2014 will be considerably brighter. Very excited about the potential midfielders on offer. However, currently, Sam Blease is shiteing me to tears with his lack of impact. A number are saying don't gift Rory Taggert games but I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing here. Close to being over this bloke and I have been a big supporter of him in the past.

Taggert is almost a no brainier inclusion for mine.

I've defended Blease on here before but I'm to going to bother this week. Disgraceful. He needs to decide how serious he is about this AFL caper.

Taggert is almost a no brainier inclusion for mine.

I've defended Blease on here before but I'm to going to bother this week. Disgraceful. He needs to decide how serious he is about this AFL caper.

Spot on. It's all a lark for him. Hate to say it, but I don't think he's going to make it. Too many smart players with better attitudes coming through. Happy to be wrong.

Neil Craig said that he will wear shorts to training for the rest of the year in cold conditions to probe and try and instal mental toughness. I want craig kept even if he doesnt get the coaching gig.

We all cling to something or someone as hope for the future mate. We've become experts at it.

It would be very Melbourne if the the much hyped partnership of Clark and Dawes never even makes the field. Hopefully it does, and with Hogan it will be formidable. Just need to address the barren wasteland that is the midfield.

I'm still undecided about Dawes 'P_Man', he really needs to get more involved in the game and not just with his voice.

That effort yesterday was heartless. For whatever reason a large section of our list do not give their all, do not learn properly, do not play for one another or is it trust?

Whatever it is, this list will not take us forward as it is.

Bring on trade weeks. 20 goals against a flakey North.

Pathetic is what it is

I couldn't believe our players refused to take the game on, we had our chances to run up the middle but we stop look side ways handpass to players standing still or even worse kick sideways and miss targets. We only have 2-3 players that can hit targets and those players don't get the footy enough. We played 5 small forwards yesterday and 4 never touched the footy and can't run through the midfield, this is a big issue we need more players that can run through our midfield. Magner, nicholson need to come in for Kent and tapscott, Blease and davey stay in because we have no one else we need to play more players that can run through our midfield. Yesterday was bad we have to many dumb robots playing for us over the past 2 years we have confused these players to the point they have forgotten how to play football. We have drilled them so much they can not remember how to be the good instinctive footballers that we drafted.

Incidentally, did anyone else notice the way the North players routinely set up for marking contests with a designated blocker to shepard our players away from the contest and allow their teammate to get the uncontested mark? It's 100% illegal, but as with incorrect disposal is something that the umpires only ever call if it is so glaringly obvious that it can't be ignored or it happens to a high-profile player. Why on earth don't our players ever do that sort of thing? When we are going for the mark it's every Melbourne player leaping for the ball. Once again the recurring theme of not working for each other.

Incidentally, did anyone else notice the way the North players routinely set up for marking contests with a designated blocker to shepard our players away from the contest and allow their teammate to get the uncontested mark? It's 100% illegal, but as with incorrect disposal is something that the umpires only ever call if it is so glaringly obvious that it can't be ignored or it happens to a high-profile player. Why on earth don't our players ever do that sort of thing? When we are going for the mark it's every Melbourne player leaping for the ball. Once again the recurring theme of not working for each other.

It's all in the method; years ago I watched the Hawks under Jeans going through a drill where they had one player block with hands in the air, eyes on the ball and another player in front taking the mark. So it's been around for a while now. The only way you get caught out is if you are a fair way off the ball (sometimes) or if you take your eyes off the ball and focus on your opponent.

To not attempt to play a lot more corridor footy falls with the coaches and the players (and there's a fair chance that at least 12 of the players won't be at the club next year) Why we continue to persist with an unworkable game plan of never or rarely using the corridor is beyond belief. We've got a largely unskilled group of players trying to move the ball around the boundary line ... it should never have even been attempted. It worked for Collingwood (for a couple of years) because they were exceptionally highly skilled.

The players go wide, sideways and backwards because that's how they're coached (or have been coached) The coach should be making mention of it and at least be trying to eradicate that style of playing. We've seen a big enough sample size of how we play. (going wide seemingly at all costs) It can't work and won't work. Not with our unskilled lot anyway.

We're using a lot more teamwork (sharing the ball) but our first option is to look and then go sideways. Players leading to the boundary line or creating space near the boundary line are equally at fault. It's looked upon as a 'safe' way of playing but with our team it turns out to be extremely high risk.

What makes things even worse is that every other club knows how we play. It would be a dead easy task to coach against out team. We telegraph our intentions. As an opposition defender, you would be gleeful at how we move the ball. Just rest up for a little bit and then wander over to the boundary line and punch it out of bounds - how easy is that?

To not attempt to play a lot more corridor footy falls with the coaches and the players (and there's a fair chance that at least 12 of the players won't be at the club next year) Why we continue to persist with an unworkable game plan of never or rarely using the corridor is beyond belief. We've got a largely unskilled group of players trying to move the ball around the boundary line ... it should never have even been attempted. It worked for Collingwood (for a couple of years) because they were exceptionally highly skilled.

