POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 10

[jnrmac 18,952]

Pity we did not have three more like them we would have won.

INdeed....

[FarNorthernD 5,839]

Watching the replay and the game I am sure that Jeff Garlett's second goal was absolutely brilliant. The commentators said that he fell over. I don't think he did, I think he deliberately propped to elude the guy on his hammer. What do others think?

I think you are dead right. I also think that Garlett is a

A). Reason to watch Melbourne play even though we are a very poor team. Fun and amazing football things often happen when Jeff is near the ball, sometimes it is brilliantly fun and amazing.

B). Excellent conversation starter with Carlton supporters and

C). Second word answer to the question "Have Melbourne improved this year?" The first word being Hogan

[Binmans PA 26,020]

yes that was the real brilliance of that goal, dropping to let the other guy go past. Very clever, very intuitive. Was great footy.

And then the finish. Loved it. Had me up on my feet and in the ear of many a Collingwood supporter around us.

I reckon Newton needs some more scrutiny. I was stoked we got him from Port and really rated his natural footy ability - especially ball winning. When he has the ball in space and uses his left foot he is very effective but currently this is about once a game. Apart from this he really has offered nothing. I agree with posters above that he is so easily bumped off the ball and if people think Toumpas' defensive positioning is bad at times, Newton is in another league altogether. I wonder if he is struggling with Roos' demands for two-way running or is a natural attacking player who finds team defence difficult. Thoughts?

He did lay a few tackles in the first half, but I suspect you're right. This would also explain him yoyoing in and out of the team.

Pity we did not have three more like them we would have won.

That wasn't the difference, OD. It was horrible, stupid skill errors from Dunn, Garland, Viney, Fitzy, Gawn etc. Edited June 10, 2015 by AdamFarr

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I think you are dead right. I also think that Garlett is a

A). Reason to watch Melbourne play even though we are a very poor team. Fun and amazing football things often happen when Jeff is near the ball, sometimes it is brilliantly fun and amazing.

B). Excellent conversation starter with Carlton supporters and

C). Second word answer to the question "Have Melbourne improved this year?" The first word being Hogan

Third being Vanders?

[leucopogon 1,468]

I watched the replay again last night. It staggers me to this day, what a difference I get in my perception of how the team and individuals played watching it live on tv versus watching a replay. I'm guilty of getting extremely emotional watching the game live and it clouds my judgement.

Here are some observations on the points that have been discussed a bit on this thread.

Watts - The dropped mark was a terrible mistake, no two ways about it, keep your feet! However, Jack battled back really well when he could have easily gone into his shell after that stuff up. Seeing him taking on tacklers was heart in mouth stuff and he really surprised me with some of his efforts. The clutch goal after the dropping the ball decision was hopefully a turning point in his season.

Lamumba - I was quite critical of him watching the game live, but on 2nd viewing, he wasn't really that bad, besides his first possession where he played on and ran straight into trouble and letting Elliot play on and goal. Still waiting for him to have a breakout game in Dees colours though.

TMac & Dunn - both had pretty ordinary, error riddled games. Dunn not quite so bad. Lets hope Tommy uses the toweling up he got from Cloke as motivation to really lift for the rest of the year. Just wanted to note a few times I think we broke down in our defense because of Fitzy's bad awareness and positioning. The Jamie Elliot mark in the goal square was a good example of this. TMac left Elliot to go to White because it was obvious that Fitzy had completely lost body contact and wasn't even in the contest, and that high ball in was more likely to going to be taken by the tall forward White. Tommy was unlucky that the ball flukily drifted over the top of the pack. There were a couple of other examples of this that I can't remember right now.

Fitzy - Was ok but also made some absolute howlers. I called for him to be dropped but on 2nd viewing I'm not so sure. Lets see if he can bounce back (pending matchups with StK).

Newton - I don't think he's as weak as people here are alluding to, he sticks his tackles most times. His problems are his one-pace, limited awareness (resulting in him getting caught in possession often) and I definitely agree that his tank isn't quite up to scratch.

