POST MATCH DISCUSSION - ROUND 2, 2015

[Nasher 33,607]

The big surprise there is that Bernie played only 52% of the game time...effectively we were a midfielder short for half the game! No wonder we looked slow around the stoppages.

That strongly suggests he should not have been selected or if that was the plan he should have been the sub and have a fit player out there.

I noticed that too. In addition with Dom at 71%, Newton at 58% and Brayshaw at 34%, you're almost two midfielders down. Obviously you'll always end up being "one down" due to the sub - that accounts for one of the two. In conjunction with other players like Garlett, Kent, Watts, Lumumba et al having high numbers, suggests to me that we always had at least one blow-in spending time in the middle instead of our actual midfielders. In addition to Jones having the worst game of his career, it all starts to make it not surprising that we struggled.

I could be reading too much in to these statistics, though. I've never looked at them this closely before so I'm not sure what "normal" numbers look like.

[Coq au vin 755]

Jamar needs to be replaced, we do not have a decent ruckman on our list, Jamar can get his hand to it, but doesn't do a lot with it.

Gawn I don't think is the answer, nor Fitzy. Spencil I don't think is the answer either.

We need to target a good ruck at years end.

Next we need a A grade midfielder. And I mean of the comp.

Jones is fantastic, but he ain't a star of the comp. Tyson also was immense last year but butchers the ball too often and does not like a tag, I hope he gets better but I still don't think he will be a star of the comp.

Brayshaw looks very good, but like Viney I think will be a hard nut, but not a star like Pendlebury, Judd etc.

Will Petracca be that player? Not sure, Salem... Maybe.

But I think a dominant ruck should be our priority.

We saw yesterday with Mumford that when a ruck dominates and there is a decent midfield under him you get first use and usually in a good area.

I agree with you about the ruck. Jamar won't be there next year and the others are not AFL level. We will need to do some trades and offer good money to get a top line ruckman.

[the pearl 36]

Watched the game again to see what went wrong. Our midfield fumbled and were extremely poor defensively - wherever they were on the ground. Above and beyond all of that, they were far too slow. They can't and will not cope with quick midfielders ever - and that is a clear fact. If they can get their hands on the ball first, then at least they can compete. Jones has won three Blueys for courage and a great work ethic. However, he would have to be the slowest triple B&F winner in AFL history and it shows how far back our midfield is coming from.

[Sir Why You Little 36,870]

Watched the game again to see what went wrong. Our midfield fumbled and were extremely poor defensively - wherever they were on the ground. Above and beyond all of that, they were far too slow. They can't and will not cope with quick midfielders ever - and that is a clear fact. If they can get their hands on the ball first, then at least they can compete. Jones has won three Blueys for courage and a great work ethic. However, he would have to be the slowest triple B&F winner in AFL history and it shows how far back our midfield is coming from.

Jonesy is an A Grade Blue Collar Worker. Have always thought it.

He gives his all 100% but he is not Gold. He needs more help in the middle.

A certain Draft a couple of years ago for pick 4 doesn't help the situation either.

[rjay 24,787]

Dawes for Frost made more sense but then who 2nd rucks? Or Frost to the backline and drop one of the back 6? (I'm talking about the selected team for yesterday - next week is another story)

There's a few reasons why we lost badly in the end ... the main reason was the clearances/midfield/Mumford. Our forward line can't be expected to function well if we can't get the ball in there enough times with quickness and efficiently. The backline ended up being under siege like we've seen before. They used the ball better when they had it too.

Jones & Tyson had 4 clearances between them when we ordinarily could have expected 12-14 clearances from them out of the 86 total clearances. Give us 10 more clearances and 10 less for them and the count is 46-40 in our favour (instead of 50-36 in their favour)

With those numbers we see a different type of outcome (not necessarily a win for us)

Edit: Mumford is a great example of how much influence an A grade ruckman can have - Jamar wasn't disgraced either - he just met his match yesterday (and some)

.

