GAME DAY (NIGHT)

[Redleg 37,602]

My main take out from the night is what a pick Aaron Hall is likely to be.

Was he on our radar? What pick did the Suns pick him up with?

Super impressive first game.

Check the Aaron Hall thread.

[Hells Gates 505]

Blues getting smashed early by Port. I guess their season is also over..... NAB cup - who cares!

[pitmaster 3,063]

- our crumbers better be damn good this year because there's going to be a lot of long bombs and balls to ground

Can't take too much away from it, but you can take some things.

Fewer crumbs when Howe and Jurrah get up there, I reckon, particularly once Watts and Clark learn how to combine with each other.

Too early for definitive judgements. Only clear sign is we will be more physical and better able to take some heat.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Thank you for this insight into your football sense. I fell I can adjust all your future contributions accordingly.

yes you are right. The top sides have midfielders like Pendlebury, Mitchell, Judd, Selwood, Murphy etc.. I am sure we can match it with them with superstar Bate lining up in the middle

[Jaded No More 57,912]

One thing is certain, we won't be losing matches by 15 goals this year, and we won't walk away from games disappointed with the [censored] poor contested effort of our players.

[mollydee 22]

There has been some Watts criticism here . There were several occasions when Watts was setting himself at half forward for a tussle [ at least one of them was a one-on-one as I recall ] when Clark came

charging through from full forward with his man , came over the top and achieved little but disruption . I liked Clark's strength and presence , but its very very early days as these guys are working out

how they work together.

I usually take little interest in the preseason cup ,as I think it has little to no bearing on 22 rounds of 100 minutes of football involving the best available players , and worth 4 premiership points per round .

I watched both games last night and took a lot of heart out of the positives I saw . I think there will occasionally be some reverting to poor play behaviours especially under pressure [ and in atrocious weather ] ,

but they started well in the 1st game , and finished well in the 2nd after backing up .

Grimes' run off his player and out of the backline showed poise , agility and turn of speed , and was spinetinglingly exciting .

[BIG JIM 508]

yes you are right. The top sides have midfielders like Pendlebury, Mitchell, Judd, Selwood, Murphy etc.. I am sure we can match it with them with superstar Bate lining up in the middle

Bate was really good last night and you think let's bag him. Top support mate your a great fan. How about saying looks like you have worked hard and your getting the reward well done matty bate he was very good and if keeps playing like that he could have a really great year give some support to players when its due

[demonoid 317]

We are able to promote two from the rookie list at the present time.

I believe it's three. One on vets list. Replacements for gawn and spencer on long term inj list

[Arrow 1,257]

Bate was really good last night and you think let's bag him. Top support mate your a great fan. How about saying looks like you have worked hard and your getting the reward well done matty bate he was very good and if keeps playing like that he could have a really great year give some support to players when its due

Really good is a term used for players who excel in a game.

Matthew had good attack on the ball on Saturday but that's where the compliments end. He pulled countless U-turns which add an AFL no-no, and not to mention has not changed his mentality one bit in decision making. Just missing targets in those conditions is acceptable but 3 out of the fulls ignoring the new rule and another 2 due to the rule was appalling. He has a good chance for Round 1 due to his off-season but last night did not help his chances.

[hardtack 10,127]

I believe it's three. One on vets list. Replacements for gawn and spencer on long term inj list

Well, not according to Neeld:

Due to our only having one veteran, we can elevate someone prior to round one, and we do have also a long-term injury [to] Max Gawn, [so] we could technically elevate two of our rookies.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/neeld-content-with-two-good-contests-20120225-1tvfb.html

[DemonDave 1,078]

Well, not according to Neeld:

http://www.smh.com.a...0225-1tvfb.html

Nope, try this item from the MFC site which states Gawn out for the season and Spencer at least 8, hence he's also been put on LTI

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/129219/default.aspx

Add the fact we've only got one veteran in Green and we have three spots...

[Striker475 696]

Spencil is only relatively short term for a LTI IIRC? Eight weeks or so?

