Some serious questions asked about Paul Roos ...

[Watts Jurrah Dunn? 735]

after 2013 - possibly the worst season of any team ever - the way was up. anyone would have gotten us to improve. from winning 2 to 4 to 6 is not much improvement

this year has been dissapointing, I refuse to get excited about only losing 16 games for the year. YAY we've improved!

I'm not excited by this so called 'improvement' either.

Firstly, any club that adds a 40+ goal a year forward to its side is always going to win an extra 2-3 matches. Hogan was the one positive legacy from the Neeld era and was a 'free hit' for Roos in 2015. The 2014 side + Hogan was always going to win a few more matches. So why hasn't the rest of the playing list improved?

Secondly, isn't this the first season where the AFL grouped teams into lots of 6 so that you play more games against similarly placed sides? So our draw for 2015 was more friendly than in 2014 and we've played more games against bottom 6 sides? Again, you'd expect an extra win or two if you are playing more games against bottom 6 sides?

I know that we have been smashed by injuries and ordinary sides can't afford to be regularly missing 4-6 best 22 players, but I would have expected to see more improvement from side coached by a bloke on $1.5m a year. Western Bulldogs seem to be getting the most out of no-namers like Jong, Hamling, Dickson, Redpath, Darley, Johannisen. Why is Bernie Vince the only Melbourne player that has been consistently better this year?

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

after 2013 - possibly the worst season of any team ever - the way was up. anyone would have gotten us to improve. from winning 2 to 4 to 6 is not much improvement

this year has been dissapointing, I refuse to get excited about only losing 16 games for the year. YAY we've improved!

This is true, but we were the equal worst team in the league last year...

This year we could well end up the 6th worst side which is a large improvement, whilst still not where we would like our team to be, it highlights the improvement that we have made.

Expectations drive opinions, if people expected the team to improve and play finals (unrealistically) then people would be disappointed.

My expectations of the season were roughly 6-7 wins, with a good amount of games into younger players and providing the first step for a launch into finals contention next year. I think this year has lived up to my expectations, so i am not pleasantly surprised but nor do i think the year is a disapointment.

[deanox 9,898]

In my view Roos was brought in to bring stability to the football department and to develop a culture in the footy department and playing group that week at us up for the long term.

That process was always going to take 3 years to establish the culture. Weer are on our way. Key resignings. The list is improving. In the meantime we are seeing some signs of improvement on field but not as much as some people have hoped. That will continue to improve as a) Viney, Brayshaw, Hogan etc play more games together b) we continue to draft/trade to improve our midfield c) we rid the list of players like Bail and Jones, who while they give their all, will never be quality AFL players and d) the playing list gets used to stability of footy dept and therfore message and game plan, learn the systems etc. Yes out match day coaching could improve, but that isn't the difference between finals or not.

At the start of next year, we are legitimately going to say "we are aiming for finals this year". Will we make it? Maybe. I expect we'll finish between 7-12. But when was the last time that we could say with honesty, that we were aiming for finals and had a realistic chance (no matter how small)?

[rpfc 28,262]

Match day coaching isn't the problem - the players cannot sustain a style of play that is bold, daring, and one of good execution.

I have argued that we still don't have the midfield that allows Jones and Vince to have down days, and that is true, but that doesn't excuse that first half or last quarter.

They are still so inert and reactive and passive. I don't believe it is past demons, it is present demons - the same demons that plague all bad teams - when things are not going well, you go into survival mode, the more players worried about themselves, the less you do as a team - if there are 36 blokes on the field and 9 of your blokes are more worried about 'their man' - then it becomes a simple maths equation not in our favour.

Roos has helped them immeasurably but he is struggling with maintaining their confidence and trust in themselves and their teammates and their gameplan.

We all hope that Goodwin can build on all of those gains and the improvement will be more marked next year and the years after.

[nrc73 77]

Who ever is calling it next year we need to change our game plan. Defensive skills are great, holding possession is great but when that makes you static against the newer frenetic offensive forward press game plan of the Dogs and other top sides, you need to change your style. The Dogs were frenetic, manic and aggressive, we were shell shocked, static and reactive, they ran forward in numbers, won possession, then spread in all directions, giving numerous options. What do we do? Take a mark, prop, look for an option, turn it over!

It is a lot to do with the game plan.

