Season 2010 is all but upon us. We can all hardly wait to see the boys run out in Red & Blue. I think its fair to say we ( well many of us ) expect to see a much different side compete this year and thats not just a result of player introductions but that combined with the brakes being taken off.

There is no doubt ( by me ) that the efforts of the last two years and the last especially must have been affected by the restrictions imposed by ..lets call it "experimentation". Like it or not we benefited by coming last these past two years. Deny it all you wish also but there must be thoughts amongst the clubs footy dept and players that its very hard to really give your all if your heart's not in it. That you know to strive to win may result in a depreciated result come end of year. It must be hard. Much is said that when you cross that line you give everything..you give 100% etc etc. Much is made that the bonus ( to the club ) of better and extra draft picks never crosses a players mind come the game.

I say rubbish. It has to. Whether they let it affect their desire and dedication to the ball is another thing but any of us will only have to look within our own lives to understand the difference that un-bridled passion and fervour makes to any abilities and efforts. You apply yourself that bit more, you strive that bit more, you hurt....that bit more.

Season 2010 will see something different for the MFC...it will see the beginning of a new era, one where playing to win is the very least and winning IS the desired outcome. This for each and every game ( but 200% for Collingwood ones !! )

The pruning of the tree together with new growth ought to see both a settling of some minds as to their belonging in this team as well as real vigour in efforts to break into it..

I dont expect miracles this year...but I absolutely expect to see sustained hard competition from Melbourne and as the games increase in the legs of players and as the bonding of the team builds from more time together in battle one ought to reasonably expect ladder position to climb..and maintain this upward momentum.

The question is... Do you think we will really see a very different intensity and drive on the field now the players know there are "no brakes being applied" ?? and also do you think this factor really affected efforts last year ? Is footy really played between the ears ?

go Dees

I must confess, I'm curious. Something , to me doesnt quite gel.

So far , as of the time of this writing 16-7 suggest Melbourne will play differently with the 'brakes' off. I would have thought this would be reflected in the previous question's voting but it doesnt quite tally the same.

I wondering how some might say that issue of draft picks, experimentation, etc etc whilst seemingly not effecting the output of players last year equates to playing better when there is no impost made of them ?

These two results I presumed would be quite close...and they're not. So is it reasonable to suggest that some people fervently "believe" there is no effect whilst the reality is there is ?

  On 11/02/2010 at 04:23, belzebub59 said:

I must confess, I'm curious. Something , to me doesnt quite gel.

So far , as of the time of this writing 16-7 suggest Melbourne will play differently with the 'brakes' off. I would have thought this would be reflected in the previous question's voting but it doesnt quite tally the same.

I wondering how some might say that issue of draft picks, experimentation, etc etc whilst seemingly not effecting the output of players last year equates to playing better when there is no impost made of them ?

These two results I presumed would be quite close...and they're not. So is it reasonable to suggest that some people fervently "believe" there is no effect whilst the reality is there is ?

Depends on your definition of 'having the brakes off'.

I think a lot of people have taken that to mean that Bailey was holding back as a coach and will now implement a better, more competitive gameplan; not that it is an indication of the players' effort.

The last two years have presented a great opportunity that a coach doesn't normally have, and that's the luxury of being able to play so many of the team out of positions. This means he's had two full years of working on players deficiencies, and not just one or two, pretty much the whole team.

I'm expecting the team to be completely different this season, perhaps not finals but the expectation is that they're not going to be the rabble which we've seen.

I think the focus of the whole playing and coaching group will begin to move from the development to the results phase. Obviously development will still be a key focus, but more will be expected from the 3-5 year crop. Furthermore there is enough class in the players drafted in the last few years to begin to influence results.

I think what can't be understated is the pressure to perform for spots. If we can keep a reasonably fit list,a player is going to need to perform well at Casey and train with excellence to crack a game.

Confidence will also be a key factor.

  On 11/02/2010 at 04:23, belzebub59 said:

I must confess, I'm curious. Something , to me doesnt quite gel.

So far , as of the time of this writing 16-7 suggest Melbourne will play differently with the 'brakes' off. I would have thought this would be reflected in the previous question's voting but it doesnt quite tally the same.

I agree with KS. It depends on your definition of "brakes off".

  On 11/02/2010 at 10:33, dandeeman said:

I think the focus of the whole playing and coaching group will begin to move from the development to the results phase. Obviously development will still be a key focus, but more will be expected from the 3-5 year crop. Furthermore there is enough class in the players drafted in the last few years to begin to influence results.

