the backs are reasonably solid. It's the forward line that's still the issue for mine. We miss Johnno's direction, experience and pure presence. Yes, it was the right time for him to retire but we needed another season in all of Grant, Roughy and Jones in order for these guys to regularly score goals when the battle is at it's hottest. Not their fault but the forward line seems out of kilter due to lack of experience. Barry also seems to be reaching his zenith at the same time. I suspect we will be a better team, with a better executed game plan, in the back end of this year. The 2nd years will have more experience and Cooney and Lake should be battle-hardened. And Wood will be back!

[stefoid]

Did anyone else notice everytime which got a behind (which was only in the 2nd half i believe) Collingwood pretty much strolled out of our defence with ease and within a few seconds there would be a stoppage in there forward line which allows them to set up.

Where as which has already been mentioned numerous times here, Murphy just took his time and constantly went long to the boundary.

Every other team uses the new rule of being able to bring the ball in play straight away to there advantage, whereas we wait for murphy as he jogs in from 50 metres away to take the kick-in. By this time teams have had time to set-up there zone to perfection.

Why are we not using this rule as an advantage like every other team. Whoever is closest to the goal line should grab the ball and look for an option straight away. It's not hard. With every team implementing this 18 man forward press it's impossible to get the ball out cleanly unless you manage to get the ball in before teams get a chance to set up.

It happens to us every game why don't we try it!

Interesting point. Maybe we are practicing this particular play (long defensive kick to the boundary)? Maybe latter in the year we will mix it up. The answer isnt because Eade is stupid.

[stefoid]

Look at it this way guys. At a kickin, the pies have their ENTIRE team in our back half, spread out. If our forwards dont cover them, the pies will have free guys standing 20m on their own -- in their own forward half.

You might say, OK, just sit Hall back in our forward line, they would have to cover him! Yeah, by sticking maxwell or obrien 20m in front of hall to chop off any kick directed at him, and also to be able to run forward as an easy out if the pies win a contested ball from our kickin. Easy kick to maxwell on his own who can switch play or bang it long back to the pies goal square.

So Hall advances 20m to cover maxwell and maxwell runs another 20m.... and drags Hall up the ground.

What I would like to know is where grant positions himself at kickins? He should be covering the pie that is closest to our goal, because he is bloody fast. As soon as we look like winning the ball, he heads back towards goal - probably the fastest guy on the field. Just kick into space in front of him. Ditto the shermanator.

[LostDoggy]

Every time I remember Shaw kicking it to himself gaining about 15-20m and finding a target to hit on the chest

[stefoid]

How were we setting up defensively at their kickins?

[Ghost Dog]

Did anyone else notice everytime which got a behind (which was only in the 2nd half i believe) Collingwood pretty much strolled out of our defence with ease and within a few seconds there would be a stoppage in there forward line which allows them to set up.

Where as which has already been mentioned numerous times here, Murphy just took his time and constantly went long to the boundary.
Every other team uses the new rule of being able to bring the ball in play straight away to there advantage, whereas we wait for murphy as he jogs in from 50 metres away to take the kick-in. By this time teams have had time to set-up there zone to perfection.
Why are we not using this rule as an advantage like every other team. Whoever is closest to the goal line should grab the ball and look for an option straight away. It's not hard. With every team implementing this 18 man forward press it's impossible to get the ball out cleanly unless you manage to get the ball in before teams get a chance to set up.

It happens to us every game why don't we try it!

this is an especially good point.

[LostDoggy]

What I would like to know is where grant positions himself at kickins? He should be covering the pie that is closest to our goal, because he is bloody fast. As soon as we look like winning the ball, he heads back towards goal - probably the fastest guy on the field. Just kick into space in front of him. Ditto the shermanator.

I like this kind of thinking.

[macca]

I think our lack of depth in young players is starting to show. Eade should have blooded more of them them during 2007-2008. For players 5 years into the system, they need to start to putting their stamp on the game now. I know its easy to talk in hindsight.

Grant has barely shown anything this year. Ward needs to start imposing himself into games now. Josh hill is only start to relaize his potential and play to his natural gifts. When Picken( we only got him becuase willi foot half the bill) and Ward , Higgins and Addison, highest game players in the last 5 years ( not including 2010 recruits) thats a potential output of 12+players which we are missing. Exception goes to Reid and Ayce as they have been injured. But all other players mentioned below, there time is now to take up the challenge of moving the team forward. The 2000-2003 recruits are about to see probably only 2 more years of their prime in the game. I have missed a few playersbut Im concerned about our lack of depth coming through to replace: johnno, aker, scotty, west, eagleton, welsh, harbrow, etc...

2009-
moles - 14
andrew hooper-1
Markovic- 5
Mulligan - how many years now ?


2008
picken (rookie) -43

ayce 0
roughead -12
liam jones 8
Ben Hudson - 64

2007 -
ward-43
reid- 6
grant-26


2006
stack - 15 games
josh hill 59
lynch - gone
addison - 56
higgins - 66

[LostDoggy]

How were we setting up defensively at their kickins?