The players go wide, sideways and backwards because that's how they're coached (or have been coached) The coach should be making mention of it and at least be trying to eradicate that style of playing. We've seen a big enough sample size of how we play. (going wide seemingly at all costs) It can't work and won't work. Not with our unskilled lot anyway.

We're using a lot more teamwork (sharing the ball) but our first option is to look and then go sideways. Players leading to the boundary line or creating space near the boundary line are equally at fault. It's looked upon as a 'safe' way of playing but with our team it turns out to be extremely high risk.

What makes things even worse is that every other club knows how we play. It would be a dead easy task to coach against out team. We telegraph our intentions. As an opposition defender, you would be gleeful at how we move the ball. Just rest up for a little bit and then wander over to the boundary line and punch it out of bounds - how easy is that?

You are over complicating it.

We don't work hard enough to win the ball, pressure the opponents or get the ball back. That means we end up getting under huge pressure outselves and can't establish any ball movement.

Against the bulldogs we moved the ball through the corridor plenty of times.

You are over complicating it.

We don't work hard enough to win the ball, pressure the opponents or get the ball back. That means we end up getting under huge pressure outselves and can't establish any ball movement.

Against the bulldogs we moved the ball through the corridor plenty of times.

What you mentioned I could have mentioned as well, but my focus was on what happens when we have the ball. Just didn't want to write a 5 page essay. We are obviously poor at winning the ball, hard ball gets, clearances, being 1st in for the ball etc (that's been the case since 2006) but it's our ball movement when we do get it that's the problem.

We had a number of chances yesterday (though not as many as in the Bulldogs game) to move the ball through the corridor and for the most part, chose not to. Our choices yesterday were poor. Against the Bulldogs our choices were much better. 3 weeks down the track and we're playing much the same as we did for all of 2012 and half of this season (albeit we are sharing the ball a lot more - to not much effect)

If we don't fix the way we move the ball we're going nowhere fast.

What you mentioned I could have mentioned as well, but my focus was on what happens when we have the ball. Just didn't want to write a 5 page essay. We are obviously poor at winning the ball, hard ball gets, clearances, being 1st in for the ball etc (that's been the case since 2006) but it's our ball movement when we do get it that's the problem.

We had a number of chances yesterday (though not as many as in the Bulldogs game) to move the ball through the corridor and for the most part, chose not to. Our choices yesterday were poor. Against the Bulldogs our choices were much better. 3 weeks down the track and we're playing much the same as we did for all of 2012 and half of this season (albeit we are sharing the ball a lot more - to not much effect)

If we don't fix the way we move the ball we're going nowhere fast.

Correct. Our best bits of play yesterday were Dunn's kick out down the guts from full back and Blease's long run through the middle.

Starting the game with a loose man was an overly negative move.

I didn't see the game (thank goodness) but notice a lot of posters talking about us lacking drive and direction out of defence. Given that Garland and Terlich are probably running top 3 in the Bluey and our primary drivers out of defence, would their presence have made much of a difference?

We are clearly cursed, that bit I definitely agree with.

And we definitely have the best jumpers in the competition.

It's not that I think we deserve a priority pick; we require one. Actually I kind of think we do deserve one. If seven years of non stop disaster do not qualify for a priority pick then nothing should.

And I'd like it to be BEFORE the start of the draft, so we can trade the pick for Boyd, haha!

Anybody know a witchdoctor?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/football/socceroos-owe-it-all-to-one-man--and-it-isnt-hiddink/2005/11/19/1132017026017.html

http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/11/27/the-curse-of-the-socceroos/

Are people still forgetting that Trengove is still only 21??

I read in the paper today that McDonald started the game as a loose man in defence, with Hansen the same for North.

Not only is McDonald no good loose (much better one-on-one), Hansen is dominant when he has no one to worry about. So, as usual, our loose man has no influence while theirs kills off our rare forward thrusts.

I don't know how long it took for us to ditch the plan (if it was ditched at all), but that's some terrible coaching right there.

I read in the paper today that McDonald started the game as a loose man in defence, with Hansen the same for North.

Not only is McDonald no good loose (much better one-on-one), Hansen is dominant when he has no one to worry about. So, as usual, our loose man has no influence while theirs kills off our rare forward thrusts.

I don't know how long it took for us to ditch the plan (if it was ditched at all), but that's some terrible coaching right there.

Yet you said the Geelong game was okay? I thought that the coaching on that day was very poor.

At the end of the day, the list needs (another) rebuild.