I think what can't be understated is the pressure to perform for spots. If we can keep a reasonably fit list,a player is going to need to perform well at Casey and train with excellence to crack a game.

Confidence will also be a key factor.

Well said.

Brakes off is rather self descriptive I would have thought. We all know we tanked. There, Its said. You know it, I know it, the Footy world knows it ....even Demetriou knows it. We deliberately played in a manner which would negate the strengths of players and play them out of position ..or on the pine if proving too dangerous. They ...were the BRAKES !! The team was picked and coached to ensure we finished last whilst also gaining as much valuable information about not only the skills and abilities of various players but their temperment under duress. Some players reacted adversely to this, others saw the bigger picture..Some simply relished the opportunity to play in positions they otherwise wouldnt be afforded the chance. There was indeed much good delivered amongst the gloom.

Bailey was hardly holding back as a coach..he coached brilliantly...what he did was hold back the team...a big difference. So as per original interest, will Melbourne play differently now he ( DB ) will obviously coach to maximise the output of his charges rather than hinder them..i.e. playing to win.

So I for one will be interested in a number of players and how they take on the challenge(s) now they are allowed to go and do what they can. I expect us to play very differently, not just because of gameplan and better suiting of players to job but because the monkey's off their back.

  On 12/02/2010 at 00:55, belzebub59 said:

We all know we tanked. There, Its said. You know it, I know it, the Footy world knows it ....even Demetriou knows it.

That's your opinion, and no doubt other Melbourne supporters. I have a problem with this, still. I refuse to accept the players themsleves tanked. That's why I can't agree with your generalisation. Therefore, if a large portion of the club, the players - critical to the outcome of the game- have a say in the game and play to their limits, as they did, I cannot for the life of me agree with your statement.

I'd ask anyone to go to the players, look them in the eye and ask them if they "tanked it" last year. I'd be gutted if they said "yes".

Back on topic. I expect us to play differently mainly because of a different look. New recruits (ie. Scully, Trengove, MacDonald, Gysberts, Tapscott)& old recruits (Blease, Strauss) and players returning from injury (Garland, Wonaeamirri and lesser extent Green ), we'll also see more of Watts & Maric. And that is why I voted natural progress. Point being the brakes were never "on" from the players perspective.

edit: mistake - "on" instead of "off" (re: brakes)

  On 12/02/2010 at 01:19, High Tower said:

That's your opinion, and no doubt other Melbourne supporters. I have a problem with this, still. I refuse to accept the players themsleves tanked. That's why I can't agree with your generalisation. Therefore, if a large portion of the club, the players - critical to the outcome of the game- have a say in the game and play to their limits, as they did, I cannot for the life of me agree with your statement.

I'd ask anyone to go to the players, look them in the eye and ask them if they "tanked it" last year. I'd be gutted if they said "yes".

Back on topic. I expect us to play differently mainly because of a different look. New recruits (ie. Scully, Trengove, MacDonald, Gysberts, Tapscott)& old recruits (Blease, Strauss) and players returning from injury (Garland, Wonaeamirri and lesser extent Green ), we'll also see more of Watts & Maric. And that is why I voted natural progress. Point being the brakes were never "off" from the players perspective.

You dont get it then.. The players as such are taken out of the equation.(from an individuals decision making stance ) The team is instructed in a certain fashion, its selected in a particular way.Its coached ( gameday) to a certain plan, as much as a reactive game canbe. Tanking isnt about the individual, however its an impost upon them. You ( as a player ) maybe instructed ...to say play on all the time.everytime etc..even when you know its suicidal ( in the context of footy ) you may be instructed to go a particualr flank,.. theres any number of conditions of play that canbe given. These WILL and DO contrict the performance of a team and quite potentially stifle a particular player(s) style and output.

At this point a player ( if half intelligent ) will understand what is going on. This has to impact on how effective he can be. So many look elsewhere and whistle , not wantinng to acknowledge whatis so blindingly obvious. I choose not to.

As a player you can give 100% you can even try for the 'classical' 110% but if youre got the brakes on you will struggle to get even near 90% it just becomes disheartening and this very sentiment has been expressed by many a player from various sides who eperienced the timely art of experimentation. Itchanges how hard and how long you chase, how hard you hit...and if you think this IS bunkum thenI would question whther the reader has player real competitve sport. To compete at your best you have to beleive you will or can win. Take away that and the mind will question the reason of 110% exertion.

