Prediction Changes vs Dees round 19

[BEaston]

We really need to not send an extra player up to the stoppages which allows Melbourne a loose defender.

Also we almost need to go man on man in our forward line as stupid as that sounds because Melbourne continually want to drop off and have a deep defender or two to intercept a long kick out of congestion or from pressure. Going man on man at least makes a 50/50 contest and prevents easy intercepts and being hurt on the rebound.

Were we sending an extra to stoppages or were Melbourne dropping one back?
Theoretically if we have one extra around the ball we shouldn't be rushing kicks. This is what we tried previously but then just butchered easy kicks once we were out of the congestion.

Manning up and kicking long might be a good option to a forward line with no space.... Back our ground level players to hold the ball in once it drops. More or less the territory game... similar to our 2016 method. With Cody, JJ, McSteal all running around we should be well placed for a strategy like this.

Also going to need at least one of our key forwards to play a pretty good dummy role. Need to separate Lever and May as much as possible.

It's going to be interesting to see how we play it.


Edit: Missed MavDog's post above, but yep what they said!

 

[Dogsman16]

Were we sending an extra to stoppages or were Melbourne dropping one back?
Theoretically if we have one extra around the ball we shouldn't be rushing kicks. This is what we tried previously but then just butchered easy kicks once we were out of the congestion.

Manning up and kicking long might be a good option to a forward line with no space.... Back our ground level players to hold the ball in once it drops. More or less the territory game... similar to our 2016 method. With Cody, JJ, McSteal all running around we should be well placed for a strategy like this.

Also going to need at least one of our key forwards to play a pretty good dummy role. Need to separate Lever and May as much as possible.

It's going to be interesting to see how we play it.
[/QUOTE]

Bruce is probably the man to play this role. He's the smartest in terms of lead up forward and knows which space to lead into.

The problem when playing that additional stoppage player is that if the opposition turn up and provide pressure we can't just handball our way out of trouble. Eventually the rushed kick comes out and Melb have the spare in either Lever and May (which allows them to do as they please). Then it's just a case of getting the ball in Langdon's hand to run and gun there way out or salem to pinpoint out of defensive 50.

Centre bounces are vital against the dees. It's when they are forced to play 6v6 and makes it more difficult for May/Lever to be spare and obviously Gawn can't get back in time. This is why I worry about JUH. He doesn't have the engine yet to continually seperate himself away from our other forwards. This is the sole reason why I don't have him as best 22 yet.

Instead if we had Martin in and English forward, English has the pre-seasons in the legs to be continually on the move.

 

[Mutt]

Will be interesting if we go back to the strategy of keepings off to avoid Melbourne's strength in defending aerial balls. I think the idea was right in order to counter them, we were just let down in execution with some uncharacteristic turnovers/poor kicking. The other alternative would be play it like Hawthorn did which was kick in low, almost forcing ground balls into the forward line and let our smalls win the ball there. Another option we could try is just to try beat them at the their own game.... back in Naughton/Bruce/JUH/English to beat Melbourne in the air. This is probably the most risky option, but if it works out it probably gives us the easiest and fastest path to goal so it has the biggest pay off as well.

The Hawthorn plan was the one we should have used against Melbourne last time. Spread their defense and kick the ball in low, hard and deep. And go through the corridor whether they occupy it or not. Make them adjust to our plan rather than the other way around.

 

[Cudi]

Adelaide now travelling to VIC anyway, so we could have just played them after all haha.

 

[BEaston]

The Hawthorn plan was the one we should have used against Melbourne last time. Spread their defense and kick the ball in low, hard and deep. And go through the corridor whether they occupy it or not. Make them adjust to our plan rather than the other way around.

By adopting the hawthorn plan we're still adjusting our normal plan to suit them. Just the same as the original switching plan we employed in our last game. Both are changing our usual game style to counter their team. It is then dependent on the effectiveness of that change of strategy as to whether they need to adjust from there.