'Macca', I've said this on another thread but we do need to find a good forward/ruck in the next trade period. They are hard to come by though, ask Collingwood. Clark was the obvious one.

Of our current batch, Frost will be better as a back, Dawes can't ruck and I have serious doubts about his future as an AFL player, Fitz, Gawn and Spencer are not the answer.

With Jamar getting near the end we will need to look at our ruck as well. He was ok in the first q and a bit but I think we messed with the bear and big mummy didn't like it, that was the game changer.

[Axis of Bob 11,581]

It's a similar theme to the past (albeit not as dire) - we struggle in the midfield and we lack pace.

There's no surprise that we traded for H and Garlett, because they have pace. It's a problem that is made bigger when we start to lose the contested ball in the midfield because GWS were able to stream forward and we couldn't catch them. We've seen that we can play good football when we control the ball, but when we can't win the footy then we can struggle due to our lack to pace.

We've made an effort to improve the contested ball through our drafting (Brayshaw, Petracca, ANB etc), but the speed aspect is more difficult to fix.

[Macca 16,900]

'Macca', I've said this on another thread but we do need to find a good forward/ruck in the next trade period. They are hard to come by though, ask Collingwood. Clark was the obvious one.

Of our current batch, Frost will be better as a back, Dawes can't ruck and I have serious doubts about his future as an AFL player, Fitz, Gawn and Spencer are not the answer.

With Jamar getting near the end we will need to look at our ruck as well. He was ok in the first q and a bit but I think we messed with the bear and big mummy didn't like it, that was the game changer.

You're mostly right but I put Spencer ahead of Gawn mainly because he can at least use his height better in the ruck (none of them are much chop around the ground) Fitzy to the backline (for Casey) is a good move for his sake and he might surprise (as a backman) King is very young.

It should always be remembered that a ruckman nearly always needs to be the main man - opportunity is everything. For that reason, I don't like to rule a line through a back-up ruckman.

Same as I won't necessarily rule a line through an older 'good player' because they can sometimes or often have a 2nd wind and ... I often won't rule a line through a young player unless the match committee does.

Other players that have been in the system for 4-5+ years - different story. There's plenty of them playing in the 2's for us right now.

The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere.

Edit: added more to the Fitzy evaluation

Edited April 12, 2015 by Macca

[Nasher 33,607]

It's a similar theme to the past (albeit not as dire) - we struggle in the midfield and we lack pace.

There's no surprise that we traded for H and Garlett, because they have pace. It's a problem that is made bigger when we start to lose the contested ball in the midfield because GWS were able to stream forward and we couldn't catch them. We've seen that we can play good football when we control the ball, but when we can't win the footy then we can struggle due to our lack to pace.

We've made an effort to improve the contested ball through our drafting (Brayshaw, Petracca, ANB etc), but the speed aspect is more difficult to fix.

Genuine question AoB as I know you understand footy much better than I do: how much does pace really matter if your team never has the ball? You say our problem was exacerbated by us losing the contested ball, but I reckon that was the root cause of it all (not an exacerbation). When I think of teams that have jets running through the midfield such as Hawthorn, it works for them because they've got the ball in the first place. I can't think of many teams who routinely get pillaged in the contest, then make up for it by pace in the chase. As I said in earlier regarding tackles; once you're in chase mode you're pretty much stuffed regardless. Conversely, I can think of heaps of occasions where a team is pace-limited, but still gets on top through hard running and hard work - MFC vs GCS 2015 rings a bell.

Pace is way overrated, I reckon. Firstly having the ball, then moving it quickly is far important and relevant.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere.

That might be the go for us. There are plenty of ruckmen who have been given a second chance - Mumford, Jacobs, Martin etc who have flourished with further opportunities. Trading for one might be the way to go for us.

