Yesterday was not such a disaster as many are making out

[Guest DeesPower]

At few observations on yesterday.

First, Colkingwood were very very good. Much better than I expected them to be. They seemed to have the ball on a string most of the day, and on that form will take a lot of beating for the flag.

Secondly, we are where we should expect to be at this stage. We have at least six of our best 18 out, the youngest and least experienced playing group in the AFL, and putting experience into the kids. It is only a week ago that that same group smashed Essendon, previously considered a top 4 side. This same group is still capable of beating IMO most sides in the bottom 12, and therefore can still make the 8.

Thirdly, there has been considerable progress in our elite youth this year. You can see Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tappscott, Mckenzie, Watts, Howe forming the basis of a premier team over the next 5 years. That has not been changed by Monday's result, and they will bounce back next week.

Fourthly, our key forward, Liam Jurrah has apparently been playing injured for several weeks now. He has gone off the boil, but if this is true, then time to give him a rest and give him time to get himself right. He is too valuable to us to be on the long term injury list to inappropriate work. Besides, it frees up a space to bring in another potential young gun Lucus Cook who has shown outstanding form in recent weeks at Casey

Fifthly, leaving aside Monday's game, our gameplan works fine when it is executed properly as is was against Essendon and will be against Freo. We need to stick to the plan. When it was implemented well against the Woods we did break out of defence via an attacking half back line, and we looked good particularly with Watts playing the fast leading forward. I'm now convinced in spite of our gameplan being different from everyone else's it is worth persisting with. Who knows, when we win a premiership off it, everyone else may well copy us.

Edited June 14, 2011 by DeesPower

[P-man 13,366]

Point taken on the positives to take out of the season thus far, but if yesterday was potentially a premiership winning gameplan then I'll eat my hat. Brim and all.

I think you're understating just how bad Essendon were against us. The defensive pressure being applied by Collingwood by comparison was in a different class. We played somewhat better last week but it was by no means definitive proof that our gameplan works against competitive teams.

Edited June 14, 2011 by P_Man

[Little Richard 6,265]

At few observations on yesterday.

First, Colkingwood were very very good. Much better than I expected them to be. They seemed to have the ball on a string most of the day, and on that form will take a lot of beating for the flag.

Secondly, we are where we should expect to be at this stage. We have at least six of our best 18 out, the youngest and least experienced playing group in the AFL, and putting experience into the kids. It is only a week ago that that same group smashed Essendon, previously considered a top 4 side. This same group is still capable of beating IMO most sides in the bottom 12, and therefore can still make the 8.

Thirdly, there has been considerable progress in our elite youth this year. You can see Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tappscott, Mckenzie, Watts, Howe forming the basis of a premier team over the next 5 years. That has not been changed by Monday's result, and they will bounce back next week.

Fourthly, our key forward, Liam Jurrah has apparently been playing injured for several weeks now. He has gone off the boil, but if this is true, then time to give him a rest and give him time to get himself right. He is too valuable to us to be on the long term injury list to inappropriate work. Besides, it frees up a space to bring in another potential young gun Lucus Cook who has shown outstanding form in recent weeks at Casey

Fifthly, leaving aside Monday's game, our gameplan works fine when it is executed properly as is was against Essendon and will against Freo. We need to stick to the plan. When it was implemented well against the Woods we did break out of defence via an attacking half back line, and we looked good particularly with Watts playing the fast leading forward. I'm now convinced in spite of our gameplan being different from everyone else's it is worth persisting with. Who knows, when we win a premiership off it, everyone else may well copy us.

Once again, the gameplan just comes down to skill. To be completely effective we need to hit targets every time, and this will happen, everyone needs to be patient whilst the skills and subsequently the game plan improve. It was pretty clear to me that this was the issue yesterday - how many times did we get the fast break out of the back line and lose it in the middle as a result of a rubbish kick or handball. It will get better.

[old dee 23,797]

Any day that you get beaten by 80 points by collingwood is a disaster.