 

[Southern 8]

Dogs v Dees
out - Dunkley, R Smith.
In - Libba, Young.
Such a shame to lose Dunks. Libba hopefully fit and refreshed. I’d bring in Young over Roarke for flexibility. Can play back on Dees big fwds or chop out in ruck allowing Bruce to stay forward.

 

[ab_83]

Just hit up Flea on the lead. Simple

 

[Mutt]

By adopting the hawthorn plan we're still adjusting our normal plan to suit them. Just the same as the original switching plan we employed in our last game. Both are changing our usual game style to counter their team. It is then dependent on the effectiveness of that change of strategy as to whether they need to adjust from there.

I'm not advocating a major shift to our game plan. Simply an adjustment to our entries into the forward 50. There are a dozen features that comprise our game plan...only one needs adjustment for Melbourne in my view.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm not advocating a major shift to our game plan. Simply a more effective way of entering the forward 50. There are a dozen features that comprise our game plan...only one needs adjustment for Melbourne in my view.

Can we get a name change for this thread please?

Edit: thanks Mutt

 

[SupercededMan]

This will be a great test of Bevo's coaching prowess. Quite a few of his best players not available and coming up against the most settled line-up in the comp with a very effective game plan. Melbourne's team defence is just impenetrable when they're on. If he can manufacture a win this week I hope he gets the credit he deserves on here for once.

He's won us a flag, we're second on the ladder, and this is a topic of conversation. LOL.

By the way, not having a go at you. Just some other morons who think they have the answers.

 

[SupercededMan]

Stop Oliver is the first mission for mine. I would tag him with Libba.

and Petracca

 

[maddog37]

and Petracca

I don’t think Petracca will tag Oliver for us. Good strategy though if we can convince him to do it!!!

 

[SupercededMan]

I don’t think Petracca will tag Oliver for us. Good strategy though if we can convince him to do it!!!

LOL

 

[Libbaaaa]

Minimising Petracca's scoreboard impact will be key, thought he didn't get off the leash too much in round 11. Also wouldn't be surprised if you game is made the Friday game now too.

 

[Bodicifer]

Out: Dunks
In: Libba

Libba gives us stoppage goals up forward too if it's going to be a shitty wet night at the G. I actually think we will be too tall up forward so I would play Bruce second ruck and leave Roark Smith in. I don't think we need to bring in Young for the second ruck role. Unfortunately Ugle-Hagan is probably going to battle with the speed and the wet, but if we can get it in his hands three times within 55, that'll be three goals!

 

[Mutt]

He's won us a flag, we're second on the ladder, and this is a topic of conversation. LOL.

By the way, not having a go at you. Just some other morons who think they have the answers.

What's the point of being part of this forum if we can't talk about tactics, gameplan, selection and the myriad of other football subjects that can be influenced by the coach? Beveridge makes adjustments and sometimes doesn't make adjustments, but he not god-like and we can debate what should be done with the team and playing style. Perhaps you might also stop referring to other posters on here as morons.

 

[Wocka]

What's the point of being part of this forum if we can't talk about tactics, gameplan, selection and the myriad of other football subjects that can be influenced by the coach? Beveridge makes adjustments and sometimes doesn't make adjustments, but he not god-like and we can debate what should be done with the team and playing style. Perhaps you might also stop referring to other posters on here as morons.

Well said Mutt.

The Bevo Koolaiders are making this place unbearable. They're getting near The Drug Cheats/James Hird level.

 

[Chicago1]

I am not psychologically prepared to play Melbourne this weekend. Can we swap back to playing Adelaide? My Lucky Meal schedule is all screwed up now.

