We truly live in the age of instant. Unlike past generations, we will purchase goods without saving first; expect a message to arrive within the minute; accelerate hard to the next traffic light; and ask a colleague 'how they are feeling' multiple times in a day.

In this 24-hour media cycle and the era of instant, the media and supporters expect change and improvement now. When we don't get it, the world caves in.

Clarkson arrived at Hawthorn at the end of 2004. He had the luxury of getting there after a rebuild had started. The 2001 draft (3 years prior) yielded leaders in Hodge, Mitchell (Brown). The 2004 superdraft yielded Franklin & Roughead & Lewis. Then look at how they topped up with the likes of Guerra, Hale, Dew, Lake. Certainly no Pedersen, Gillies, Byrnes, Rodan. Despite this, Clarkson's Hawks were lambasted by all for their chip, chip sidewards stuff in the early years. But what chipping does is keep the ball in our hands; off the opposition; and gives players numerous opportunities to make decisions and execute in a real game-time environment. By 2008, the flag was still considered lucky and premature.

Geelong's rebuild started in 1999 when Thompson arrived. In 2006 they failed and the whole club went through a "crappy review". That early period (5-6 years) of decent drafting set them up for the 2007-2013 windfall. It took Thompson 6 years to reach that Swans/Davis preliminary final; and then the next year to have the whole set-up reviewed after a failed year.

I also watched Collingwood v. Sydney in 1987 on Foxtel last night; a year after Leigh Matthews took over as coach. They were bloody ordinary, with several duds. Thank goodness the media/supporters didn't slit their wrists then because the next few years would be fruitful. It was a 91 point loss after nearly 1 year in the job! He took over in round 3 1986...coached that whole year. Then a whole pre-season with them in a time before players-association induced training maximums over summer. Then to host Sydney at Victoria Park and get thumped.

When we lost by big margins previously, we were smashed at contested ball, tackles and basically had our full team on the park. The West Coast thrashing hurts, but the fact that we won the contested ball and tackles must surely point to progress in this short-term. Then you have Spencer at the centre-bounces in the first quarter, up against the most dominant ruck combination of all time. As Roos said, if you lose the centre clearances, it opens you up to a 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 in our defence, which is opposition forward utopia in modern footy.

If Roos had his time again, I doubt that he would publicly condemn the skill-errors. I'm sure this wasn't one of the 20 things he wrote about in his Must-Remember-If-I-Coach Checklist when he retired from playing. I think you can have a go at effort and defensive pressure etc... but no player tries to fumble. The more the microscope falls on skill, the more it tends to unravel.

Much has been said correctly about our lack of height up forward due to injuries. It lowers our eyes and encourages the opposition to close our space more and more.

Much has been said correctly about our lack of ruck stocks due to injury. Against Nait/Cox expect to be smashed.

Not enough has been said about our inability to break a line with speed; or take them on with strength. The inclusion of Blease and Garland will help slightly here.

I'd rather a Melbourne player take them on, get tackled; get pinged; get judged holding the ball; allow the team 3-4 seconds to go into defensive mode..... than nervously try and avoid a tackle cough-it-up and turn it over in a heartbeat.

We just have to be patient and take some pride in contested numbers and tackles.

We also need a different response to media & supporter questioning if things don't turn-around soon. It is difficult when you are trying to please sponsors/supporters and their demand for short-term hope.

nothing instant or short term with 7 years of going backwards tgr

i'd agree with your sentiments if it was 2009

nothing instant or short term with 7 years of going backwards tgr

i'd agree with your sentiments if it was 2009

It's been a long 7 years but unfortunately all we as supporters can do is suck it up and start again. Roos has had a preseason & 2 games so far and our KPP/ruck stocks have been decimated. If it was an even spread of injuries we could have coped better but having all your key forwards out and your 2 best ruck options kills us.

If we can get some consistency going and get some players back I will be happy with an improved second half of the year like the Dogs last year or the Tigers in Hardwicks first year. Remember in 2010 the Tigers were being labelled "the worst team since Fitzroy" too but they had a relatively good back end of the year to give them some confidence heading into the preseason and another opportunity to turn the list over.

It's been a long 7 years but unfortunately all we as supporters can do is suck it up and start again. Roos has had a preseason & 2 games so far and our KPP/ruck stocks have been decimated. If it was an even spread of injuries we could have coped better but having all your key forwards out and your 2 best ruck options kills us.

If we can get some consistency going and get some players back I will be happy with an improved second half of the year like the Dogs last year or the Tigers in Hardwicks first year. Remember in 2010 the Tigers were being labelled "the worst team since Fitzroy" too but they had a relatively good back end of the year to give them some confidence heading into the preseason and another opportunity to turn the list over.

Unfortunately Dr there are thousands that are not sucking it up. They have voted by not renewing, I suspect that short of a finals team they will not return.

Unfortunately Dr there are thousands that are not sucking it up. They have voted by not renewing, I suspect that short of a finals team they will not return.