Gawn - Promising game, made some clangers like the attempted goal line mark and the cough up kick off half back but I liked what he brought more than Spencer or Jamar this season.

Jetta - Looked a bit lost early but did some good things as well.

Hogan - Was completely outplayed by Jack Frost (who I think will be one of the best AFL defenders in a few years). I hope this game is Hogan's low point for the season and he bounces back all guns blazing next week. Dropped heaps of marks he should have clunked and didn't split enough packs.

M Jones - I was highly critical straight after the game, but realise now that I was unfair. He actually didn't do that badly, there was one incident late in the game where he went to ground too easily in a contest near the boundary and collingwood ran it away, but mostly he was okay, just didn't provide enough line-breaking run that he's shown to be capable of in the past. As the sub I was expecting more of that. I'd like to see some other blokes given a run ahead of Jones. The bloke's contracted for next season, so in a way we're stuck with him and we know what he offers. I'd much rather have Grimes in than M Jones or I'd like to see Harmes or ANB given a run in the seniors to see what they're capable of.

Pedersen - Not too bad a game, a shame he didn't score that goal in the last 1/4.

Howe - pretty decent game but could have made much more of an impact if he'd held some more marks that went his way. The missed set shot in the last was a real deflator. This guy should be kicking multiples every game with his marking and kicking ability. Now let's see him do it!

Viney - Some excellent stuff but some very ordinary play as well. i hope he's just blowing out some of the cobwebs from his injury lay off. Wasn't very clean and fumbled it a lot.

Riley - I like his aggression and he seemed to be tagging Pendlebury for a fair bit (is that right?). Didn't do too badly, I'd leave him in for now and demand at least 6 tackles a game, perhaps play him as the sub again, he did that role pretty well against the Dogs.

Vince, N Jones, Cross, Brayshaw, Garlett were all terrific

Vanders - gonna miss him while he's out. Hope he's back soon.

Edit: forgot Toumpas - I'm a pretty big critic, but I thought he did play ok. The handball to Gawn that everyone's crticising was actually the right play to make. Watch it again, he's surrounded by three Magpies and the handball was delivered perfectly to Gawn who was at least 20 m in the clear with two unmanned targets to kick to. Toumpas absolutely did the right thing. As for the rest of his game, he was pretty efficient with his disposal by foot, missed a few handballs but he's definitely beginning to cement a spot in the team. Wish he'd provide just a little more attacking flair to his game and hit the scoreboard, his footskills do appear to be his strength.

Looking forward to seeing Tyson back in and would love to see a surprise inclusion as well (e.g. ANB, Harmes or Stretch in for M. Jones or B. Newton)

Edited June 10, 2015 by leucopogon

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

That wasn't the difference, OD. It was horrible, stupid skill errors from Dunn, Garland, Viney, Fitzy, Gawn etc.

In the cold hard light of day, I'm okay with that. Provided they learn from them. They won't learn anything from screwups in a game where we're down by 10 goals at half time and the only remaining hope is to lose by less than 15.

But in an important game, big crowd, against good oppo where we're holding our own and playing (overall) decent footy ... then they can see that if they cut out the dumb mistakes, then we're in a pretty good situation. We can win those games. Bring on the next opponent.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

He popped up too quick for it to be an accident. Footy smarts.

Nothing on Channel 7 about him falling, not sure what commentary Bobby is referring to.

Watch Garlett's second goal. The commentator said, "Lost his footing" which I guess is much the same as falling over. Should be a goal of the round nomination.

[FarNorthernD 5,839]

Third being Vanders?

Fourth being Brayshaw?

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

Fourth being Brayshaw?

My thoughts exactly. This kid is going to be a true A grader.

[Binmans PA 26,020]

In the cold hard light of day, I'm okay with that. Provided they learn from them. They won't learn anything from screwups in a game where we're down by 10 goals at half time and the only remaining hope is to lose by less than 15.

