Over-reaction?

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Do you have some sort of issue "Hannabal"?

Are you trying to somehow make this personal?

I'm not interested in playing your games.

[Trisul 664]

There are and have been plenty of 'this weeks excuse to sack the coach' threads to bring comfort to those offended / traumatised by this thread. But they certainly aren't tiresome, no. After all, it's only a matter of having a gameplan that fans like. Only a matter of playing for 4 quarters. List capability is irrelevent. List experience is irrelevent - see WCEs 7 premiership players. Means nothing, nothing more than:

D. Cox 3 goals 23 disp 10 marks 3 i50 10 cp

A. Embley 17 disp 3 goals 4 i50

Q. Lynch 13 disp 3 goals 5 i50

D. Kerr 27 disp 7 i50

A. Selwood 19 disp 7 marks 8cp

S. Butler 21 disp 10 marks 9 tackles

D. Glass 13 disp 6 marks.

Top those guys off with Rosa and Priddis: 59 disps, 13 i50s, between them.

All the above WCE players are 25 or over with the exception of Rosa who's 25 in November.

Our players ~25+: Green, Davey, Jamar, Moloney, Warnock, Macdonald, Rivers, Sylvia, Martin.

What did CS say, this year and last, about our timeline, and where we're at?

"this is not the time for knee-jerk reactions" - totally agree.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Good post in my opinion "Trident".

They are some of the things I had in mind, but I'm not savvy enough to come up with the stats like that.

Perception, whether correct or not, rules on this forum.

Changing perception is evidently a very difficult thing.

Ps.

Is Martin over 25??

I thought he was only about 22.

[deejammin' 2,370]

I've said I saw the eagles loss coming, and I had a feeling it would be a bad one.

Hence, I think the criticism of Bailey is unfairly harsh.

- Eagles smashed us last year, with bigger bodies in the midfield, dominating contested possessions.

- We played them in Perth, and like all young teams, we don't travel well.

- we were bound to be flat, coming off the bye.

Yes, westcoast were also coming off the bye, but it's still a factor in our lacklustre performance.

As it stands, no team coming off the bye has won a match, except for those playing another team that also had the bye.

- the week before that, we played the Gold Coast Suns easybeats.

We weren't made to play that great against the suns, but still came away with a 90 point win.

As is stands, no team has won a game the week after playing the suns.

I'd say the mental effect on teams is detrimental to their performance the following week, an effect that would be exacerbated by the inexperience and lack of quality senior leadership at our club.

I find this an interesting post for a number of reasons and thought I might just offer my response to your points:

1. You state you saw this loss coming, yet you only found the new stats retrospectively, which leads me to believe you saw it coming purely on the back of last years loss and being bad at travel, surely if you only were aware of these two points by themselves you couldn't have thought we would get smashed this badly, travel and a bad performance last year do not equate to one of the worst first quarter performances in the league.

2. The Eagles didn't smash us nearly this badly last year, we were equal at halftime and the general feeling was we would run over them... The second half wasn't particularly inspiring from either side, we lost badly, but not like this...

3. All teams travel badly, its a fact of football, its never nice to fly or have an interrupted preparation. Some teams have plans to deal with it or simply deal with it better than others. Most try to be revved up in order to get the crowd out of it early, we were trying to do this and failed worse than any other team all year with the inside 50s reflecting this. Also we got there 2 days early in an attempt to negate the travel factor, yet failed anyway. There was a clear focus on beating travel, equal if not more thorough to any other clubs prep, there were no excuses, the problem was identified and we failed to fix it, that is a shocking indictment on the club, not an excuse.

4. The fact about stats is they are retrospective, before the season started experts were predicting players coming off the bye would win more often as they would be 'fresher' we haven't seen enough of the bye to have an honest assesment, the reality is that this is a moot point. If teams had won after having the bye you could have been lamenting that West Coast also had the bye otherwise we would have smashed them with our 'fresh legs'. These retrospective analysis' do not provide excuses or explanations, the fact is both teams had the same time off, and we did extremely badly.