There's nothing else that can be done with our current list and injury situation. Our list still needs another 2 or 3 offseasons to turn around and get it where it needs to be. That doesn't mean we will be uncompetitive for that long and people have every rich to be disappointed when we get belted but people also need to set realistic expectations. When Melbourne finally does start playing well/winning/making finals the supporters will jump back on. The key thig is to make sure the club is in the right hands and the right culture is put in place for the next decade otherwise things will fall apart again quickly.

How many teams would realistically expect to win with a ruck/KPF combo of Spencer, Pedersen and Fitzpatrick? Most sides would struggle and that is without even talking about our mids who have improved on last year with the inclusions of Tyson, Vince & Cross but who still don't bat deep enough. I am as frustrated/dejected as anyone with our curren plight but if rather see Roos stick to his guns and set the standards for our team than swing the axe and play players in roles they have not trained all preseason for (such as Watts to FF etc). Let the team/players develop in the roles they've been given and focus on the things we are doing well (contested possessions) and things we can improve on through effort (tackles, 1%ers) rather than the things were not found at this stage (skill errors, turnovers) because those things will come after we get the structures/roles in place, get our key big men back and set the standards for our club.

I understand the OP's point but I think it's quite evident that the club has failed a talented list.

I am sure eventually some of the young folks will stay leading this club, but the difference with the Hawks and Cats is that it took one rebuild to get it right.

The club is essentially on its THIRD rebuild: Roos and Neeld are two different rebuilds, add in Bailey and well, it goes to show how terrible things have been.

It's not really the same as no club as ever been as bad as us, except maybe Fitzroy in the dark days. And they obviously didn't rebuild to win a flag.

I understand the OP's point but I think it's quite evident that the club has failed a talented list.

I am sure eventually some of the young folks will stay leading this club, but the difference with the Hawks and Cats is that it took one rebuild to get it right.

The club is essentially on its THIRD rebuild: Roos and Neeld are two different rebuilds, add in Bailey and well, it goes to show how terrible things have been.

I feel that the list has failed the club as much as the other way around.

This list is also over rated by many.

nothing instant or short term with 7 years of going backwards tgr

i'd agree with your sentiments if it was 2009

The other side of that particular coin is that in that period we have had 7 different coaches (appointed and caretaker), ensuring that no one coach has had the opportunity to build in the way that Thompson and Clarkson have. Club was influenced by supporter unrest as a result of supporters wanting instant success? Whatever the reason, it was the lack of rapid success that resulted in all of those changes (Neeld was perhaps the only one that was completely justified).

Yep. Absolutely.

People expressing their frustration at minimal signs of improved competitiveness at the start of yet another season is clearly a sign of the degenerate state of young people today.

I think you'll find most of the people expressing frustration are also of the 'stick it out' mentality. For that matter, Paul Roos expressed plenty of frustration, but I assume he's not an 'instant-noodle' type.

Yes, it was good that we were winning our share of the contested ball. It was only every other aspect of the game of football that we failed at against West Coast.

I'll go eat some noodles now, eh.

The other side of that particular coin is that in that period we have had 7 different coaches (appointed and caretaker), ensuring that no one coach has had the opportunity to build in the way that Thompson and Clarkson have. Club was influenced by supporter unrest as a result of supporters wanting instant success? Whatever the reason, it was the lack of rapid success that resulted in all of those changes (Neeld was perhaps the only one that was completely justified).

i don't remember those years as wanting instant success

i think we all (well most) knew (and accepted) it would be a gradual rebuild and we would lose a lot of games

what we couldn't accept was the going backwards which started and became obvious in the second half of year 186

We need to get players on the park, there will come a time where certain players will either have to get out on the park - or get off our list.

The reality of it is - from my perspective - the MFC is in VERY dire shape atm, I don't think Roos anticipated this, but he is absolutely the man for the job.

If MFC continue to lose games, not only will your instant noodles fans not jump on - but your current members will start to jump off.

MFC have been woeful for over 6 years, PJ is now starting to realize that he can't bank on members resigning anymore - they are jumping off.

The club owes the members and at present the club is not winning, the list is in bad shape and our big name players - they have no passion to play for MFC.

I do believe the job is tough,because Roos needs to find the balance of improving the list - all with an emphasis of youth. Neeld's money ball strategy was a short cut.

He was in a hurry to draft forwards and it is little surprise Dawes and Clark can't perform, the club didn't do it's homework, Dawes was done and Clark wanted to go home.

Now we can't get them on the park because Dawes is done and Clark wants to go home. Surprise surprise.

The other side of that particular coin is that in that period we have had 7 different coaches (appointed and caretaker), ensuring that no one coach has had the opportunity to build in the way that Thompson and Clarkson have. Club was influenced by supporter unrest as a result of supporters wanting instant success? Whatever the reason, it was the lack of rapid success that resulted in all of those changes (Neeld was perhaps the only one that was completely justified).

That was going to be part of my response. We have to unfortunately harshly judge what has transpired previously. We have had 7 years of misery but the worse part of that is since that time we haven't had building blocks to continue forward. We had some glimmer of development when Bailey come on the scene for two years and then went backwards and went even further backwards under Neeld. Roos is starting a rebuild from year one and ground zero. I think it is even worse than that as he has to get some mentally scarred footballer back to ground zero.