I watched the game against the Bullies with a lot more objectivity than I normally do. I'm sure I'll get shot down for this, but it wasn't the lack of effort that I really noticed - I think for the most part it was there. We're going from a team of no structure or clue, to a team that has a limited number of patterns & structures which are entirely predictable for any team that does a modicum of homework against us. Nate Jones is a very good player, but I'm not so sure he does the run and spread like Vince, Brayshaw (and to a lesser extent Garlett) have done around the centre this year.

And I agree about this stop and prop business. We've been doing it for 20 years and it's killed us the whole time. The other thing I noticed was the amount of shepherding the Bullies did for each other to usher the ball out into the wide open and the almost complete lack of it our players did in comparison. There's so little protecting of the space for team mates compared to the other successful teams. So frustrating to watch.

Almost like the players behave as robots, only following instructions to the letter and not taking it upon themselves to go 'right 4 goals to zip down during 1st quarter, make changes now or the game will be over'. Who was it not obvious to that the Bullies came out red hot?

[ManDee 7,124]

Says the bloke who will not take any further interest in the MFC until trade and draft periods.

Steve, you have to realise that half of what hogan_heroes says is bullshyte. The other half is dubious, a bit like me really.

[P-man 13,366]

Yes, an easier draw would suggest more wins against bottom 6 teams, and yet four of the six wins have come against Geelong, Collingwood, Richmond and the Dogs. All top 8 sides either this year or last year. If we had taken the Essendon win that was on a platter and snatched the first St Kilda win, we'd be on eight wins and looking down the barrel of nine. Most here thought 7-8 wins was the benchmark for this season. You can't then change the goalposts and dismiss the extra few wins as resulting from the addition of Hogan. Expectation will go up for 2016 and so it should, but it's a very long way back when you sink to Fitzroy levels.

Are we playing better footy than last season? I would have liked to have seen a more attacking and attractive brand this year but I'm impatient like most supporters. Certainly our best performances this year far exceeded our best from last year. Adelaide was probably the best win last season and that was a dogfight. Geelong was the best win this year in which they gave us an opening and we ran over them. Geelong in Geelong. Fanciful stuff two years ago. We no longer inevitably crumble when challenged and have been able to arrest momentum in games where previously we inevitably would have folded - see Geelong and Collngwood in particular. Starts and finishes are clearly still an issue, as is our kicking which to a large degree can only be addressed with a change in personnel. You simply can't be a top four side in the AFL if you can't consistently hit targets and that is where so much of our play is falling apart. The list requires another shake up or two, but the core is being assembled.

I don't think Vince is the only one to have a good year. Gawn has had a breakout season. Viney has improved and moved ahead of Cross in the pecking order of our midfield, McDonald still gives me chest pains with ball in hand but has been solid, Jetta has cemented his form from last year, and so many others have been hit with injury that it's difficult to make a fair assessment. I would also add that I truly believe the team has not been 100% fit and healthy the past couple of weeks. We're used to seeing drop offs but rarely do we see drop offs like what happened on the weekend. So I'm not letting that cloud my judgement too much. If you let the weekend's performance be the reflection of where we are at, then naturally there would be massive alarm bells. I don't think it's a true reflection.

If none of that sways you, simply be happy that we have McCartney in our ranks. He's the one who laid the foundations of the side that creamed us on Sunday.

Edited August 18, 2015 by P-man

[TGR 1,367]

I love Paul Roos, and will hate it when he goes in 1 year.

But, he did overestimate our capacity to rebound from ground zero ("I am not afraid of coaching this team (or words to that effect).....mid 2013 OTC).

He did overestimate the impact of defence in ultra modern football.

He did underestimate the impact of offence in ultra modern football.

Do the sums. Mick Malthouse went from the most sought-after coach in 2011/12 to yesterday's news in 3 years. The ultra-defensive mantra worked for him from 1984 to 2012.

The game has changed.

To Roos's defence he was left with a very average list; which many debate here. What is beyond debate, like climate change, is that he was left with a bunch of introverts that did not have pace and could not break lines. Lumumba and Garlett were needed squared. Kent, Petracca and Frost have been missed squared. In this circumstance, it is very hard for us to offend with speed, and defend against speed.

Chill out. Finals 2018, and we will win one or two.