[rjay 24,787]

You're mostly right but I put Spencer ahead of Gawn mainly because he can at least use his height better in the ruck (none of them are much chop around the ground) Fitzy to the backline (for Casey) is a good move for his sake and he might surprise (as a backman) King is very young.

It should always be remembered that a ruckman nearly always needs to be the main man - opportunity is everything. For that reason, I don't like to rule a line through a back-up ruckman.

Same as I won't necessarily rule a line through an older 'good player' because they can sometimes or often have a 2nd wind and ... I often won't rule a line through a young player unless the match committee does.

Other players that have been in the system for 4-5+ years - different story. There's plenty of them playing in the 2's for us right now.

The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere.

Edit: added more to the Fitzy evaluation

Agree, the Fitzy move may be a career saver. Let's hope so.

...and we will have to trade for a good ruck option unless someone steps up which is not looking likely at the moment.

[titan_uranus 24,962]

You're mostly right but I put Spencer ahead of Gawn mainly because he can at least use his height better in the ruck (none of them are much chop around the ground) Fitzy to the backline (for Casey) is a good move for his sake and he might surprise (as a backman) King is very young.

It should always be remembered that a ruckman nearly always needs to be the main man - opportunity is everything. For that reason, I don't like to rule a line through a back-up ruckman.

Same as I won't necessarily rule a line through an older 'good player' because they can sometimes or often have a 2nd wind and ... I often won't rule a line through a young player unless the match committee does.

Other players that have been in the system for 4-5+ years - different story. There's plenty of them playing in the 2's for us right now.

The solution is that we might be able to trade for a decent ruckman who isn't getting an opportunity elsewhere.

Edit: added more to the Fitzy evaluation

It's each to their own at this point I think, given none of them are really pressing a case, but at the moment I rate Gawn above Spencer (and Fitzpatrick a very distant third).

If Fitzy in the backline changes his game then good for him; I don't think he'll be here next year (or whenever he's OOC) otherwise.

As for Spencer, I have never felt he has an innate sense of how to play football. He's worked on his aggression and bodywork, which is good, but whenever he plays the overriding feeling I get from watching him is that he's an athlete, not a footballer.

Conversely, whenever I see Gawn I see a footballer. IMO he's always been more willing, and able to get involved in general play, whether by linking up through the middle in chains from the back to the forward line, or as a marking forward (both in terms of leading, and contesting in packs). His ruckwork hasn't developed well enough though, his fitness is an issue, as is his consistency, so I certainly see the flaws and hence the issues the club has with its ruck stocks.

[Axis of Bob 11,581]

Genuine question AoB as I know you understand footy much better than I do: how much does pace really matter if your team never has the ball? You say our problem was exacerbated by us losing the contested ball, but I reckon that was the root cause of it all (not an exacerbation). When I think of teams that have jets running through the midfield such as Hawthorn, it works for them because they've got the ball in the first place. I can't think of many teams who routinely get pillaged in the contest, then make up for it by pace in the chase. As I said in earlier regarding tackles; once you're in chase mode you're pretty much stuffed regardless. Conversely, I can think of heaps of occasions where a team is pace-limited, but still gets on top through hard running and hard work - MFC vs GCS 2015 rings a bell.

Pace is way overrated, I reckon. Firstly having the ball, then moving it quickly is far important and relevant.

I don't know much about the first comment, as I spent most of the second half with my hands over my eyes!

Generally I think of the pace issue as being two fold:

1- It helps you to finish off the good play of others and make the most of good situations (GWS did this completely int he second half), and

2- It helps you recover from bad situations.

To that degree, I agree with you completely. Pace isn't the main issue, but it just gives us less margin for error when the other things go wrong. We didn't lose the game because of a lack of pace, but we were certainly scored against more heavily because of it.

The most important thing is winning the footy and we have drafted for that need specifically. We were very lucky that two big bodied midfielders were available at 2 and 3. If we kept winning the footy like we did in the first quarter then we'd have won the game. But if we were a faster team then it could have kept us in the game for longer until we started winning the ball again.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

We couldn't get our hands on the footy, that's where the problems started for me.