We tried to fill the 50m mark area to not give them an option out from half back. but they had players free in the pockets who were then able to push to half back and either kick over the zone or draw the zone forward and find anothe man free

[chef]

I think our lack of depth in young players is starting to show. Eade should have blooded more of them them during 2007-2008. For players 5 years into the system, they need to start to putting their stamp on the game now. I know its easy to talk in hindsight.

Grant has barely shown anything this year. Ward needs to start imposing himself into games now. Josh hill is only start to relaize his potential and play to his natural gifts. When Picken( we only got him becuase willi foot half the bill) and Ward , Higgins and Addison, highest game players in the last 5 years ( not including 2010 recruits) thats a potential output of 12+players which we are missing. Exception goes to Reid and Ayce as they have been injured. But all other players mentioned below, there time is now to take up the challenge of moving the team forward. The 2000-2003 recruits are about to see probably only 2 more years of their prime in the game. I have missed a few playersbut Im concerned about our lack of depth coming through to replace: johnno, aker, scotty, west, eagleton, welsh, harbrow, etc...

2009-
moles - 14
andrew hooper-1
Markovic- 5
Mulligan - how many years now ?


2008
picken (rookie) -43

ayce 0
roughead -12
liam jones 8
Ben Hudson - 64

2007 -
ward-43
reid- 6
grant-26


2006
stack - 15 games
josh hill 59
lynch - gone
addison - 56
higgins - 66

Who are these players he should have blooded but didn't.

[Doc26]

Every time I remember Shaw kicking it to himself gaining about 15-20m and finding a target to hit on the chest

What is frustrating is that we know from ample history that Shaw will dominate us off half back and yet we still continue to allow him to run loose. We show him no respect and he obliges in spades. Who needs to be accountable for this systemic and prolonged breakdown ?

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Love him or loathe him, Ross Lyon drew a line in the sand early in his tenure by dropping two established senior players because they weren't adhering to his team-first game plan. We haven't done anything of the sort over the past 4 years and I think it has bred some complacency.

We rely on acts of individual brilliance to get us over the line. That's fine against lowly teams who allow it, but the best teams stifle creativity and it's only the hardest working, most cohesive team that buy into the game plan that win the big games.

We have a mix of naturally talented footballers who don't work hard enough (Cooney, Grant, Higgins, Hill, Gilbee, Lake to an extent) and hard working footballers who aren't as naturally talented (Cross, Boyd, Hudson, Picken, Williams, Minson, Addison, Morris) which I think is why we're playing in such a disconnected manner. The silk isn't strong enough and the strong isn't silky enough.

Collingwood has plenty of naturally talented guys who work their butts off (Pendles, Thomas, Wellingham, Shaw, Cloke, Dawes) combined with the blue collar guys who also commit 100% and are made to look better than the actually are due to the silk around them (Maxwell, Johnson, Blair, Ball). They have very few who waver in their output week to week - there is no lottery.

In my eyes, we currently only have a select few that are both naturally talented and mentally focused at working at 100% - these are Griffen, Sherman, Ward and Murphy. In time, guys like Libba, Wallis, Wood, Roughy and Jones should also fit into this category.

There are too few blue chip players working at full capacity and it's no wonder we're ugly to watch.
I am surprised that you would include Sherman as being mentally focused and leave out Cross, Boyd, Morris and Picken. These are tough hardened players who give there all each week. Unfortunately unlike Collingwood and Geelong we lack sufficient class, experience and intensity, to be a premiership threat this year. There is still more pruning to be done to our current list.

[1eyedog]

I am surprised that you would include Sherman as being mentally focused and leave out Cross, Boyd, Morris and Picken. These are tough hardened players who give there all each week. Unfortunately unlike Collingwood and Geelong we lack sufficient class, experience and intensity, to be a premiership threat this year. There is still more pruning to be done to our current list.

I disagree. I think we have the class in spades it's either a mental issue or a game plan issue at the moment, we have the experience in terms of games played but I agree with you about intensity, it needs to lift.

Cooney, Griffen, Higgins, Murphy and to a lesser extent Ward and Sherman are pretty classy players. We probably lack one pacy class midfielder who's position is taken up in the current team by one of Boyd, Cross, Wallis and Libba. At this stage I just don't think we can play both kids in the middle and would probably be playing Moles for a bit of extra zip and alternating Libba and Wallis throughout the year in order to get about 10 games each under their belts.

[comrade]

I am surprised that you would include Sherman as being mentally focused and leave out Cross, Boyd, Morris and Picken. These are tough hardened players who give there all each week. Unfortunately unlike Collingwood and Geelong we lack sufficient class, experience and intensity, to be a premiership threat this year. There is still more pruning to be done to our current list.

I included Sherman as a player that is both naturally and athletically talented as well as working at 100% capacity - one of only a few in our team at the moment. I credited Boyd, Cross, Picko as each giving 100% but our over reliance on these less 'athletic/naturally talented' types does hurt us.

If Cooney, Higgins etc worked as hard as Pendlebury and Thomas (or Sherman and Griffen) we'd be in a much better position.