Changes vs West Coke

[Himark 0]

Most players were lazy last week, in terms of running to make space or provide an option when a teammate had the ball, but Bate was particularly lazy in this regard.

He just seemed to float around and made half-assed to make a lead, usually about 20 metres away.

I reckon you are very harsh and unrealistic.

No players were lazy last week least of all Bate.

Geelong is a rampantly dominant side, maybe the best team ever, tilting at back to back premierships in few weeks and was up against an mfc team of inexperienced youngsters who are coming to the end of a long nightmare year....no finals to get excited about...experienced players locked out due to the longer term plan.

Bate ran about 16-17k against Geelong and was tagged for every centimeter of those k's as the only forward the cats actually fully respected on the night.... and they nullified him. Hello! That's why the cats are the best team...they actually beat opponents. How do think Bate or any of our youngsters would have looked if they had been playing in geelongs colours last Friday?

Also, the above mentioned 16-17k Bate ran against the cats was top of the 16-17k he ran only 6 days before against the dons where he was close to bog.

Against the cats the delivery to Bate was non existent or rubbish and the whole mfc team was in shock & meltdown.....what do you expect of him? Do you think he's superman?

Lance Franklin himself would have struggled on the mfc forward line last friday.

There is no way Bate will be ommitted against wc.......you can bet your house on it.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I reckon you are very harsh and unrealistic.

No players were lazy last week least of all Bate...

How does Geelong being a good side physically stop players from running to make space? It doesn't.

Bate was lazy. He may have run 16 k's but he still was poor in providing an option when his teammates had the ball. As I said, running around in circles, 20 metres away does not constitute a lead.

[Stigga 25]

How does Geelong being a good side physically stop players from running to make space? It doesn't.

It's not all that black and white. Geelong's positioning all night was perfect. A lot of the time there simply wasn't the space to run too. When a player has the ball and waits more than 5 seconds to move it on Geelong nullified any sort space that we could run into.

[H_T 2,941]

You are right about the lazy efforts. Our overall reluctance to commit to a contested situation for a ball was galling.

Given Geelong had the ball way more than us, our laziness was more evident in the complete lack of defensive pressure we applied on Geelong all over the ground when they had the ball especially in the first half.

I reckon you are very harsh and unrealistic.

No players were lazy last week least of all Bate.

Incorrect. Its not being harsh and unrealistic at all. It is a fact.

Bate ran about 16-17k against Geelong and was tagged for every centimeter of those k's as the only forward the cats actually fully respected on the night.... and they nullified him.

There is no way Bate will be ommitted against wc.......you can bet your house on it.

He may have ran about 16km (including the warm ups and cool downs), but he's laziness was exposed, "in the complete lack of defensive pressure" as RR points out regarding the side as a whole.

How does Geelong being a good side physically stop players from running to make space? It doesn't.

Bate was lazy. He may have run 16 k's but he still was poor in providing an option when his teammates had the ball. As I said, running around in circles, 20 metres away does not constitute a lead.

Again, Bate was lazy and most of the time he ball watched or watched in awe of Geelongs players. As John Kennedy famously quoted....."Do Something!, Don't think....Do!!!!!!!"

[Stigga 25]

Incorrect. Its not being harsh and unrealistic at all. It is a fact.

I don't believe that is entirely the reason. The FACTS are:

1. Geelong ran harder than us all night

2. They had a FAR superior game plan and accountabilty and discipline to that game plan.

3. Vastly superior experience and age

4. Vastly superior weight and muscle ratio

5. Vastly superior skills

6. As a result...It was like the players were trapped in Ashcombe maze for two hours

=116 point loss.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It's not all that black and white. Geelong's positioning all night was perfect. A lot of the time there simply wasn't the space to run too. When a player has the ball and waits more than 5 seconds to move it on Geelong nullified any sort space that we could run into.

That's crap and wrong.

There were numerous occasions when a Melbourne player had the ball on the wing or HFF while his teammates (Bate included) made leads 20-30 metres away from the payer with the ball while most of the forward line was completely empty.

