My big issue with our side is not the attack on the man but on the ball. How often do we see Melbourne players standing off the ball while an opponent hurls himself at it and wins the thing from under their noses? We need our mids to crash in at full pace and get first hands on the ball every time. That will result in more clearances and more frees coming our way, rather than soft clearances to the opposition and a monumental high tackle count against us.

You don't like action, you don't like talk... It IS football you know? Can't just toss the coin to decide who wins

I don't like thoughtless action for the sake of action.

The point is that they are easy ideals to bring up and use certain players as examples of absolutes, but in reality it's all shades of grey, no matter what you say.

I am sick of re-inventions, starting again, rebuilding.

I am sick of hearing from mild-manered coaches, players and leaders.

I am sick of mildly going about our business like some 1950's MCC ladies auxilliary.

No, I do not want thuggery - turns me off our great game.

I reckon the last coach/leader at our club who wasn't mild was John Northey!!

I want some ticker.

I want us to play angry AND smart and not be sorry for it.

I want to see my coach using negative psychology (a good rant or spray) in the face of a player who would respond to it.

No short steps to packs, light-legged outside runners or tiny-thighed waiters dominating our team structure (yes, I know, we need some)

Sitting behind the goals on Sunday night, it was great to hear some genuine anger, grunt, abuse and hot-headed-fan ranting from Melbourne fans. Too long we have golf-clapped our way through seasons!!

Boy... I really needed to type that.

.

I agree when was the last time you were abused by other team supporters.

I cannot remember The last time!

I don't like thoughtless action for the sake of action.

The point is that they are easy ideals to bring up and use certain players as examples of absolutes, but in reality it's all shades of grey, no matter what you say.

Totally agree about thoughtless action, but my impression is that's not what this thread is about, I might be wrong but my feeling is a lot of us are a bit bewildered by the lack of spirit and unity amongst the team yesterday, particularly the senior group, seeing we have seemed to have been a pretty tight knit group.

Just like the idea of it being "mates going to war" together, not meaning thuggery, or thoughtless action, but meaning we're all in this together and I'll stand up for my mate, congratulate him when needed just as much as berate him when needed.

It seemed awfully quiet out there in the second half...

Clone Tapscott !!

Nothing at all wrong with his hit on Shaw ... For mine it was a bit of good ol fashioned footy so rarely seen in these namby pamby days of diluted competitiveness. That wasn't thuggery in the least, it was a beautifully executed thump totally within the game. That more Melbourne players could play that way I can only dream . It was no nonsense stuff. It wasn't a hit behind play moment. I see nothing wrong with intimidation in the sense that you have your opposition concerned even before they cross the white line. There's been many a thug on a footy field but that hit wasn't one.

To describe it as such borders on literal thuggery in itself.

Were supposed to be Demons and half the team play like Angels !

You're on the money Red.

I agree somewhat but a bit more mongrel to go with it. We also need a big bloke whom has got a touch of thuggery in him.We seem far to timid.Need to get into oppositions heads that we are just not meek and mild.

Just look at three hawks and there are others

Franklin, Roughhead and Rioli

They play "get out of my way or get hurt"

Cannot bring one dee to mind who comes close to that attitude

Just look at three hawks and there are others

Franklin, Roughhead and Rioli

They play "get out of my way or get hurt"

Cannot bring one dee to mind who comes close to that attitude

We recruit clean cut lads... We don't take risks on rebels, and we sack 'challenging types'. > Martin Pike.. They didn't like Schwartz... tried to suppress him. Preferred Neita. Our club was uneasy about Rod Grinter.

Our supporters put down players like Leigh Matthews, or Brereton. Or Lockett.

Take No Prisoners, I say.

Edited April 4, 201114 yr by dee-luded

It's pretty simple to me. We need to be hard at the footy and not take a backwards step. There's no thuggery in that.

At this time, we have few players who are both:

8, 12, 13, 15, 22, 27, 35, 39, 40, 42

There are more that are thereabouts and excludes recent draftees and rookies

P.S This has nothing to do with footy skills

We recruit clean cut lads... We don't take risks on rebels, and we sack 'challenging types'. > Martin Pike.. They din't like Schwartz... tried to suppress him. Preferred Neita. Our club was uneasy about Rod Grinter.

Our supporters put down players like Leigh Matthews, or Brereton. Or Lockett.

Take No Prisoners, I say.

Intelligent philosophy.

You didn't happen to get concussed quite often during your playing career, did you..?

We recruit clean cut lads... We don't take risks on rebels, and we sack 'challenging types'. > Martin Pike.. They din't like Schwartz... tried to suppress him. Preferred Neita. Our club was uneasy about Rod Grinter.

Our supporters put down players like Leigh Matthews, or Brereton. Or Lockett.

Take No Prisoners, I say.

I agree, Notice how many GF's our nice boys have won lately

The last one we appeared in Essendon blasted us out of the road, it was all over at quarter time.

They knew hit em hard in the first quarter and they will turn it up.

Edited April 4, 201114 yr by old dee

I agree somewhat but a bit more mongrel to go with it. We also need a big bloke whom has got a touch of thuggery in him.We seem far to timid.Need to get into oppositions heads that we are just not meek and mild.

Don't use the word "thuggery". We want hard, tough, uncompromising, aggressive football. Nothing more, hopefully nothing less.

