Saty can't give a three word analysis of each player because unlike Joeboy - HE WASN'T THERE

.

Edit spelling

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by angrydee

Everyone is getting a bit antsy.

Bring on Round 1, God knows we need it. This off season has been far too long. IMO!

My analysis about Grimes for all of those that thought he had a bad game, kicked clangers, or was far too "flakey".

Grimes: 91 percent efficient

120

Kicking the ball backwards and sideways most of the day is going to equate to a high efficiency is it not?

JC.. I'm not bagging Grimes here but there's a difference between hitting a free target when under extremely little pressure and trying to hit up a target under pressure and with metres gained.

Grimes was fine on the weekend (like most AFL players are) when he looked to switch or kick backwards to a free player. His trouble comes when looking for the pass up the field when there are not so many obvious options but there are still options. He doesn't have the confidence to go for them because he doesn't believe he can hit them.

The 'positive' from Grimes performance on the weekend was that there weren't as many mistakes made from him. When he is pressured, he worries and often makes the wrong decision by either hand-balling or kicking when he shouldn't have.

I don't think he necessarily played well. How does one determine 'playing well'? I think most seem to have different answers. But mine is definitely not looking at a stats sheet, seeing a player get it 20+ times at a high disposal efficiency and saying that player had a good game.

His game was fine.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by stevethemanjordan

Steveman I read once on here about confirmation bias theory. I wonder if that might apply a bit with your assessment of Grimes. He was one of our best players. Hitting short targets should not be underestimated. He nailed his unlike Tyson and Salem who both had some right clagers. But more significantly Grimes nailed some attacking kicks really well, one of which (a bullet into the forward fifty) set up a scoring shot. To my eye he seemed to have made some technical adjustments to his kicking action.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by binman

Kicking the ball backwards and sideways most of the day is going to equate to a high efficiency is it not?

Actually, what happened to that "play on when the ball is kicked backwards in the defensive half of the ground" rule that they had in NAB Cup games in the past? That was the one new rule that I thought would have been worthwhile introducing to the regular season, and it seems they've gone and shelved it.

Steveman I read once on here about confirmation bias theory. I wonder if that might apply a bit with your assessment of Grimes. He was one of our best players. Hitting short targets should not be underestimated. He nailed his unlike Tyson and Salem who both had some right clagers. But more significantly Grimes nailed some attacking kicks really well, one of which (a bullet into the forward fifty) set up a scoring shot. To my eye he seemed to have made some technical adjustments to his kicking action.

I've noticed at training that all the players seem to have been instructed to kick the ball with a perpendicular leg and face your teammate when short passing, rather than hooking your kick a la Luke Hodge. The benefit is that the margin of error is decreased, and less chance of shanking. The downside is that you get less power, hence it travels slower to your teammate. The other downside is that the kick is easier to smother, as it takes longer to get the ball to your boot. I question how this kicking technique will stand up under pressure.

To anyone who was there or watched on line ( I did neither ) how was Gawn?

It seems from comments or the lack of them that he was in the bottom 25%.

Appreciate your thoughts.

To anyone who was there or watched on line ( I did neither ) how was Gawn?

It seems from comments or the lack of them that he was in the bottom 25%.

Appreciate your thoughts.

Old Dee, why don't you watch the match using the links for each quarter on the MFC website (like l have done from Hong Kong)? After watching the replays, I did not agree that we were as "deplorable" as some posters have claimed in the second half. In fact, it was 14+ minutes into the third quarter before the Dogs scored their second goal and that was with a strong wind advantage. There were many positives to take out of last weekend's match and, to some extent, luck played a part in the Dogs closing the gap. We had some good passages of play and no one Melbourne player was massively inept.

Steveman I read once on here about confirmation bias theory. I wonder if that might apply a bit with your assessment of Grimes. He was one of our best players. Hitting short targets should not be underestimated. He nailed his unlike Tyson and Salem who both had some right clagers. But more significantly Grimes nailed some attacking kicks really well, one of which (a bullet into the forward fifty) set up a scoring shot. To my eye he seemed to have made some technical adjustments to his kicking action.

Perhaps.

I'm only commenting on what I saw. And I saw plenty of the possession hold up footy that we've been seeing over the past year that seems to be looked at in a really positive way here. Maybe it's because we actually have the ball in our hands for longer periods which is exciting for some because in the past it's been so hard for us simply get the ball.

I understand that it seems like we're still in a learning phase of what to be doing when we have the ball from the backhalf during a slow play build up but at the same time it's frustrating because there are some pretty senior statesmen down there who I expect to be looking to play in a more proactive way.

I agree the first half there were some really nice, quick and effective pieces of play from our backhalf to the forwardline. That was also to do with the doggies not being very accountable and we saw the difference in the second half when they did tighten up. We became stagnant again in the backhalf with not many willing to take the game on.

Garland and Grimes seem to always be 'preferring' to look sideways or backwards. Even when there are definite options upfield. The question then becomes why won't they honour those options?

