POST MATCH DISCUSSION

[ManDee 7,263]

Martin I would have liked to see but he'd be a quick fix and then quickly destroy melbourne from the inside, Lamb would have been good, Mumford didn't want to leave Sydney, Everitt lel no thanks, and Blicavs would have been alright, but Darren Jolly would have been bloody good! would have been good for Spencer, Fitzy and Gawn

Pedersen better pick up his game if he wants another contract

Are you serious? Can't mark, can't kick, can't read the play. What contract?

Or is the contract you want to offer, for Casey 2nds? No, I would prefer a player that can play.

He had 4 effective disposals in 4 quarters of football. One contested mark, no goals and was our key forward for 4 quarters. On a positive note he kicked 3 points only bettered by Bernie Vince.

Edited March 24, 2014 by ManDee

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Are you serious? Can't mark, can't kick, can't read the play. What contract?

Or is the contract you want to offer, for Casey 2nds? No, I would prefer a player that can play.

He had 4 effective disposals in 4 quarters of football. One contested mark, no goals and was our key forward for 4 quarters. On a positive note he kicked 3 points only bettered by Bernie Vince.

Remember the journo who said MFC didnt stand for anything.? Well he was wrong

They do stand for a lot.

MFC is a charity organisation subsidised by a decreasing number of gullible patrons who's core goals are to provide long term financial assistance to men who have no co-ordination or skill , yet harbour a desire to play Australian Football.

In other words the MFC is a charity for Spuds

[binman 44,310]

Are you serious? Can't mark, can't kick, can't read the play. What contract?

Or is the contract you want to offer, for Casey 2nds? No, I would prefer a player that can play.

He had 4 effective disposals in 4 quarters of football. One contested mark, no goals and was our key forward for 4 quarters. On a positive note he kicked 3 points only bettered by Bernie Vince.

He's got another year after this one on his current contract!

[P-man 13,366]

Great summation binman.

[olisik 4,060]

5 of the last 12 flags have been won by clubs paying around 110% of the cap. We have been paying 92.5%-95% for the last seven years and have won between 2 and 8.5 games with a soft draw every year. The impact of the cap is obvious.

And front loading of contracts is not the reason for our predicament. It is bad recruiting and Mark Neeld.

On Frawley, the FA rules couldn't have been foreseen, but once they were introduced we should have shaped the other players contracts to ensure he was a RFA.

Has this factored in the 1.3m a year to 2 players who are always injured?

[ManDee 7,263]

I am happy with Roos game plan, but considering our injuries before & during the game I was surprised that Dunn didn't go forward, he can kick a few. I think Dunn, Trenners and JKH forward may have helped. What do you think? Pedo could run drinks, with help.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,379]

Can't agree with the notion that Roos was outcoached. In what way exactly? The fact that he kept Tom acDonald on the park when he was injured? What else could he do? Take us down to a bench of 2? He tried to keep him in position and then shifted him to FF to see if he could take a couple of grabs. I don't see any bad coaching in that. You can't possibly be claiming that the terrible kicking for goal was a result of his coaching? That rests entirely with the players who failed to kick them. Tell me exactly what you think he did or failed to do that contributed to this loss.

I stated it earlier but I think one fed into the other. The fact that we allowed them to have the loose man behind the ball combined with the fact we had no tall targets up ther meant that we had to take our shots from around the 50, generally on a bit of an angle which meant our accuracy was poor. Yeah we hit the post a couple of times and missed closely a couple of others but this was due to the fact we were taking low percentage shots due to being forced to kick from the 50's on the flanks. Had we manned up the loose man we would have had a better chance to kick to an even contest or at least lock the ball in our 50 allowing us to set up to create a goal.

[ManDee 7,263]

He's got another year after this one on his current contract!

Perhaps we could bundle Pedo, Jamar and Byrnes with a set of steak knives for a late round pick in the rookie draft. If not a pick maybe for some paper clips and a some old glad wrap, it would be more useful..

Edited March 24, 2014 by ManDee

[InVINCEable 358]

Matt Burgan has hit the nail on the head, we should have won the game but we shouldn't be angry about losing either we've changed a lot, we were better than the Saints just didn't show on the scoreboard, Jesse Hogan, Max Gawn, Chris Dawes and even Mitch Clark we'll be very hard to beat

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-24/monday-analysis-relearning-to-win

[jnrmac 20,225]

5 of the last 12 flags have been won by clubs paying around 110% of the cap. We have been paying 92.5%-95% for the last seven years and have won between 2 and 8.5 games with a soft draw every year. The impact of the cap is obvious.