You can put up all the positives that you like

We still got thumped by the bloody pies.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

I'm now convinced in spite of our gameplan being different from everyone else's it is worth persisting with. Who knows, when we win a premiership off it, everyone else may well copy us.

It may well be worth persisting with and it might win a premiership (or three, hopefully). But there's no harm in tweaking it so that we can proactively take on teams like Collingwood & West Coast who play this particular style of press very well at the moment. Develop a plan that counters the press and we're well on the way.

Thanks, fair comments.

[Triple Jack 13]

I agree with your sentiments here! I fell that early in the second quarter we were in the game, we were streaming forward looking like an almost certain goal. Then Jones stuffed up by not assesing the scenario and laying off to one of the running players, he turned over the ball and they kicked a goal. The difference is with a goal we are ten points behind with a bit of momentum, the result was that we were suddenly 22 points down and our heads dropped. With our boys loss of confidence our ability to beat the press was eliminated. Obviously if we had of scored the goal it was not likely to change the result but i think it shows that at some point we really were taking it up to them.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Once again, the gameplan just comes down to skill. To be completely effective we need to hit targets every time, and this will happen, everyone needs to be patient whilst the skills and subsequently the game plan improve. It was pretty clear to me that this was the issue yesterday - how many times did we get the fast break out of the back line and lose it in the middle as a result of a rubbish kick or handball. It will get better.

I think a big part of our gameplan is the fitness levels of the guys forward of centre. When a turnover occurs, and we create enough of them, we have the skill to move the ball well but the forwards who are meant to play high and then roll back towards goals are simply not working hard enough.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

Fair points, DP.

Everything we do this year must be viewed in the light that we are still very much a work in progress. Getting flogged by Collingwood is not the end of the world, no matter what the pearl clutching drama queens in the media try to say. And hello to you, Andrew Maher.

Our rebuild is still in its early to middle stages. We started off rubbish. We are currently inconsistent. Eventually we will start to show results.

When you consider Melbourne stripped virtually their whole list and replaced it with youngsters, is it any surprise we are inconsistent?

No.

More generally, I would love to know why the media are chronically incapable of spotting the bleedin' obvious: we bounced back against Essendon because Essendon were rubbish and allowed us to bounce back. Collingwood are miles better than Essendon and did not let us play the game on our terms like Essendon did.

Melbourne tried hard, but Collingwood are bigger, more experience and better drilled. We are still several years away from Collingwood's level of performance.

[Steamin Demon 392]

Fair points, DP.

Everything we do this year must be viewed in the light that we are still very much a work in progress. Getting flogged by Collingwood is not the end of the world, no matter what the pearl clutching drama queens in the media try to say. And hello to you, Andrew Maher.

Our rebuild is still in its early to middle stages. We started off rubbish. We are currently inconsistent. Eventually we will start to show results.

When you consider Melbourne stripped virtually their whole list and replaced it with youngsters, is it any surprise we are inconsistent?

No.

More generally, I would love to know why the media are chronically incapable of spotting the bleedin' obvious: we bounced back against Essendon because Essendon were rubbish and allowed us to bounce back. Collingwood are miles better than Essendon and did not let us play the game on our terms like Essendon did.

Melbourne tried hard, but Collingwood are bigger, more experience and better drilled. We are still several years away from Collingwood's level of performance.

Great post TT. Way to much logic.

[Guest DeesPower]

Great post TT. Way to much logic.

With Jamar and Garland probably back this week, and the possible inclusion of Cook, I believe we will be back to a very competitive outfit again , and should account for Freo at the G.

The doomsayers will then go quiet again presumably until we get thumped by Geeling at Skilled in a couple of week's time.

Things will go up and down this year, but as long as we generally remain consistently competitive with the bottom 12 teams, and occasionally knock off a top 5 side like we did against the Dons, plus tackling the bogeys of Ethiad and interstate travel, it will represent progress this year. That is our challenge for the rest of the year: not to knock off Geelong, Collingwood, Carlton. The rest though we need to be increasingly competitive with

Edited June 14, 2011 by DeesPower

[Rollo2 64]

At few observations on yesterday.