But in an important game, big crowd, against good oppo where we're holding our own and playing (overall) decent footy ... then they can see that if they cut out the dumb mistakes, then we're in a pretty good situation. We can win those games. Bring on the next opponent.

Agreed, except two of them were our experienced defenders in Dunn and Garland. They shouldn't be making these errors.

[Binmans PA 26,020]

Already posted something similar, but I can't help myself, so excited by this bloke. I just watched our two strings of goals in the second and third quarters. Brayshaw was front and centre in just about everything, with strong involvement from Gawn, Vince and Jones. Even Lumumba. But Brayshaw is all class. I love him.

[Harrisonrules 273]

Don't you believe that jnrmac. I would like someone to nominate the so called 13 turnovers that led to goals. Cloke scored most of his 7 from strong marking and one snap.

I don't think you understand what a turnover is. It will happen when we have the ball and are moving it forward - looking good- and someone muffs a handball or kick - maybe close to our goal - I assume watts inability to snaffle that ball in the goal square might have been counted as a turnover -and it goes to the opposition who head back toward their goal and as it happened time after time on Saturday is marked by Cooke who kicks a goal. According to the Tuesday age game report, in the section on scoring sources they recoded 13 goals 2 or 6 points from melbourne turnovers. Argue with the age if you like but I also heard of it on Monday night via a friend who heard the broadcast commentary report it.

[Harrisonrules 273]

First game I've seen live in ages and I'm glad I did. What I noticed is that when we made errors was that it was it was amazingly obvious that it was going to happen, as there were no options upfield, and the close options were closed up, forcing us in to either a very difficult kick or a handball to someone stationary. I thought we lost today not due to poor skills but because we don't instinctively mobilise for attack when we cause turnovers. When we went long, 43 for Collingwood (Oxley?) picked us off. That makes the skills look poor but I think its more of an effect than the cause. Jimmy T is the biggest victim of this.

Thought Aidan Riley was good. Don't know how much of the ball he saw but he was clean with it and menacing without.

Thought Benny Newton added nothing. Riley and Matt Jones are both ahead of him for mine.

That Fitzy throw was the most amazing thing I have ever seen in a footy game. WTAF? Was clearly a panicked action, but, wow.

Travis Cloke is a way better player than I thought. We had no answer.

The Collingwood supporters around me don't know the rules (calling "ball" on literally every single tackle) and the MFC supporters around me aren't up with the nuances of the modern game, with their "just kick it" calls and muttering whenever a chain of handballs started; even though they generally lead to something good.

Are you kidding, you've been writing rubbish on this forum for so long and now you tell us you rarely go. That's what frustrates we regulars. We have to put up with rubbish from those who don't go. It is different a far different experience being there. For starters you see the whole game unfold, not the minimal picture of the screen. For example if you had been going you would know by now toumpas is one of the better team kicks, that he is a team player and is improving weekly.

[Harrisonrules 273]

Toumpas is still a developing player, but he is starting to show some of the things in game that stood out when he was a junior, primarily his hard running and neat foot skills. His contested work is improving, which has to be noted, this was definitely not a strength when he was drafted. I think the majority of his possessions were contested on Monday.

Also his composure under pressure was an issue at times as a junior, and is clearly something he needs to continue to work on. Defensive running and positioning is generally an area all draftees need to improve on.

Jimmy’s virtually a second year player after numerous injuries, but I’m satisfied that we are seeing some of his strong points coming out in games. I can see the development in his game. He will make errors, but I believe that the best place for him to learn is on the field. He certainly should have learned plenty from yesterday’s game.