Funny thing is that if you asked our players they would agree.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Lots of posters here moan about draftees 'sordid' backgrounds and prefer to draft clean cut lads (Cook, Watts for example) over guys with even the slightest blemish on their record (Darling, Beams, again just for examples). Many supporters want impeccably well-mannered footballers playing for the MFC. Well that's what we have and people wonder why we never engage in any 'biffo' line-in-the-sand stuff.

The most ironic thing of all is that our ideal team would remove much of the mongrel (Jones, Moloney), further exacerbating our reputation as wussy, clean cut kids.

Trust me, we are a lot better off without a human stain like Dayne Beams at the club...

Trust me, we are a lot better off without a human stain like Dayne Beams at the club...

Collingwood's back-to-back flags say hi

Don't use the word "thuggery". We want hard, tough, uncompromising, aggressive football. Nothing more, hopefully nothing less.

Funny thing is that if you asked our players they would agree.

Fair enough comment- don't mind being pulled up for that- I withdraw my comment re thuggery. We require fair players whom are hard, tough, uncompromising, aggressive footballers. Again, as pointed out Tapscott moulds. I would still not mind if we could grab a taller Tapscott- that is why I wanted Darling as our Number 1 recruit last draft.

Edited April 4, 201114 yr by jayceebee31

Funny thing is that if you asked our players they would agree.

So if they're not doing it - and I assume you think they're not, given your thread - then I ask the question; why not?

I'm pretty sure there's no coaching instruction that asserts 'do not be hard, tough and uncompromising'.

Collingwood's back-to-back flags say hi

That oxygen thief was hardly the reason they won one flag.

They don't have anything close to back-to-back flags yet.

And I'd rather not have him than win a flag with him at the club.

So if they're not doing it - and I assume you think they're not, given your thread - then I ask the question; why not?

I'm pretty sure there's no coaching instruction that asserts 'do not be hard, tough and uncompromising'.

I think you either have it or you don't

Not sure it is something that can be taught.

e.g. Watts he may turn out to be a really good player

but in my wildest dreams I do not see him ever playing like Franklin or Dermie.

He is destined to be a nice boy forever that is part of the reason we picked him.

So don't blame him blame our selection process.

Why did we pick Cook and not Darling?

Don't think Darling is a "Nice Boy"

Edited April 4, 201114 yr by old dee

Fair enough comment- don't mind being pulled up for that- I withdraw my comment re thuggery. We require fair players whom are hard, tough, uncompromising, aggressive footballers. Again, as pointed out Tapscott moulds. I would still not mind if we could grab a taller Tapscott- that is why I wanted Darling as our Number 1 recruit last draft.

I also wanted Darling. Really like the look of him.

Be interesting to see how both he and Cook track over the next four or five years.

I know they kicked badly in the first half but the effort by the boys before half time was fantastic. I expect plenty would disagree but all the little things were there - smothering, shepherding etc. They looked the better side as should be expected but the effort was there. Win, lose or draw, I enjoy watching us when we give great effort.

That brings me to the second half. Our one percenters completely disappeared. They are a better side than us and I'd expect them to beat us at this stage but it was so demoralising to see an end all of the chasing, smothering and shepherding. These are the things that allow you to stop the momentum of a team who is firing. I can accept a 45 point loss, but the effort in the second half was terrible.

That oxygen thief was hardly the reason they won one flag.

They don't have anything close to back-to-back flags yet.

And I'd rather not have him than win a flag with him at the club.

Your morals are too high for me e25.

I want wins not someone who gives his seat to little old ladies.

I dislike them as much as anyone on this site but they are the bees knees at present.

Wish we were as bad.

I also wanted Darling. Really like the look of him.

Be interesting to see how both he and Cook track over the next four or five years.

Darling has already played two games ( definately one ) and kicked at least one goal.

So he is off to a flyer!

I know they kicked badly in the first half but the effort by the boys before half time was fantastic. I expect plenty would disagree but all the little things were there - smothering, shepherding etc. They looked the better side as should be expected but the effort was there. Win, lose or draw, I enjoy watching us when we give great effort.

That brings me to the second half. Our one percenters completely disappeared. They are a better side than us and I'd expect them to beat us at this stage but it was so demoralising to see an end all of the chasing, smothering and shepherding. These are the things that allow you to stop the momentum of a team who is firing. I can accept a 45 point loss, but the effort in the second half was terrible.

WAC I think you are seeing what you want to see, at quarter time they were 1/7 if that had been 7/1 it would have been all over then.

Look at the stats they had more of everything than the Dees all day.

Your morals are too high for me e25.

I want wins not someone who gives his seat to little old ladies.

I dislike them as much as anyone on this site but they are the bees knees at present.

Wish we were as bad.

He is obviously far worse than you are aware of.

Clone Tapscott !!

Nothing at all wrong with his hit on Shaw ... For mine it was a bit of good ol fashioned footy so rarely seen in these namby pamby days of diluted competitiveness. That wasn't thuggery in the least, it was a beautifully executed thump totally within the game. That more Melbourne players could play that way I can only dream . It was no nonsense stuff. It wasn't a hit behind play moment. I see nothing wrong with intimidation in the sense that you have your opposition concerned even before they cross the white line. There's been many a thug on a footy field but that hit wasn't one.

To describe it as such borders on literal thuggery in itself.

Were supposed to be Demons and half the team play like Angels !

You're on the money Red.

namby pamby my arse. The games tougher physically and mentally than it's ever been. Just because players don't go around king hitting each other means little. Sit on the boundary line and watch, listen and feel how hard the players hit, how fast the game is and how switched on you need to be to play it.