If it were an important game next week I'm sure Riewoldt could kick 5 goals and take 15 marks.

  On 30/07/2015 at 12:10, demoniac said:

I think some Dees fans have forgotten how bad we were when Roos took over.

I think haven't forgotten that we traded one painful loss in 2011 for 4 even more painful and frustrating years

The goalposts that people moved after the Geelong game is making the last month harder to swallow...

  On 30/07/2015 at 23:58, rpfc said:

The goalposts that people moved after the Geelong game is making the last month harder to swallow...

Is that such a bad thing though?

If Paul Roos is worth what he's (reportedly) being paid, surely, at some point, the fans have a right to demand better?

Last weekend's performance may not have been '186' bad, or even 'the first 3 rounds of 2013' bad, but it was still putrid.

To improve, we have to raise expectations. I don't think asking questions after the performances shown over the past month is asking too much. It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but why should Paul Roos be immune when so many other coaches are not?

  On 31/07/2015 at 01:30, Dr. Mubutu said:

...but why should Paul Roos be immune when so many other coaches are not?

For the reasons I outlined above.

It is no longer the coach, it is the players and the culture of the club. Changing coaches or putting pressure on the coach, will perpetuate this culture.

We are stable off field, in both administration and in footy department. Let those two teams do their thing before agitating for further change.

Historically, we know that constant chances at the MFC hasn't worked. Let's try something radical and back them in to sort the mess.

  On 31/07/2015 at 01:30, Dr. Mubutu said:

Is that such a bad thing though?

If Paul Roos is worth what he's (reportedly) being paid, surely, at some point, the fans have a right to demand better?

Last weekend's performance may not have been '186' bad, or even 'the first 3 rounds of 2013' bad, but it was still putrid.

To improve, we have to raise expectations. I don't think asking questions after the performances shown over the past month is asking too much. It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but why should Paul Roos be immune when so many other coaches are not?

We blew through expectations against Geelong - raised them through the stratosphere. And that is on Roos too.

I would hazard a guess that the view of the average MFC fan prior to that game would have been a ten goal loss down at Mordor being 'par' for this team.

And then that performance happened.

And we went from glorious enjoyment to cold, hard expectation lift very quickly.

And, again, that's fine, but don't forget that Geelong game happened and it happened under Roos' watch.

  On 31/07/2015 at 01:56, deanox said:

For the reasons I outlined above.

It is no longer the coach, it is the players and the culture of the club. Changing coaches or putting pressure on the coach, will perpetuate this culture.

We are stable off field, in both administration and in footy department. Let those two teams do their thing before agitating for further change.

Historically, we know that constant chances at the MFC hasn't worked. Let's try something radical and back them in to sort the mess.

How long have we heard this? How may players do we still have on the list since we heard this?

It is the coaches' job to make sure that the players are ready to play AFL football.

What I saw on Sunday makes me question that.

  On 31/07/2015 at 01:56, rpfc said:

We blew through expectations against Geelong - raised them through the stratosphere. And that is on Roos too.

I would hazard a guess that the view of the average MFC fan prior to that game would have been a ten goal loss down at Mordor being 'par' for this team.

And then that performance happened.

And we went from glorious enjoyment to cold, hard expectation lift very quickly.

And, again, that's fine, but don't forget that Geelong game happened and it happened under Roos' watch.

If you can honestly say that, barring the Geelong game, your expectation was for this side to lose by 6 goals to St Kilda, and see the slop that was served up the last three rounds, you're far more pessimistic than I.

Edit: Forgot the deplorable showing against Essendon*.

  On 30/07/2015 at 12:17, Lamashtu said:

Will be interesting to see how McCartin goes without Roo to take the best defender.

Still won't get best defender, Bruce will.

  On 31/07/2015 at 02:31, Dr. Mubutu said:

If you can honestly say that, barring the Geelong game, your expectation was for this side to lose by 6 goals to St Kilda, and see the slop that was served up the last two rounds, you're far more pessimistic than I.

I wouldn't be a disappointed or surprised if it wasn't for that game down at Mordor...

And when we lose well, people on here say that is a façade - it doesn't exist. If you lose, you lose. But I have argued that there is a difference between a loss like the one we had last week and the loss we had against Collingwood.