[Macca 16,900]

Agree, the Fitzy move may be a career saver. Let's hope so.

...and we will have to trade for a good ruck option unless someone steps up which is not looking likely at the moment.

Jamar may go on for another year regardless ... he's not the worst and in fact, he played very well last week.

Lowered his colours yesterday but many of us thought that might happen against Mumford - it's a pity our midfield didn't step it up to counter what happened in the ruck. As a collective, we were outplayed.

Next week we encounter Jacobs and another decent midfield on their patch. It's going to be quite a challenge but I don't mind that. Comfort zones are not what this team needs.

[jnrmac 20,040]

Jones must have had an issue, as he was hunched over often, while his opponent was running away with the ball.

His fumbling and lack of run was totally un Jones like. I wonder if he was sick.

I don't think he trained this week did he? Maybe he is carrying something or a virus etc,,,,

[Macca 16,900]

It's each to their own at this point I think, given none of them are really pressing a case, but at the moment I rate Gawn above Spencer (and Fitzpatrick a very distant third).

If Fitzy in the backline changes his game then good for him; I don't think he'll be here next year (or whenever he's OOC) otherwise.

As for Spencer, I have never felt he has an innate sense of how to play football. He's worked on his aggression and bodywork, which is good, but whenever he plays the overriding feeling I get from watching him is that he's an athlete, not a footballer.

Conversely, whenever I see Gawn I see a footballer. IMO he's always been more willing, and able to get involved in general play, whether by linking up through the middle in chains from the back to the forward line, or as a marking forward (both in terms of leading, and contesting in packs). His ruckwork hasn't developed well enough though, his fitness is an issue, as is his consistency, so I certainly see the flaws and hence the issues the club has with its ruck stocks.

Also, the ruck position is like no other - quite often potential ruckmen needs to be given the main role to see how good they are. Some respond and relish the role - others don't.

We've seen 2nd stringers go to other clubs and become very good 1st choice ruckmen. Opportunity is everything for a number of would-be ruckmen,

It should be noted that we had all 3 of White, Jolly & Jamar on our list at the same time (2 years) I'm not sure that too many were making too many predictions with regards to Jolly & Jamar back then. If so, it wouldn't have been very many.

[DemonOX 8,779]

Even in a Chanel 7 footy flash back it's showing Melb getting their arse kicked.

There is just no getting away from it!

[bing181 9,190]

Anyone who thinks that a few changes at the selection table would have made anything more than a cosmetic difference is kidding themselves.

If the players don't play, or play for a bit then rest on their laurels, the rest is just shuffling the deck chairs.

We were 6 goals up at one point. Team isn't that bad.

[chookrat 4,247]

Genuine question AoB as I know you understand footy much better than I do: how much does pace really matter if your team never has the ball? You say our problem was exacerbated by us losing the contested ball, but I reckon that was the root cause of it all (not an exacerbation). When I think of teams that have jets running through the midfield such as Hawthorn, it works for them because they've got the ball in the first place. I can't think of many teams who routinely get pillaged in the contest, then make up for it by pace in the chase. As I said in earlier regarding tackles; once you're in chase mode you're pretty much stuffed regardless. Conversely, I can think of heaps of occasions where a team is pace-limited, but still gets on top through hard running and hard work - MFC vs GCS 2015 rings a bell.

Pace is way overrated, I reckon. Firstly having the ball, then moving it quickly is far important and relevant.

The issue isn't about pace but rather space. We gave GWS too much and they had time to be damaging. Similarly we couldn't a) win contested ball b) find space and so struggled to wrestle back momentum.

[grazman 7,391]

Being a Canberran I went to the game yesterday. Without wanting to sound like a bitter old curmudgeon... (yesterday was also my 47th birthday so I realise the description probably fits), but... I mistakenly took a call from the club the day before and again tipped in for the raffle thing that I never get any joy from either so that just increased my sense of frustration.