Problem is that the game might change again due to Fitzpatrick and White-teeth McLaughlin changing rules for aesthetic reasons. Rotations to 60 will change the game again and stamina might be more important than speed.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Yes, an easier draw would suggest more wins against bottom 6 teams, and yet four of the six wins have come against Geelong, Collingwood, Richmond and the Dogs. All top 8 sides either this year or last year. If we had taken the Essendon win that was on a platter and snatched the first St Kilda win, we'd be on eight wins and looking down the barrel of nine. Most here thought 7-8 wins was the benchmark for this season. You can't then change the goalposts and dismiss the extra few wins being from the addition of Hogan. Expectation will go up for 2016 and so it should, but it's a very long way back when you sink to Fitzroy levels.

Are we playing better footy than last season? I would have liked to have seen a more attacking and attractive brand this year but I'm impatient like most supporters. Certainly our best performances this year far exceed our best from last year. Adelaide was probably the best win last season and that was a dogfight. Geelong was the best win this year in which they gave us an opening and we ran over them. Geelong in Geelong. Fanciful stuff two years ago. We no longer inevitably crumble when challenged and have been able to take arrest momentum in games where previously we inevitably would have folded - see Geelong and Collngwood in particular. Starts and finishes are clearly still an issue, as is our kicking which to a large degree that can only be addressed with a change in personnel. You simply can't be a top four side in the AFL if you can't consistently hit targets and that is where so much of our play is falling apart. The list requires another shake up or two, but the core is being assembled.

I don't think Vince is the only one to have a good year. Gawn has had a breakout season. Viney has improved and moved ahead of Cross in the pecking order of our midfield, McDonald still gives me chest pains with ball in hand but has been solid, Jetta has cemented his form from last year, and so many others have been hit with injury that it's difficult to make a fair assessment. I would also add that I truly believe the team has not been 100% fit and healthy the past couple of weeks. We're used to seeing drop offs but rarely do we see drop offs like what happened on the weekend. So I'm not letting that cloud my judgement too much. If you let the weekend's performance be the reflection of where we are at, then naturally there would be massive alarm bells. I don't think it's a true reflection.

If none of that sways you, simply be happy that we have McCartney in our ranks. He's the one who laid the foundations of the side that creamed us on Sunday.

[praha 11,236]

Not sure what you're hashtagging but if you're saying it's taken about 5 years to get back to where we were then yeah. I agree. This is an area that not only have we been poor in but consistently gone backwards, just another area that Roos has essentially had to build from the ground up.

What I mean by normalisation is that, you need to be able to differentiate between "improvement" and what is to be expected. Yeah, we should *expect* a minimum of 6 wins. That's like, a bare minimum of where you'd think this club would be at considering what we have brought it.

Our win/loss record merely reflects the natural progress of the team relative to the talent we have brought in. It's a stretch to suggest it's "improvement". I believe we're playing well, WELL below highest capacity capable of being reached by this squad, so yeah, everyone should be challenged and held to account for that. I don't know if that's Roos, the playing group, certain players. I mean, how many coaching careers can this playing group ruin?

I said at one point last year that Roos' game day coaching and style is at odds with the branding exercise Jackson is implementing to get the club stronger off the field. Basically you have a coach that is trying to polish a turd, and sitting behind the desk is the manager trying to sell the turd on the promise it'll be the best and cleanest turd ever when Roos is done with it. Granted Jackson would be in the same situation had it been any other coach, but sometimes it's like Roos is playing with the turd and smearing it all over his body, then turning to the camera and saying, "IT WASN'T ME!"

You have a pretty fragile club here that has stabilised in recent years but is still a far, far way off becoming sustainable. There must be a directive there to get the team playing attractive football. I can't believe that there isn't.

I don't see how trying to instil ultra-defensive disciplines is worthwhile when you can't even string together more than 2 hours of good football. We saw how damaging Neeld was. Maybe we just need to accept that Jones, Dunn, Garland, McDonald, the Melbourne "veterans" that really tend to shape the narrative around the club, are attackers, not defenders, be it attacking midfielders, attacking defenders, whatever.

I'm just starting to think that Roos' style here is futile. Our best football is when we actually playing attacking football. It's when we go into habits of becoming defeatist that we get super defensive and completely and utterly break down. I respect that defense wins flags, but I don't think Melbourne has the flexibility here to lose games by 100 points anymore.

I mean, we're going into a round against the bottom-placed side, and it's a must win. Anyone saying it won't be disastrous if we lose is truly delusional. Pre-season is every club's prime time to sell their product and you can't do that when you close the year out losing by 10 goals.

