It's The Midfield Stupid!

[rpfc 28,736]

Un-restricted FA definitely favours the bigger clubs, but as the players are 28+ (if we are going with the 7 year restricted, 10 year unrestricted) and that requires a great deal of forward planning by the 'predator' club.

NFL and NBA have shorter times for both levels.

So the 'predator' clubs will only have those stars for a short time if they manage to get them.

[Hannabal 4]

It's very nice of you to humour me by allowing me the honour of letting you answer the questions I put forward. Especially since you asked me to ask you the questions (and then doubted that I would ask them, saying you "suspect [you'll] be hearing crickets"). Maybe, since you keep missing the post, I'll put it here so that you we can "go through them together".

Thanks. (note: not interesting and too long for others)

I never read your quoted comment piece and thankfully after two "WTF are you talking abouts ?" you've provided it. The link you provided in a post a few above was you stating the obvious about midfields. You may be surprised, but it's been a long time since I've read this forum daily and when I do read I skim most posts and don't open the majority of threads - I could list my life's priorities if you're interested.

"You seem to be holding on to Viney’s quote for everything.."

I list it because it's poignant. The fact that I refer to it often doesn't invalidate my view. I wouldn't have referred to it the first time if I believed it was a non event. If you don't agree with my view that's fine, but whether I mention it once or 100 times doesn't change his comments or my interpretation of his comments. If something is only worth highlighting once then it's not a major issue, but clearly to me it was hence the number of times I mentioned it.

"You have the quote, but I’m not sure that you know how to use it"

The fact that you're not sure of whether I'm in a position to adequately interpret his comments is no different to your own capacity to interpret his comments. You choose to read into his comments your preferred line of thought and I've read into them what he actually says, which I'll expand upon.

For me the gameplan is paramount. Structure, discipline, players performing their role, knowing what other teams objectives are, being able to retain the ball in your forward 50, making it hard for the opposition to get it out, knowing when to guard space, knowing when to zone off, knowing when to lock down 'man-on-man', are all paramount in my opinion. Individual development shouldn't be at the expense of knowing how the game is played. Having the right structures and organisation helps a player's development, it makes the game easier for them, it doesn't hinder them. You shouldn't have an attitude that "we're not in premiership mode, so we're not concentrating as much on tactics and gameplan". So it's fair to say, Bob, that I don't agree with Viney or, by default, Bailey's directives. The players are at the club 6 days a week for 5 months before the season starts. There's time for individual development and a strong focus on game-plan; and I'd argue that one should not be at the expense of the other. And it clearly has been if you read Viney's comments.

"You said yourself that West Coast’s structure took 2 years to put into place properly. They couldn’t play the style properly until this year and everyone called them a rabble with no direction, no gameplan and appalling footskills. Suddenly now they are a disciplined unit. What has happened?"

I don't profess to be an expert on every club's gameplan. Afterall, I don't make my living out of football. In the main, Essendon have performed the press very well this year and clearly they haven't had 2 years at it. West Coast's issues were compounded by an unfit Cox, Kerr missing, poor footskills, and players like Masten and Swift not coming on. Lynch, Priddis, and Embley are in career best form, Kerr is back, Shuey is fit, Darling has come in, Cox is back to his best, etc. And no doubt having had a second preseason to implement their gameplan has been important.

Why has West Coast spent two years trying to adopt frontal pressure, or a forward press, yet (supposedly) this is our first year adopting these structures ? My contention is that this preseason we were caught behind most teams in adopting well structured frontal pressure. I don't expect all clubs to have the same gameplan. And even if most are similar there'll be plenty of variances. The best coached teams are well organised and every player knows his role. I contend that we haven't handled the press well and we don't implement it well. We've tried to implement frontal pressure, but as we haven't spent huge amounts of time on it our structures get lost and it only takes one player that doesn't fulfill his role for it to lose traction. Really good coaches have very well drilled units. We do have tactics against the press, all clubs do, and our talent will win us games if our pressure is strong enough. But our structures to defend against it are behind plenty of other clubs. It's no coincidence that as players fatigue it's easier to get through the press. We've often struggled early, but as the games open up we've been better able to get through. It relies on work-rate, good kicking, pressure at stoppages, run and talent.