[hardtack 10,127]

Nope, try this item from the MFC site which states Gawn out for the season and Spencer at least 8, hence he's also been put on LTI

http://www.melbourne...19/default.aspx

Add the fact we've only got one veteran in Green and we have three spots...

Well, someone better tell the coach... the line I quoted was from the post match interview last night :-)

[jnrmac 18,976]

What a complete joke some of the comments here are. IS it school holidays again?

At this rate we won't be able to field a team of 22 because they have all been earmarked by the geniuses here for trading at year end. No point playing 'em if we are going to trade them.

Sheesh. Breathtaking. Better stop reading until about round 10. It'll be suicide watch for lots here after rds 1-9...

[greenmachine 21]

What a complete joke some of the comments here are. IS it school holidays again?

At this rate we won't be able to field a team of 22 because they have all been earmarked by the geniuses here for trading at year end. No point playing 'em if we are going to trade them.

Sheesh. Breathtaking. Better stop reading until about round 10. It'll be suicide watch for lots here after rds 1-9...

well said

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

yes you are right. The top sides have midfielders like Pendlebury, Mitchell, Judd, Selwood, Murphy etc.. I am sure we can match it with them with superstar Bate lining up in the middle

Trengove, Viney, Gysberts, Grimes*.

It's only a matter of time before Grimes goes to the guts. We can't be so greedy as to waste that talent down back. Grimes' vacant post can possibly be filled by a Tapscott/Straus- either way we have options to fill a defensive spot, we are dearth of optoins in midfield class.

Another observation- with these new tough recruits the pressure is on the likes of Bennell et all players who don't go when it's their turn, chase the easy ball or are too [censored] to leave their man to contest a ball. I can't see Neeld being too tolerant of non commitment.

[gsmith12 491]

I believe it's three. One on vets list. Replacements for gawn and spencer on long term inj list

Not according to Neeld in his post match video, perhaps he is ill informed

You may well be correct.

[demonoid 317]

Not according to Neeld in his post match video, perhaps he is ill informed

You may well be correct.

A few here being a bit too literal. We have the option of 3 but as spencer is only short term they will most likely not use the third if they don't think they need too or unless they want to wait and see on spencer. No point promoting 3 if only 2 deserve it

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Really good is a term used for players who excel in a game.

not at the MFC, this is the club where extremely average players like Bate get to 100 games because of what passes for 'really good'

[Mono 454]

not at the MFC, this is the club where extremely average players like Bate get to 100 games because of what passes for 'really good'

I think we all hear that you don't rate Bate. Plenty do (including Neeld who convinced him to stay).

So, give it a rest.

Ed.: spelling

Edited February 26, 2012 by Mono

[Guest Dr Who]

It seems Neeld is pleased with our effort....unlike some of the experts here...

http://www.sportsnew...demons-hit-out/

Great comment, most around here just dont understand the programme.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Dr Who

[rpfc 27,473]

Great comment, most around here just dont understand the programme.

It's hard to read these days.

I just press the 'Guide' button on the remote now.

Easier.

[BIG JIM 508]

Really good is a term used for players who excel in a game.

Matthew had good attack on the ball on Saturday but that's where the compliments end. He pulled countless U-turns which add an AFL no-no, and not to mention has not changed his mentality one bit in decision making. Just missing targets in those conditions is acceptable but 3 out of the fulls ignoring the new rule and another 2 due to the rule was appalling. He has a good chance for Round 1 due to his off-season but last night did not help his chances.

not at the MFC, this is the club where extremely average players like Bate get to 100 games because of what passes for 'really good'

Well you are just a bad fan curry & beer matt was almost best on ground the fox footy guys said and the sen boys. So you just dont like him and yes he was really good for a player who never got a run under bailey and i think if neeld thinks he has something to offer i will take his view on who is extremely averge. Why cant players get better and why cant fans give someone who plays for our team a 2nd chance or have you just payed out on matty to much in the past and you are to proud to give a little credit when its due.I have said bad thing about bate in the past but he looks like he has been given a new direction by the coach and is one player who could really shine in 2012. I for one will be hoping he does as he does still play for the red and blue.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Well, I finally got a chance to watch the games, and all in all I'm less worried than I was last night. I think things were significantly better than the radio coverage made them out to be.