Anyway some rather limited observations FWIW.

Pregame warm ups. Jeff Garlett and Dean Kent need to practice kicking sodas 30 meters out in the V. We do not do the basic things well. I'm prepared to cut Hogan some slack in his second game, but these two are experienced players and to miss what should be absolute gimmes in footy terms was simply not good enough. We go in 27 points up rather 42 points up - scoreboard pressure counts and I've no doubt at half time that the Giants think they're only playing the demons and about how they towelled us up both times last year and believe they're still in the contest and they're right.

Secondly it wasn't so much a lack of genuine pace (which has been addressed somewhat) it was more simply our lack of intent. Not once did a Melbourne player line up a GWS player and sit them on their arse (i'm not talking dirty tactics, just hard contested footy) they brushed through tackles and we simply failed to stand up to their pressure. They ran with impunity through the middle of the ground and were able to dob goals from the fifty because there was no point trying to hit up Cameron who was well and truly beaten by Tommy Mac.

Mumford is along with Sandi is competing for the best ruckman in the comp (probably better in terms of physical presence and importance to his side). I was really hoping when he left Geelong we'd get him. He is easily GWS's most important player. There is no way they would have won yesterday if he didn't play. Jamar was Jamar and he battled manfully, but he wasn't helped because our mids just couldn't get near the ball, he doesn't get a lot of possessions but outside of Dawes who really struggled to impose himself he's really our only physical presence on the ground. I also think it is why Spencil will be persisted with for a while as he is aggressive and physical.

We are a better football side than this time last year and substantially better than two years ago, but we are still no where near having the consistency required. We drop off the pace far too easily and we have too many players who are simply not hungry enough and drop their heads way too quickly. I think we will improve as the year goes on, but I'm envisaging as part of Roos/Goodwin's realistic appraisal of our list that there are probably 5-6 of our regular starting 22 last year that are playing their last season in Melbourne/Casey colours. As Roos said we need more talent and I'd expect a few to be offered up to get what we need. We need someone like a Josh Kennedy almost as much as we need a Dylan Shiel.

Tommy Mac would be one of the best backs going around ATM. He dominated yesterday and apart from Cameron's freakish goal and a couple of low worm burners onto his chest when we were being overrun beat him convincingly. If he continues in this vein he will be a genuine bona fide A grader, along with Salem who is well on track to be as well. I think Hogan is something special, his game for a second game player will probably be largely overlooked, but he is going to be our first genuinely elite player in quite a while and hopefully one of Brayshaw or Petracca (or both) can join him.

And for some perspective an arguably stronger Suns outfit than the one we played was beaten by the wooden spoon favourites at home, maybe we buttered them up for them, maybe...

Edited April 12, 2015 by grazman

[deanox 9,877]

I strongly disagree with the notion that "pace" is the issue. The slowest bunch of footballers in the world look "fast" when they run together and move the ball quick by hand and foot. It is nice to have some flashy "pace" to break the lines occasionally, but that wasn't the difference yesterday. They didn't beat us because they were faster to the ball than us due to natural speed. They didn't have spare men around the contest because they were faster than their demon opponents. They didn't have options moving forward because they used their blistering pace to break away. And we didn't struggle going forward because we couldn't get a break from their fleet footed defenders.

We did not compete.

It was lack of effort. It was lack of smarts. It was a lack of leadership (which may be explainable by a fly or similar affecting Jones and maybe others combined with our young team).

The "too tall not enough pace" argument can't be right either. Nasher nailed it. Does anyone really think the addition of JKH to that team means we won?

When they got on a roll (which all teams will at some point) we did nothing. We didn't lock the game down. We didn't work extra hard to cut off their options. We didn't man up tight. We coasted. We jogged around, let them continually hit up easy targets. As a result they kicked goal after goal. Yet still we didn't put in the extra effort to shut off their momentum and give us a chance to regain ascendency.

