On 05/07/2015 at 01:12, ProDee said:

They've never had a rivalry. They've always liked each other. Naitanui was at Watts' family home after the draft in 2008 for a celebratory BBQ.

They do in the eyes of the footy world, though, which they are surely aware of.

How good was Watts though.

  On 04/07/2015 at 14:40, Grapeviney said:

Angus Brayshaw ‏@angusbrayshaw_ 20m

20 minutes ago

"X-Rays came back clear, a bit sore but hopefully ill be good for next week! thanks everyone for the well wishes, appreciate the support! "

So Glad to hear this! In my experience small vertebrae can become compressed/ bruised/ and at worse end fractured! in this kind of collision and take months to get over!

I still think we would be cautious and rest him next week!

  On 04/07/2015 at 12:24, big_red_fire_engine said:

We were outrun and outclassed which is really just where the two sides are at. Not helped by playing one too tall and using the sub so early.

Brayshaw played for 15 seconds and had one more tackle than Howe. Howe is a lazy disgrace of a footballer and I have no interest seeing him at Melbourne next year. Take whatever you can get.

Time to ship Bail and Jones out of the side. They just make too many errors to justify any role they play.

Agree, but you forgot to condemn the kick it high into the forward line policy, the biggest joke of all.

  On 05/07/2015 at 01:42, Moneider96 said:

How good was Watts though.

One of the few players on the list who can use the footy and set up goals.

  On 05/07/2015 at 00:03, Nasher said:

If last night's game is anything to go by, West Coast's delivery in to the forward line is second to none. Low, fast rockets all the time, impossible to defend I think. If I watched the game as a neutral and not a frustrated MFC supporter I'd have been very impressed.

Much easier to do when there is no pressure on the kicker.

We went in too tall and under skilled, they run the ball at will out of our forward line.

Watts has been pretty good since he dropped himself. If he can keep the improvement up then we may have a decent player on our hands, not first draft pick worthy but a decent player all the same.

  On 05/07/2015 at 02:16, The Song Formerly Known As said:

Watts has been pretty good since he dropped himself. If he can keep the improvement up then we may have a decent player on our hands, not first draft pick worthy but a decent player all the same.

I get annoyed when I think of what Watts might have been had Roos/McCarthy/Jackson been there when he came to the club...

  On 04/07/2015 at 23:50, ProDee said:

Simpson is getting the most out of a bog ordinary group. They're well drilled. And better than us - at the moment.

...

Absolutely right. A lot of ordinary players who look great because they are so well-drilled as a team.

Their whole game plan is designed to avoid one-on-one. They use space brilliantly, their transition play (from congestion into space) is brilliant. And it's all because they have predetermined patterns so they know where each other is going to run. So they don't have to look for one another, they just kick it to the predetermined place knowing that someone will be in the clear & running onto it. Makes it easier to nail passes to your forwards when you're in the clear perfectly balanced & under no pressure. Their predictability should make them easy to counter.

But we played right into their hands. We played exactly how they wanted us to play. Their spare defender (usually Masten - ordinary player one-on-one) could just overlap all game, completely unopposed. We stifled Geelong's game by keeping it contested as much as possible. We needed to do that to stop WCE. We made them look much better than they are.

  On 05/07/2015 at 01:42, Moneider96 said:

How good was Watts though.

When we are a better more complete team and dish out the pressure rather than taking it he is the type of player that will carve up the opposition for an easy kill with his coolness of disposal by foot and hand.

  On 05/07/2015 at 02:53, Akum said:

Absolutely right. A lot of ordinary players who look great because they are so well-drilled as a team.

Their whole game plan is designed to avoid one-on-one. They use space brilliantly, their transition play (from congestion into space) is brilliant. And it's all because they have predetermined patterns so they know where each other is going to run. So they don't have to look for one another, they just kick it to the predetermined place knowing that someone will be in the clear & running onto it. Makes it easier to nail passes to your forwards when you're in the clear perfectly balanced & under no pressure. Their predictability should make them easy to counter.

