The improvement this year is obvious

It's not though - last week, in isolation, was as bad as anything from last year.. it is more of an exception than a rule but there has still been 6-8 absolutely deplorable efforts like it, eg West Coast, Sydney and Collingwood matches

It's not though - last week, in isolation, was as bad as anything from last year.. it is more of an exception than a rule but there has still been 6-8 absolutely deplorable efforts like it, eg West Coast, Sydney and Collingwood matches

6-8 deplorable efforts... I don't know about that...

Also, if I can't isolate the Adelaide game as a sign of improvement on 2013, then surely isolating the Lions game is not right.

What has been the rule?

I would say - excellent defence, unenterprising attack, and an inability to win games that we have fought hard to be in a position to win.

I would say that is better than 'the rule' of 2013.

It's not though - last week, in isolation, was as bad as anything from last year.. it is more of an exception than a rule but there has still been 6-8 absolutely deplorable efforts like it, eg West Coast, Sydney and Collingwood matches

The improvement is clear - the play from last year was never going to be eliminated from last season by simply adding a few new players and a new game plan. The traits learned were always going to take time to get rid of. We have played some terrific footy this year on a regular basis and we've been in more games than we've been for 4 years. To say there is no obvious improvement is short sighted and merely a reflection of how we are feeling after Sunday's game.

Its not about draft or players ... its STYLE OF PLAY, Watch the hawks, swans, freo, etc. they play on, they move quickly. It's not chip, chip, static chip, kick backwards ... turnover.

We have to keep a foundation. Structure. Corridor footy. Chf (Hogan, Howe, Watts) to play through. Dawes and small fwd (Kent/Blease/ JKH) inside 50. I would rather play on and run and kick goals then sit on average of 6-7 goals a game.

MFC ...You are a fighter on the ropes with your guard up. Sooner or later, your gloves drop and whilst you last 7-8 rounds, you get worn down. Then bang bang and its over.

Its not about draft or players ... its STYLE OF PLAY, Watch the hawks, swans, freo, etc. they play on, they move quickly. It's not chip, chip, static chip, kick backwards ... turnover.

We have to keep a foundation. Structure. Corridor footy. Chf (Hogan, Howe, Watts) to play through. Dawes and small fwd (Kent/Blease/ JKH) inside 50. I would rather play on and run and kick goals then sit on average of 6-7 goals a game.

MFC ...You are a fighter on the ropes with your guard up. Sooner or later, your gloves drop and whilst you last 7-8 rounds, you get worn down. Then bang bang and its over.

the attacking side of the game will come, Roosy simply needed to sort out the defence, and it has improved out of sight, as we improve there won't be so much indecision and we will create far more clean scoring chances

How we managed to bugger up so many draft picks over the years, and then manage to let someone like Stef Martin go for, essentially, nothing - well, it simply beggars belief.

I absolutely loathed that game on Sunday. It was bloody appalling.

I think collectively Demonlanders suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and performances like the last one cause flashbacks to darker times. The saving grace is that the club is now in good hands and the right decisions will be made. The timing was good for Roos to announce the extension of his contract. It is obvious that significant list changes and development need to occur and that will take more than next years draft.

Players like Garland are the prime reason we are a shiite team. He should be in his prime. 26yo 112 gmes. Started out really well and we thought 'we have a player here'. And yet he has gone backwards in the past 3 yrs. Like he has had a footy lobotomy. Should be the marshall of the backline. Should be the player that the young guys look up to. She be a leader and a stalwart of the team.

Instead he is a half OK player that NEVER dominates, goes missing in action regularly, has spectacular brain fades. In a good side would probably be OK.

Rivers was a bit the same. Started great but was never a leader and was too easily coached out of a game. Poor disposal and a lot of average play in his last years.

Chip has headed that way since his AA year.

Jamar has had one year and gets toweled up by Martin after mouthing off about what he was gonna do to him

WTF has happened. It has happend to so many of our players in the past as well.

We never step up in line in the sand games. Never stand up when its counted. The number of times we have claimed to stand up and then fail miserably is pitiful.

To be fair to Col, he took the game on and showed great leadership last season. I haven't been impressed by his form this season, but I suspect it is taking him time to get used to the game plan and his lack of pre season might be a factor. I think he's quite an instinctive player. That's how he played last year. When you have a new game plan to follow, I suspect you could quite easily second guess your movement and your attack on the ball. Anyway, I think we have greater worries than Garland.

To be fair to Col, he took the game on and showed great leadership last season. I haven't been impressed by his form this season, but I suspect it is taking him time to get used to the game plan and his lack of pre season might be a factor. I think he's quite an instinctive player. That's how he played last year. When you have a new game plan to follow, I suspect you could quite easily second guess your movement and your attack on the ball. Anyway, I think we have greater worries than Garland.

I think he is still possibly our most versatile defender.

Has the height to spoil well as third man up but also has the agility to compete with the smaller forwards.

Don't think we have anybody else with that combination.