Yes, it was good that we were winning our share of the contested ball. It was only every other aspect of the game of football that we failed at against West Coast.

Disagree. I know we chipped it. I know we went sideways. But past thrashings would have seen contested possessions way down; tackles inferior (despite chasing butt all day); and inside 50s clearly smashed. The numbers aren't that bad; considering the centre clearance train-wreck in the first quarter and delivery to a decongested Eagles forward line.

More disposals; tackles; contested ball (the latter 2 obviously more important)

Inside 50's 39 to 53 in negative territory.

Edited April 2, 201411 yr by TGR

i don't remember those years as wanting instant success

i think we all (well most) knew (and accepted) it would be a gradual rebuild and we would lose a lot of games

what we couldn't accept was the going backwards which started and became obvious in the second half of year 186

I think even you would have to admit DC that Bailey was probably (at least in part) a victim of the incompetence of others... the axe had to fall, and unfortunately he was the most public facing figure at the club and the easiest to scapegoat.

I think even you would have to admit DC that Bailey was probably (at least in part) a victim of the incompetence of others... the axe had to fall, and unfortunately he was the most public facing figure at the club and the easiest to scapegoat.

dunno why you say even me, but yes bailey was definitely let down by others

whether he would have got the job done with more support of the proper kind and more resources we can only ponder

he made mistakes but i suspect at least some of them were foisted on him and he being inexperienced allowed himself to be railroaded at times

but we diverge, the only point i was trying to make was that i don't think most of us supporters were looking or expecting instant results over the last 7 years

dunno why you say even me, but yes bailey was definitely let down by others

whether he would have got the job done with more support of the proper kind and more resources we can only ponder

he made mistakes but i suspect at least some of them were foisted on him and he being inexperienced allowed himself to be railroaded at times

but we diverge, the only point i was trying to make was that i don't think most of us supporters were looking or expecting instant results over the last 7 years

The "even you" wasn't meant as a put down... it was just a response to the line about "since 186". Maybe we weren't all expecting instant results, but the fact that so many coaches were put to the sword in such a short time would indicate that many were (supporters and media).

The "even you" wasn't meant as a put down... it was just a response to the line about "since 186". Maybe we weren't all expecting instant results, but the fact that so many coaches were put to the sword in such a short time would indicate that many were (supporters and media).

well i think you conflated the number of coaches by quoting 7 coaches. yes, i know where you get the figure from but it is misleading imo

i also didn't say "since 186", i said "in the second half of year 186". the going backwards occurred before 186, with 186 being the watershed

, the only point i was trying to make was that i don't think most of us supporters were looking or expecting instant results over the last 7 years

There were blips of expectation when Neeld's demons beat the reigning premier in a NAB cup game. Similarly with the Richmond game 6 or so weeks ago.

I think most of us were excited when Voss was predicting us as the next super-power. In the days when we were salivating at the prospect of a bulked-up mature Morton etc...

Point is we were a 2-win 54% team in August 2013.

Now we are a 2-loss 46% team 2 games later in Mar 2014.

The latter sounds on par or equivalent, but I am happy about where we are considering injuries, in-game-injuries-versus-St.Kilda, our deplorable ruck situation, our contested ball, our tackling numbers etc; and the fact that Roos has been in the building for 5 minutes.

well i think you conflated the number of coaches by quoting 7 coaches. yes, i know where you get the figure from but it is misleading imo

i also didn't say "since 186", i said "in the second half of year 186". the going backwards occurred before 186, with 186 being the watershed

Careful Stuie starts shaking uncontrollably when the "186" combination is uttered....

There were blips of expectation when Neeld's demons beat the reigning premier in a NAB cup game. Similarly with the Richmond game 6 or so weeks ago.

I think most of us were excited when Voss was predicting us as the next super-power. In the days when we were salivating at the prospect of a bulked-up mature Morton etc...

Point is we were a 2-win 54% team in August 2013.

Now we are a 2-loss 46% team 2 games later in Mar 2014.

The latter sounds on par or equivalent, but I am happy about where we are considering injuries, in-game-injuries-versus-St.Kilda, our deplorable ruck situation, our contested ball, our tackling numbers etc; and the fact that Roos has been in the building for 5 minutes.

that's all very fine tgr but your original premise of instant microwave noodles was a bit hyperbolic

Careful Stuie starts shaking uncontrollably when the "186" combination is uttered....

Not an old HR Holden fan then I take it? ;-)

well i think you conflated the number of coaches by quoting 7 coaches. yes, i know where you get the figure from but it is misleading imo

i also didn't say "since 186", i said "in the second half of year 186". the going backwards occurred before 186, with 186 being the watershed

Point taken... apologies (but I did give the split in my earlier post) 186 was definitely the watershed, but who was the real villain in the piece?

Point taken... apologies (but I did give the split in my earlier post) 186 was definitely the watershed, but who was the real villain in the piece?

The architect..

Point taken... apologies (but I did give the split in my earlier post) 186 was definitely the watershed, but who was the real villain in the piece?

one day we may get the full story. but i don't think anyone will come out of it looking good