5. Good teams, with discpline and strong leadship do not lose simply because they played an ordinary team the previous week, if we accept this as an explanation then we will continue to be a weak willed team. Playing ordinary teams does not excuse playing like an ordinary team the next week! Also the draw has a lot to do with why this stat for teams playing GC then losing exists. Carlton played Collingwood after playing GC, it didn't matter who they played the week before odds on, they were losing this one, and that being said they equitted themselves pretty well. The Bulldogs lost to Freo, who should be a very strong side and were playing at home, also they lost by 7 points in a tight contest, hardly the pathetic workshop we put on! Port is a terrible team and should lose to everyone, I don't think they lost to NM coz of GC! So in summary of your sample group, of 4 teams, 2 have lost to top four sides in close games after GC, Port will lose to everyone and Melbourne played pathetically in an inexcusable performance. I don't think this is conclusive evidence for teams losing after playing GC. Certainly not enough to excuse Melbourne's performance, which was the worst of the group!

As you can see I disagree with your points, yes we had some challenges like travel and some smaller bodies, but these were identified before the game by the club with players and admin stating how they were fixing them and going to show something in this contest. The sad facts are, we put in an inexcusable performance, the whole club should be under the blowtorch, how we respond is important, not just this week, but for the rest of the year. Finally its not an overreaction to get worried about one of the most insipid performances of the year by any club!

[Guest Thomo]

There are and have been plenty of 'this weeks excuse to sack the coach' threads to bring comfort to those offended / traumatised by this thread. But they certainly aren't tiresome, no. After all, it's only a matter of having a gameplan that fans like. Only a matter of playing for 4 quarters. List capability is irrelevent. List experience is irrelevent - see WCEs 7 premiership players. Means nothing, nothing more than:

D. Cox 3 goals 23 disp 10 marks 3 i50 10 cp

A. Embley 17 disp 3 goals 4 i50

Q. Lynch 13 disp 3 goals 5 i50

D. Kerr 27 disp 7 i50

A. Selwood 19 disp 7 marks 8cp

S. Butler 21 disp 10 marks 9 tackles

D. Glass 13 disp 6 marks.

Top those guys off with Rosa and Priddis: 59 disps, 13 i50s, between them.

All the above WCE players are 25 or over with the exception of Rosa who's 25 in November.

Our players ~25+: Green, Davey, Jamar, Moloney, Warnock, Macdonald, Rivers, Sylvia, Martin.

What did CS say, this year and last, about our timeline, and where we're at?

"this is not the time for knee-jerk reactions" - totally agree.

Our senior players are poor, why is that? Davey, Green and Sylvia are potentially three of the top 20 players in the competition. Why have almost all of our mid twenties aged players not developed up to expectations over the last four years?

I don’t want to be having these same arguments in four years time when Watts, Scully, Trengove, Morton, Blease, Tapscott, Strause, Maric, Cook ect have struggled under a poor coach.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

But how do you know it's a poor coach that is the problem, or that there even is a problem?

Speculation.

[Trisul 664]

Is Martin over 25??

I thought he was only about 22.

He's 25 in November.

About to head out of the office Thomo, will have a go at your post this evening.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Trident

[deejammin' 2,370]

There are and have been plenty of 'this weeks excuse to sack the coach' threads to bring comfort to those offended / traumatised by this thread. But they certainly aren't tiresome, no. After all, it's only a matter of having a gameplan that fans like. Only a matter of playing for 4 quarters. List capability is irrelevent. List experience is irrelevent - see WCEs 7 premiership players. Means nothing, nothing more than:

D. Cox 3 goals 23 disp 10 marks 3 i50 10 cp

A. Embley 17 disp 3 goals 4 i50

Q. Lynch 13 disp 3 goals 5 i50

D. Kerr 27 disp 7 i50

A. Selwood 19 disp 7 marks 8cp

S. Butler 21 disp 10 marks 9 tackles

D. Glass 13 disp 6 marks.

Top those guys off with Rosa and Priddis: 59 disps, 13 i50s, between them.

All the above WCE players are 25 or over with the exception of Rosa who's 25 in November.

Our players ~25+: Green, Davey, Jamar, Moloney, Warnock, Macdonald, Rivers, Sylvia, Martin.

What did CS say, this year and last, about our timeline, and where we're at?

"this is not the time for knee-jerk reactions" - totally agree.