First, Colkingwood were very very good. Much better than I expected them to be. They seemed to have the ball on a string most of the day, and on that form will take a lot of beating for the flag.

Secondly, we are where we should expect to be at this stage. We have at least six of our best 18 out, the youngest and least experienced playing group in the AFL, and putting experience into the kids. It is only a week ago that that same group smashed Essendon, previously considered a top 4 side. This same group is still capable of beating IMO most sides in the bottom 12, and therefore can still make the 8.

Thirdly, there has been considerable progress in our elite youth this year. You can see Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tappscott, Mckenzie, Watts, Howe forming the basis of a premier team over the next 5 years. That has not been changed by Monday's result, and they will bounce back next week.

Fourthly, our key forward, Liam Jurrah has apparently been playing injured for several weeks now. He has gone off the boil, but if this is true, then time to give him a rest and give him time to get himself right. He is too valuable to us to be on the long term injury list to inappropriate work. Besides, it frees up a space to bring in another potential young gun Lucus Cook who has shown outstanding form in recent weeks at Casey

Fifthly, leaving aside Monday's game, our gameplan works fine when it is executed properly as is was against Essendon and will be against Freo. We need to stick to the plan. When it was implemented well against the Woods we did break out of defence via an attacking half back line, and we looked good particularly with Watts playing the fast leading forward. I'm now convinced in spite of our gameplan being different from everyone else's it is worth persisting with. Who knows, when we win a premiership off it, everyone else may well copy us.

Hm. Getting really tired of this kind of 'premiership window' thinking. Tired of supporting a team that doesn't feel like it has to go out and give %100 because even if it loses by 80 points that's about 'where it should be' at this 'stage' of development.

And look, everything you've said here is true. We all know it, and our players know it, and our coaches know it, and the football world knows it. But it still annoys me that our team won't go out and give it their all to win a game of football unless the media and football world have been slamming them all week. Only then do they play for pride. Otherwise they are just going through the motions and giving up when the going gets hard, because their 'window' isn't open yet.

I just hope that you and all the fans with this mindset (and our players) are gearing up for a day very soon when an 80 point loss to a traditional rival with their best players out in front of a huge crowd is actually not good enough anymore.

[bing181 9,246]

But it still annoys me that our team won't go out and give it their all to win

But that's the point - and the problem. They ARE giving their all. Or think they are.

100 games down the track, that "all" will be on a whole other level - and will need to be. Of course.

[The Big Ticket 94]

It was obvious how hard we tried at times on Monday. But it was men against boys.

I've never seen a team just brush off would-be tacklers like that. There were countless goals scored off our inability to bring the ball carrier down. They are unbelievably strong, the 'woods.

The rollercoaster will continue on Sunday and we'll bounce back.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Any day that you get beaten by 80 points by collingwood is a disaster.

You can put up all the positives that you like

We still got thumped by the bloody pies.

also...they we supposedly weakened.. we were running a not far from best 22...and we got thumped thumped thumped..

Yes they are the reigning premiers showing absolutely no signs of a hangover..( unusual in itself ) and we are supposedly up and comers.

They used us to wipe their bums..

In the context of the season..and especially our BIG day it was all a disaster could be.

[DeeSpencer 25,721]

It was horrible. No two ways about it.

I don't care how good our players are individually, its how you play as a team, and besides for a short period last year we haven't looked like a team under Bailey.

He's got 11 games to get us to function as a unit, not as a combined group of talents. If he can't then it's not our fault.

[Pates 9,660]

The big problem I've seen with the gameplan is that it requires a lot of skill and effort, both of which can drop dramatically with a young team when they're down on confidence. The defense was completely inundated all day and yet there were times when it looked like we were going to break the lines only to see no one ahead of the play making a lead. Traditionally with us the big kick has been into the forward 50, now it seems to be the kick after we break out of the defense.