So I for one fervently expect some players to come out with renewed vigour and unbridled passion for the game...simply because they know the gearbox reads D....and not R !!

Many other factors will influence the new lok Dees...new players, older ones rehabilitated, players with a better sense of belonging and some simply for having got that "whatever it takes" number of games under their belt where upon they take the next step.

But lets not ignore the elephant !!

I think Carlton's experience tells us not to get ahead of ourselves. They had tons of good draft picks, tanked and got Judd, and already had Fevola, and then had a billionaire throwing money around and still aren't that great. We don't have Judd or much money and are perhaps coming from an even lower ebb. The point being that high draft picks and an end to tanking don't equal a quick run up the ladder. I think our club has a lot more heart and spirit than Carlton and that may overcome the money. But we have a long row to hoe.

  On 12/02/2010 at 01:19, High Tower said:

That's your opinion, and no doubt other Melbourne supporters. I have a problem with this, still. I refuse to accept the players themsleves tanked. That's why I can't agree with your generalisation. Therefore, if a large portion of the club, the players - critical to the outcome of the game- have a say in the game and play to their limits, as they did, I cannot for the life of me agree with your statement.

I'd ask anyone to go to the players, look them in the eye and ask them if they "tanked it" last year. I'd be gutted if they said "yes".

Back on topic. I expect us to play differently mainly because of a different look. New recruits (ie. Scully, Trengove, MacDonald, Gysberts, Tapscott)& old recruits (Blease, Strauss) and players returning from injury (Garland, Wonaeamirri and lesser extent Green ), we'll also see more of Watts & Maric. And that is why I voted natural progress. Point being the brakes were never "off" from the players perspective.

I concur re your point of natural progress. I think always the aim of winning a premiership is foremost in players minds but to me is the confidence the players have in each other especially on the field.However the mateship they grow off field is also a major factor. Like North Melbourne in the era of Carey- a major factor of their success was the commradship developed by playing Under 19;s together and moving up as nearly one. Alot of the recruits have known each other for a long time now and they have the opportunity to grow together through natural aspects such as confidence etc..

  On 12/02/2010 at 01:39, belzebub59 said:

You dont get it then.. The players as such are taken out of the equation.(from an individuals decision making stance ) The team is instructed in a certain fashion, its selected in a particular way.Its coached ( gameday) to a certain plan, as much as a reactive game canbe. Tanking isnt about the individual, however its an impost upon them. You ( as a player ) maybe instructed ...to say play on all the time.everytime etc..even when you know its suicidal ( in the context of footy ) you may be instructed to go a particualr flank,.. theres any number of conditions of play that canbe given. These WILL and DO contrict the performance of a team and quite potentially stifle a particular player(s) style and output.

At this point a player ( if half intelligent ) will understand what is going on. This has to impact on how effective he can be. So many look elsewhere and whistle , not wantinng to acknowledge whatis so blindingly obvious. I choose not to.

As a player you can give 100% you can even try for the 'classical' 110% but if youre got the brakes on you will struggle to get even near 90% it just becomes disheartening and this very sentiment has been expressed by many a player from various sides who eperienced the timely art of experimentation. Itchanges how hard and how long you chase, how hard you hit...and if you think this IS bunkum thenI would question whther the reader has player real competitve sport. To compete at your best you have to beleive you will or can win. Take away that and the mind will question the reason of 110% exertion.

So I for one fervently expect some players to come out with renewed vigour and unbridled passion for the game...simply because they know the gearbox reads D....and not R !!

Many other factors will influence the new lok Dees...new players, older ones rehabilitated, players with a better sense of belonging and some simply for having got that "whatever it takes" number of games under their belt where upon they take the next step.

But lets not ignore the elephant !!

Take the blinkers off BB. I understand the "experimentation" side of things as it's been discussed copius amounts of times last year. Play to their limits while we try different personnel in different positions. The experimentation side of things maybe the "brakes on" you subscribe too. But I expect the FD to continue the experimentation with personnel in different positions this year. Will that be considered "brakes on?" this season, I doubt it. But I'm sure if we're 3 and 15 come round 18, many scribes will think that.

And play to their limits they did last year, case in point, looked to have won the Richmond game upon the sound of the siren too. Had our noses in front anyway.