But we played right into their hands. We played exactly how they wanted us to play. Their spare defender (usually Masten - ordinary player one-on-one) could just overlap all game, completely unopposed. We stifled Geelong's game by keeping it contested as much as possible. We needed to do that to stop WCE. We made them look much better than they are.

Because of our line up we couldn't stifle them.

We don't have the flexibility with Dawes, Spencer, Hogan and Howe in the forward line particularly when only one of them is a AFL standard player at this time and he's only played 11 games. Then we have Matt Jones as a defensive forward and Garlett the other AFL player. 2 AFL players out of 6, they were always going to kill us.

We did get our fair share of inside 50's but they came back out with interest.

  On 05/07/2015 at 02:53, Akum said:

Absolutely right. A lot of ordinary players who look great because they are so well-drilled as a team.

Their whole game plan is designed to avoid one-on-one. They use space brilliantly, their transition play (from congestion into space) is brilliant. And it's all because they have predetermined patterns so they know where each other is going to run. So they don't have to look for one another, they just kick it to the predetermined place knowing that someone will be in the clear & running onto it. Makes it easier to nail passes to your forwards when you're in the clear perfectly balanced & under no pressure. Their predictability should make them easy to counter.

But we played right into their hands. We played exactly how they wanted us to play. Their spare defender (usually Masten - ordinary player one-on-one) could just overlap all game, completely unopposed. We stifled Geelong's game by keeping it contested as much as possible. We needed to do that to stop WCE. We made them look much better than they are.

Not really sure why we abandoned our first quarter game plan to move it side ways and lower our eyes to hit up one on ones inside forward 50.

Goodwin said we were gonna go longer at quarter time and in the end I think that cost us. We needed to hold our nerve and keep playing smart footy that we played during the first quarter. We managed a number of one on ones.

Ultimately, either way our poor skills and decision making would have brought unstuck, but at least we'd be sticking to a plan that if executed correctly would have beaten the Eagles.

I think we tried to minimise damage, but we predictably ran out of legs and this game plan readjustment backfired.

As rjay and others said all week, we probably went in too tall to this game.

  On 05/07/2015 at 03:12, rjay said:

Because of our line up we couldn't stifle them.

We don't have the flexibility with Dawes, Spencer, Hogan and Howe in the forward line particularly when only one of them is a AFL standard player at this time and he's only played 11 games. Then we have Matt Jones as a defensive forward and Garlett the other AFL player. 2 AFL players out of 6, they were always going to kill us.

We did get our fair share of inside 50's but they came back out with interest.

I guess I thought that if they're taking Gawn & Spencer in against NicNat & Sinclair, they'd either match them up or that we'd have one of them & Dawes on the bench the whole match (giving them all 66% game time, not unreasonable for Darwin. Or that Spencer would match up on Sinclair. I thought that surely there would be some thinking behind going tall. I should know better by now - there's NEVER any thinking, let alone any adjustments for the other team's strengths & weaknesses.

But when they had the spare defender & we didn't match them, it was pretty much game over. And will be every single game we let a team do this. Sure, Cross made a number of important interceptions, but we're never going to match any top side while we allow each of us to play an extra defender. Ironically, matching up their spare would have crowded our forward line & maybe not have allowed them to bring it out so easily, while creating more contests (& thus playing into our hands).

But going in so tall in the forward line, plus allowing a spare defender ... guess what's going to happen? Surprise surprise, they run it out of defence all game virtually unopposed.

  On 05/07/2015 at 02:07, Redleg said:

Agree, but you forgot to condemn the kick it high into the forward line policy, the biggest joke of all.

Sounded like based on Goodwin's quarter time comment that was what they were told to do.

First the 3 quarters the endeavour was really good, the ball movement was good but for me the plan of bombing the ball in long was clearly not working with the conditions and they should've realised and changed the plan. West Coast adapted quicker to the conditions, which really annoyed me given that we have played more games recently there.

For 54 point loss it wasn't that bad, we gave away some cheap goals and missed some sitters of marks and goals. Watts was close to our best for me, which is good to see although he still had a few of his usual "Watts moments".