[H_T 2,941]

I don't believe that is entirely the reason. The FACTS are:

1. Geelong ran harder than us all night

2. They had a FAR superior game plan and accountabilty and discipline to that game plan.

3. Vastly superior experience and age

4. Vastly superior weight and muscle ratio

5. Vastly superior skills

6. As a result...It was like the players were trapped in Ashcombe maze for two hours

=116 point loss.

Whilst these are correct, it is also fact that our laziness was more evident in the complete lack of defensive pressure we applied on Geelong. Which was precisely my point. Which may of not been entirely 'the reason', as you say. But it stood out like "dog's balls"

[Tigers Dayz 2]

What an interesting dilemma this week. Jim Stynes has announced we should win to avoid the wooden spoon. But he must say this to elevate the match as a contest and to coax 20,000 plus through the gate so we don’t lose money.

We already know WCE won’t be making this a contest and will rest players Hansen and Wirrpanda in addition to their lengthy list of outs..

They, of course, will lose pick 18 if they beat us due to notching up their 5th win.

If we were to win the remaining 3 matches we lose our post first round priority pick.

This might be unlikely but it is possible against Richmond and Fremantle. It would be an absolute disaster like last year when we beat Footscray and Carlton at seasons end.

If we need to lose one of the 3 remaining games, this should be the one. Make no mistake; this one will not be easy to lose. We should get the loss out of the way and concentrate on winning from that point forward.

Saturday’s team should trial those fit players on our list that have not yet had a run, for example Meesen..

Bailey should also try a few players in unfamiliar positions to broaden their experience.

This game could become the “list management” blueprint for all AFL teams in the future.

Wooden Spoon, Wooden Schmoon!

I’ll be along Jimma, with friends!

[Himark 0]

I don't believe that is entirely the reason. The FACTS are:

1. Geelong ran harder than us all night

2. They had a FAR superior game plan and accountabilty and discipline to that game plan.

3. Vastly superior experience and age

4. Vastly superior weight and muscle ratio

5. Vastly superior skills

6. As a result...It was like the players were trapped in Ashcombe maze for two hours

=116 point loss.

Well put Stigga.

The whole mfc team was ovewhelmed by the cats.

It's not "a fact" that any of the team were "lazy", they were mentally/physically beaten, demoralised, dominated, humiliated and thrashed into submission but despite all still tried their f'ing guts out as best they could and that shows character and builds character.

If Bate (or anyone else) was *running around in circles, probably trying in his mind to shake an opponent, find some space etc, it is not laziness.... it is as John Kennedy said, "do(ing) something". *last time I looked up the Oxford, running was still a verb i.e. "a doing" word for those who never enjoyed grammar.

Reading the various posts it does become evident which posters have any idea at all of what is involved and what it's like to compete at afl/vfl level or any other serious level of any sport.

The players will not be reading these comments as they are basically told not to by the club. The reason they are told not to is the that the wrong headed negativity of passionate but ignorant and angry so called supporters is considered by the mfc to be a sure way to do the players heads in, particularly the younger ones. Mfc is is not alone in this, all clubs recommend their players to not read sites like these because of the minority of dills that think they can "help" by delivering up a lovely dose of sustained, scathing, down-putting criticism.

If the club thought unbridled criticism would help they would post these rants on the official website.

As it is the players would have been told to put the cats game behind them and after taking what they can from it as a lesson, to forget about it!

I suggest some of you seek therapy for your childhood issues, get out the old tin or plastic soldiers and play in the sandpit with them to work out your inner frustrations but whatever... lay off the boys ... they are hurting more than most of you will ever in pursuit of your daily crust ....... they are not little tin soldiers or pieces on a chess board or automatons. For anyone to judge anyone of the team as lazy is actually lazy thinking. How can you know as a fact whether they were lazy or not?... it's just a subjective opinion... probably wrong as in general, afl players are not lazy types.

Also the 16-17 k's Bate runs in a game is not including the warmups.

Now that is a fact.

[Stigga 25]

Hear hear.

[torpedo 33]

I don't believe that is entirely the reason. The FACTS are:

1. Geelong ran harder than us all night

2. They had a FAR superior game plan and accountabilty and discipline to that game plan.

3. Vastly superior experience and age

4. Vastly superior weight and muscle ratio

5. Vastly superior skills

6. As a result...It was like the players were trapped in Ashcombe maze for two hours

=116 point loss.