Roos needs a tangible product now. It's been 24 months now that he's been at the helm. I get that we're coming from a long way back, but it's not even that we lose. It's how we lose. Either a message isn't getting across, or the players just can't execute and are dumb. I REALLY hope it's the former because we can't afford to start ANOTHER rebuild.

[P-man 13,366]

Dude...chill out.

We'll beat Carlton. It's all good.

If we don't, I'll join the turd smearing party.

[chook fowler 19,444]

I think Viney is Jones most likely successor

[Chris 2,892]

What I mean by normalisation is that, you need to be able to differentiate between "improvement" and what is to be expected. Yeah, we should *expect* a minimum of 6 wins. That's like, a bare minimum of where you'd think this club would be at considering what we have brought it.

Our win/loss record merely reflects the natural progress of the team relative to the talent we have brought in. It's a stretch to suggest it's "improvement". I believe we're playing well, WELL below highest capacity capable of being reached by this squad, so yeah, everyone should be challenged and held to account for that. I don't know if that's Roos, the playing group, certain players. I mean, how many coaching careers can this playing group ruin?

I said at one point last year that Roos' game day coaching and style is at odds with the branding exercise Jackson is implementing to get the club stronger off the field. Basically you have a coach that is trying to polish a turd, and sitting behind the desk is the manager trying to sell the turd on the promise it'll be the best and cleanest turd ever when Roos is done with it. Granted Jackson would be in the same situation had it been any other coach, but sometimes it's like Roos is playing with the turd and smearing it all over his body, then turning to the camera and saying, "IT WASN'T ME!"

You have a pretty fragile club here that has stabilised in recent years but is still a far, far way off becoming sustainable. There must be a directive there to get the team playing attractive football. I can't believe that there isn't.

I don't see how trying to instil ultra-defensive disciplines is worthwhile when you can't even string together more than 2 hours of good football. We saw how damaging Neeld was. Maybe we just need to accept that Jones, Dunn, Garland, McDonald, the Melbourne "veterans" that really tend to shape the narrative around the club, are attackers, not defenders, be it attacking midfielders, attacking defenders, whatever.

I'm just starting to think that Roos' style here is futile. Our best football is when we actually playing attacking football. It's when we go into habits of becoming defeatist that we get super defensive and completely and utterly break down. I respect that defense wins flags, but I don't think Melbourne has the flexibility here to lose games by 100 points anymore.

I mean, we're going into a round against the bottom-placed side, and it's a must win. Anyone saying it won't be disastrous if we lose is truly delusional. Pre-season is every club's prime time to sell their product and you can't do that when you close the year out losing by 10 goals.

Roos needs a tangible product now. It's been 24 months now that he's been at the helm. I get that we're coming from a long way back, but it's not even that we lose. It's how we lose. Either a message isn't getting across, or the players just can't execute and are dumb. I REALLY hope it's the former because we can't afford to start ANOTHER rebuild.

The message is starting to get through though. You are so focused on the bad, which is admittedly very bad, that you have missed the good. Have a look at our wins and you will see good attractive attacking football, with a good defence to back it up. That is what Roos wants, that is what is coming, the problem at the moment in consistency, every club on the rise has gone through this issue, we will go through it too. The trick seems to be not getting stuck here for too long like the Tigers and Roos have.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Chris

[MadAsHell 4,212]

Below is an e-mail I sent a St Kilda supporting colleague of mine who's been having a go at me for several weeks now about Melbourne's lack of improvement under Roos. This is my response to those claims and anyothers out there:

Alright so you've been stirring the pot for the best part of the second half of this season now Nixon,

Every time there's a bad loss, which admittedly, there's been more then I'd like, all I hear is how big a fraud Paul Roos is and the lack of improvement or slow progress of that has been shown since he came in at the end of the 2013 season.

So it got me thinking to myself if there has been enough improvement when taking into account what he took over and how far back the team is coming from compared to any other team we've seen in the competition. So I decided to do some research last night to get an idea on how the team is tracking compared to other teams.

First I haven't included Gold Coast or GWS for obvious reasons, and comparing them to Fitzroy also isn't a proper indication, given what went on in their final years. So my first task outside those three teams was to find the last team to have a 2-20 or worse season with a percentage of 54.07% or worse.