Also, we lose our forward structure too easily when our forwards are sucked up the ground by opposition teams that are conducting the press. A couple of weeks back it was likened to a reverse press (not in a good way).

I don't think that Bailey is a poor coach and nor do I think he's a really good one. Too often Bailey led teams have been inconsistent in the required levels of effort. I accept that he's still learning and he may well prove that he warrants more years, but the onus should be on him to prove he deserves more time. The talent on our list is undeniable and he has gone down the correct path, but it was the only path. I want a really good coach to take this group forward and I have strong doubts that he's a really good coach. I wouldn't replace Bailey for another untried coach, but I'd move heaven and earth for a motivated great one.

"You obviously don’t know me very well"

How would I ?

"This is probably why you find it so hard to debate with me"

I've never shied away from a debate with you. Ever. I strongly disagreed with you on your forward line theory a few years ago and I'll let other observers from that time determine who won, but needless to say I haven't changed my view. Your forward-line theory on structure wasn't condusive to premiership glory.

That said, we've usually been on the same page with matters relating to football, which is why we've had very few major disagreements over 8+ years. There's been the odd one and I've always presented my view head on, so I disagree with your pretentious assertion that I struggle debating with you. I argued with you, and others, that in the final few years of Daniher we didn't turn the list over enough. I listed a 3 or 4 year period in which we went to the draft with less picks than any other club, because we misread our premiership chances. I did the research when no-one else was even highlighting it. As I said, I disagree with your self-important assertion.

"It’s easier when you try to see the debate from different perspectives, rather than try to simplify it to a point where you can understand. The beauty lies in the complexities"

Years ago on a private forum I along with you and a host of others were asked to participate in a debate/discussion where we had to take the opposing view to the one we actually held. I, amongst others, had to argue in favour of Daniher and his list management (with which I disagreed) over a set period of time and you, amongst others, had to argue against Daniher's list management (even though you agreed). Old 55, Rhino, etc, would remember and Deefan was the judge.

Two winners were declared, you and me. I reckon it's easy to see the other side of any argument, but more complex to distinguish subtleties. You really need to get over yourself.

(I'm still waiting for my bottle of wine. B) )

"As for who I am (A question which you seem perpetually confused by)?"

So you're not Spunjy, who Rono often referred to as the 'Ball Boy', aka Dave ? Well [censored] me.

[old55 23,687]

I thought the AFL FA was "restricted" in all circumstances but I'm not up on it.

8-9 seasons restricted FA (26-27 year olds), 10+ seasons unrestricted FA (28+ year olds)

[rpfc 28,736]

FA Rules Edited June 8, 2011 by rpfc

[old55 23,687]

Thanks Old.

And isn't there something about top 25% in your salary cap??

Can you direct me to something??

Yes the restricted FA only applies to the top 10 players who are the ones who count. I actually think it's a pretty fair deal and could've been much worse for us.

[rpfc 28,736]

Yes, it would be the most limited FA I can see.

Pretty reasonable if you ask me.

No one did?

I like to give my opinions! It's my right!

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Sorry, Hannabal, but I’ve been flat out the last few days. Don’t worry, I’m not ignoring you as you obviously put some time and effort into it.

Re:Viney’s quote, I suggested that you didn’t know how to use it because you go on about it like the MFC hasn’t done any work on gameplan at all, while the statement was simply that development is a higher priority than gameplan (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Hence why I do not believe that you know how to use it. I think you are trying shoehorn that quote into an opinion you have already come to as you are searching for evidence to support your point of view.

For me, the gameplan is small potatoes. Gameplans change from year to year and the premiership teams have all used different ones. It’s something that can be worked on slowly, but it can be changed. The playing personnel is much harder to change and requires more time. Most teams play a pretty similar game, but the actual structures vary a little. Changing the structures is not so difficult and they change very often.

