We were only down by 12 on contested possessions, but we trailed them by 141 in uncontested possessions.

The main culprits were Davey, Garland, Bartram, Sellar, Magner, Tapscott, Bail and Clark. All finished with 10 disposals or less.

It's unfair to pick on a rookie but Magner's quiet day was probably the main reason we got belted in the middle. He had only 9 possessions, well down on 30+ from last week. Did he have a tagger?

On the plus side - Jeremy Howe finished with 130 dream team points. He could become one of the top 20 in the comp. I loved his work rate, and his brilliant marking.

We're not playing that badly? Lol no chance of hearing you out, you're mental!

It's unfair to pick on a rookie but Magner's quiet day was probably the main reason we got belted in the middle. He had only 9 possessions, well down on 30+ from last week. Did he have a tagger?

I could be wrong, but to my eyes no one was being tagged today.

Met a mate at half-time - and thought we were in it, that we were working hard and that things "felt" a bit different - it was tight, but we knew what we were doing and were a chance - Richmond kicked poorly, sure, but Clarke missed 2 sitters and we had 2 handball clangers which resulted in goals. "I could live with this"

Then a complete clusterfsck in the third quater.

I have to believe that there's a group of really good coaches there, with a plan that they're implementing, shaking their heads at just how far behind this group are (w.t.f has been happening over the last 3 years?). Neeld mentioned the supporters several times in the press conference - he gets it, and I'm sure Craig gets it.

Go Dees

That's what's so depressing. You're right. Some things we're doing very well. Contested ball, Mitch is playing ok, certainly providing that contest we've been missing... We're following instructions...

And yet?

That's what's so depressing. You're right. Some things we're doing very well. Contested ball, Mitch is playing ok, certainly providing that contest we've been missing... We're following instructions...

And yet?

I know right?

I've got to have faith in Neeld...it's all that's keeping me going right now.

People will be talking about the deficit in disposal counts, but in the end, Neeld isnt teaching us the kick it around game, it is down the line to a contest, winning contests ect

We will never have huge numbers playing the way we have these first 3 weeks, maybe in the future but atm it is about making contests and winning them.

fair to say we arnt good ta this atm

Once we get Sylvia and Moloney back we'll have some speed from stoppages..although Moloney was shocking in Round 1. Plus we also have Gysberts, once we have those three back in the side our midfield will look a lot stronger. McKenzie doesn't seem to be as damaging as last year, and Trengove seems out of touch too. I still think our midfield has potential

The MFC is delusional. The entire league has overtaken us.

WAKE UP YOU SLACK BASTARDS i am tired of watching and listening to rubbish spin.

Reality check please.

We've got one of the best fitness guys in the game. We've raised the bar on previous pre-seasons and had our physically toughest pre season on record.

Our players are accused of not running enough during the game... but we're out on our feet at half time?

What gives? Anyone??

Unfortunately from our very backward starting point it is going to take more than on preseason to get them up to AFL standard. Can't be done in 6 months. Sad but true.

Moloney and Sylvia will be 2 huge ins imo

People had a crack at Moloney but i reckon he would have helped today, and Sylvia's worste is alot better than what a saw from a heap of blokes today

Yep, those two ultimate flat-track bullies would have done well against bitchmond. But the problem remains.

Mark Neeld should make these chumps watch Shaka Zulu Part 2. I think we should adopt some of his training practices for our team.

How about making them stamp on thorns and if they grimace, impalement dropped to the VFL? He was able to turn a heap of civvies into a region dominating army..then again I wonder if he's available to coach?

Mark Neeld should make these chumps watch Shaka Zulu Part 2. I think we should adopt some of his training practices for our team.

How about making them stamp on thorns and if they grimace, impalement dropped to the VFL? He was able to turn a heap of civvies into a region dominating army..then again I wonder if he's available to coach?

Our team is already super-slow by foot, and you want them to stamp on thorns? They'd be hobbling around like old men in no time.

Agreed with op

I came into this season with not much expectation, and seeing a team with bate in the midfield mademenottoworried about our performances, as it is the structures and game plan we are learning.

We have had neeld coaching for 6 months so we are still grasping the basics and from what I see, the positioning of players has improved and we still look more structured for the most part, we run heavy numbers forward with the ball which is the modern style, but turn it over and are left vulnerable, which is where lots of the goals have been coming from.

When we link well and get it into our 50 the conversion rate is amazing, so when we start to use the all better, we get one or two extra clean midfielders and our i50 counts increase we are going to bea force!