Last team to go 2-20 in a year was Fremantle in 2001, however they had a much more respectable and competitive percentage of 72.02%, so they weren't coming back from as far as the rabble that was Melbourne 2013.

I then noticed that a team I'm not taking into consideration, Fitzroy had a more competitive 2nd last season (1995) then Melbourne did in 2013. The Lions went 2-20 with a percentage of 58.17%, so again this helps get an idea of where the Demons were at.

But finally my search came to an end when I came to the 1993 season that saw the Sydney Swans (mind you only a 20 game season) go 1-19. They had a more healthy percentage still of 63.32%, but given they had less wins, I decided this was the best team to compare Melbourne of 2013 to.

Now the man who was responsible for the Swans rebuild was the great Ron Barassi, arguably one of the 5 greatest coaches the game has ever known, so there were some interesting comparisons to make.

SYDNEY

1993, Barassi's 1st year go 1-19 @ 63.32%

1994, Barassi's 2nd year go 4-18 @ 78.07

(Percentage jump of about 15)

1995, Barssi's 3rd & final year go 8-14 @ 100.65%

(Arrival of Plugger, percentage jump of about 22, doubled wins)

MELBOURNE

2013 Year before Roos comes in go 2-20 @ 54.07%

2014 Roos 1st year go 4-18 @ 68.37%

(Percentage jump of about 14)

2015 Roos 2nd year currently 6-13 @ 76.40% - Games v Carlton & GWS in Melbourne to come.

(Arrival of Hogan, current percentage jump of about 8, potential double wins.)

Now I'm not saying that Roos will have Melbourne playing in a Grand Final next year to mirror Sydney of 1996, but the fact is no coach has tried to bring a team back from as far behind as Roos is with Melbourne for 20 years. And when you compare how Melbourne is tracking with Sydney of 20 years ago, they're going along reasonably well. The percentage jumps haven't been as high, but Melbourne's percentage was further back then Sydney's to begin with.

The main point being that to say another coach would be doing just as well as Roos is flawed, given the last coach to do something similar was Barassi. Sure it would be nice to be at a stage where we could coast along and underachieve like some other clubs have over the last 10 years when they should have been winning Grand Finals, but we're still getting back to a position to where we can even underachieve. The administration during the Bailey era and then the appointment of Neeld has cost this club a good 5 years +. We're only just getting back to where we were positioned probably about the end of the 2009, 2010 season.

While the win column keeps ticking up and the percentage keeps ticking up I'm satisfied with the improvement, despite the odd horror performance post the Darwin game as happens every year. But with a young midfield (Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Salem, Tyson, Neal-Bullen, Stretch) and spine (Hogan, Gawn, McDonald) at our disposal, I'm as optimistic as I've been since about 2004 that the future's looking alright . Just need some outside run!

Anyway that's where it's at for me. Everyone entitled to their opinion. But while the wins and percentage tick upwards, then the improvement's there. The goal for 2016 should be for finals. 10 wins as a minimum.

[jnrmac 20,055]

You are not looking at this as a complete picture. Last year we were purely focused on defence, we had no offence. This explains why we had less points scored against last year, and more points for this year. If you look a little deeper this also explains the other issues you and Praha have bought up.

If we play full defense we can stay in games, but we have no offence in order to win them. This is why we were closer in more games last year, we could stop them scoring but we couldn't score ourselves. This year we have tried to add the offence, if you watch you can see them try the fast free flowing rebounding game regularly (look at Salems goal against the dons last year as the first real evidence I saw of it), they just currently aren't very good at it and tend to turn it over, this leads to easier scoring for the opposition so we lose by more. There are two answers to to lose by less, focus purely on defence again or get better at offence, there is only one answer to winning more though and that is finding the balance between defence and offence, something we haven't done yet and something that will cause some pain while we work it out.

Praha keeps saying normalisation. It is great that we are now in the realm of normalisation, this is actually proof of us improving as we were in some other realm of absolute crap just over two years ago.

Yeah I am. Its not that hard. Roos makes it sound as if they are studying for a PHD. Its crap. Its football.

The Dogs have managed it in a fraction of the time we have, So have the Saints, The Dogs have such luminaries as:

Tom Cambell

Jack Redpath

Sam Darley

Jarryd Grant (who kicked 3 1st qtr goals FFS)

Shane Biggs

Joel Hamling

Caleb Daniel

To play the way we did, and have done in half our games this year is abysmal and should not be looked on as 'part of the learning curve' or 'Roos finding out who really wants to play for the MFC'. That is simply pathetic.

