Well, from the sounds coming out of the club, it seems Mitch is close to a full recovery. Now, I don't want to jinx it, but I am getting pretty damn excited to see him dominate the forward 50 with Dawesy.

They haven't played together yet so it might take a little time for them to gel, but the good news is that Dawes played in a side that had Cloke playing a similar role to Clark.

I am very excited to see how they go this year. Lloyd said on FC that anything less than 40 goals from Dawes will be a fail. He must be on crack looking at what Melbourne has produced in recent years. If we get 50-60+ from Mitch and 30+ from Dawes then we'll be doing very well as a team.

They haven't played together yet so it might take a little time for them to gel, but the good news is that Dawes played in a side that had Cloke playing a similar role to Clark.

I am very excited to see how they go this year. Lloyd said on FC that anything less than 40 goals from Dawes will be a fail. He must be on crack looking at what Melbourne has produced in recent years. If we get 50-60+ from Mitch and 30+ from Dawes then we'll be doing very well as a team.

Lloyd loves to bag Melbourne and their recruiting, but talks up essendons recruiting like they are a top 4 side.

Pretty sure any improvements in the win column will bear a direct relationship to how many games Mitch can have an impact on. Hope he is back asap

They haven't played together yet so it might take a little time for them to gel, but the good news is that Dawes played in a side that had Cloke playing a similar role to Clark.

I am very excited to see how they go this year. Lloyd said on FC that anything less than 40 goals from Dawes will be a fail. He must be on crack looking at what Melbourne has produced in recent years. If we get 50-60+ from Mitch and 30+ from Dawes then we'll be doing very well as a team.

Lloyd is a [censored], hates melbourne and at the end of the day Chris Dawes was not recruited for this year but for 3-4 years down the track. Hopefully he can kick 30-40 goals for us this year like you said, but he will definitely make our forward line much stronger and less dependent on Mitch.

Secondly i think dawes was playing more of the Mitch Clark/roughhead role in collingwood, playing that second ruck and forward role, so he will be playing more of a full forward position.

thirdly, we were a pretty good side at converting our i50s to scores, mainly due to the low amount of i50s we had, but we were able to score of a very high percentage of i50s, hopefully this makes our fwd 50 much stronger, and leads to more scoring oppourtunities i50, on top of this i hope we can increase the number of i50s this year aswell

Plus it'll help now that these two are like best buds.

I have lost count the amount of times the show pony FF in the team i'd be playing for would put me off my game clearly because he would want to be racking up the goals and I would be just trying to play my role the coach wanted at CHF.

Forwards I got along with at the club coincided with both our successes on the day.

They just need to stay injury free, the rest will be up to the midfield.

Have to say I agree with Lloyd. There is a lot of pressure on Dawes to perform this year. Big bloke on big coin playing reasonably close to the big sticks. Yes his main gig is to provide contests but f he can't average 2 goals each week across four quarters of footy it'll be a fail mark.

Let's start expecting more from our highly paid players and not get into this habit of bracing ourselves for mediocrity.

Lloyd should focus on his own team's circus of events.

I'm not in the camp that says Dawes must kick X number of goals this year. If he can help create a good number of goals each week, that will do for me. I don't care who kicks them, as long as Dawes, Mitch, Howe, etc contribute enough to make it happen. Given that a third of our list is new, it will take some time for them to gel and for this to happen.

They haven't played together yet so it might take a little time for them to gel, but the good news is that Dawes played in a side that had Cloke playing a similar role to Clark.

Probably a dumb idea, but I thought I may as well go with what I'm good at... why not play Dawes(y) and Clark(y) on opposite HFFs (where they can stay out of each others' way) and Howe(y) at FF... Dawes(y) and Clark(y) take the top defenders and Howe(y) is left to out-mark whoever is put up against him and be left with a reasonably easy set shot - set shots from the angle or from any great distance are not his forte. Worth a try in my world.

Edited March 14, 201312 yr by hardtack

Have to say I agree with Lloyd. There is a lot of pressure on Dawes to perform this year. Big bloke on big coin playing reasonably close to the big sticks. Yes his main gig is to provide contests but f he can't average 2 goals each week across four quarters of footy it'll be a fail mark.

Let's start expecting more from our highly paid players and not get into this habit of bracing ourselves for mediocrity.

My thoughts exactly. We brought him in to perform, and that should be our expectation.

HT - throw your mind back to the big V games in the late 80's - Dunstall and Lockett both playing out of the goal square with Ablett roaming. Was a treat to watch - no reason we can't have that set up with Clark Dawes and Howe

Initially if Clark isn't playing, Dawes will have a minimum of two opponents most of the time, as we saw against North in the NAB. How will you blokes who are counting his goal tally as the measure of success factor this in?

And how will you factor in the "structure" he adds, even when he's not playing well? Again, going back to the NAB cup games, our forward line looked notably less cohesive in the second game, when he was absent.

Lloyd should focus on his own team's circus of events.

I'm not in the camp that says Dawes must kick X number of goals this year. If he can help create a good number of goals each week, that will do for me. I don't care who kicks them, as long as Dawes, Mitch, Howe, etc contribute enough to make it happen. Given that a third of our list is new, it will take some time for them to gel and for this to happen.

So Lloyd can't discuss other clubs even though he's in the media ?

I completely agree with Lloyd. Full forwards are expected to kick goals. Full stop. He's done his apprenticeship at AFL level, will play as the close to goal forward, and should be able to contribute an average of 2 goals per game. Especially as he'll have support with Clark and either Pedersen, or Sellar spreading defenders.