And front loading of contracts is not the reason for our predicament. It is bad recruiting and Mark Neeld.

On Frawley, the FA rules couldn't have been foreseen, but once they were introduced we should have shaped the other players contracts to ensure he was a RFA.

Yep nice one. Can't answer a straight question. And then you throw in spurious incorrect arguments. Typical bully behaviour.

Tell me the plethora of players lining up to play for the Dees?

I'm still waiting...

[Wunders 397]

I love the Dees and will be there next week and by round 10 hopefully we have some forwards on the park. Until then we will be limited in some aspects.

Go Dees!

P.s. it can't/shouldn't get any worse than last year, so i'm choosing to enjoy each game and look for positives instead.

[sue 9,156]

I am happy with Roos game plan, but considering our injuries before & during the game I was surprised that Dunn didn't go forward, he can kick a few. I think Dunn, Trenners and JKH forward may have helped. What do you think? Pedo could run drinks, with help.

While we and presumably Roos know have important a win might be, it is possible that Roos plans to concentrate on everyone knowing their basic role first so he won't throw players around just to increase the chances of a win. Once he is confident they have learnt their basic role, that may change.

I hope this doesn't offend some posters, but for the moment at least I'd back his decisions over the opinions of us spectators.

[old dee 23,953]

While we and presumably Roos know have important a win might be, it is possible that Roos plans to concentrate on everyone knowing their basic role first so he won't throw players around just to increase the chances of a win. Once he is confident they have learnt their basic role, that may change.

I hope this doesn't offend some posters, but for the moment at least I'd back his decisions over the opinions of us spectators.

A couple of things to add sue

- I have complete faith in PR it is the list we have that is the problem not the FD

- I am sure that the list will be improved at the end of this year just like it was at the end of 2013

Do we have any choice?

[Demon trucker 1,800]

the bottom line is we Had more inside fifty's more mark inside fifty's more scoring shots , more tackles inside 50 but yet we lost the game 1 came down to 1 thing Kicking for goal is why we lost that's pretty much it

[drdrake 3,202]

Matt Burgan has hit the nail on the head, we should have won the game but we shouldn't be angry about losing either we've changed a lot, we were better than the Saints just didn't show on the scoreboard, Jesse Hogan, Max Gawn, Chris Dawes and even Mitch Clark we'll be very hard to beat

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-03-24/monday-analysis-relearning-to-win

Garbage, no more positive spin we lost to a team that is also severely undermanned. We talk about our forwards being out the Saints had there starting midfield out. We may have controlled the footy but we rarely moved it well. The Saints just sat across half back allowed us to stuff around with the footy in our back half until we finally turned it over then the just ran hard to score on the rebound. West Coast will do exactly the same we need to control the footy in our forward half or we will always get hurt on the rebound.

[sue 9,156]

A couple of things to add sue

- I have complete faith in PR it is the list we have that is the problem not the FD

- I am sure that the list will be improved at the end of this year just like it was at the end of 2013

Do we have any choice?

No. And it is good to hear you being a bit positive.

[beelzebub 23,389]

the bottom line is we Had more inside fifty's more mark inside fifty's more scoring shots , more tackles inside 50 but yet we lost the game 1 came down to 1 thing Kicking for goal is why we lost that's pretty much it

kicking for goal ..or kickers for goal. I lean to the latter in so far as those we have to do this efficiently just weren't out there.

[Akum 2,660]

Garbage, no more positive spin we lost to a team that is also severely undermanned. We talk about our forwards being out the Saints had there starting midfield out. We may have controlled the footy but we rarely moved it well. The Saints just sat across half back allowed us to stuff around with the footy in our back half until we finally turned it over then the just ran hard to score on the rebound. West Coast will do exactly the same we need to control the footy in our forward half or we will always get hurt on the rebound.

It's much easier to replace star mids than your best talls, as long as you're not playing a team with an A-grade midfield.

Tall strong forwards are essential to Roos's game plan, because they give you a forward target and put pressure on the defence. Without the forward target, it gets very indirect and it's extremely difficult to move the ball forwards.