The only point that was any more evident last Friday night than it was in our Round 3 'honourable' 30 point loss is your 1st point - 'Geelong ran harder than us all night'

Whether or not a team runs harder than us is entirely up to us, we can keep up if we want to, by saying 'Geelong ran harder than us all night' you are essentially saying we were lazy.

[H_T 2,941]

It's not "a fact" that any of the team were "lazy", they were mentally/physically beaten, demoralised, dominated, humiliated and thrashed into submission but despite all still tried their f'ing guts out.

I wonder. <_< ..., what game were you watching?

Reading the various posts it does become evident which posters have any idea at all of what is involved and what it's like to compete at afl/vfl level or any other serious level of any sport.

<_<

Yes that is correct. And we know when a player is giving their all, because we've seen them do it in the past, and when they are not.

I suggest some of you seek therapy for your childhood issues, get out the old tin or plastic soldiers and play in the sandpit with them to work out your inner frustrations but whatever... lay off the boys ... they are hurting more than most of you will ever in pursuit of your daily crust ....... they are not little tin soldiers or pieces on a chess board or automatons.

You've obviously played too many board games

For anyone to judge anyone of the team as lazy is actually lazy thinking.

WTF? Everyone on this forum has an opinion or has had an opinion in the past of player(s) whether they are Melbourne or another club, so you're referring to everyone as having thought lazy?

I think that in itself is lazy thinking - whatever the hell that means!

[Stigga 25]

The only point that was any more evident last Friday night than it was in our Round 3 'honourable' 30 point loss is your 1st point - 'Geelong ran harder than us all night'

Whether or not a team runs harder than us is entirely up to us, we can keep up if we want to, by saying 'Geelong ran harder than us all night' you are essentially saying we were lazy.

You are assuming that both teams have the same level of aerobic capacity. They obviously don't. That's not lazy, that simply Geelong having a greater aerobic capacity than Melbourne. If anyone's lazy it's our conditioning staff for not getting the players to a level on par with Geelong.

[torpedo 33]

You are assuming that both teams have the same level of aerobic capacity. They obviously don't. That's not lazy, that simply Geelong having a greater aerobic capacity than Melbourne. If anyone's lazy it's our conditioning staff for not getting the players to a level on par with Geelong.

Gut running is 99% committment and 1% bullsh*t sports [censored] conditioning. Obviously given the level Geelong's list are at they are going to be able outrun us and have superior aerobic capacity, that is different to running harder than us though, they tried harder, they wanted it more, we wanted it less, we were lazier. Geelong didnt run us off our legs, we simply werent putting in at the level required. We know our team is capable of running at the level required as our 2 only wins against Freo and the Lions were largely due to superior running and ultimately committment.

You didnt address the fact that your other 4 points were there in Round 3. How do you explain the 86 point difference? Geelong's superior aerobic capacity?

[H_T 2,941]

Gut running is 99% committment and 1% bullsh*t sports [censored] conditioning. Obviously given the level Geelong's list are at they are going to be able outrun us and have superior aerobic capacity, that is different to running harder than us though, they tried harder, they wanted it more, we wanted it less, we were lazier. Geelong didnt run us off our legs, we simply werent putting in at the level required. We know our team is capable of running at the level required as our 2 only wins against Freo and the Lions were largely due to superior running and ultimately committment.

You didnt address the fact that your other 4 points were there in Round 3. How do you explain the 86 point difference? Geelong's superior aerobic capacity?

Hear, hear torpedo.

[Himark 0]

You didnt address the fact that your other 4 points were there in Round 3. How do you explain the 86 point difference? Geelong's superior aerobic capacity?

The difference is mental.

If Bate, for example, had have run around in circles, but much harder and faster ..... would that have beaten the cats?

Running at the metaphorical 100 mph, in the wrong direction, is not going to get you where you want to be.

When the collective mind of the team has been subdued as it was by the VERY DOMINANT cats after the first 5 minutes.... the physical side of things suffers.

It is not laziness, it is more a form of shock that numbs & incapacitates the mind, brings on a sense of hopelessness, makes the legs feel like jelly, makes all physical action harder, causes panic, wrong reactions, indecisiveness, shortness of breath, poor reasoning, choice of poorer options, skill errors and a downward spiralling effect that the team was actually able to pull out of to a great extent. The boys didn't go down like Port in the GF, but fought it out better than Port, as the game went on.