Gameplan may help us sneak a win here or there, but it the grand scheme of things our game plan this year makes sweet FA difference to our premiership chances. I think that it’s just minutia. Wood for the trees etc.

And who is to say that our game plan is wrong anyway? Arguments have been made that there is nothing wrong with it and the issues are in implementation.

I agree that our forwards get caught up the ground too much, especially in previous weeks – Bailey has said as much in press conferences. I also don’t think that it is a surprise that we have dropped all of our forwards aside from Watts and Jurrah. Interesting that our running forwards in Petterd, Dunn, Maric etc have all spent time in the VFL. Is that some sort of signal about keeping our structure and applying defensive pressure?

It’s good to see that you’ve mellowed on Bailey as a result of this discussion. You, like me, don’t know whether he is a really good coach or a poor coach. But we have found that there is one key difference between our views:

- You think that he needs to prove that he’s a really good coach to get another contract,

- I think that he needs to prove that he isn’t a good coach to not get another contract.

It brings us to an interesting point, which is who would you replace him with? Where do you draw the line with the replacement coach? Malthouse … Roos … Eade … Laidley … Leon Cameron … someone else??

This is the crucial part of it, because if you fire him then you have to hire someone else. Which of these will actually consent to coaching us (at a price we can afford)? I think that this will make the decision. The discussion that we are all having is where we would draw the line in those coaches.

And well done on answering those questions. It makes for far better debate, and certainly more intellectually stimulating debate, when you drop your façade and debate the topic properly. Well done and I hope it continues to happen into the future.

[Trisul 664]

Yes FA is restricted. Now. What (new/old/spiffing) rule hasn't the AFL tinkered with in the last 10 years?

[Hannabal 4]

Re:Viney’s quote, I suggested that you didn’t know how to use it because you go on about it like the MFC hasn’t done any work on gameplan at all, while the statement was simply that development is a higher priority than gameplan (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Hence why I do not believe that you know how to use it. I think you are trying shoehorn that quote into an opinion you have already come to as you are searching for evidence to support your point of view.

For me, the gameplan is small potatoes. Gameplans change from year to year and the premiership teams have all used different ones. It’s something that can be worked on slowly, but it can be changed. The playing personnel is much harder to change and requires more time. Most teams play a pretty similar game, but the actual structures vary a little. Changing the structures is not so difficult and they change very often.

Gameplan may help us sneak a win here or there, but it the grand scheme of things our game plan this year makes sweet FA difference to our premiership chances. I think that it’s just minutia. Wood for the trees etc.

It’s good to see that you’ve mellowed on Bailey as a result of this discussion. You, like me, don’t know whether he is a really good coach or a poor coach. But we have found that there is one key difference between our views:

- You think that he needs to prove that he’s a really good coach to get another contract,

- I think that he needs to prove that he isn’t a good coach to not get another contract.

1. We'll agree to greatly differ with our interpretations on the Viney quote. The right coaching, structures and gameplan will only help develop players individually and should never take a backseat to anything. I reckon Paul Roos was a great coach. His teams were some of the best drilled and organised you'll ever find. He won a flag with a pretty ordinary group. In my opinion one of the main reasons that he got the best out of players once they'd been traded to Sydney was their gameplan disciplines. Every player clearly knew their role and what was expected of them; and that certainty helps players out on the field. People often wonder why players suddenly improve in Sydney. Is it the lifestyle ? Is it being in a non footy state, so players aren't exposed to the same scrutiny ? A far more logical reason is the coaching, leadership group, structures and disciplines. The leadership group enforces how they want to play and helps indivuals meet those demands.

2. Gameplan isn't "small potatoes" to me. And I consider gameplan and structures to be one and the same. Your set-up and structures is central to your ball movement and how you want to play. There's really only two aspects to any gameplan. What you do when you have the footy and what you do when you don't. Your structure is pivotal when you don't have it and your ball movement is pivotal when you do. It's all 'gameplan'.