You're absolutely right that West Coast will do the same thing as St. Kilda. And if Roos can't work out a way to counter the extra man (mobile tall, like Gilbert, is ideal) across half-back, we're really going to struggle to score. And if we get behind by a few goals, we're going to struggle to catch up, which is why those missed shots in the first half really killed us.

[Fat Tony 5,291]

Yep nice one. Can't answer a straight question. And then you throw in spurious incorrect arguments. Typical bully behaviour.

Tell me the plethora of players lining up to play for the Dees?

I'm still waiting...

Come off it Junior. You asked six questions.

There hasn't been a plethora of players lining up, but front loading contracts gives us greater cap room to land a big recruit in future years. And by not paying the full cap we are a no go zone for quality recruits because they want to play in a successful side.

Our total football spend is well above the cap at the moment. All I am suggesting is we make sure most of that is running onto the ground on match day. Not in the box.

[drdrake 3,202]

This is the problem and it is for bad teams, the players aren't good enough to kick around spare men in defense. Good team know we will most likely kick it straight to their loose men and then all they need to do is run hard on the offensive spread and it will open us up. We have to work so hard to get the ball inside 50m, as soon as we turn it over we never regain our defensive position.

Unlike us where we relay on two way running, unless our skills can dramatically improve our opponents can sit back across half back and wait for a turnover, they don't have to work hard defensively which then makes us look unfit and slow.

[monoccular 17,629]

I think we can all agree that our best 22 is an OK AFL team, the problem is outside that we have some very average players that shouldn't be playing at AFL. The difference on Saturday night was the bad turnovers, turnovers that we should had been scoring but resulted in a Saint Kilda goal. Toumpas in the first quarter should have hit Watts 35m out directly in front, he kicks it 15m short under no pressure, Saints kick there first, we could have put them away in the first quarter but that goal sent us back into our shell. We need to hit that kick and until we can we will struggle.

Surely it shows that one big difference between top teams and also rans is depth....not the only different, but a big one. But even a team like the Hawks would be severely weakened by the loss of their first 3 KPP forwards, together with the very early loss of the next best one and the best KPP defender (for the match-up of the day) essentially by quarter time. Not just the loss of the players but the loss of bench flexibility.

A perfect storm.

[monoccular 17,629]

It's much easier to replace star mids than your best talls, as long as you're not playing a team with an A-grade midfield.

Tall strong forwards are essential to Roos's game plan, because they give you a forward target and put pressure on the defence. Without the forward target, it gets very indirect and it's extremely difficult to move the ball forwards.

You're absolutely right that West Coast will do the same thing as St. Kilda. And if Roos can't work out a way to counter the extra man (mobile tall, like Gilbert, is ideal) across half-back, we're really going to struggle to score. And if we get behind by a few goals, we're going to struggle to catch up, which is why those missed shots in the first half really killed us.

Agreed...but he had now better work, rapidly, on an alternative game plan, as he is most unlikely to have even one tall strong forward for the next month or more.

This will test Roos' flexibility of thinking - I look forward to see when he can conjure up.

[old dee 23,953]

Agreed...but he had now better work, rapidly, on an alternative game plan, as he is most unlikely to have even one tall strong forward for the next month or more.

This will test Roos' flexibility of thinking - I look forward to see when he can conjure up.

Unfortunately he cannot turn shorter players into large ones.

With the exception of Gawn there is no one fit for duty next weekend.

The Dogs tried to counter their lack of tall forwards with smaller fast players and got done by 11 goals.

In my wildest dreams I cannot see us doing any better on Sunday.

Perhaps a ten goal loss ( if we can keep it that low ) will be a good result under the current injury problems.

Whatever happens it will prove nothing about the ability of PR.

[drdrake 3,202]

If we can't turn shorter players into taller ones the shorter players need to work harder into space to create so we don't have to kick it long into an undersize forward line

[nutbean 8,838]

On Frawley, the FA rules couldn't have been foreseen, but once they were introduced we should have shaped the other players contracts to ensure he was a RFA.

There hasn't been a plethora of players lining up, but front loading contracts gives us greater cap room to land a big recruit in future years.

You are having 50 cents each way. You suggest that after we front loaded Frawleys contract we should have adjusted other contracts to keep him an RFA but then you say we should front load contracts to get stars - this action is exactly why Frawley is a UFA.

So which one is it ?