Disappointing result, more so the margin than the loss itself. We need a big response next week against Essendon.

I gathered the stats, analysed them, had them peer reviewed, and presented them to the UN: since 1987 in Melbourne versus West Coast games, WC have had 52,542 free kicks to Melbourne's 23.

I'd say Roos is checking out all our tallls before deciding who plays next year

Losing Lumumba and Brayshaw left us too slow and too tall

The night was far from a disaster.. We're moving in the right direction

  On 05/07/2015 at 07:38, Roost It said:

I'd say Roos is checking out all our tallls before deciding who plays next year

Losing Lumumba and Brayshaw left us too slow and too tall

The night was far from a disaster.. We're moving in the right direction

Exactly right mate, I got the impression that Roosy was going to see if the double ruck could stretch the Eagles, if that didn't work pull the trigger on the sub early and pull one out and add a short in Neal-Bullen, when Gus went down in the first 15 seconds that was thrown to the wind.

  On 05/07/2015 at 05:28, big_red_fire_engine said:

Sounded like based on Goodwin's quarter time comment that was what they were told to do.

Didn't hear that, but whoever decided that was the way to go is a genius. Next game maybe we could take off our wingers, to allow more room for our half back flankers to run through.

  On 05/07/2015 at 01:42, Moneider96 said:

How good was Watts though.

Pretty good, because he won the ball and used it well unlike most of our side. I put him in my best 6.

  On 05/07/2015 at 08:10, Redleg said:

Didn't hear that, but whoever decided that was the way to go is a genius. Next game maybe we could take off our wingers, to allow more room for our half back flankers to run through.

They were trying to exploit our tall forwards. It was a flawed team selection.

As far as I am concerned, we are back at our 2010 standard.
When we win, we can look pretty impressive.
When we lose, we get opened up.
This year we have looked more impressive when we win but we looked more respectable last year when we lost (if that makes sense). I believe the reason for this is our inability still to get the balance between attack and defense right (which was basically where we were at in 2010).
The trick for us this time is to remain patient and ignore any media urgers who want a cheap headline (like they did in 2011).

  On 05/07/2015 at 11:41, Colin B. Flaubert said:

As far as I am concerned, we are back at our 2010 standard.

When we win, we can look pretty impressive.

When we lose, we get opened up.

This year we have looked more impressive when we win but we looked more respectable last year when we lost (if that makes sense). I believe the reason for this is our inability still to get the balance between attack and defense right (which was basically where we were at in 2010).

The trick for us this time is to remain patient and ignore any media urgers who want a cheap headline (like they did in 2011).

One of the differences between this side and the 2010 side is that our brand of football is one that will stand up in finals.

Our wins against WB and Geelong show you what we are aiming to do weekly - hard, contested football, strong clearance work, but an ability to move the ball with purpose. The fact we are capable of putting 100+ points on the board while focusing on stoppages and hard ball gets is a testament to that, and is much different to the free-wheeling MFC of 2010.

IMO it's not a 'balance' issue that is hurting us now, it's a consistency issue. We know how to combine defence and attack. When we win we're doing that perfectly. When we lose, it's because we have lapses or too many skill errors which hurt us.

Think we are a season or so and a good 4 to 5 additional quality mid fielders away from competing with the likes of those in the top 4 to 6 personally.

They had 4 more players with over 100 games and the balance of ours lower down were sub 50 gamers (10 v 4). The stats show that if you carry 8 or more 50 gamers into any match you have a very strong likelihood that you will lose more than you win (from memory it's around 70% or more loss rate).

We have 3 quality mids in Mr. Vince, the Jones boy and Viney but after that we drop away quickly down to the likes of Tyson and Crossy. Crossy a great trier and never say die player but not quite up to par with some other quality mid field line ups and a fair bit off the likes of the former 3 in terms of quality ball use & output. Rarely scores a goal either. We need more mids coming in who can hit the scoreboard and lead up targets more often and worry the opposition more so they don't just run off their man forward of the ball playing unaccountable football, with the confidence of knowing we are probably not going to hurt them going the other way should they turn it over.

