My feeling is "list management" delivered us 2 to 3 extra loses in 2009.

The loses to:

Richmond

North

Sydney

Can all be discussed as games that may well have fallen to a MFC victory (of such) if it was not for DBs experimentation.

My feeling is "list management" delivered us 2 to 3 extra loses in 2009.

The loses to:

Richmond

North

Sydney

Can all be discussed as games that may well have fallen to a MFC victory (of such) if it was not for DBs experimentation.

Richmond.

IMHO the only game where the team was really "let off the leash" was against Freo.

And I like the way we've flown under the radar. The commentariat only see us in terms of tanking, and a few of them have some sort of dim awareness that we had an injury or two but only to players who wouldn't get a guernsey for any of the top 8. They all talk about Freo & WC & Toiges having "a great young list", and at this stage nobody (Martin Flanagan excepted) has the slightest clue about the size of our potential upside.

IMHO the only game where the team was really "let off the leash" was against Freo.

What about the Eagles & Port games...?

The first time against the eagles we were going to win until our best mids were all pulled off the ground at the same time.

I think this season had we been trying to win we'd have been more a 6-8 game team. Not good enough for finals, but certainly well on the way.

The first time against the eagles we were going to win until our best mids were all pulled off the ground at the same time.

I think this season had we been trying to win we'd have been more a 6-8 game team. Not good enough for finals, but certainly well on the way.

Spot on! Could easily have won a couple of games early and another 3 in last 6 weeks.

Vastly better structure and methodology in 2009 and if improvement in 2010 continues on similar level will be strting to be real finalist material in 2011. A number of commentators have noted this also.

Richmond definately lot worse than MFC and dont think, Nth, Swans (although may spend to cover up) Bummers or Freo have as good a young list as MFC and less potential to develop over next 3 years in view of GCoast priorities.

What about the Eagles & Port games...?

I was talking about performance as well as intent. Weagles & Port were deplorable and we beat them by only a few goals after being clearly the better team all day. But against Freo I think we put it all together. That's the game I'd like to take into 2010.

The only unknown from this year has been the attitude of the oppisition when playing us. I have heard numerous times from commentators claiming to have heard from other teams who have struggled to "get up" when they have played against Melbourne. Our list management and experimentation has been well known, so I can imagine that oppisition teams would perhaps struggle to get their players completely primed to come out with the normal intensity against us.

Time will tell.

When I looked at the fixture and our list and considered our pre season form I thought we were a 3-19 team. I always thought we would have an eye on the PP.

By seasons end I thought if we had a fit list to choose from I reckon we would have been a 5-17 possibly a 6-16 team.

Though yesterday agaisnt the Saints was always really a foregone conclusion it was a lot closer to disaster than the scores indicate. Jurrah was extremely damaging near goal and more the hope this coninues nextyear .. but just as well he was dragged up the ground. Clever move DB.. much the same with allowing Roo some largesse by removing his impediment in frawley. Jamr far too competitive in the ruck..ah yes.. stick him in the goal square.

I firmly beleive had we needed to win yesterday...it was ours.

I would have thought is reasonable to think we could have amassed 8 games this year. Certainnly expect no less next

Edited August 31, 200916 yr by belzebub59

My feeling is "list management" delivered us 2 to 3 extra loses in 2009.

The loses to:

Richmond

North

Sydney

Can all be discussed as games that may well have fallen to a MFC victory (of such) if it was not for DBs experimentation.

Agree re: those three. We could also have won the West Coast (in perth) and Bulldogs games if some key moments had gone our way. Yesterday may have been a bit closer too if certain changes hadn't been made.

The Saints played no more than 15 to 20 minutes of football and blew us away. Dreamtime over.

The Saints played no more than 15 to 20 minutes of football and blew us away. Dreamtime over.

No doubt St Kilda didn't actually play hard committed football; but one thing I take from the game is that Melbourne found a way through their zone (like Essendon three weeks ago) that not many sides have been able to do this year.