Game one we were killed by small things that stopped us from nailing regulation scoring opportunities. The chemistry between Watts and Clark isn't quite there, a few players missed shots they would normally have nailed and the out of bounds rule hit us pretty hard. While we probably should have won anyway, I think it's pretty clear that we outplayed them for most of the match but didn't put them away on the scoreboard.

Game two looked to me like the players were under far more rigid instructions. The first half they were told that they would only play plan A, regardless of the situation. It seems pretty clear that they were ignoring options they were taking in the first game and following the plan of push down the line and force a stoppage. This is basically what Sydney did in their premiership year, and while it is a failure in the NAB cup due to the aforementioned out of bounds rule, it is a way to win ugly.

The second half they were given a slight change of playing primarily plan A with the option of using plans B or C if they had the time and opportunity. This is where we saw the gameplan actually work. We suddenly had the option of the fast switch if there were no choices down the line, and also made use of the quick handball to a runner as a way to get the ball quickly into the forward line. Both of these plays worked well and aided us in scoring.

To me it looked a lot like Neeld was teaching our players a bit of a lesson. They played a half using only a single set play and held the opposition to seven points, then played another half using only three set plays and won. Whether this was always the plan for the second match or it was a reaction to the loss in the first I will probably never know, but that is how I see it.

I also think that the radio coverage was unduly harsh on certain players. Watts, despite his low numbers, was actually not bad. He put a lot of tackling pressure on and presented well in the forward line. He could easily have had a couple of goals in game one had Clark not charged in and spoiled him. Bennell I still say can't be trusted in the backline, but in the middle or forward he is a viable option and did some good things. I also see why people raved about Tynan. He's a bit like the Waterboy. He sees the ball and gets the ball.

Overall, nowhere near as bad as I expected. There were signs there that we have a side that will be able to win ugly if it needs to and possibly win pretty when it has the opportunity. We now have some serious beast in the middle as well, which is always a good thing.

[BIG JIM 508]

Well, I finally got a chance to watch the games, and all in all I'm less worried than I was last night. I think things were significantly better than the radio coverage made them out to be.

Game one we were killed by small things that stopped us from nailing regulation scoring opportunities. The chemistry between Watts and Clark isn't quite there, a few players missed shots they would normally have nailed and the out of bounds rule hit us pretty hard. While we probably should have won anyway, I think it's pretty clear that we outplayed them for most of the match but didn't put them away on the scoreboard.

Game two looked to me like the players were under far more rigid instructions. The first half they were told that they would only play plan A, regardless of the situation. It seems pretty clear that they were ignoring options they were taking in the first game and following the plan of push down the line and force a stoppage. This is basically what Sydney did in their premiership year, and while it is a failure in the NAB cup due to the aforementioned out of bounds rule, it is a way to win ugly.

The second half they were given a slight change of playing primarily plan A with the option of using plans B or C if they had the time and opportunity. This is where we saw the gameplan actually work. We suddenly had the option of the fast switch if there were no choices down the line, and also made use of the quick handball to a runner as a way to get the ball quickly into the forward line. Both of these plays worked well and aided us in scoring.

To me it looked a lot like Neeld was teaching our players a bit of a lesson. They played a half using only a single set play and held the opposition to seven points, then played another half using only three set plays and won. Whether this was always the plan for the second match or it was a reaction to the loss in the first I will probably never know, but that is how I see it.

I also think that the radio coverage was unduly harsh on certain players. Watts, despite his low numbers, was actually not bad. He put a lot of tackling pressure on and presented well in the forward line. He could easily have had a couple of goals in game one had Clark not charged in and spoiled him. Bennell I still say can't be trusted in the backline, but in the middle or forward he is a viable option and did some good things. I also see why people raved about Tynan. He's a bit like the Waterboy. He sees the ball and gets the ball.

Overall, nowhere near as bad as I expected. There were signs there that we have a side that will be able to win ugly if it needs to and possibly win pretty when it has the opportunity. We now have some serious beast in the middle as well, which is always a good thing.

Really good post mate and think you did a great job are you a coach? could not have said it better well done.