I fully support your comments about jimmy. I believe he will be highly significant for us in the not to distant future. Yes has taken longer than someone like Brayshaw but Angus is 6'2" jimmy6'. But there is an abundance of skill coming to the fore. Don't forget Riccutto believe he could have been no 1 draft pick in his year. Kicks really nicely, perhaps one of our better passes, don't be fooled by the occasional miss kick under extreme pressure. Our team is riddled with it. Has really nice hands, and quick handballs. Yes the blunders are still due to pressure and bad calls. Someone said he couldn't mark. That's rubbish as he holds all his marks..that doesn't mean he out marks taller opponents. Kicking for goal has been reliable since day one. We'd love another yard of pace but wouldn't we like to see that with Tyson, n jones, etc. Jimmy's run is already excellent. Both back and forward. Wasn't that a great run from the back line through the wing for handball then across the other forward flank to receive the pass from JW and goal against doggies. Has he things to learn, of course but I agree he will develop best in firsts. 2 out of last three games over 20 possessions. Mid teens against port when we only had 2 just scrape into 20s. All you jimmy knockers get on board, he's just arriving and will give us plenty to cheer about

[Harrisonrules 273]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but the rule hasn't changed since I was playing, you were taught to close your fist and punch the ball and you can never be called for a throw.

Unfortunately the ump had paid one against pies a bit earlier at that end of ground and they weren't happy. No way the ump could have let it go and get out of the ground

[picket fence 15,107]

Watts had one of his better games for the season, and in terms of his work in close, one of his best to date. If he can show more of the physicality he showed yesterday, a lot of the noise will die down. It's not a high bar, but it will do.

His pace over 20 metres is a weapon he needs to exploit a lot more often. It surprises me everytime he hits the jets just how quick he is for his size.

Re Newton, if a a player of his ilk replaces the likes of M Jones on the list as depth, we're moving in the right direction.

Watts new nickname "Weapon 2" Coming to an oval near you!

Edited June 10, 2015 by picket fence

[jnrmac 18,952]

I don't think you understand what a turnover is. It will happen when we have the ball and are moving it forward - looking good- and someone muffs a handball or kick - maybe close to our goal - I assume watts inability to snaffle that ball in the goal square might have been counted as a turnover -and it goes to the opposition who head back toward their goal and as it happened time after time on Saturday is marked by Cooke who kicks a goal. According to the Tuesday age game report, in the section on scoring sources they recoded 13 goals 2 or 6 points from melbourne turnovers. Argue with the age if you like but I also heard of it on Monday night via a friend who heard the broadcast commentary report it.

Agreed. If you have the ball and cough it up and the other team has unbroken possession and gets a goal, that is a T/O.

The three ways of getting a goal are in essence from a TO, from a stoppage and from a kick in.

[Binmans PA 26,020]

Agreed. If you have the ball and cough it up and the other team has unbroken possession and gets a goal, that is a T/O.

The three ways of getting a goal are in essence from a TO, from a stoppage and from a kick in.

Our problem was though that we gave up turn overs that were in some cases almost unforced errors. We made the worst possible decision when if we'd made some quite basic football decisions, we would not have conceded a goal. Combine a number of poor decisions and what we did was continually shoot ourselves in the foot.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

I don't think you understand what a turnover is. It will happen when we have the ball and are moving it forward - looking good- and someone muffs a handball or kick - maybe close to our goal - I assume watts inability to snaffle that ball in the goal square might have been counted as a turnover -and it goes to the opposition who head back toward their goal and as it happened time after time on Saturday is marked by Cooke who kicks a goal. According to the Tuesday age game report, in the section on scoring sources they recoded 13 goals 2 or 6 points from melbourne turnovers. Argue with the age if you like but I also heard of it on Monday night via a friend who heard the broadcast commentary report it.

Repeat. Cite the 13 so called turnovers if you can Harrison. Watch the replay of goals scored and the chain of events leading to them. I'm buggered if I can see 13 Collingwood goals out of 17 set up by 'turnovers'. Don't like the term turnovers by the way it's a basketball term.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bobby McKenzie

[DeeSpencer 23,122]

Our problem was though that we gave up turn overs that were in some cases almost unforced errors. We made the worst possible decision when if we'd made some quite basic football decisions, we would not have conceded a goal. Combine a number of poor decisions and what we did was continually shoot ourselves in the foot.