Our forward line is still a mile off the top clubs as well. Again part of the solution here is to find some quality mids who can lower their eyes more often and hit targets like the Hulk. The Hulk should and will be a future game changer and wrecker of opponents, but only IF we find these players pronto! Brayshaw, Salem, Patracca and a few others (Vanders/Kent with JKH as an outsider for a small forward role) might already be knocking on the door in this regard. Let's hope so anyway. But the fruits of the Roos era and draft selections (including those still to come) are still another pre season or 2 away (yes we always seem to say this i realise but i can actually see something developing here unlike previous years).

In the end our ability to move up the ladder will come down to our capability of finding/developing the half a dozen or so players needed to provide the quality ball use and delivery coming inside 50 in order to hit up the likes of the Hulk, Jeffy, ANB and others as well as the scoreboard. Making our opponents more accountable and less likely to play and get away with the style of play we saw from the Eagles last night.

Part of the solution is effort such as tackling in general and pressure inside 50 etc. But in the end it will come down to the quality of our mid field and who we find/develop to fill the gaps in the next 2 years or so.

  On 05/07/2015 at 12:14, titan_uranus said:

One of the differences between this side and the 2010 side is that our brand of football is one that will stand up in finals.

Our wins against WB and Geelong show you what we are aiming to do weekly - hard, contested football, strong clearance work, but an ability to move the ball with purpose. The fact we are capable of putting 100+ points on the board while focusing on stoppages and hard ball gets is a testament to that, and is much different to the free-wheeling MFC of 2010.

IMO it's not a 'balance' issue that is hurting us now, it's a consistency issue. We know how to combine defence and attack. When we win we're doing that perfectly. When we lose, it's because we have lapses or too many skill errors which hurt us.

And the winner is TU. Spot on, mate.

  On 05/07/2015 at 12:41, Rusty Nails said:

Think we are a season or so and a good 4 to 5 additional quality mid fielders away from competing with the likes of those in the top 4 to 6 personally.

They had 4 more players with over 100 games and the balance of ours lower down were sub 50 gamers (10 v 4). The stats show that if you carry 8 or more 50 gamers into any match you have a very strong likelihood that you will lose more than you win (from memory it's around 70% or more loss rate).

We have 3 quality mids in Mr. Vince, the Jones boy and Viney but after that we drop away quickly down to the likes of Tyson and Crossy. Crossy a great trier and never say die player but not quite up to par with some other quality mid field line ups and a fair bit off the likes of the former 3 in terms of quality ball use & output. Rarely scores a goal either. We need more mids coming in who can hit the scoreboard and lead up targets more often and worry the opposition more so they don't just run off their man forward of the ball playing unaccountable football, with the confidence of knowing we are probably not going to hurt them going the other way should they turn it over.

Our forward line is still a mile off the top clubs as well. Again part of the solution here is to find some quality mids who can lower their eyes more often and hit targets like the Hulk. The Hulk should and will be a future game changer and wrecker of opponents, but only IF we find these players pronto! Brayshaw, Salem, Patracca and a few others (Vanders/Kent with JKH as an outsider for a small forward role) might already be knocking on the door in this regard. Let's hope so anyway. But the fruits of the Roos era and draft selections (including those still to come) are still another pre season or 2 away (yes we always seem to say this i realise but i can actually see something developing here unlike previous years).

In the end our ability to move up the ladder will come down to our capability of finding/developing the half a dozen or so players needed to provide the quality ball use and delivery coming inside 50 in order to hit up the likes of the Hulk, Jeffy, ANB and others as well as the scoreboard. Making our opponents more accountable and less likely to play and get away with the style of play we saw from the Eagles last night.

Part of the solution is effort such as tackling in general and pressure inside 50 etc. But in the end it will come down to the quality of our mid field and who we find/develop to fill the gaps in the next 2 years or so.

A bit unfair on Tyson and Cross' marking off half back is as good as a goal sometimes. However, other than those two points, I pretty much agree.