I don't think Malthouse agrees with you either. This from today's HS - But Malthouse was adamant his team would remain predictable despite the absent stars. "We don't win with players, we win with structures," he said. Now I don't completely agree with the first bit and I'm sure Malthouse knows the value of his elite players, but the emphasis on structure/gameplan is clear.

3. I haven't mellowed about Bailey on the back of this discussion. You're not that persuasive. The Bailey supporters take a view that's very predictable. I have clear concerns. I really rate the quality of our list. In three years time a midfield of Trengove, Scully, Gysberts, McKenzie, Viney plus others will be unsurpassed. I want the best possible coach at the helm. Bailey will get some success with this group. It will be too good for him not to. But I want real success. Can he deliver ? Any new contract for Bailey would be at least two years. I don't like the prospect of a six year coach who hasn't proven he's a good coach. For me there's something amiss with that. However, I agree that there's been extenuating circumstances that have contributed to Bailey's plight that possibly no other coach has faced.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

If you want to let players play multiple roles within a team, then this is more of a focus towards development. The gameplan is an evolving thing that will change, and has changed, between years. Our gameplan has been tweaked from last year, just as everyone’s has. Bennell forward and back, Watts, Jetta, Martin, Grimes, Morton etc.

I think that you are confusing things based on where we are in terms of our list. If we were competing for a flag at the moment then I would agree about the importance of gameplan, but we are not, so gameplan is not of critical importance in achieving our overall aim – a premiership. Our current focus ios on developing a team that can win a flag. Once we are close to this point then we can shift our focus to gameplans and structures.

And you are arguing points using examples of teams that were far more advanced in their development than we are, such as Roos’ Sydney and Malthouse’s Collingwood. I don’t think that this is relevant in applying Viney’s quote. It would be interesting to see how they would react if they were in Melbourne’s position.

In order to clarify where you stand, where do you think Melbourne is as a team?

As for semantics, you may consider structures and gameplan to be the same, but they are different. Gameplan involves decision making, how you want to move the ball, how you wish to defend. It is a ‘how to’ plan of how you want your players to play the game. Structures, on the other hand, are where you want to place your players on the ground and which sort of players you want in those positions.

As for your opinion, I’m not arrogant enough to think that I’ve changed your opinion. However, by allowing you to attempt to discuss things properly, rather than petty point scoring, (I’m up, by the way) I have simply allowed you to start thinking about it yourself and you are, in a way, convincing yourself.

And there’s no shame in it, because that’s how we all should form our opinions. By critically reflecting on our own thoughts we can improve.

[Hannabal 4]

I think that you are confusing things based on where we are in terms of our list. If we were competing for a flag at the moment then I would agree about the importance of gameplan, but we are not, so gameplan is not of critical importance in achieving our overall aim – a premiership. Our current focus ios on developing a team that can win a flag. Once we are close to this point then we can shift our focus to gameplans and structures.

And you are arguing points using examples of teams that were far more advanced in their development than we are, such as Roos’ Sydney and Malthouse’s Collingwood. I don’t think that this is relevant in applying Viney’s quote. It would be interesting to see how they would react if they were in Melbourne’s position.

As for semantics, you may consider structures and gameplan to be the same, but they are different. Gameplan involves decision making, how you want to move the ball, how you wish to defend. It is a ‘how to’ plan of how you want your players to play the game. Structures, on the other hand, are where you want to place your players on the ground and which sort of players you want in those positions.

Gameplan and structure come under the umbrella of "gameplan". It's how you want to set-up and how you want to play. You're right, you do get bogged down in semantics. But it doesn't surprise me that anyone who considers gameplan to be "small potatoes" would have this view. AFL clubs put an extraordinary amount of time into their structures and playing ethos yet you consider it to be "small potatoes" ? I'll let others form a view.