Next we'll be playing the Storm at the Junction Oval.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Will be interesting if we go back to the strategy of keepings off to avoid Melbourne's strength in defending aerial balls. I think the idea was right in order to counter them, we were just let down in execution with some uncharacteristic turnovers/poor kicking. The other alternative would be play it like Hawthorn did which was kick in low, almost forcing ground balls into the forward line and let our smalls win the ball there. Another option we could try is just to try beat them at the their own game.... back in Naughton/Bruce/JUH/English to beat Melbourne in the air. This is probably the most risky option, but if it works out it probably gives us the easiest and fastest path to goal so it has the biggest pay off as well.

After watching JUH juggle and leap at marks last week I think in he and Naughton we have at least the equal of Lever and May in reading the flight of the incoming ball. Seperate the bastards and let’s go head to head with them. The harmes tag and Bailey bloody Fritsch worry me far more. Tactically Harmes got us last time and Fritsch is a frigging gun. I’m hopeful not confident this week as they have us in the ruck, have mids as good as what we can put on the park this particular week and Bevo will refuse to countertag Harmes. With a full team we would get them so I think come finals it won’t matter.

 

[Jeff 1975]

The rebuild was just starting to happen, Dunkley and Naughton back and now covid

Have we swapped a game what goes with that ???

There are other Melbourne teams - what about North

This year is quickly unraveling

 

[Jeff 1975]

I am not psychologically prepared to play Melbourne this weekend. Can we swap back to playing Adelaide? My Lucky Meal schedule is all screwed up now.

Next we'll be playing the Storm at the Junction Oval.

Game 2 the dream team in Tokyo

 

[hutchy31]

We really need to not send an extra player up to the stoppages which allows Melbourne a loose defender.

Also we almost need to go man on man in our forward line as stupid as that sounds because Melbourne continually want to drop off and have a deep defender or two to intercept a long kick out of congestion or from pressure. Going man on man at least makes a 50/50 contest and prevents easy intercepts and being hurt on the rebound.

Doesn’t sound stupid at all, in fact it’s what was flagged by Lyon last night as a potential reason why Melbourne struggle against some poorer teams - they play six in the forward line and keep May and Lever accountable.

Now I’d be disappointed in Bevo taking really any notice of the superficial “analysis” done on some of these talking head shows but there must be a kernel of truth in some of them. This might be one. Play Naughton, Bruce and JUH against May, Lever and Petty, plus a defensive forward for Salem (JJ?) and round out with our smalls. Six v six and they can’t zone off without risking a free player in our forward 50.

I know it’s not as simple as that but if we play an extra at stoppage and bomb the ball in, and combine that with some risky kicks across our back line or in the corridor, then we’re asking to get beaten exactly like we did last time. Should be an interesting match up.

 

[bobs head soup]

Given the strong likelihood that we meet Melbourne at some point in the finals, possibly very deep, I am curious as to whether both teams lay all their cards on the table this week or whether a bit of cat and mouse transpires.

 

[weltschmerz]

Doesn’t sound stupid at all, in fact it’s what was flagged by Lyon last night as a potential reason why Melbourne struggle against some poorer teams - they play six in the forward line and keep May and Lever accountable.

Now I’d be disappointed in Bevo taking really any notice of the superficial “analysis” done on some of these talking head shows but there must be a kernel of truth in some of them. This might be one. Play Naughton, Bruce and JUH against May, Lever and Petty, plus a defensive forward for Salem (JJ?) and round out with our smalls. Six v six and they can’t zone off without risking a free player in our forward 50.

I know it’s not as simple as that but if we play an extra at stoppage and bomb the ball in, and combine that with some risky kicks across our back line or in the corridor, then we’re asking to get beaten exactly like we did last time. Should be an interesting match up.

Those four, Weightman, and Vandermeer if he's ready would be a handful for the Melbourne defenders.

 

[perro_loco]

Those four, Weightman, and Vandermeer if he's ready would be a handful for the Melbourne defenders.

It's going to be a wet game on Friday night. Keep things mostly the same. Maybe only one change. Libba in, but who goes out, who knows. we should win this.