Good post, but I'm not sure how relevent 'premiership players' are in this context, look how many premiership players Brisbane had playing round one versus Freo, yet they still lost, despite a higher average age and at least 4 premiership players to Freo's none. All those players listed above played last year (albeit missing some rounds through injury) yet they finished last, effort gameplan and desire have a lot to do with it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Wasn't really sure where to post this, so figured I might create a thread, although it will probably be ignored.

I've said I saw the eagles loss coming, and I had a feeling it would be a bad one.

Hence, I think the criticism of Bailey is unfairly harsh.

It's a simple evaluation of the pertinent factors leading into the Eagles match.

Cause & effect, if you will.

- Eagles smashed us last year, with bigger bodies in the midfield, dominating contested possessions.

- We played them in Perth, and like all young teams, we don't travel well.

But the most glaring factors were these (coupled with a few new stats I have discovered):

- we were bound to be flat, coming off the bye.

Yes, westcoast were also coming off the bye, but it's still a factor in our lacklustre performance.

As it stands, no team coming off the bye has won a match, except for those playing another team that also had the bye.

- the week before that, we played the Gold Coast Suns easybeats.

We weren't made to play that great against the suns, but still came away with a 90 point win.

As is stands, no team has won a game the week after playing the suns.

I'd say the mental effect on teams is detrimental to their performance the following week, an effect that would be exacerbated by the inexperience and lack of quality senior leadership at our club.

- ok, I don't have a stat for this, but the week before that we played Brisbane, who are also fairly easy competition in comparison to Hawthorn or WestCoast (this year, with a fit list).

In the end though we'll be judged, and should be judged, not by the debacle last Thursday, but by our response on Sunday.

Those that don't at least show some fire and pride will have a black mark next to their name.

The rest of the Competition does all these things weekly, (ok well maybe not Port Adelaide) why should we be allowed to hide behind excuses every year.

We have not beaten Wet Coke over there since 2002,or won a game at that ground since 2004. It's only a 3 hour flight, and they did land 2 days in advance.

It's Quite simple. For whatever reason, this club does not prepare itself correctly.

And i hope that is why the Big Jimma wants to work inside the Football Dept. to try and find out exactly why.

Over reaction indeed. Some people on here are scared of the unknown. Scared of being a club that expects to win each game. (Hawthorn 1971-91) who were inspired by Norm Smith.

[Guest Thomo]

But how do you know it's a poor coach that is the problem, or that there even is a problem?

Speculation.

I was at the game last Thursday, there is a problem.

To see Davey play the most selfish, lazy, and pathetic game that I have ever witnessed in AFL, and then get selected the following week, confirms there is a problem.

If the skill level is poor, the players are not motivated to play and the game plan has serious issues, who can agrgue that the coach is not poor?

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Good post, but I'm not sure how relevent 'premiership players' are in this context, look how many premiership players Brisbane had playing round one versus Freo, yet they still lost, despite a higher average age and at least 4 premiership players to Freo's none. All those players listed above played last year (albeit missing some rounds through injury) yet they finished last, effort gameplan and desire have a lot to do with it.

I think the point that Trident is making is that the premiership players that they had playing actually performed as well as a collective as they have in some time and this may go some way to explaining the result.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Deejammin':

1. I noticed a trend, but didn't realise the stats were so conclusive.

I didn't predict the exact result, and I'm not trying to say "look how clever I am!", I'm trying to say it could have been reasonably expected, as I did.

2. No, the games were not identical.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing we may have also had Scully, McKenzie or McDonald last year.

They would make a big difference, having averaged 3.86, 6.74 and 7.44 tackles per game last year, respectively.

I understand the reasoning for not renewing Junior's contract, as we wouldn't have reasonably expected to lose both of the other 2 all this time.

3. As you say, ALL TEAMS TRAVEL BADLY.

That is just my point, and you have confirmed it.

Young teams even moreso.

If it wasps easy as coming 2 days early, then all teams would do that and there wouldn't be a perception that ALL TEAMS TRAVEL BADLY.

4. Some thought that.

I didn't. Having played football and experiencing byes myself I've seen many teams come out flat after a bye.