In Bailey's 4th year as coach he's still not ready to have a real focus on gameplan, because the group isn't in premiership mode ? I don't buy it. You say "Our current focus ios (sic) on developing a team that can win a flag. Once we are close to this point then we can shift our focus to gameplans and structures". I disagree. Your team won't get to the point of being close to win a flag if you haven't turned them into a well drilled side with quality structures. It's not like you can just turn the tap on when you think the group is ready. Gameplans can and will vary over time, but when you've got a core group of a dozen players of a similar age all coming through together you're developing theory and structures from the outset that make them predictable to each other.

You also say "And you are arguing points using examples of teams that were far more advanced in their development than we are, such as Roos’ Sydney and Malthouse’s Collingwood. I don’t think that this is relevant in applying Viney’s quote. It would be interesting to see how they would react if they were in Melbourne’s position". Yes, I'm using examples that reflect the facts, while you're trying to guess if they'd have a different philosophy if they were coaching Melbourne. Malthouse's 2010 premiership team was younger than the Baby Bombers of 93 and considering that yesterday he said, "we don't win with players, we win with structures" it's fair to say that your guesswork is wide of the mark.

Btw, you can stop suggesting where you think I'm getting "confused". I think I've shown that if anyone is uncertain about the relevance of 'gameplan' it's you. I know where our list is at, but clearly have a different philosophical approach to you. When one considers the typical averages of age and 'games played' for premiership teams it's likely our window will open from 2014 onwards. This is a crutch for supporters like yourself that don't think detailed time needs to be spent on structures, set-ups, etc. Clearly I disagree with these sentiments and have expressed why. There's an underlying tone that because I want the side to be well coached and disciplined out on the field that I'd let individual player development take a back seat. That's not true at all. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, in fact, they compliment each other. Where we really differ is that I believe that Bailey has fallen short when it comes to getting the right structures in place and he's now playing catch-up.

Your last tidbits:

"As for your opinion, I’m not arrogant enough to think that I’ve changed your opinion. However, by allowing you to attempt to discuss things properly, rather than petty point scoring, (I’m up, by the way) I have simply allowed you to start thinking about it yourself and you are, in a way, convincing yourself.

And there’s no shame in it, because that’s how we all should form our opinions. By critically reflecting on our own thoughts we can improve."

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pure condescending drivel.

[Hannabal 4]

The FD have it exactly right.

I wouldn't expect you to say anything different, now would I ?

Our inability to stop teams when they have a 'run on' and our capacity to produce quarters like the one against Hawthorn, and the first quarter against West Coast - where we conceded something like 20 inside 50's, tells the story of a side that doesn't have great disciplines and structures in place. You think that's ok, because we'll get those apsects right in time, whilst I reckon some of our insipid performances have reflected poorly on the coaching staff and our organisation on the field. Jim Stynes joining the FD suggest that he's had concerns too.

Getting flogged and having terrible matches due to poor structures, being out-coached, and inconsistent "efforts" doesn't help the progress of any individual player.

Bailey is in a wonderful position. He's the architect of his future. If the effort is consistent and they regularly have a crack then I'll be reasonably happy. I'm not sure I'll be convinced that he's a really good coach, but he will have gone a long way to getting his detractors to shut their traps. A large part of it for me is about the effort. Bailey isn't solely responsible for that, but he wears a decent chunk of it. At this stage in our development it's not all about wins for me.

[Whispering_Jack 30,580]

A large part of it for me is about the effort. Bailey isn't solely responsible for that, but he wears a decent chunk of it. At this stage in our development it's not all about wins for me.

Hannabal. How can you discern whether or not a team is putting in "effort"?

I was wondering about that very thing yesterday as I watched Essendon against Fremantle. On the face of it, for almost three quarters of the game, the Bombers seemed to be putting in very little effort individually or as a team. Then, for the first seven or eight minutes of the final quarter, things clicked and they were almost back in the game. Was the "effort" suddenly there or was it something else? Can "effort" be turned on and off like a tap?

I think we over-emphasize the concept of effort. Except in the extreme or exceptional cases, all teams try but it's the better prepared and better equipped teams that always appear to be be putting in the most effort.