No doubt St Kilda didn't actually play hard committed football; but one thing I take from the game is that Melbourne found a way through their zone (like Essendon three weeks ago) that not many sides have been able to do this year.

Interesting thing is that i've noticed is things like taking Sylvia out of the middle when he is gets 12 possessions in the first quarter, or taking the wilpiri wizard off after he kicked his fourth (this may have just been interchanging rotation). after the port game that we won, we have played pretty well in most games, for a certain part of it, weather it be a half or a quarter, which i am ok with because we all know why the dees are doing this.

I mean we went toe to toe with St.kilda, and carlton for a half, and they're both in the top 8. But Id sacrifice Frawley to go up forward and off of the oppositions best forward to get Scully.

We could've definitely won more than 4 if we didn't keep "experimenting". But i'm not complaining

I think we could have won at least 6 or 7, definitely the Richmond game, and i think we lost to the dogs and the eagles by a goal from memory. How about that north game though? We got smacked and i thought we would put up a bit of a fight. If we had played freo twice and not collingwood we would have found it hard to get the PP.

The Saints played no more than 15 to 20 minutes of football and blew us away. Dreamtime over.

Saints also played their best team, and players were competing for finals positions. How close was that to our best team?

My feeling is "list management" delivered us 2 to 3 extra loses in 2009.

The loses to:

Richmond

North

Sydney

Can all be discussed as games that may well have fallen to a MFC victory (of such) if it was not for DBs experimentation.

Richmond, yes.

We lost to North by 10 goals. I don't think we would have been able to beat them anyway.

The Saints played no more than 15 to 20 minutes of football and blew us away. Dreamtime over.

Took them a long time though against a side that was fiddling with positions and kept taking off their main goal kicker for the game

Took them a long time though against a side that was fiddling with positions and kept taking off their main goal kicker for the game

Rhino's looking at his stats again.

Reminds me of us in '07.

By round 11 we'd won 2 and lost 3 games when we lead in the last 3 minutes - with an horrendous injury list!

The only unknown from this year has been the attitude of the oppisition when playing us. I have heard numerous times from commentators claiming to have heard from other teams who have struggled to "get up" when they have played against Melbourne. Our list management and experimentation has been well known, so I can imagine that oppisition teams would perhaps struggle to get their players completely primed to come out with the normal intensity against us.

Time will tell.

Well Said. The Demons were really not Part of the Fixture this year, in so much as we ran our own race & the Media mostly left us alone. (God Bless Richmond)!! So i think a lot of clubs would not have a clue how to play us.

As soon as we started to play well, players were moved or rotated.

Opposition Coaches wouldn't know what was going on.

We set out to win 4 this year & did it. Well Done Bails & co (Should have beaten the Bulldogs at the 'G though)

No we weren't a 4-18 team, but we weren't a whole heap better either. Remember some shockers mid year. Maybe 6-16 was realistic.

But heck, we managed the last part of the season beautifully. Plus a bit of luck (against the Tige's).

More importantly, what will we be next year? I'm guessing 8-14 or 9-13 realistically. Luck (or bad luck) might tip that either way. Whatever happens next year, the beautiful end we've just seen to 2009 will have us in much better shape from 2011 on!

Playing full tilt we would have beaten both Richmond and Sydney. So that would make us a 6-16 team which is about right.

Next year, anything less than 7 wins requires some serious scrutiny.

8 wins should be the target.

Saints also played their best team, and players were competing for finals positions.

Hardly. They have played about 28 players this year and about 20 -players name themselves in that sides. They had a weekend jolly before the real stuff. Hardly got up a sweat. But keep waxing.

Took them a long time though against a side that was fiddling with positions and kept taking off their main goal kicker for the game

And it only took 15 mins when they did. What a canter.

Rhino's looking at his stats again.

I guess you'd think we not far off St Kilda either.

Bulldogs, we should have one that one. Still makes me angry thinking about how we threw that one away