I think we would be better off extolling how we played more than just the results - because what Roos is trying to do is grind out wins rather than build a style of confident footy that the players and fans can embrace.

  On 31/07/2015 at 02:36, rpfc said:

I think we would be better off extolling how we played more than just the results - because what Roos is trying to do is grind out wins rather than build a style of confident footy that the players and fans can embrace.

I'd argue that if it is working, and the players actually looked like they'd been coached some skills, the players and fans would embrace the style of play. As it is, the team looks as unskilled and clueless as ever.

I fear that I am one of the supporters that Roos refers to when he says that fans think: 'Here we go again'. If only because I've been shown precious little to think the opposite.

  On 30/07/2015 at 02:03, old dee said:

There is one thing that Mr. Roos and company got right.

Clark.

Vince

Cross

  On 31/07/2015 at 02:28, Dr. Mubutu said:

How long have we heard this? How may players do we still have on the list since we heard this?

It is the coaches' job to make sure that the players are ready to play AFL football...

Firstly, most of them. Yeah we have brought a handful in from other clubs but Roos had only had one podcast season with the chance to turn the list over. So at the end of the day almost all players on the last have gone through the scarring of the neeld era including the instability.

Building a basic list that can compete at afl level takes 3-4 years when you can only being in a handful each year.

It is Roos' job to make sure the players are ready and he needs to be given time to do that job. Not 18 months. Of the players aren't up to it be will change them.

But if you don't believe Roos and Co should be given time, who should? Or do you expect a coach to come to Melbourne and make a difference in 18 months and have us playing finals? If so you are really over rating the playing list

  On 26/07/2015 at 08:07, Tony Tea said:

We were appalling flat track bullies under Bailey. Got utterly smashed by the slightest hint of pressure.

And what we handle pressure like seasoned professionals now Right? We have not improved under Roos!

  On 31/07/2015 at 02:54, Jaded said:

Vince

Cross

Jaded I have already said I was not suggesting that was the only thing or did you miss that?

  On 31/07/2015 at 03:39, deanox said:

Firstly, most of them. Yeah we have brought a handful in from other clubs but Roos had only had one podcast season with the chance to turn the list over. So at the end of the day almost all players on the last have gone through the scarring of the neeld era including the instability.

Building a basic list that can compete at afl level takes 3-4 years when you can only being in a handful each year.

It is Roos' job to make sure the players are ready and he needs to be given time to do that job. Not 18 months. Of the players aren't up to it be will change them.

But if you don't believe Roos and Co should be given time, who should? Or do you expect a coach to come to Melbourne and make a difference in 18 months and have us playing finals? If so you are really over rating the playing list

It was identified by quite a few on this site that it was a player/culture problem pre-Neeld. He was only given 18 months.

Roos has overseen 2 trading and drafting periods by this point. Trisul has pointed out earlier in this thread that 23 players have been delisted, traded or released in this time. That's at least half a list that was turned over. Surely we should be seeing more of a culture change?

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be given time. I'm just saying that we shouldn't blindly accept that it's definitely the answer given what we've seen over the past three weeks.

Surely 18 months of full-time football training (because it is, remember that Roos was appointed almost 23 months ago, for an original period of 24 months) would be enough to see skills improve more than has been on display in game situations to this point.

Again, I'm not saying that Roos isn't the answer. I just think that there should at least be some questions.

  On 31/07/2015 at 04:45, Dr. Mubutu said:

It was identified by quite a few on this site that it was a player/culture problem pre-Neeld. He was only given 18 months.

Roos has overseen 2 trading and drafting periods by this point. Trisul has pointed out earlier in this thread that 23 players have been delisted, traded or released in this time. That's at least half a list that was turned over. Surely we should be seeing more of a culture change?

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be given time. I'm just saying that we shouldn't blindly accept that it's definitely the answer given what we've seen over the past three weeks.

Surely 18 months of full-time football training (because it is, remember that Roos was appointed almost 23 months ago, for an original period of 24 months) would be enough to see skills improve more than has been on display in game situations to this point.

Again, I'm not saying that Roos isn't the answer. I just think that there should at least be some questions.

The problem is I think the questions that people are asking are often short sighted and when answered, the answers aren't considered acceptable to people who are demanding immediate on field results as the only proof of improvement.

23 player turn over means 23 new players who have never played together. It takes a number of yeasts for players to learn systems, to learn how each other play, to work together and trust each other.