Improvements need to be made on our tackling and k owing when it is whose turn to chase, but I personally can see the development and have faith in the new regiment!

Of course Immediate results would be great, but let's get realistic!

Lengthy post, but I'm up for a debate

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by Mad_Melbourne

I think the opposite - we are playing so pathtically we couldn't do any worse. The KPI thread bears that out - 65 I50s to 30?! Against Richmond?!

I am not hopeful because of the 'positive signs' (although Magner, Howe, Watts and Jones are positive), I am hopeful because of the lack of positive signs.

The only way is up because we are tracking with Gold Coast and just infront of GWS.

Only the most defeatist amongst us would call that our 'true' comparative point...

I think the opposite - we are playing so pathtically we couldn't do any worse. The KPI thread bears that out - 65 I50s to 30?! Against Richmond?!

I am not hopeful because of the 'positive signs' (although Magner, Howe, Watts and Jones are positive), I am hopeful because of the lack of positive signs.

The only way is up because we are tracking with Gold Coast and just infront of GWS.

Only the most defeatist amongst us would call that our 'true' comparative point...

Yes the i50 stats are bad and the total possession count is shocking aswell, but how I see we aren't playing too badly is through our scoring percentage when we go inside 50 and our prevention of scoring when it goes inside our 50, what we are lacking is the middle third of the ground, and that is mainly just crispness of possession, but that is no issue to me at the moment as we are playing a midfield with bate, jones, magner, moloney, mckenzie, who aren't known for good disposal! The better our structures are set up with these players then the easier it will be to slot 2-3 class midfielders in and that is where the difference is!

It seems crazy but I think most of our forwards beat richmonds defenders and most of our defenders beat their counterparts, it was only the midfield we got smashed and through that I can see us playing not too poorly

Yes the i50 stats are bad and the total possession count is shocking aswell, but how I see we aren't playing too badly is through our scoring percentage when we go inside 50 and our prevention of scoring when it goes inside our 50, what we are lacking is the middle third of the ground, and that is mainly just crispness of possession, but that is no issue to me at the moment as we are playing a midfield with bate, jones, magner, moloney, mckenzie, who aren't known for good disposal! The better our structures are set up with these players then the easier it will be to slot 2-3 class midfielders in and that is where the difference is! It seems crazy but I think most of our forwards beat richmonds defenders and most of our defenders beat their counterparts, it was only the midfield we got smashed and through that I can see us playing not too poorly

Our disposal efficeincy is in the toilet and I could easily explain away the fact of our good conversion rate as a result of fewer opportunities against teams that are dominating us and frontrunning and allowing us great opportunitites on the odd counterattack as all their players are ahead of the footy spreading and shoving I50s and goals down our throat.

Stats are useful but as the owner of a stats based thread - you can't pick out one and extrapolate. You will inevitably reach an erroneous conclusion.

Edited April 17, 201213 yr by rpfc

People will be talking about the deficit in disposal counts, but in the end, Neeld isnt teaching us the kick it around game, it is down the line to a contest, winning contests ect

We will never have huge numbers playing the way we have these first 3 weeks, maybe in the future but atm it is about making contests and winning them.

fair to say we arnt good ta this atm

Neeld is not teaching us to kick to a contest (face palm). He is trying to teach us that it is risky to kick down the corridor as turnovers kill you. It is more prudent to kick down the line to a teamate. The problem is our teamates don't run and spread thus the kicker has no option BUT to kick to a contest as it is safer than the corridor. Big difference.

One of the reasons we look slow and are slow is the structure of the team. We went in to the Richmond game with a big side. That could work if the tall timber were also as quick as midfielders (such as Watts). But Jamar, Sellar, Martin, Rivers and Bate are not which leaves too much running to too few. Perhaps the grand plan is to have the talls dominating in possession by kick and mark footy - and we certainly had a large differential in our favour in contested marks. But when foot disposal is as poor as ours it won't allow a game style such as this to be successful. I suspect if we replaced a couple of the slower talls with relatively standard smalls whether they are particularly fast or not (such as Couch, Bennell, Petterd, Green, Blease, Sylvia, Gysberts, Jetta) we would be better balanced and neither look as slow or be as slow with the run-and-spread workload more evenly spread. Of course, many of those players are not available right now, but a shift of perhaps two talls out and two smalls in (plus a small for a small in the case of Grimes) might be sufficient to redress this imbalance.