Having listened to season AFL players discuss getting a week off, some say although you get time to recover from injuries, it can be a bad thing as you have too much time off.

Being a basketball fan, I've listened to Kobe Bryant discuss wanting to sweep teams early in the finals for more time off, but late in the finals you don't mind a 6 game series because you don't sperm much time sitting on your hands - you keep the momentum you have built going into the Finals.

5. WE ARE NOT A GOOD TEAM.

I'm not sure what makes a lot of supporters believe we are at the stage where we should be better than we are right now, but we're not.

Yes, we should expect to see some better performances, but we should expect more heavy losses too.

This is the fate of a young team finding their way.

We've seen it time and again with other teams as they build to the point of being a contender.

What makes so many Melbourne supporters think we should leap this difficult stage?

[deejammin' 2,370]

I think the point that Trident is making is that the premiership players that they had playing actually performed as well as a collective as they have in some time and this may go some way to explaining the result.

I understand, but also the point that I was making was that a team of premiership players don't always beat a non-premier side. There will always be premiership players playing for other clubs, we need to be able to beat them otherwise we will never win one ourselves, especially when this team has been down for awhile and is definately beatable.

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

I forgot this one. The apologists use the bye and coming off playing a weak team as an excuse and in the next breath they'll point to our position in the 8 as recognition that things aren't as bad as they seem.

They post and sound like Left wingers.

Disagree, they sound like Right wingers.

Viva la revolucion!

[deejammin' 2,370]

Deejammin':

1. I noticed a trend, but didn't realise the stats were so conclusive.

I didn't predict the exact result, and I'm not trying to say "look how clever I am!", I'm trying to say it could have been reasonably expected, as I did.

2. No, the games were not identical.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing we may have also had Scully, McKenzie or McDonald last year.

They would make a big difference, having averaged 3.86, 6.74 and 7.44 tackles per game last year, respectively.

I understand the reasoning for not renewing Junior's contract, as we wouldn't have reasonably expected to lose both of the other 2 all this time.

3. As you say, ALL TEAMS TRAVEL BADLY.

That is just my point, and you have confirmed it.

Young teams even moreso.

If it wasps easy as coming 2 days early, then all teams would do that and there wouldn't be a perception that ALL TEAMS TRAVEL BADLY.

4. Some thought that.

I didn't. Having played football and experiencing byes myself I've seen many teams come out flat after a bye.

Having listened to season AFL players discuss getting a week off, some say although you get time to recover from injuries, it can be a bad thing as you have too much time off.

Being a basketball fan, I've listened to Kobe Bryant discuss wanting to sweep teams early in the finals for more time off, but late in the finals you don't mind a 6 game series because you don't sperm much time sitting on your hands - you keep the momentum you have built going into the Finals.

5. WE ARE NOT A GOOD TEAM.

I'm not sure what makes a lot of supporters believe we are at the stage where we should be better than we are right now, but we're not.

Yes, we should expect to see some better performances, but we should expect more heavy losses too.

This is the fate of a young team finding their way.

We've seen it time and again with other teams as they build to the point of being a contender.

What makes so many Melbourne supporters think we should leap this difficult stage?

Thanks for the reply, its good to be able to engage in a healthy friendly dialogue with a fellow supporter of this great club, especially when we differ in opinion.

2. Last year we didn't have Jurrah or numerous other players who were injured at that time of the season, certainly last season our injury list was longer than it is now. I don't think 3 players should define a football club, especially 2 younger unproven players.. I understand your point but I really think we should have done better in this case.

3. Perhaps I should have worded it differently, All teams find Travel a challenge would have been closer to what I meant. Obviously what I was infering was that it is a challenge for all clubs, but very few come out and get comprehensively flogged by middle to lower ladder teams. I think it is worrying that we identified this as a challenge, set ourselves up for it with comments to the media and on our site and by arriving early, then played pathetically right at the start of the game. Not a good trend whether we are young or not.

4. Your point about byes is interesting, as I am a lakers fan I'm not talking about Kobe right now pathetic effort so far this finals... Anyway, I would note the only bye we've had in AFL the last few years has been the week off in the finals and almost every year teh team coming off the week off has won the prelim. Worth pointing out, certainly I think the Jury is out on the effect of the bye and teams are finding ways to use it most effictiently, I'm not sure it gives any reason for our performance tho...