Look at someone like McDonald, he is someone who absolutely seeks that target upfield. He has the confidence to take the opposition on and break a line with the intention of hitting the target upfield. He doesn't have the kicking precision of Vince or Watts but he seems to be more willing to attempt that attacking play when he needs to. They don't always come off, but at least you can see what he's thinking so it's not as frustrating.

As for Tyson and Salem and their clangers. Of course I notice them and all clangers are frustrating. But Tyson gives so much to our team with his clearance work, quick hands, contested ball winning, goal kicking etc. When players provide so much for the team, they can be excused for clangers. Salem as well, his stronger attributes outweigh his weaker ones and whilst he made some bad decisions on the weekend, he provides for the team.

Garland is the major worry for me atm and I won't be surprised at all if he doesn't make the team for round 1. Defensively, he hasn't been anywhere near it. His intensity is at an all time low and his kicking and decision making is well down.

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by stevethemanjordan

Thanks for that guys but how was Gawn?

Garland and Grimes seem to always be 'preferring' to look sideways or backwards. Even when there are definite options upfield. The question then becomes why won't they honour those options?

Then you look at someone like McDonald, and he is someone who absolutely seeks that target upfield. He has the confidence to take the opposition on and break a line with the intention of hitting the target upfield. He doesn't have the kicking precision of Vince or Watts but he seems to be more willing to attempt that attacking play when he needs to. They don't always come off, but at least you can see what he's thinking so it's not as frustrating.

I would be almost certain that different players are instructed to have different initial responses, whilst still looking to "play football". Grimes will definitely be instructed to look for the lateral options due to his lack of break away speed (Tom McDonald) or his precision kicking (Watts and Vince).

Grimes will look up the field to see if there is an overlap and loose man but will not be looking to pin point leads and I feel like this is something the team will understand, continuing the lead to create the space for the next option.

I do not even slightly get frustrated by mainting the football and moving it across to a player who is able to move the ball better as they are able to take advantage of the hard running that is necessary to break these lines. I get much more frustrated when we did try to move the football forward too quickly when nothing was on resulting in the inevitable turnover and opposition scoring. (The last quarter this seemed to happen for us, whilst we were beaten out of the midifield also, we needed to maintain possession of the ball and avoid turning it over which we struggled to do, thus the score ending up so close.)

Perhaps.

I'm only commenting on what I saw. And I saw plenty of the possession hold up footy that we've been seeing over the past year that seems to be looked at in a really positive way here. Maybe it's because we actually have the ball in our hands for longer periods which is exciting for some because in the past it's been so hard for us simply get the ball.

I understand that it seems like we're still in a learning phase of what to be doing when we have the ball from the backhalf during a slow play build up but at the same time it's frustrating because there are some pretty senior statesmen down there who I expect to be looking to play in a more proactive way.

I agree the first half there were some really nice, quick and effective pieces of play from our backhalf to the forwardline. That was also to do with the doggies not being very accountable and we saw the difference in the second half when they did tighten up. We became stagnant again in the backhalf with not many willing to take the game on.

Garland and Grimes seem to always be 'preferring' to look sideways or backwards. Even when there are definite options upfield. The question then becomes why won't they honour those options?

Look at someone like McDonald, he is someone who absolutely seeks that target upfield. He has the confidence to take the opposition on and break a line with the intention of hitting the target upfield. He doesn't have the kicking precision of Vince or Watts but he seems to be more willing to attempt that attacking play when he needs to. They don't always come off, but at least you can see what he's thinking so it's not as frustrating.

As for Tyson and Salem and their clangers. Of course I notice them and all clangers are frustrating. But Tyson gives so much to our team with his clearance work, quick hands, contested ball winning, goal kicking etc. When players provide so much for the team, they can be excused for clangers. Salem as well, his stronger attributes outweigh his weaker ones and whilst he made some bad decisions on the weekend, he provides for the team.

Garland is the major worry for me atm and I won't be surprised at all if he doesn't make the team for round 1. Defensively, he hasn't been anywhere near it. His intensity is at an all time low and his kicking and decision making is well down.

Bit harsh on Garland there Steve, he had a good season four years ago.

Saty can't give a three word analysis of each player because unlike Joeboy - HE WASN'T THERE

.

Edit spelling

No but I watched the stream, read on here, listened on SEN and then watched the replays, I am entitled to my opinion on joeboy's listing, I did state it used to be good reading, but he seems to have slipped into the habit of bagging the 'NQR' players, no matter how well they play or otherwise, so I stopped reading it

My three word analysis would be slightly different

Whole Team

First Half - played their role

Second Half - stayed in sheds

I am a fan of Joeboys post and accept them on face value understanding that they are opinion. they are a quick easy read that give you an immediate viewpoint of players performance.

my humble suggestion is that all posters should comment on other posters as if they were addressing the other person face to face. its just to easy and almost cowardly to throw mud around from behind a keyboard. so often posters get derailed due to bruised ego's and really what amounts to childish indignation. personal slanging matches are just tiresome and take away from the good information and opinions provided on this site.