I think that the large part for a young, inexperienced side is education and preparation in the skills of the game first and, once these are in place, it's much easier to work on and develop the niceties like tactics and strategy. Obviously, some coaches are better than others at instilling these things into a group and the club board has the interesting task ahead of it in the coming months in deciding whether Bailey is the right man to continue but I wouldn't put it down to effort on his part or that of the playing group.

[H_T 3,049]

You're not a very smart guy.

GGR was simply a change of user name in the features section of your profile. I made no attempt to hide who I was. The post count was the same, etc. I just thought I'd try a change of name after my dog (Hannabal) died. Then I thought, nah, revert.

It's different to having multiple aliases.

This is true. Same for Oliver Hill and Hannibal - other changes of names. Post count remained the same.

Btw, badly beaten in the midfield on Monday. So much so we lost all structure for the majority of the game. We're very much miles behind the best. Our poor execution and failure to not use the first time option (I talk of your man Jones)caused all sorts of problems including pressure and perceived pressure. Particularly in the first half. Other than that Wellingham & Davis sliced us a new one time and again. Failure of sticking tackles also contributed.

Whilst the Pies were Swan, Thomas and Beams-less, they still have enough quality to cover. Pendlebury, Ball are A-grade and Wellingham is very good, a very slippery customer with some of the quickest reflexes and side steps you'll see. Then there is Sidebottom. As much as I despise and hate Collingwood, they're awesome.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Hannabal. How can you discern whether or not a team is putting in "effort"?

I was wondering about that very thing yesterday as I watched Essendon against Fremantle. On the face of it, for almost three quarters of the game, the Bombers seemed to be putting in very little effort individually or as a team. Then, for the first seven or eight minutes of the final quarter, things clicked and they were almost back in the game. Was the "effort" suddenly there or was it something else? Can "effort" be turned on and off like a tap?

I think we over-emphasize the concept of effort. Except in the extreme or exceptional cases, all teams try but it's the better prepared and better equipped teams that always appear to be be putting in the most effort. 

I think that the large part  for a young, inexperienced side is education and preparation in the skills of the game first and, once these are in place, it's much easier to work on and develop the niceties like tactics and strategy. Obviously, some coaches are better than others at instilling these things into a group and the club board has the interesting task ahead of it in the coming months in deciding whether Bailey is the right man to continue but I wouldn't put it down to effort on his part or that of the playing group.

WJ, apologies if I have taken this the wrong way, and if it has already been covered (couldn't be bothered reading through a lot of the "mine's bigger than yours" conversations going on!).

I see this "effort" issue in 2 ways. The first, your comments are totally correct about a team always puts in. However, where our "effort" is quesntionable is the off-the-ball effort. The countless times when we had no targets moving is disgraceful, and that to me is a lack of effort. I don't care if a player doesn't have his lead honured, I want him to keep presenting. This is in a lot of areas on the ground at the moment. The kicking out from full back, right up to our half forwards. You will not beat the press if you are standing flat footed up the ground, as this will mean the ball carrier will be indecisive of who to kick to, therefore meaning the opposition can strangle us with their zone.

I strongly believe all of our players go out there to win. But we would have minimal players that could honestly stand up in front of the group and say that they put in 100% effort during their game time.

The best sides have very few passengers. I call passengers players that aren't willing to offer leads, or run in to positions. The basic things like always being involved in the game even if the ball is up the other end. The encouragement of teammates, the continual movement (even if it is just walking slowly), the positive body language. These are things that the players need to take responsibility for.

I can use Petterd as a great Case Study. The behind-the-scenes footage that Channel 7 showed of Bailey, one of the comments he made was about Petterd not presenting. It frustrated the hell out of the coach, justifiably so, because that highlights a lack of effort.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Effort or lack of confidence and belief can appear very similar.

You might not present because subconsciously you don't believe you can beat your opponent, or that there will be better options, or that your team-mate isn't skilled enough to get it to you.