Some Melbourne supporters are making excuses and reducing expectations before he's even played a game. Can't say I'm surprised.

I reckon Dawes will be good for us and obviously he has structural significance, but he still has to hit the scoreboard.

Lloyd should focus on his own team's circus of events.

I'm not in the camp that says Dawes must kick X number of goals this year. If he can help create a good number of goals each week, that will do for me. I don't care who kicks them, as long as Dawes, Mitch, Howe, etc contribute enough to make it happen. Given that a third of our list is new, it will take some time for them to gel and for this to happen.

Totally agree, if dawes kicks 30-40 goals that's great but if he takes 1 extra defender off clark that's all i would hope for, it's another big target and a fantastic influence of a premiership winning forward on a young list and jesse hogan in particular

Initially if Clark isn't playing, Dawes will have a minimum of two opponents most of the time, as we saw against North in the NAB. How will you blokes who are counting his goal tally as the measure of success factor this in?

And how will you factor in the "structure" he adds, even when he's not playing well? Again, going back to the NAB cup games, our forward line looked notably less cohesive in the second game, when he was absent.

i had doubts on Mitch Clark last season but he came with big money and performed like a forward on big money.

Mitch didn't exactly have another tall to lean back on and performed.

The same is expected of Dawes.

Yes structure and all that but 2 goals a game (average) for the year should not be asking too much.

I love Clark but am just worried about where he is at, what’s his fitness

base like? I mean he has been out for like 3/4 of a year! Can he just come back

and challenge players who have 9 months on him? I am not sure what kind of fitness

he has been doing since the gravity treadmill but I just hope it's been

sufficient.

On a brighter note he was moving really well at training and kicking for

goal looked good.

Have to say I agree with Lloyd. There is a lot of pressure on Dawes to perform this year. Big bloke on big coin playing reasonably close to the big sticks. Yes his main gig is to provide contests but f he can't average 2 goals each week across four quarters of footy it'll be a fail mark.

Let's start expecting more from our highly paid players and not get into this habit of bracing ourselves for mediocrity.

That's one way to lose credibility.

GODEES!

So Lloyd can't discuss other clubs even though he's in the media ?

I completely agree with Lloyd. Full forwards are expected to kick goals. Full stop. He's done his apprenticeship at AFL level, will play as the close to goal forward, and should be able to contribute an average of 2 goals per game. Especially as he'll have support with Clark and either Pedersen, or Sellar spreading defenders.

Some Melbourne supporters are making excuses and reducing expectations before he's even played a game. Can't say I'm surprised.

I reckon Dawes will be good for us and obviously he has structural significance, but he still has to hit the scoreboard.

That's one way to lose credibility. Of course he can discuss other clubs. He gets paid to do that. He just needs to show some balance and perhaps a little objectivity.

GO DEES!

That's one way to lose credibility. Of course he can discuss other clubs. He gets paid to do that. He just needs to show some balance and perhaps a little objectivity.

Where wasn't he objective ?

Where wasn't he objective ?

In general term he does not try to see the big picture when talking about Melbourne and other clubs. When he asked about the tanking business he made no effort to put his answer into any sort of context. The discussion was about the merits of the AFL's decision and yet he made no effort to point out the hypocrisy of the outcome. He was just happy to condemn Melbourne.

By the way I agree that Dawes needs to kick some goals. That's not what I'm saying. I'm making the point that aligning yourself with Lloyd does little to enhance your reputation as a thinker.

In general term he does not try to see the big picture when talking about Melbourne and other clubs. When he asked about the tanking business he made no effort to put his answer into any sort of context. The discussion was about the merits of the AFL's decision and yet he made no effort to point out the hypocrisy of the outcome. He was just happy to condemn Melbourne.

By the way I agree that Dawes needs to kick some goals. That's not what I'm saying. I'm making the point that aligning yourself with Lloyd does little to enhance your reputation as a thinker.

It was clear from my particular post that I was in agreement with Lloyd about Dawes. That's the specific point I addressed. And now here you are more or less concurring with that view.

You're tying yourself up in knots there Crawf.

The forward duo is Clark and Dawes.

It can't fail.

In general term he does not try to see the big picture when talking about Melbourne and other clubs. When he asked about the tanking business he made no effort to put his answer into any sort of context. The discussion was about the merits of the AFL's decision and yet he made no effort to point out the hypocrisy of the outcome. He was just happy to condemn Melbourne.

By the way I agree that Dawes needs to kick some goals. That's not what I'm saying. I'm making the point that aligning yourself with Lloyd does little to enhance your reputation as a thinker.

So you were talking in generalities.

I don't align myself with anyone. I sometimes agree with idiots and can disagree with a genius. I'd rather make an assessment on the comment, not on who is doing the commentary.

It's called being objective.

Edited March 15, 201312 yr by Ben-Hur

Lloyd doesn't have respect for Melbourne. Respect is earned.

I find he understands the game pretty well particularly the team and player psyche side of things.

Stating the obvious, the effectiveness of the forward line and the back line are relative to the performance of the midfield. The midfield has been reshaped as a matter of necessity and will take some time to gel.

Which is why it is so hard to get a handle on what we will serve up this season.

Lloyd doesn't have respect for Melbourne. Respect is earned.

I find he understands the game pretty well particularly the team and player psyche side of things.

Stating the obvious, the effectiveness of the forward line and the back line are relative to the performance of the midfield. The midfield has been reshaped as a matter of necessity and will take some time to gel.

Which is why it is so hard to get a handle on what we will serve up this season.

I agree. But I like Terlich's buoyant replies here: - http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-03-15/terlichs-time-is-now

Here's hoping the boys surprise more than a few.