I've kinda got off topic, but I do agree that it isn't all doom and gloom, and at the end of the day a lot of the young boys could say they had a dip.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Pates

[mauriesy 7,299]

Here's the 'games experience' graph from Monday.

Despite claims about Collingwood's 'youth', the median number of games played was Collingwood 111, Melbourne 38. The total games played was 1247 Melbourne, 2245 Collingwood. In addition, over one-sixth of Melbourne's games played was from one player, Brad Green. We are not much different to the Gold Coast Suns.

They had eleven players over 100 games, we had six (most of whom were only just over 100). Even then our six most experienced players were Green, Moloney, Rivers, Sylvia, Jones and MacDonald. Theirs were Tarrant, Davis, Leigh Brown, Didak, Ball and Maxwell. There's a huge talent and size difference right there. The other Collingwood players that have played over 100 games were A-grade to elite ... Cloke, Pendlebury, O'Brien, Krakouer and Heath Shaw.

It will take at least 3 seasons for our comparable draft talent, currently sitting on 0-70 games each, to reach the 'games played' experience that Collingwood have put into their list. I expect a comparison with Geelong would be similar.

These are not necessarily an excuse for poor performances, but an important observation about what to expect from the team in terms of consistency, experience and strength.

[H_T 3,049]

Well illustrated maurie.

[beelzebub 23,380]

If we are not much different from the GCS then we are really in a whole lot of bother.

I would suggest we are supposedly very different . Far more established. Players Have played far more games and preseasons together.

Such a comparison is rather erroneous

[harry 1]

Fair points, DP.

Everything we do this year must be viewed in the light that we are still very much a work in progress. Getting flogged by Collingwood is not the end of the world, no matter what the pearl clutching drama queens in the media try to say. And hello to you, Andrew Maher.

Our rebuild is still in its early to middle stages. We started off rubbish. We are currently inconsistent. Eventually we will start to show results.

When you consider Melbourne stripped virtually their whole list and replaced it with youngsters, is it any surprise we are inconsistent?

No.

More generally, I would love to know why the media are chronically incapable of spotting the bleedin' obvious: we bounced back against Essendon because Essendon were rubbish and allowed us to bounce back. Collingwood are miles better than Essendon and did not let us play the game on our terms like Essendon did.

Melbourne tried hard, but Collingwood are bigger, more experience and better drilled. We are still several years away from Collingwood's level of performance.

100% correct.

[rpfc 28,526]

If we are not much different from the GCS then we are really in a whole lot of bother.

I would suggest we are supposedly very different . Far more established. Players Have played far more games and preseasons together.

Such a comparison is rather erroneous

Very true.

They have Gary Ablett.

[mauriesy 7,299]

If we are not much different from the GCS then we are really in a whole lot of bother.

I would suggest we are supposedly very different. Far more established. Players Have played far more games and preseasons together.

Such a comparison is rather erroneous

Of course a pre-season or two would make a difference (but obviously not for our own first-year players).

FWIW, here's the comparison graph between Melbourne (blue) and the Suns team (red) of last weekend.

Total games played: Melbourne 1247, GCS 1310

Average games played: Melbourne 57, Suns 59

Median: Melbourne 38, GCS 14

100 games plus: Melbourne 6, GCS 7

Only difference is in the mid-range (players 10-17), where we have an advantage of about 20-25 games (e.g. Watts, Scully and Trengove v Swallow, Smith and Day).

Our top six is Green, Moloney, Rivers, Sylvia, Jones, MacDonald.

Their top six is Fraser, Ablett, Brown, Harris, Brennan, Bock.

Quality difference if any?

We are also trying to drive a 'hard' clearance midfield with B-Graders (Moloney, Jones), and talented but lightweight young players with under 30 games (Scully, Trengove, Mackenzie, Gysberts). Compare that to Collingwood's normal midfield of 100-200 gamers in Swan, Thomas, Pendlebury and Ball. Not much of a comparison really.

Edited June 15, 2011 by maurie

[Rogue 585]

Very true.

They have Gary Ablett.

Zing!