When you stop putting attacking pressure on a good side they can run forward in numbers with confidence and make you look stupid.

You see it when you coach kids and you see it in young AFL teams. Once the doubt sets in the rot starts.

We need to develop these kids so they believe in thier abilities, thier teammates abilities and the processes put in place. So easy to say.

[Hannabal 4]

You've used many an alias to hide your identity in the past, Little Black Duck for one and there was another about a hill in Frankston.

You're hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Unlike you I couldn't care how many names you use because I judge posters on their content, not who they are.

Just for the record, I'm not an employee, I'm a volunteer and your decision to "out" me now means I won't post at all under any alias.

I'll leave your future to the other mods.

That makes two if us. Read my sig.

Your absence will make for fairer debate. You've always appreciated the power of the written word on the internet, which is why you manipulated debate under different guises. You didn't do it for the fun of it. It was calculated to be 'pro' whatever the club did.

And Black Duck was on the old forum in about 2003 for about 2 weeks. Good one.

Ciao comrades.

[daisycutter 29,712]

I appreciate your work for the club.

And H - you are being a bit of a pill of late, tone it down?

It does cut both ways you know rpfc

not referring to you but the behaviour you allude to has been coming from both directions

[rpfc 28,736]

It does cut both ways you know rpfc

not referring to you but the behaviour you allude to has been coming from both directions

No doubt, but H knows which buttons are the most damaging to press, and he doesn't hesitate.

I wish he would.

[daisycutter 29,712]

No doubt, but H knows which buttons are the most damaging to press, and he doesn't hesitate.

I wish he would.

Disagree on you isolating H. Others use the damage button just as well

Unless you are not so impartial?

[rpfc 28,736]

Disagree on you isolating H. Others use the damage button just as well

Unless you are not so impartial?

I'm very fair I would say.

And I have an awful memory on here so that helps. As soon as someone changes their avatar they are new to me. It's odd.

People got personal, bit disappointing, but H went a bit too far, and that's enough on that - it's over. We all move on.

[daisycutter 29,712]

I'm very fair I would say.

And I have an awful memory on here so that helps. As soon as someone changes their avatar they are new to me. It's odd.

People got personal, bit disappointing, but H went a bit too far, and that's enough on that - it's over. We all move on.

Well I must have missed something or it got deleted before I saw it

Again, I'm referring to compared-with-others

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

WB had about 2100 games of experience on the park at an average age of 25.5 years

MFC had about 1200 games on the park at an average age of 23.0 years

WB midfield (Boyd, Cooney, Cross, Griffen, Higgins, Ward) had about 770 games experience.

MFC midfield (Sylvia, Moloney, McKenzie, Trengove, Gysberts, Scully) had about 330 games experience.

[45HG 1,559]

Players with 18 or more touches last night.

Melbourne had 11. Average games 51

The Dogs had 9. Average games 154

Multiple goal scoreres.

Melbourne had 3. Average games 27

The Dogs had 6. Average games 126

As I alluded to in a previous post, their quality, experienced players were the ones who influenced the game. Our guys that influenced the game were far less experienced.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

WB had about 2100 games of experience on the park at an average age of 25.5 years

MFC had about 1200 games on the park at an average age of 23.0 years

WB midfield (Boyd, Cooney, Cross, Griffen, Higgins, Ward) had about 770 games experience.

MFC midfield (Sylvia, Moloney, McKenzie, Trengove, Gysberts, Scully) had about 330 games experience.

Those stats are good. They still don't explain the over use of the ball, or the bad decision making going forward, or indeed the softness and unwillingness to fight out the game.

I can accept getting beaten one on one, losing the clearances, being pressured, those are all things that a mature team should do against a young team. But a lack of heart and fight has been a trademark of this club for many years, even when we were full of big bodies.

We had everything to play for last night and we packed it in after quarter time. Heads dropped, intensity was nearly non existent and nobody was leading the way except two 19 year olds in Trengove and Watts.