To me this seems to be our great downfall. On the weekend Melbourne got the upper hand when they had time to give out handballs from stoppages. In the first half if they touched the ball in a stoppage they were given the bums rush, but in the second they had time and space, and with usually around 4 handballs they could clear the space.

To me there are various reasons for this, undermanned midfield, last week taking it's tole (I know we had an extended break), etc. To me it seemed Melbourne got alot of the ball while a player was standing still and then handpassed quickly.

My question is why wasn't the players direct opponent or for that matter any of our blokes in position to lay quick tackles. I know that players may have been set up for a attack etc but i mean it was all to easy, there was no pressure.

I am not trying to have a dig at the players effort, as at the start of the third I was amazed as in a string 5 Melbourne players were tackled while in possesion, but somehow managed to still get out a handball,(not always legally mind you) straight to another Melbourne player. The effort was there it just dropped off.

So to me a mixture of lack of defence in the midfield and an undermanned backline was the cause of our demise, as I believe a lack of midfield defence was a major factor in our poor start. Here's to hoping we can get this area right.

It's much harder when the opposition has the ball all the time. Get the ball to start with and you won't have to be tackling all the time. I think that was the crux of the problem.

Hear! Hear!

Well said, Mr Mellors.

Here we are, then. Looking at the bottom of the glass and pondering the Inescapable Truth we have encountered on our journey here.

Over the last few years, I dunno, call it about 5 or so, we've employed a game plan based on rebounding off half back. There's probably all sorts of thinking behind that ploy, many of which I will never be a party to, but I won't let that lack of knowledge get in the way of offering an opinion about it. I reckon we gambled we'd lose the stoppage or restart so we'd find a way to win a play behind that. Falls in line with the spare man theory. Nearly every team does it... or did.

I reckon it's time for a change. I watched a brief portion of On The Couch last week, couldn't miss it, really.... got my shirt snagged on a door catch in my room at work and couldn't reach the TV for a minute, to turn it off. Healy was talking to the young work experience kiddy who runs Hawthorn these days, about a 'Cluster' they employ in the midfield. It looked good and I decided right then, that I wanted a Cluster myself.

(The Clarkson Cluster employs 3 lines across the middle when the opposition restart with possession, like a kick in or free kick. As the ball holder swings across the ground looking to direct the attack, so do these three lines move across the ground, upfield... so that when the ball does come forward, there are 3 lines of players facing it, usually about 3 players per line. Once the ball holder moves forward, one defender moves in to place pressure on him, he looks to off load and all his team mates are immediately under pressure because everyone has tightened up around the ball.)

Someone wrote an article for the Worst sometime in the last week or so, perhaps Mark Duffield (hi Mark!) about our lack of a consistent game plan... saying we play a style dependent on the team we were facing. Apart from rebounding off half back, we don't do anything much from week to week that looks similar to the week before. We've also seen, through Mercury's observing and recording, that we never line up for a bounce with the same combination in the square.

The conclusion I draw, simply repeating what I've read in the paper in order to fit in around here after a loss, is that it's past time we employed a game plan based on front foot play. Our streak of 9 wins a couple of years ago was notable for it's style of play... the team went direct, the ball moved quickly and everyone fell in line with that.

I hope Harves has got close enough to finding out who's got what and where to feel he can start enabling a game plan based on attacking footy played to the strengths of the team, not negating the strengths of the opposing team. I'd like to think that might become the first priority... stamping our brand of footy on the game.

All this talk of midfields, defensive pressure, tackling... valid, relevant and applicable. Behind that, though, lies something intangible... more of a philosophy. Our philosophy could do with a tweak.

Schizophrenia - a serious mental illness which prevents someone relating their thoughts and feelings to what is happening around them. (apologies to the Oxford)Your not suggesting that this has been the Dockers problem are you Mr Smiley?

RE: The article in the Worst Oztralian on Saturday - I also read this and had a bit of an ephiphany. It went along the lines of:

- when we expect a tough game, we set a defensive midfield, playing man-on-man
- when we expect an easy game we open up the midfield

The suggestion was that we win the ball out of the middle when we play with a defensive midfield, and the forwards get to do their job. But when we open it up the opposition players just run right through.

I'm still not 100% sure about the theory, but it does explain why we always seem to do better against better teams, and lose to Richmond and the D's.

It was duffield who wrote it and it was interesting. It suggested that because our midfield is not as quick as others we are better off playing with a defensive mindset in the midfield rather than allowing a shoot out between the midfields.

That's all well and good but I'd rather the team play with an attacking mindset, with the belief that our midfield is just as competitive as every other midfield. Like Mr Smiley says, to stamp our brand of footy on the game and not just react to the oppositions style.