These are professionals. Some aren't very good mind you but most teams have NQR players.

Its our game plan and match day preparation that is frankly deficient. And that is the job of the coaching staff. They have a lot to answer for.

[jnrmac 20,055]

Match day coaching isn't the problem - the players cannot sustain a style of play that is bold, daring, and one of good execution.

I have argued that we still don't have the midfield that allows Jones and Vince to have down days, and that is true, but that doesn't excuse that first half or last quarter.

They are still so inert and reactive and passive. I don't believe it is past demons, it is present demons - the same demons that plague all bad teams - when things are not going well, you go into survival mode, the more players worried about themselves, the less you do as a team - if there are 36 blokes on the field and 9 of your blokes are more worried about 'their man' - then it becomes a simple maths equation not in our favour.

Roos has helped them immeasurably but he is struggling with maintaining their confidence and trust in themselves and their teammates and their gameplan.

We all hope that Goodwin can build on all of those gains and the improvement will be more marked next year and the years after.

It sure is when we get blown out of the water in the first qtr yet again.

[Chris 2,892]

Yeah I am. Its not that hard. Roos makes it sound as if they are studying for a PHD. Its crap. Its football.

The Dogs have managed it in a fraction of the time we have, So have the Saints, The Dogs have such luminaries as:

Tom Cambell

Jack Redpath

Sam Darley

Jarryd Grant (who kicked 3 1st qtr goals FFS)

Shane Biggs

Joel Hamling

Caleb Daniel

To play the way we did, and have done in half our games this year is abysmal and should not be looked on as 'part of the learning curve' or 'Roos finding out who really wants to play for the MFC'. That is simply pathetic.

These are professionals. Some aren't very good mind you but most teams have NQR players.

Its our game plan and match day preparation that is frankly deficient. And that is the job of the coaching staff. They have a lot to answer for.

The dogs and saints were never at anywhere near the depth we were at. It has taken Roos two years to get us back to just above their deepest point, and we have dramatically improved to get to that point!

You are missing any real perspective on where we are at and where we were at, and the realities of what is needed for the club to go forward, and the inevitable pains along the way.

[rpfc 28,262]

It sure is when we get blown out of the water in the first qtr yet again.

That's not 'match day coaching' - someone suggested having Goodwin match day coach would be best, but getting set ups right is nothing compared to preparing a lasting confidence in the players that they have a gameplan that can win and players to execute. And that stuff is reinforced during games but is prepared during the week and over summer.

[Redleg 40,834]

Match day coaching isn't the problem - the players cannot sustain a style of play that is bold, daring, and one of good execution.

We have a bold and daring, style of play game plan?

[Biffen 12,940]

I think Viney is Jones most likely successor

Jones has no apparent successor within the next 5 years.

He is a warrior king.

[praha 11,236]

Dude...chill out.

[chook fowler 19,444]

Jones has no apparent successor within the next 5 years.

He is a warrior king.

Agree it won't happen for a long time and nor should it.

[rpfc 28,262]

We have a bold and daring, style of play game plan?

At times - the game against Geelong doesn't happen in the vacuum of instruction - but games like the Bulldogs do.

Unfortunately, the players fall back into valuing their own disposal efficiency, and kick count, and the effect of 'their bloke' and whatever dare was there is replaced by passivity and inertia.

[bing181 9,193]

The Dogs have managed it in a fraction of the time we have, ... The Dogs have such luminaries as:

....

Selective.

Have a look at where those "luminaries" play.

Our best two young players are Hogan and, arguably Tom McD (back to his best on the weekend). Bookends. The Dogs' best young players are ALL midfielders (Stringer aside).

It starts and ends there, regardless of whoever else is in the team. Sure, the Dogs have a few fringe players, but in the engine room they have the talent that we don't. It makes all the difference.

[jnrmac 20,055]

Selective.

Have a look at where those "luminaries" play.

Our best two young players are Hogan and, arguably Tom McD (back to his best on the weekend). Bookends. The Dogs' best young players are ALL midfielders (Stringer aside).

It starts and ends there, regardless of whoever else is in the team. Sure, the Dogs have a few fringe players, but in the engine room they have the talent that we don't. It makes all the difference.

So that excuses a 137 point turnaround from 6 weeks ago does it?

You are delusional if you think that.