I couldn't believe our players refused to take the game on, we had our chances to run up the middle but we stop look side ways handpass to players standing still or even worse kick sideways and miss targets. We only have 2-3 players that can hit targets and those players don't get the footy enough. We played 5 small forwards yesterday and 4 never touched the footy and can't run through the midfield, this is a big issue we need more players that can run through our midfield. Magner, nicholson need to come in for Kent and tapscott, Blease and davey stay in because we have no one else we need to play more players that can run through our midfield. Yesterday was bad we have to many dumb robots playing for us over the past 2 years we have confused these players to the point they have forgotten how to play football. We have drilled them so much they can not remember how to be the good instinctive footballers that we drafted.

Dr D, I disagree re Blease. Jetta? Even Barry? If we are going to gift games we may as well spread the love.

Yet you said the Geelong game was okay? I thought that the coaching on that day was very poor.

At the end of the day, the list needs (another) rebuild.

Yes, I did say the Geelong game was OK. I don't know how my previous post contradicts my position on that.

For a game in the slop, in Geelong, with the game played predominantly in the Cats' forward half, I thought our effort to keep tackling and pressuring for most of the four quarters was pretty good.

Your last sentence shows how utterly pessimistic you are. The list does not need a rebuild. The midfield does, sure, but the forward and back lines do not.

Yes, I did say the Geelong game was OK. I don't know how my previous post contradicts my position on that.

For a game in the slop, in Geelong, with the game played predominantly in the Cats' forward half, I thought our effort to keep tackling and pressuring for most of the four quarters was pretty good.

Your last sentence shows how utterly pessimistic you are. The list does not need a rebuild. The midfield does, sure, but the forward and back lines do not.

I think our forward line is highly over rated. Hogan has yet to play a game and Clark can't get on the ground, and these are the only players I would rate.

I think our forward line is highly over rated. Hogan has yet to play a game and Clark can't get on the ground, and these are the only players I would rate.

Very unfair on Dawes. Fitzpatrick is also developing at a rate no one expected here.

There's nothing as yet to suggest Clark won't be back in 2014 (MFCSS suggests otherwise).

Howe's best football this year has been as a forward, IMO. Same with Watts.

Clark, Hogan, Dawes, Fitzpatrick, Howe, Watts. Crying out for a small forward, of course, but aside from that, the marking capability is there. A decent midfield which can get the ball and move it forward with some purpose will have plenty to kick to.

Very unfair on Dawes. Fitzpatrick is also developing at a rate no one expected here.

There's nothing as yet to suggest Clark won't be back in 2014 (MFCSS suggests otherwise).

Howe's best football this year has been as a forward, IMO. Same with Watts.

Clark, Hogan, Dawes, Fitzpatrick, Howe, Watts. Crying out for a small forward, of course, but aside from that, the marking capability is there. A decent midfield which can get the ball and move it forward with some purpose will have plenty to kick to.

Not unfair, realistic. Dawes as a key forward has an average of 1 point something goals a match, hardly good numbers.

Howe to me plays his best football when left to rotate through forward and mid, gets too tied down as a permanent forward and easier to negate.

Fitz is nowhere near it yet, has done some good things but far from being part of a top forward line.

Watts doesn't hit the scoreboard enough and I still don't think his best position is settled.

As you say Clark may not be back and if he does he is far and away our best ruck option at the moment.

Hogan will be a player, we are all excited about him but it still might take him time to settle. Swallow at GC came 4th in the liston in 2010 and is just now starting to realise his potential, Zac Smith is another who set it alight at VFL level but has taken time now unfortunately out with a knee. I do think Hogan will come in hard in his first year, he has the aggression and attitude to do it.

No, let's not kid ourselves again. Our forward line is a long way from just a small forward shy of being good. If Boyd is best available and we have the pick then we take him.

Not unfair, realistic. Dawes as a key forward has an average of 1 point something goals a match, hardly good numbers.

Howe to me plays his best football when left to rotate through forward and mid, gets too tied down as a permanent forward and easier to negate.

Fitz is nowhere near it yet, has done some good things but far from being part of a top forward line.

Watts doesn't hit the scoreboard enough and I still don't think his best position is settled.

As you say Clark may not be back and if he does he is far and away our best ruck option at the moment.

Hogan will be a player, we are all excited about him but it still might take him time to settle. Swallow at GC came 4th in the liston in 2010 and is just now starting to realise his potential, Zac Smith is another who set it alight at VFL level but has taken time now unfortunately out with a knee. I do think Hogan will come in hard in his first year, he has the aggression and attitude to do it.

No, let's not kid ourselves again. Our forward line is a long way from just a small forward shy of being good. If Boyd is best available and we have the pick then we take him.

But you've failed to consider his injury, forward support and how effective the inside 50's have been from the mid - yes you're being unfair.

I think our forward line is highly over rated. Hogan has yet to play a game and Clark can't get on the ground, and these are the only players I would rate.

Neither a fit Clark or Hogan would rate with our current midfield. They will have to raffle the meagre inside fifties amongst ithemselves.