Play the ball (the issue debated) and not the man

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Dinosaur Rover

Garland and Grimes seem to always be 'preferring' to look sideways or backwards. Even when there are definite options upfield. The question then becomes why won't they honour those options?

Watched the 2nd half replay this morning, and one of the highlights came from Ben Newton halfway through the 3rd quarter. Took a mark with 5 metres of space, and played on. Had pressure coming but had the confidence to drill a 30 metre pass into the middle, which broke open the play, and a goal resulted. Of late, I've rarely seen Garland or Grimes look to do something similar. If it's a coaching directive due to their limitations, then we can't afford both in the backline, because neither of them are lockdown backmen.

My preference is for Newton and Lumumba to rotate between halfback and on the ball. Along with Jetta and Salem, we'll start to create more goals from defence.

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by mo64

Bit harsh on Garland there Steve, he had a good season four years ago.

Garland will have a good season this year, despite being Demonland's new whipping boy. I'm not buying into the losing pace argument. He has all the attributes to be a valued contributor. He was down on confidence last season but that will come back quickly this year.

Bit harsh on Garland there Steve, he had a good season four years ago.

He had an excellent season two years ago. Apparently one poor season is enough to dismiss the bloke for good.

He had an excellent season two years ago. Apparently one poor season is enough to dismiss the bloke for good.

So how long do we persevere with him when there are other options?

It sh#ts me when numerous posters are questioning a player's value to the team, then the player in question is then categorised by some as a "whipping boy". What's the point of having a forum to discuss the merits of our team if you can't make criticisms of players?

Thanks for that guys but how was Gawn?

It's an odd thing to say about a behemoth but I didn't really notice him OD!

So how long do we persevere with him

Thought Colin played well on Saturday, particularly in the first half. Accordingly I find the proposition of "how long do we persevere with him" to make a false presumption.

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Baghdad Bob

Thanks for that guys but how was Gawn?

I'd give him a pass, but he certainly wasn't dominant. He took a few good grabs, held his own in the ruck and didn't have any of the shocking kicks we saw from him against Freo. Also came very close to a supergoal from the boundary but it was touched on the line. He had a very clear free kick denied to him while playing forward, the usual defenders trick of grabbing one of his arms and forcing him to go up one-handed. Apparently the umpires can't see that when it's done to a Melbourne player.

Speaking of umpires, they were disgraceful. The number of poor HTB calls made against us was insane, while we couldn't buy one against the doggies. Then there was the "holding" free against Dunn to set up a shot on goal for Grant, the above non-call for Gawn, a clear in the back that was instead called HTB (what a surprise), Jones being pinged for HTB when he was slammed from behind the moment he took possession, Viney being pinged when he never had possession and another who was tackled before he hit the ground and was pinged (can't remember who it was). Basically, Melbourne didn't get prior opportunity at all.

Thought Colin played well on Saturday, particularly in the first half. Accordingly I find the proposition of "how long do we persevere with him" to make a false presumption.

Like all our backmen in the 1st half, Garland was able to rack up easy possessions because there was little to no forward pressure by the opposition. As Stevetheman pointed out, he doesn't look to do anything creative once he gets the ball. Even at training, I haven't seen him take the game on, despite having acres of space and no pressure.

Watched the 2nd half again this morning, and Garland was bl##dy ordinary, as he was against Freo.

Garland isn't a great lockdown backman, and offers little on offence. IMO, it's time that we looked at other options.

Thought Colin played well on Saturday, particularly in the first half. Accordingly I find the proposition of "how long do we persevere with him" to make a false presumption.

I thought he looked slow of body and mind.

I know we're all frustrated with the second half of the game on the weekend, but I think we have to remember who and what we're dealing with.

a) A younger side that finished with four wins last year

b) Paul Roos who couldn't care less about whether we won or lost a pre-season game.

It seems to me like important players were taken out of the game for large parts of the second half. Roos would have been happy with the endeavour and performance in the opening half, and been happy to take the foot off the pedal and give some important players a rest.

Additionally, while we only won by 7, to get to a lead of 52 (when is the last time - pre-season or not - that we got that far in front of anyone?) would have been pretty pleasing. We controlled the game and utilised momentum for a half of football. Our ability to maintain that strange-hold over games will continue to build.

I know we're all frustrated with the second half of the game on the weekend, but I think we have to remember who and what we're dealing with.

a) A younger side that finished with four wins last year

b) Paul Roos who couldn't care less about whether we won or lost a pre-season game.

It seems to me like important players were taken out of the game for large parts of the second half. Roos would have been happy with the endeavour and performance in the opening half, and been happy to take the foot off the pedal and give some important players a rest.

Additionally, while we only won by 7, to get to a lead of 52 (when is the last time - pre-season or not - that we got that far in front of anyone?) would have been pretty pleasing. We controlled the game and utilised momentum for a half of football. Our ability to maintain that strange-hold over games will continue to build.

Not sure I agree with point (b) mikeod.

He will be well away of our financial position and the need to boost membership.

I doubt he is immune to that.