The Jets new tactic for scoring goals.

Get the other team to score them. That's how.

Now before we talk about the game that resulted in the glorious point gained away to Roar, the "greatest team in the A-League, sorry Adelaide" as stated by the venerable Andy Harper, and the performance of the Jets in that game, let's celebrate even more incredible wizardry from our new owner Mr Tinkler. He seems like our very own Willy Wonka.

Free and cheap tickets are falling on Newcastle like rain and I hope that the next few home games are well attended. The news that (oooh aaaah) David Beckham might even turn up to limp around our little local stadium has set the 40 plus ladies hearts a'flutter. Maybe even some younger lasses that can remember him playing (wasn't that in the 80s some time?) or have seen him on youtube might even be interested in going to the game to catch a glimpse of his inked abs and pecs.

But enough of that, there's other interesting stuff to talk about, not least the game against Roar.

Now, Brisbane ARE playing a very attractive style these days under Postecoglou and I must say that I am a convert, despite snickering when Craig Foster tore him to shreds on a World Game interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6u8LoGpvKk a few years ago. Ange looked like a very annoyed deer in the headlights then and although it was unnecessary to humiliate him as Foster did, there was a secret pleasure in it.

But no longer. I am converted, his team are really playing terrific stuff. Except for the scoring goals part (I wondered, as Matthew Smith's own goal went in, does that go on their 'goals scored this season' tally?). If only Brisbane had a Matthew Leckie they would be errr.... six points ahead of the rest of the pack, just like Adelaide.

In a past blog I criticised Branko for the dour performance up in Queensland against Mad Miron's Gold Coast. There are no such criticisms from Saturday's game. Culina went out with a very positive, attacking approach. In the first 25 minutes, the Jets owned Brisbane, away from home. The game was fast, end to end and very entertaining. Roar, for their part were also very good except for the error from Matt Smith, which came from one of the many Jets attacks which were keeping Brisbane pinned back.

But once the Jets went up a goal, you sensed that they were treading water until half time, and needed to go to the dressing rooms to get the coach to tell them what to do next.

That instruction was obviously "play on the counter!" because after the break, the game was very different, the Jets gave Brisbane most of the possession, couldn't keep possession themselves for very long and seemed to change from a 4-3-3 to a 4-4-1-1 or something similar. The idea seemed to be to absorb wave after wave of attacks from Brisbane.

And it did seem to be working too. With the Jets backline (even minus Topor-Stanley) being the most stingy in the league, you felt reasonably confident that they would hold on for the win. Taylor Regan deserves a mention here because he was first-rate.

But it was not to be. With the excellent Ben Kennedy obstructed by Luke deVere, Reinaldo ran in and placed a well-aimed header into the back of the net from a corner. Credit to Roar for their perseverance and pressure, they deserved their one point at home.

Every other article I have read about the game tells us how one-sided it was and how Brisbane dominated the game, but I think that analysis is firstly wrong and secondly too simplistic. For a good period in the first half, the Jets gave as good as they got. And that's saying something, given they were about four players short as a squad, and playing away from home. In the second half, the Jets deliberately played on the counter and looked to merely protect the goal. While the statistics might say that Roar had all the possession, it doesn't tell the full story.

That's the good stuff. Now for the other.

How ARE the Jets going to score goals? Something just isn't working at the moment and putting a positive spin on things can't put goals in the net. Is it simply the lack of a few key players? I don't think so. Is it the lack of Michael Bridges? That's part of it, he's a big creative influence through that critical part of the park.

But I think there's something else that Branko needs to think about. It's either that the style of play he is using doesn't suit the attackers he has, or the style just isn't working, or the attackers he has just aren't of the quality that is required.

It's probably no secret among the other coaches in the A-League that the Jets currently have a playing philosophy of moving the ball quickly over the midfield to the attackers up front, who then try to knock the ball down to another attacker, or they try to win the second ball.

That approach can become quite predictable and easy to defend against. It also requires someone much bigger than Sean Rooney at the front to receive and hold up the ball to bring the other attackers in. Evidence for it not working is the lack of goals. When they do try to penetrate through the midfield, that's when the goal-scoring opportunities have come. Look at Zadkovich's runs from a position in defensive midfield to having shots on goals. Other memorable goals this season have come from the whole team moving forward quickly, dominating the midfield and flooding the box. I think the Jets need more of that.

It will be interesting to see if Branko continues with the longer ball, counterattacking style after the departure of his assistant coach Brad Jones. Branko was quoted in the Newcastle Herald as saying that their playing styles differed. On what points? Will the team change to become a short passing team as they were a few seasons ago? Wasn't Jones there when Gary van Egmond had the team playing that way? So is Branko responsible for the "boot it up front and hope" philosophy? I hope not and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

It's a long-term project but Culina needs to start to address the lack of goals right away. Which is not to say that he hasn't been trying to do that up until now, it just means that something has to change. Acquiring another striker might be one solution, but a change in approach might be required.