The point I am making is if you refer to the club as having tanked, you're selling the players short. I maybe in the minority, I may be one of the few who prefer to stick up for the players who take the field and give their ALL. But I have never questionned their committment last year. Quite simply they weren't good enough against the opposition on and off the field and scoreboard. But they showed signs of improvement.

PS.By the way I've played competitive sport, so if you're questionning me personally I wouldn't go there.

With all due respect.... you still dont truly understand the difference between what you can achieve, or will strive to achieve where there is a valid compensation for effort ....and where there is none. Im not at all selling the players short...just taking into account the pyscologies of conditions.

Im not the one with blinkers...by far. Its a very noble stance to take that all will always give all however history often shows us otherwise.

Still how we view it all is opinion

Some will understand the subtleties that will invoke their effects when such conditons exist when you are trained in one thing,encouraged even to attain succes and then systematically deprived of the tools to do such. Those that think this wil have no bearing on the overall outcome or the individuals level of determination might want to delve a little into the ideas ofhow team outcomes affect the individual...and vice versa.

Yes we nearly won that Richmond game....gave us all quite the scare...especially Bailey Id imagine

good job we didnt

  On 12/02/2010 at 01:48, Ned said:

I think Carlton's experience tells us not to get ahead of ourselves. They had tons of good draft picks, tanked and got Judd, and already had Fevola, and then had a billionaire throwing money around and still aren't that great. We don't have Judd or much money and are perhaps coming from an even lower ebb. The point being that high draft picks and an end to tanking don't equal a quick run up the ladder. I think our club has a lot more heart and spirit than Carlton and that may overcome the money. But we have a long row to hoe.

Go easy on comparing us to Carlton. They didn't have 'tons' of good picks because of their salary cap cheating in the 90's (although I can't say I know much about that, a bit before my time)... e.g in the '01 Superdraft they basically only got Waite, and he was a F/S selection; the next year only Fisher and Simpson (thanks Wikipedia). Then in '03 and '04 the trade periods are full of Carlton trading picks away for absolute spuds (except H Scotland).

As a result their list is not nearly as even or talented as ours after the top 6-8 players, where they do beat us, obviously.

Agree with the better heart and spirit though.

  Quote

Like North Melbourne in the era of Carey- a major factor of their success was the commradship developed by playing Under 19;s together and moving up as nearly one. Alot of the recruits have known each other for a long time now and they have the opportunity to grow together through natural aspects such as confidence etc..

I prefer that model (Y)

In topic..and a very salient point there 4j is and will be the effect of comradarie and bonding. As Bailey rightly puts it the more they play together the better and further they will go. This season sees a few ol friendships brought back to the fold from TAC days etc. . Weve got a whole stack of young lads..who are starting out on this journey together. The young far outweigh the old in terms of who'll be around in 2-3 years and they probably rightly sense this.

Its a fairly young list ( is it the youngest now ?? ) and the blooding they will experience together ought to forge a formidable unit...All for one and all that stuff

  On 12/02/2010 at 02:15, belzebub59 said:

With all due respect.... you still dont truly understand the difference between what you can achieve, or will strive to achieve where there is a valid compensation for effort ....and where there is none.

Bologni. Again you are questionning the player's effort. Go speak to the players BB and ask them yourself. I'll guarantee you they gave it their all.

You are selling the players short and therefore the club as a whole.

As Demetriou has stated any talk of (players) tanking is an absolute disgrace.

  On 12/02/2010 at 05:51, High Tower said:

Bologni. Again you are questionning the player's effort. Go speak to the players BB and ask them yourself. I'll guarantee you they gave it their all.

You are selling the players short and therefore the club as a whole.

As Demetriou has stated any talk of (players) tanking is an absolute disgrace.

Oh you msut be kidding...everyone in football knows what goes on.

You still really arent listening are you..I'll spell it out.. again. Its NOT THE PLAYERS BY DETERMINED ACTION !!..got it?? hmm ??

If they are thwarted from..and therefore incapable of playing the natural game, frustrations and other elements creep in. You seet o thinkIm saying they throw games etc. or they dont try.. Havent said that at all. What I am saying is there are subtleties at play here.

They may well with all intention go out to play at 100% etc.. but if they know the coach is applyiing the brakes its a different game to when he isnt.

Think of it in terms of any work place. If the rewards arent there, if the dedication of all isnt to the best outocmes then it a human nature thing that you'll back off a tad.

