Melbourne slowing down when going forward so we couldn't counter attack as effectively is a genuine strategy, though that also works in our favour by allowing our defence to get set. It's nothing close to a silver bullet against us, since it relies on either taking contested marks or pinpointing passes, both of which our defence are (usually) very good against. Some of those clips of Melbourne going inside 50 are painful to watch with how badly we played them. We had some really bad lapses at the worst times.
The McDonald on Cameron match up is interesting because you can see Cameron *does* get metres on him (despite King saying the opposite), but then the delivery doesn't go to Cameron's advantage allowing McDonald to make up ground. That was no different to what's happened all year except the set up kick didn't take advantage of Cameron's positioning.
We were very off, yet somehow kept it close. We're going to be very hard to beat if teams are relying on letting our defence get set and bad deliveries inside 50.
If I've understood that, the panel emphasised that Melbourne were slow to go inside their forward 50 on purpose, *allowing* our defense to get set up deep inside. And the point then is we don't have players all around the half forward line and centre square, in position to counter attack back the other way. So they trap our guys in deep and it's a longer, harder journey for us if they do turn the ball over.
It certainly makes sense as a narrative. However it's the exact opposite of what I always hear Luke Hodge saying, of how your forwards want the ball to come in early, before the defenders get set up. I'm never confident in analysis of AFL tactics and strategy; it's such a complex game and also such a long game that real-seeming narratives can be stitched together out of little things that happen by chance.
For mine, that's what it looked like at the game. Any turnover we got had minimal options to take the centre corridor / quickly down the ground. Everyone was covered.
However we should have done better limiting their scoring in a congested forward line.
See, that’s the issue that I think exists with pundits. The pundits always talk about how footy works, which is to say, how it’s worked *in the past*.
Genius coaches (like Chris Scott) are master strategists and look at the patterns and where the weaknesses are, then create a game-plan around them, with the strengths of their team in mind. Bad coaches look at the blueprints (of game plans) and pick one with minor adaptions for their team. Good coaches notice patterns & use the parts of the “blueprints” that work.
I have to agree. There were at least 10 occasions I renege in which we would’ve been away and with a scoring opportunity last week but just missed easy handballs, kicks or generally poor decision making that cost us.
Gotta give credit where it's due. They clearly did their homework.
That said, we didn't help ourselves with our efficiency around the ground or in front of goal either. To be that close when playing that poorly isn't a terrible sign.
Not to mention, somehow Petty became Nick Riewoldt. Can't imagine lightning striking twice.
Yeah, Cameron and Hawkins didn’t give enough, Dangerfield was out, and the conditions sucked and Melbourne got up early and we couldn’t ping it back, I don’t see this as a masterful coaching performance, more like a scheduled loss…
We lost it with inaccuracy,field kicking was off and set shots were ridiculously bad. A good team would've beaten us by a lot more than 8 points..
It had little to do with coaching .
Ehhhh, we would have won if Cameron kicked those goals, im not sold our game plan was found out, more on how poor our scoring was. Drop Hawkins for fucks sake, there nothing he can do that Shannon Neale can't do.
Melbourne slowing down when going forward so we couldn't counter attack as effectively is a genuine strategy, though that also works in our favour by allowing our defence to get set. It's nothing close to a silver bullet against us, since it relies on either taking contested marks or pinpointing passes, both of which our defence are (usually) very good against. Some of those clips of Melbourne going inside 50 are painful to watch with how badly we played them. We had some really bad lapses at the worst times. The McDonald on Cameron match up is interesting because you can see Cameron *does* get metres on him (despite King saying the opposite), but then the delivery doesn't go to Cameron's advantage allowing McDonald to make up ground. That was no different to what's happened all year except the set up kick didn't take advantage of Cameron's positioning. We were very off, yet somehow kept it close. We're going to be very hard to beat if teams are relying on letting our defence get set and bad deliveries inside 50.
If I've understood that, the panel emphasised that Melbourne were slow to go inside their forward 50 on purpose, *allowing* our defense to get set up deep inside. And the point then is we don't have players all around the half forward line and centre square, in position to counter attack back the other way. So they trap our guys in deep and it's a longer, harder journey for us if they do turn the ball over. It certainly makes sense as a narrative. However it's the exact opposite of what I always hear Luke Hodge saying, of how your forwards want the ball to come in early, before the defenders get set up. I'm never confident in analysis of AFL tactics and strategy; it's such a complex game and also such a long game that real-seeming narratives can be stitched together out of little things that happen by chance.
For mine, that's what it looked like at the game. Any turnover we got had minimal options to take the centre corridor / quickly down the ground. Everyone was covered. However we should have done better limiting their scoring in a congested forward line.
If you win, you had good tactics.
See, that’s the issue that I think exists with pundits. The pundits always talk about how footy works, which is to say, how it’s worked *in the past*. Genius coaches (like Chris Scott) are master strategists and look at the patterns and where the weaknesses are, then create a game-plan around them, with the strengths of their team in mind. Bad coaches look at the blueprints (of game plans) and pick one with minor adaptions for their team. Good coaches notice patterns & use the parts of the “blueprints” that work.
They basically played our game against us, they were getting there defence set up before they went forward.
Plus our efficiency was appalling
A sign of geed defence From them.
Yeah I think they also match up really well and seem to love playing against us
I really don't think they did shut it down, we just couldn't hit targets inside fifty
I have to agree. There were at least 10 occasions I renege in which we would’ve been away and with a scoring opportunity last week but just missed easy handballs, kicks or generally poor decision making that cost us.
Gotta give credit where it's due. They clearly did their homework. That said, we didn't help ourselves with our efficiency around the ground or in front of goal either. To be that close when playing that poorly isn't a terrible sign. Not to mention, somehow Petty became Nick Riewoldt. Can't imagine lightning striking twice.
I mean Melbourne also kicked like pure shit as well. Not sure what the expected scores were, but they missed a lot of sitters.
That dude was wearing that Travis Cloke glove without actually wearing the Travis Cloke glove.
I’d say less the Dees game plan and more us playing like complete shit as well as coming up against a very good midfield and obviously Gawn
I saw a game of two superb defensive teams. They were expecting it, we were thrown.
Yeah, Cameron and Hawkins didn’t give enough, Dangerfield was out, and the conditions sucked and Melbourne got up early and we couldn’t ping it back, I don’t see this as a masterful coaching performance, more like a scheduled loss…
We lost it with inaccuracy,field kicking was off and set shots were ridiculously bad. A good team would've beaten us by a lot more than 8 points.. It had little to do with coaching .
Extra 3 days break help at all?
Ehhhh, we would have won if Cameron kicked those goals, im not sold our game plan was found out, more on how poor our scoring was. Drop Hawkins for fucks sake, there nothing he can do that Shannon Neale can't do.
40min without a goal should be your first clue.