5. No we are not a good team, but we need to be looking to become one and I don't think that excusing poor performances by saying it was because we played a poor team prior to the game is any way to aid our development. You are entitled to your opinion and I bloody hope we win on the weekend, but I won't be accepting what happened on Thursday as in any way excusable.

[deejammin' 2,370]

I forgot this one. The apologists use the bye and coming off playing a weak team as an excuse and in the next breath they'll point to our position in the 8 as recognition that things aren't as bad as they seem.

They post and sound like Left wingers.

Sorry mate, I'm a left winger... also not sure about your signature, I think this Club gives me a lot, win lose or draw! It wouldn't be football for me without MFC

[deejammin' 2,370]

And you were going so well ...

Yup, blew it with the politics, always the way...

[Bonkers 994]

Wasn't really sure where to post this, so figured I might create a thread, although it will probably be ignored.

I've said I saw the eagles loss coming, and I had a feeling it would be a bad one.

Hence, I think the criticism of Bailey is unfairly harsh.

It's a simple evaluation of the pertinent factors leading into the Eagles match.

Cause & effect, if you will.

- Eagles smashed us last year, with bigger bodies in the midfield, dominating contested possessions.

- We played them in Perth, and like all young teams, we don't travel well.

But the most glaring factors were these (coupled with a few new stats I have discovered):

- we were bound to be flat, coming off the bye.

Yes, westcoast were also coming off the bye, but it's still a factor in our lacklustre performance.

As it stands, no team coming off the bye has won a match, except for those playing another team that also had the bye.

- the week before that, we played the Gold Coast Suns easybeats.

We weren't made to play that great against the suns, but still came away with a 90 point win.

As is stands, no team has won a game the week after playing the suns.

I'd say the mental effect on teams is detrimental to their performance the following week, an effect that would be exacerbated by the inexperience and lack of quality senior leadership at our club.

- ok, I don't have a stat for this, but the week before that we played Brisbane, who are also fairly easy competition in comparison to Hawthorn or WestCoast (this year, with a fit list).

In the end though we'll be judged, and should be judged, not by the debacle last Thursday, but by our response on Sunday.

Those that don't at least show some fire and pride will have a black mark next to their name.

Your list of factors leading to the loss looks like excuses for an under prepared team.

How do you answer the following short comings in the way the team is playing at the moment?

-Failure to clear or move the ball through a defensive zone.

-Failure to perform effective kick ins & set up effective kick in structures.

-Faulure to setup a forward press to lock the ball in our own forward half & allowing the opposition easy transition into their attacking 50.

-Pushing all players to the defensive side of the ground leaving the ball carrier with no one to kick to further up the ground.

-Ranked 15-17 in all contested football statistics

The issues I have listed are all coaching related. It was obvious there were issues with our structures during our NAB Cup performances not just against the Hawks & WCE. To me the only answer I can think of is that our FD are 6-12 months behind in modern football tactics & structure. If the players have been taught these tactics & structures they certainly don't know how to counter them or implement them, which is another coaching issue as the coaches haven't been able to educate the players.

[Hannabal 4]

Yup, blew it with the politics, always the way...

My sig was on the back of lasts weeks miserable performance. The club has provided me with little for over 30 years. As Cam Schwab so aptly says losing evokes a state of misery. It's fair to say I've had my share. Having had no success in my lifetime is exceedingly disappointing, but like many I make excuses for the team's performances when the reasons are valid. Some make excuses all the time. But when the team structure and gameplan is hopelessly compromised and the players don't have a crack I stop making excuses.

I look forward to the next few year's as I have genuine hope for some success. But it's a tough competition.

[Demon Rob 2]

gold coast game: as I've been telling people, the most disappointing 90 point win ever. I think all the hallmarks of the WCE embarrassment were present in that game as well, but the GC kids weren't up to making us pay, but the more experienced and bigger eagles could.

Just think about all the problems highlighted with the team in the WCE game and then think back to the GC game, wehicvh means its more than just the players being off on the day.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

gold coast game: as I've been telling people, the most disappointing 90 point win ever. I think all the hallmarks of the WCE embarrassment were present in that game as well, but the GC kids weren't up to making us pay, but the more experienced and bigger eagles could.