So wonderful HT that you live in some fairy tale world where all is right.. Some of us live in the real one

  On 12/02/2010 at 01:19, High Tower said:

That's your opinion, and no doubt other Melbourne supporters. I have a problem with this, still. I refuse to accept the players themsleves tanked. That's why I can't agree with your generalisation. Therefore, if a large portion of the club, the players - critical to the outcome of the game- have a say in the game and play to their limits, as they did, I cannot for the life of me agree with your statement.

I'd ask anyone to go to the players, look them in the eye and ask them if they "tanked it" last year. I'd be gutted if they said "yes".

Which Bit do you not get?? Playing the Team out of position is Tanking List Management whatever name you want to give it.

Watch the Richmond Game again, Brad Miller Follow where he went (mid fielder for a while)

I always expect the players to give 100% they are well paid. But if you put players in crazy positions as a coach, take players off the ground at certain times...The coach is Tanking.

Are you telling me Carlton did not Tank for 11 Rounds in 2007??? They did i assure you.

  On 12/02/2010 at 07:37, why you little said:

Which Bit do you not get?? Playing the Team out of position is Tanking List Management whatever name you want to give it.

Watch the Richmond Game again, Brad Miller Follow where he went (mid fielder for a while)

I always expect the players to give 100% they are well paid. But if you put players in crazy positions as a coach, take players off the ground at certain times...The coach is Tanking.

Are you telling me Carlton did not Tank for 11 Rounds in 2007??? They did i assure you.

Was wondering if it was just me (which is always possible lol) others get it ... Halelujah

seriously , it's about the tram

dynamics not

the individual on theain, but it can

be

Imagine if The club had not of done it??

Last year was hard, bloody hard but at least now we are giving ourselves a chance to progress

Bailey has given himself a chance to be a Topline coach-with the help of the club of course.

Bring it on.

  On 12/02/2010 at 07:37, why you little said:

Which Bit do you not get??

Read my previous post and you'll get the point I'm making. However, you might not understand.

  Quote

Playing the Team out of position is Tanking List Management whatever name you want to give it.

Playing the team out of position, Kevin Sheedy did that in the '84 Grand Final and won the Premiership. Not bad experimentation if I do say so myself.

  Quote

I always expect the players to give 100% they are well paid.

Correct. Which is why the players never tanked it. My point still stands.

  Quote

Are you telling me Carlton did not Tank for 11 Rounds in 2007???

Nice going Einstein. Now, point out to me where I mentioned Carlton in my recent posts ?

  On 12/02/2010 at 06:17, belzebub59 said:

So wonderful HT that you live in some fairy tale world where all is right.. Some of us live in the real one

Oh my.

It's just a shame that you cannot recognise that the players - by all intentions who go out to win the game(s) they play - didn't tank themselves, despite the FD experimenting with positions and rotations to make a young squad more adaptable to given tasks (more rounded players).

It's those very players - who gave their all for our club - that will be held accountable from people like you in the future, that they are branded "tankers" because the coaching staff made changes for improvement and development.

I "get" the experimentation off the field in the coaches box. I "get" that it may or may not have an adverse effect on the game.

What you don't get is the players are instructed to win at all costs. To do their best. You're selling the player's short.

If you don't understand it, you don't get it.

PS. Say hi to tinkabel for me.

  On 13/02/2010 at 04:07, High Tower said:

Oh my.

It's just a shame that you cannot recognise that the players - by all intentions who go out to win the game(s) they play - didn't tank themselves, despite the FD experimenting with positions and rotations to make a young squad more adaptable to given tasks (more rounded players).

It's those very players - who gave their all for our club - that will be held accountable from people like you in the future, that they are branded "tankers" because the coaching staff made changes for improvement and development.

I "get" the experimentation off the field in the coaches box. I "get" that it may or may not have an adverse effect on the game.

What you don't get is the players are instructed to win at all costs. To do their best. You're selling the player's short.

If you don't understand it, you don't get it.

Where have i ever stated that the Players Tanked????

The players are paid by the club to do a job, that is never in question.

But if you cannot see that the MFC played last season to win no more than 4 wins-you are the one who does not see it.

Take a good look at your own Avatar picture my friend. That is exactly what we played for last year.

  On 14/02/2010 at 03:28, why you little said:

Where have i ever stated that the Players Tanked????

Chik chik boom. My point exactly.