Colin Garland is a weird one for me. His 2012 was atrocious if you ask me, and so were his first three games of 2013 (culminating the the soul-destroying loss to Essendon in Round 3). After that, he played some of the best football I've seen from a Melbourne player in a very long time. After his injury and return this year, he has reverted to his 2012 form. Hopefully it's just a fitness thing though, because he truly was a terrible player in 2012.

Colin Garland is a weird one for me. His 2012 was atrocious if you ask me, and so were his first three games of 2013 (culminating the the soul-destroying loss to Essendon in Round 3). After that, he played some of the best football I've seen from a Melbourne player in a very long time. After his injury and return this year, he has reverted to his 2012 form. Hopefully it's just a fitness thing though, because he truly was a terrible player in 2012.

My issue with Garland isn't his ability, or that he is our worst player, it's that he doesn't show intensity, determination or ever stamp any type of physical authority on the game. He's a backman for God's sake, and he seems to think that it's a non-contact sport. If I was a forward and saw Colin walking over to pick me up I would rub my hands with glee.

The truth is...none of our defenders are intimidating to say the least

Don't understand all this 'he has to get used to the game plan etc.' For goodness sake, these guys have playing footy since they were in nappies, they should have a pretty good idea how to man up, intercept a pass, catch the blinking pill, handball, kick. It is hardly rocket science. I am not having a go at Garland either, the only guy who seems to 'get it' week in week out is N. Jones

For the record I am a huge Roos fan and I’m ecstatic he is at the helm of our famous club.

Something I find alarming: I am left questioning Paul’s motive for opening up old wounds in regards to the tanking saga. I had moved on, new era, new coach, new people in charge etc.. In one interview Paul alludes to recruiting over the preseason to strengthen the list and in another he states that the club is scared, poisoned and scarred. For a club who’s only selling point (aside from money) is come and be part of the resurgence re; Mitch Clark I don’t feel it is wise to publicly chastise the club like this. I feel this will only act to discourage potential quality not attract it.

Could it be Paul Roos is attempting to distance himself from the performance of the side? I remember during the reign of terror MN began to refer to the side as they instead of we. Should Paul Roos be held more accountable for this seasons result? I just struggle to see how bringing up this dark period will benefit anyone.

Yes and no. He shouldn't bring it up. No he shouldn't be held accountable. Our players were [censored], he made them better.

Where were you Bitty? I would have come over and have had a beer with yourself and Moonie.

I was about to deliver a putdown and say that I'm choosy about with whom I drink. However, having admitted to drinking with both Biffen and Moonie, such a claim would lack any credibility whatsoever.

I was about to deliver a putdown and say that I'm choosy about with whom I drink. However, having admitted to drinking with both Biffen and Moonie, such a claim would lack any credibility whatsoever.

Not really...You suggest 'choosy" means somewhat leaning towards meritorious qualities..It only means selective of a type. You are indeed choosy

Not really...You suggest 'choosy" means somewhat leaning towards meritorious qualities..It only means selective of a type. You are indeed choosy

It must be subconscious. I'll have to get back to Freud and ponder your comments. God help me if you are correct!

It must be subconscious. I'll have to get back to Freud and ponder your comments. God help me if you are correct!

according to SWMBO thats unlikley to happen

according to SWMBO thats unlikley to happen

I don't acknowledge that authority BB.

The truth is...none of our defenders are intimidating to say the least

At one point (in between trying to avoid BBOs wandering hands and guzzling watered down beer from plastic cups) I looked at our back six on the weekend. TMac, Turlich, Garland, Chip, Jetta and Dunn. While Jetta and Dunn are serviceable kicks, none of them could be considered close to elite disposal standard. And there's Grimes to come back in! No wonder why Jack Watts gets thrown down back... when he can get the ball, that is.

I don't think we have the real quality kickers in the backs at all. Every good team will work the ball by hand to their elite disposers who deliver it to the wing or centre square where it is promptly passed (not merely kicked) into their forward 50. We don't have that person in our backs so TMac, Terlich and in the past Frawley run their own ball out after they have passed it around to each other for a bit, while their opponents spread and cover the options, and then try to hit a target. Maybe with somebody who can actually pinpoint a kick we can get a aster more fluent drive from defence to attack.

But who would that person be?

I actually thought our back six were doing a fine job. But after reading these posts maybe i'm wrong.

It appears our current list is a basket case. Is there any hope?

I actually thought our back six were doing a fine job. But after reading these posts maybe i'm wrong.

It appears our current list is a basket case. Is there any hope?

I think they're defending well but not rebounding well.

They stop the score and clear it back out to a contest where we cause a stoppage which allows them to set back up for the next inside 50 from the clearance which they defend well, clear it back to a contest ...............

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by mrtwister

My issue with Garland isn't his ability, or that he is our worst player, it's that he doesn't show intensity, determination or ever stamp any type of physical authority on the game. He's a backman for God's sake, and he seems to think that it's a non-contact sport. If I was a forward and saw Colin walking over to pick me up I would rub my hands with glee.

Disagree. He showed intensity last year. He's struggled this season, I believe because he's unsure whether to back his instincts or simply play a role. He appears to attack the contest a lot more when he plays instinctively. Obviously. See ball, get ball.

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by AdamFarr