Just think about all the problems highlighted with the team in the WCE game and then think back to the GC game, wehicvh means its more than just the players being off on the day.

I went up to that game at the Gabba and agree whole heartedly. This issue has been prevalent in EVERY game we have played so far this year, not just the WCE and Hawks games. It just so happens they were the only teams so far to fully exploit it.

Whilst I agree with a lot of Artie's points, I am yet to see the endeavour of the 2011 Demons reach anything like the levels seen in 2010. I know the season is still young but I would've thought we'd have seen a sustained effort for at least one game of the five. I am a believer in the "young teams will be inconsistent" mantra, but it's incongruous to say that should excuse the general endeavour this year being down on last year.

"But we're missing three of our four best tacklers from last year!" I hear you say. "Surely that impacts the ability of the team to compete physically!". Unfortunately, given that two of those players were 20 or under last year and both were essentially in their first season, this lends further weight to the idea that age shouldn't excuse effort.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Your list of factors leading to the loss looks like excuses for an under prepared team.

How do you answer the following short comings in the way the team is playing at the moment?

-Failure to clear or move the ball through a defensive zone.

-Failure to perform effective kick ins & set up effective kick in structures.

-Faulure to setup a forward press to lock the ball in our own forward half & allowing the opposition easy transition into their attacking 50.

-Pushing all players to the defensive side of the ground leaving the ball carrier with no one to kick to further up the ground.

-Ranked 15-17 in all contested football statistics

The issues I have listed are all coaching related. It was obvious there were issues with our structures during our NAB Cup performances not just against the Hawks & WCE. To me the only answer I can think of is that our FD are 6-12 months behind in modern football tactics & structure. If the players have been taught these tactics & structures they certainly don't know how to counter them or implement them, which is another coaching issue as the coaches haven't been able to educate the players.

Why is it that when logical reasons are presented they are branded excuses?

Cause and effect.

That was the relevance of me saying I predicted the result.

Because it wasn't just retrospective searching for excuses; they were reasons why a poor result could have been reasonably expected.

I think the onus might even be on you to explain why you think we shouldn't have failed in any of those areas?

What makes you think we are so good that we should have succeeded?

We are a young, inexperienced, inconsistent, physically under-developed team with poor senior leadership.

But I'll try to answer you.

- many teams struggle against a defensive zone, this is why the majority of teams employ them. Why should we be any different, especially considering the qualities of our list that I just mentioned?

- Some have been calling for Paul Roos to be installed as coach. Read his HeraldSun article about beating the press when kicking in. His solution is to do exactly what Bailey had us do against the Eagles. He even went on to explain that is what Essendon has done so well in combatting it, and that this is helped by their many tall targets at kick-ins (Hille, Ryder, Bellchambers etc.). We had just Jamar.

- I'm going to address the last few with something that I've already said and that still applies to the above points -- we are not a good team.

We are a team full of talented kids that need to develop and average senior players that have shown poor leadership.

As a result, some of the things we've tried to do aren't working.

They will work sometimes, but not consistently, likely until most of the kids become middle-age players.

A magic wand hasn't been waved and turned us into a contender in 12 months.

The kids won't be playing like 100 gamers until SHOCK! they are 100 gamers.

[daisycutter 29,617]

I find this an interesting post for a number of reasons and thought I might just offer my response to your points:

1. You state you saw this loss coming, yet you only found the new stats retrospectively, which leads me to believe you saw it coming purely on the back of last years loss and being bad at travel, surely if you only were aware of these two points by themselves you couldn't have thought we would get smashed this badly, travel and a bad performance last year do not equate to one of the worst first quarter performances in the league.

2. The Eagles didn't smash us nearly this badly last year, we were equal at halftime and the general feeling was we would run over them... The second half wasn't particularly inspiring from either side, we lost badly, but not like this...