We waited for it to happen, instead of making it happen. But we missed all our shots at goal, even the free kicks, that would have given us a chance to reset.

They smashed us at contested, inside footy, and we didn't run hard enough (nothing to do with pace) to stop their outside game.

Given how much they smashed us outside, it isn't a surprise that the heads of our inside mids dropped. It was a vicious cycle where we all just gave up, and didn't put in the effort.

Really disappointing. These guys get paid a lot to do a job they love, and they perform like that?

[titan_uranus 24,962]

I strongly disagree with the notion that "pace" is the issue. The slowest bunch of footballers in the world look "fast" when they run together and move the ball quick by hand and foot. It is nice to have some flashy "pace" to break the lines occasionally, but that wasn't the difference yesterday. They didn't beat us because they were faster to the ball than us due to natural speed. They didn't have spare men around the contest because they were faster than their demon opponents. They didn't have options moving forward because they used their blistering pace to break away. And we didn't struggle going forward because we couldn't get a break from their fleet footed defenders.

We did not compete.

I think this is the general consensus - the slowness is a manifestation of the lack of effort (i.e. we didn't work hard so we looked tired, lazy and slow, pretty much because we were).

We got smashed in the clearances because we didn't work hard enough. They ran rampant through the middle because we didn't work hard enough. And we looked super slow because we didn't work hard enough.

[deanox 9,877]

I think this is the general consensus - the slowness is a manifestation of the lack of effort (i.e. we didn't work hard so we looked tired, lazy and slow, pretty much because we were).

We got smashed in the clearances because we didn't work hard enough. They ran rampant through the middle because we didn't work hard enough. And we looked super slow because we didn't work hard enough.

I'm not so sure it is the consensus.

I'm reading a lot of comments about how we are too slow to compete with fast teams, which I disagree with. Lot's of comments that we went too tall and top heavy and thus didn't have the run, which may be true only because we also had an under done Bernie Vince and possibly a sick captain.

The leg speed is not an issue at all. We don't need to draft players with pace. There was nothing wrong with the make up of the team yesterday (maybe we were a bit tall with respect to match ups, but if we put effort in we can make that work for us. We didn't put the effort in and it didn't work).

I am often apologetic for the team after performances. Over the years we have had some sub-standard performances but often that is because they are sub-standard players. I won't bag out the likes of Terlich, Matt Jones, Dan Nicholson etc. for mistakes. They usually put in effort. If they aren't good enough it isn't their fault. But yesterday, we had 22 players who are good enough. Maybe not good enough for a flag, but good enough to compete at AFL level. And those 22 players put so little effort in that the opposition over ran us by over 80 points in the second half.

[rpfc 28,211]

We couldn't get our hands on the footy, that's where the problems started for me.

I had a very brief chat to Vanders this morning and that was the sum of it according to the coaching staff. Went to sleep after half time, no answers, and here we are, once again, bemoaning a bereft midfield.

I think it is best sum up by the fact that some on here think that a 20 year old flank/mid being omitted was the major cause of the malaise...

Our midfield is not deep and not good - Tyson, Vince and Jones are our class in their prime - that's it.

Until they have genuine and consistent help (they get a little from Viney and Cross) we are going to be vulnerable to being smashed in the middle like that.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I had a very brief chat to Vanders this morning and that was the sum of it according to the coaching staff. Went to sleep after half time, no answers, and here we are, once again, bemoaning a bereft midfield.

I think it is best sum up by the fact that some on here think that a 20 year old flank/mid being omitted was the major cause of the malaise...

Our midfield is not deep and not good - Tyson, Vince and Jones are our class in their prime - that's it.

Until they have genuine and consistent help (they get a little from Viney and Cross) we are going to be vulnerable to being smashed in the middle like that.

Normally we are bemoaning lack of skills and decision making, but in that second half I didn't see any of that becuase we didn't have an opportunity to stuff it up