23 player turn over in 2 years means it is likely we still have brought 10 players in who aren't good enough. You can't build a finals quality list in 4 years when you have next to no quality on the list to start with.

17 players on the last who are potentially scarred from previous administration plus are now trying to learn new systems.

A whole bunch of 18 yo draftees who are coming onto a list with no senior leaders on field to enhance their development.

You need to give the coaching administration 3 years to build the list and then when it is stable, more time to enable them to gel and play together.

  On 30/07/2015 at 23:58, rpfc said:

The goalposts that people moved after the Geelong game is making the last month harder to swallow...

I don't agree with this at all.

If you're trying to say that, if we hadn't beaten Geelong, the last three weeks would have been unsurprising, I don't agree - I wasn't surprised at it, given where we've come from.

As for the last three weeks only being disappointing because we beat Geelong, I can't agree with that either - the last three weeks have been appalling football that would be at a low, unacceptable level no matter what we'd achieved previously. We could have had just the GC, Richmond and WB wins and gone into these three weeks still thinking to ourselves that it's three bottom 6 clubs and three chances to put in decent, strong performances. The three weeks have been substandard in most KPIs, most other stats, and obviously results, and the Geelong game has nothing to do with that.

I think it's almost questionable the Geelong result would've occurred if the last 41 seconds of the Saints match had resulted in a win.

Teams respond to heartbreaking losses, but we haven't found a way to respond to wins.

  On 31/07/2015 at 09:48, deanox said:

The problem is I think the questions that people are asking are often short sighted and when answered, the answers aren't considered acceptable to people who are demanding immediate on field results as the only proof of improvement.

23 player turn over means 23 new players who have never played together. It takes a number of yeasts for players to learn systems, to learn how each other play, to work together and trust each other.

23 player turn over in 2 years means it is likely we still have brought 10 players in who aren't good enough. You can't build a finals quality list in 4 years when you have next to no quality on the list to start with.

17 players on the last who are potentially scarred from previous administration plus are now trying to learn new systems.

A whole bunch of 18 yo draftees who are coming onto a list with no senior leaders on field to enhance their development.

You need to give the coaching administration 3 years to build the list and then when it is stable, more time to enable them to gel and play together.

Doesn't mean the system's any good though. You can make all the excuses you want but no one's waiting 3 years unless there's clear improvement on the way. Struggling to score 60 points in each game and having players move the ball like basket cases doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the coaching.

  On 31/07/2015 at 15:19, Je Roos Salem said:

Doesn't mean the system's any good though. You can make all the excuses you want but no one's waiting 3 years unless there's clear improvement on the way. Struggling to score 60 points in each game and having players move the ball like basket cases doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the coaching.

I'm not making excuses.

I am saying that the on field performance is the last bit of "performance" and "improvement".

It is about putting all the off field stuff into place. Good quality coaching. A good training culture. Trust within the playing group. A game plan that all players know.

Once all those things happen, we'll start to see on field success.

Right now, none of us have any real measure to judge or rate the performance of the coaching panel.

Forget about the comparisons with the saints rebuild. The team which was closest to us in terms of bottoming out and rebuilding just comprehensively beat the Hawks.

If we were in the bottom half of the 8 to mid table ok, but we are exactly where we were when MFC and Richmond started out on their respective journeys to the top.

I know the answers why but it is a very sobering thought nonetheless.

Right now, we're roughly where the Saints were probably 2 years ago (going into the 2014 season).

Was interesting to hear the comments on SEN yesterday though about the frustration of MFC fans. More pressingly, the caller who was discussing Peter Jackson and the way he deals with people. Seemed quite scathing but well known amongst industry people about his less-than-charismatic approach to people management. Anyone know what they were getting at?

In reference to my post above there are a lot of board members and past administrators who should be quite embarrassed with their performance over the past decade in light of what's happened. I really would t want my name on that. In any measure, quite possibly he most inept off field performance in the history of the game surely.

9 years and counting. Looks to be another 2 to add to that.

  On 31/07/2015 at 02:28, Dr. Mubutu said:

It is the coaches' job to make sure that the players are ready to play AFL football.

There's a limit to what a coach can do if the players aren't up to it.

hmm, after that perhaps the serious question should be - will you stay around the club beyond 2016?