Our biggest issue right now besides the basic skill errors is how to play more attacking footy without it being foolishly risky.

Dunn's kick in turn over was a perfect example of a good decision just poor execution. Watts was by himself in plenty of space and had the ball got him he could've played on and probably started a very dangerous forward thrust. So you live with that decision by Dunn.

It's certainly the poor decisions for where there's no obvious advantage that upset me the most.

[Binmans PA 26,020]

Our biggest issue right now besides the basic skill errors is how to play more attacking footy without it being foolishly risky.

Dunn's kick in turn over was a perfect example of a good decision just poor execution. Watts was by himself in plenty of space and had the ball got him he could've played on and probably started a very dangerous forward thrust. So you live with that decision by Dunn.

It's certainly the poor decisions for where there's no obvious advantage that upset me the most.

Agreed. I actually said the same thing about the Dunn error at the time. Still, it was so disappointing because Dunn is such a beautiful kick. It just ended up being dumb footy that he got too close to the man on the mark and then execution wise, that he didn't get more air time on it to get it over that man properly.

[DeeSpencer 23,122]

Repeat. Cite the 13 so called turnovers if you can Harrison. Watch the replay of goals scored.

Completely off the top of my head:

- Viney kick (Cloke goal?)

- Lumumba stuff up at half back (Cloke goal?)

- Watts dropped mark (Swan goal)

- Dunn kick in (Blair goal)

- The completely sloppy play in the middle of the field that ended in a vanders pressured kick then had the ball sail down to Cloke by himself

That's 5 or so without watching.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

Completely off the top of my head:

- Viney kick (Cloke goal?)

- Lumumba stuff up at half back (Cloke goal?)

- Watts dropped mark (Swan goal)

- Dunn kick in (Blair goal)

- The completely sloppy play in the middle of the field that ended in a vanders pressured kick then had the ball sail down to Cloke by himself

That's 5 or so without watching.

I agree with these examples but where in the hell are the other eight?

Agreed. If you have the ball and cough it up and the other team has unbroken possession and gets a goal, that is a T/O.

The three ways of getting a goal are in essence from a TO, from a stoppage and from a kick in.

So we kick the ball to Howe who marks it and kicks a point. They kick it in and with a chain of unbroken kicks and handballs score a goal at the other end. Therefore Howe's miss is counted as a turnover? Come off it jnrmac! Surely turnovers can be classified into two categories. Forced and unforced. Much the same as tennis has unforced errors and forced ones.

[Nasher 33,047]

Are you kidding, you've been writing rubbish on this forum for so long and now you tell us you rarely go. That's what frustrates we regulars. We have to put up with rubbish from those who don't go. It is different a far different experience being there. For starters you see the whole game unfold, not the minimal picture of the screen. For example if you had been going you would know by now toumpas is one of the better team kicks, that he is a team player and is improving weekly.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm one of many regular posters on the site that watch from interstate. Like others, such as McQueen, Ethan Tremblay, rpfc, Goodvibes, Billy2803 (sorry if I got the numbers wrong), Little Goffy, Pennant St Dee, grazman and Clint Bizkit, all of whom I consider to be knowledgeable and intelligent posters, I pay my membership and watch from afar and attend when I can.

[jnrmac 18,952]

I agree with these examples but where in the hell are the other eight?

So we kick the ball to Howe who marks it and kicks a point. They kick it in and with a chain of unbroken kicks and handballs score a goal at the other end. Therefore Howe's miss is counted as a turnover? Come off it jnrmac! Surely turnovers can be classified into two categories. Forced and unforced. Much the same as tennis has unforced errors and forced ones.

Read the post again. A kick in is in its own category. I didn't say it was a TO. You are making that up.

Thats how the stats are presented. Not saying they are right, just how its done.

Edited June 10, 2015 by jnrmac