3. All teams travel badly, its a fact of football, its never nice to fly or have an interrupted preparation. Some teams have plans to deal with it or simply deal with it better than others. Most try to be revved up in order to get the crowd out of it early, we were trying to do this and failed worse than any other team all year with the inside 50s reflecting this. Also we got there 2 days early in an attempt to negate the travel factor, yet failed anyway. There was a clear focus on beating travel, equal if not more thorough to any other clubs prep, there were no excuses, the problem was identified and we failed to fix it, that is a shocking indictment on the club, not an excuse.

4. The fact about stats is they are retrospective, before the season started experts were predicting players coming off the bye would win more often as they would be 'fresher' we haven't seen enough of the bye to have an honest assesment, the reality is that this is a moot point. If teams had won after having the bye you could have been lamenting that West Coast also had the bye otherwise we would have smashed them with our 'fresh legs'. These retrospective analysis' do not provide excuses or explanations, the fact is both teams had the same time off, and we did extremely badly.

5. Good teams, with discpline and strong leadship do not lose simply because they played an ordinary team the previous week, if we accept this as an explanation then we will continue to be a weak willed team. Playing ordinary teams does not excuse playing like an ordinary team the next week! Also the draw has a lot to do with why this stat for teams playing GC then losing exists. Carlton played Collingwood after playing GC, it didn't matter who they played the week before odds on, they were losing this one, and that being said they equitted themselves pretty well. The Bulldogs lost to Freo, who should be a very strong side and were playing at home, also they lost by 7 points in a tight contest, hardly the pathetic workshop we put on! Port is a terrible team and should lose to everyone, I don't think they lost to NM coz of GC! So in summary of your sample group, of 4 teams, 2 have lost to top four sides in close games after GC, Port will lose to everyone and Melbourne played pathetically in an inexcusable performance. I don't think this is conclusive evidence for teams losing after playing GC. Certainly not enough to excuse Melbourne's performance, which was the worst of the group!

As you can see I disagree with your points, yes we had some challenges like travel and some smaller bodies, but these were identified before the game by the club with players and admin stating how they were fixing them and going to show something in this contest. The sad facts are, we put in an inexcusable performance, the whole club should be under the blowtorch, how we respond is important, not just this week, but for the rest of the year. Finally its not an overreaction to get worried about one of the most insipid performances of the year by any club!

careful here deejammim, you're getting too logical

remember "Perception, whether correct or not, rules on this forum"

[Guest Thomo]

Why is it that when logical reasons are presented they are branded excuses?

Cause and effect.

That was the relevance of me saying I predicted the result.

Because it wasn't just retrospective searching for excuses; they were reasons why a poor result could have been reasonably expected.

I think the onus might even be on you to explain why you think we shouldn't have failed in any of those areas?

What makes you think we are so good that we should have succeeded?

We are a young, inexperienced, inconsistent, physically under-developed team with poor senior leadership.

But I'll try to answer you.

- many teams struggle against a defensive zone, this is why the majority of teams employ them. Why should we be any different, especially considering the qualities of our list that I just mentioned?

- Some have been calling for Paul Roos to be installed as coach. Read his HeraldSun article about beating the press when kicking in. His solution is to do exactly what Bailey had us do against the Eagles. He even went on to explain that is what Essendon has done so well in combatting it, and that this is helped by their many tall targets at kick-ins (Hille, Ryder, Bellchambers etc.). We had just Jamar.

- I'm going to address the last few with something that I've already said and that still applies to the above points -- we are not a good team.

We are a team full of talented kids that need to develop and average senior players that have shown poor leadership.

As a result, some of the things we've tried to do aren't working.

They will work sometimes, but not consistently, likely until most of the kids become middle-age players.

A magic wand hasn't been waved and turned us into a contender in 12 months.

The kids won't be playing like 100 gamers until SHOCK! they are 100 gamers.

Dean? Is that you??

[Nasher 33,616]

You've made you're points wonderfully this week and there are a great many who will have sat back and appreciated your thoughts, they just don't have the energy to get involved in a inevitability futile fight against those who don't want to consider other perspectives.

Indeed - I haven't strictly agreed with every word Artie has said to-date but it's nice to have an additional articulating thinker amongst the forum. These types are outnumbered about 50 to 1 at the moment. The biggest shame is that one of the forum's other articulating thinkers is one of the ones trying to drag Artie in to the "pit", but I suppose that's always been a problem with that particular articulating thinker.