The cats, on the contrary, had the very opposite of every negativity above happening for them as a positive as well as anything else they brought as a team, one of the best teams ever, in form, making a special point of being ruthless and ready to win a back to back GF.

The mfc team will learn from the encounter with the cats but to think they were just lazy on the night is far to simplistic.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It is not laziness, it is more a form of shock that numbs & incapacitates the mind, brings on a sense of hopelessness, makes the legs feel like jelly, makes all physical action harder, causes panic, wrong reactions, indecisiveness, shortness of breath, poor reasoning, choice of poorer options, skill errors and a downward spiralling effect that the team was actually able to pull out of to a great extent. The boys didn't go down like Port in the GF, but fought it out better than Port, as the game went on.

Save that explanation for your next novel. There were a number of elements at stake on Friday night and laziness was definitely one of them.

I just could not believe when Valenti had a 50 metre set shot on goal from a free and not one MFC player positioned themselves in the goal square or around the goal line. Not one. It was no surprise that four Geelong players raffled the Valenti kick that fell short and without a hint of pressure cleared the ball easily. Spare me the dramatics, but that was just plain lazy and unforgiveable.

[torpedo 33]

The difference is mental.

The mfc team will learn from the encounter with the cats but to think they were just lazy on the night is far to simplistic.

I never said they were 'just lazy on the night', of course thats far too simplistic and of course a lot of the poor play came from above the shoulders, as has been the case all year, even in our wins.

The bottom line is there were continuing instances where they did not run hard enough and go in hard enough, come up with as many fancy theories for that as you like, I call it lazy. You cannot just blame being lazy or soft or unaccountable on Geelong's effect on our mindset, that is being far too simplistic.

I'll agree with you that their weak mental resolve was a major factor in our pathetic showing, soft, lazy and unaccountable were all prominent features as well though.

[H_T 2,941]

The difference is mental.

It is not laziness, it is more a form of shock that numbs & incapacitates the mind, brings on a sense of hopelessness, makes the legs feel like jelly, makes all physical action harder, causes panic, wrong reactions, indecisiveness, shortness of breath, poor reasoning, choice of poorer options, skill errors and a downward spiralling effect that the team was actually able to pull out of to a great extent.

FFS you make it sound like they've all received a lethal injection whilst sitting in the chair with a straight jacket on!

Sense of hopelessness? ..................OK then, What do YOU think explains the reasoning behind the sides turnaround against Fremantle when we were 51 points down at the start of the second half?

In summary:

A reversal of form, fatigue, effort, decision making, skills, can all turn around in a game of football. They had a young side then too. Were undersized, etc.

"Shortness of breath",...... And of course YOU know it ALL.....

[Himark 0]

FFS you make it sound like they've all received a lethal injection whilst sitting in the chair with a straight jacket on!

Sense of hopelessness? ..................OK then, What do YOU think explains the reasoning behind the sides turnaround against Fremantle when we were 51 points down at the start of the second half?

In summary:

A reversal of form, fatigue, effort, decision making, skills, can all turn around in a game of football. They had a young side then too. Were undersized, etc.

"Shortness of breath",...... And of course YOU know it ALL.....

Your first point: Fremantle was against Fremantle.....

Your second point: "Shortness of breath", is not always but can be, a symptom of mental and physical stress, one doesn't have to know "ALL" that much to know about that.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I just could not believe when Valenti had a 50 metre set shot on goal from a free and not one MFC player positioned themselves in the goal square or around the goal line.

I almost forgot about that one. Shocking stuff.

[H_T 2,941]

I almost forgot about that one. Shocking stuff.

I wonder if Jeff White was away with the fairies then? So too PJ? All the more reason the players weren't switched on........or was that because of shortness of breath...?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I wonder if Jeff White was away with the fairies then? So too PJ? All the more reason the players weren't switched on........or was that because of shortness of breath...?

I remember at the time that PJ was floating around the 50 metre line.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I remember at the time that PJ was floating around the 50 metre line.

Very aptly described. B)