NAB Challenge Aftermath

[DeeSpencer 26,065]

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Watched a replay for a 2nd time, and agree that Grimes actually played ok. Despite being under pressure, the 2 OOFs were avoidable with greater awareness. I just don't know what position Grimes can play with our best 26 available. I don't want him down back. Here's not a clearance player to be a mid, and he's not skillful or quick enough to play wing or up forward.

I'm hoping that the intensity of our forwards was aided by Goodwin's forward and midfield structures. If you allow the opposition easy outlets from their backline, it's hard to apply pressure. In the 1st quarter we got caught out the back by Port because we were applying a high press. I'm ok with that structure, because it means that we have a greater intent to score. It fell down because our backs played poorly. 

I'm interested to see if we can replicate the forward pressure with restricted interchange.

 

I think he's right in the picture to play wing. Probably battling for 2 spots with Stretch, Lumumba and Matt Jones. In congestion he's rubbish, hence the out on the fulls and holding the ball. He just can't escape pressure at all. But his work rate still gives us something that we need and there's not a lot of alternatives. 

Polec had 14 touches, Ebert had 15, after a fast start opposed to Matt Jones from what I could tell, Toumpas finished with 17 touches. Grimes will do the work to restrict those players been used as outlets and his run should create space for others as well. 

[mo64 5,880]

4 hours ago, DeeZee said:

His intent was there and he chased very hard....but he definately looks harder at the contest this year.

Watts played well and took a ripper contested mark on the wing. But I don't think that this game demonstrated any additional hardness at the contest.

I was disappointed with a couple of marking efforts  near the goal square, when he had the perfect sit to take the grab on each occasion. He misjudged the 1st which went over his head, and didn't attack the ball hard enough at the 2nd. Kicking a couple of goals would have capped off a good game, and we need Watts to be a goal kicker.

[binman 43,693]

22 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Watts played well and took a ripper contested mark on the wing. But I don't think that this game demonstrated any additional hardness at the contest.

I was disappointed with a couple of marking efforts  near the goal square, when he had the perfect sit to take the grab on each occasion. He misjudged the 1st which went over his head, and didn't attack the ball hard enough at the 2nd. Kicking a couple of goals would have capped off a good game, and we need Watts to be a goal kicker.

The first of those i think was the one Kennedy kicked to him.  If that's the case i think you're being a bit tough on Watts. I know he put his hand up seemingly to apologise but it was a crap kick that went too long, giving Watts no chance.

The second one he did have a nice sit and it would have been great if he had plucked it as it was in the goal square and would have given him a gimme goal. But if it's the one i'm thinking off he attacked it ok, just didn't take it. 

[Pates 9,660]

So I'm not going to bother chasing up the replay but I did have a quick look at the highlights. 1st half a fair few of their goals seemed to come from lack of intensity at the contest; missed tackles, poor spoils, not chasing hard enough. On the flip side for the second if looked like quite a lot of our goals were created by forward pressure and following up the contest. 

This wasn't in the highlights but it sounds like Gawn had an absolute ripper of a game, he stays fit AA is a big chance for him. 

The last goal from the highlights was from Jeffy, but it was created by Vanders beating 3 opponents. This guy is one of the best bargain recruits we've ever managed to land, he stays fit I'm predicting top 5 in B&F. 

Winning wasn't essential, but it still tastes good. Let's get a winning mentality going here. Doggies killed us last year in the second game, this is a great test for us. 

[binman 43,693]

Speaking of highlights this is brilliant. All our goals in full, including build up. No Port rubbish. 

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,118]

5 hours ago, binman said:

Speaking of highlights this is brilliant. All our goals in full, including build up. No Port rubbish. 

 

Watched that last night with a glass or 2 of Red

excellent...

[Dees2014 2,377]

11 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Had a look at Qtr 1, 3 and 4 last night, we are  very harsh on our guys early in the praccy match fixtures. Grimes has been mentioned as one who was bad, 2 of his on the fulls were under some pressure and he did a couple of nice things to balance it out. Deep breath and enjoy the games for what they are, putting what has been learned into practice. 'We talkin bout practice man."

In saying that what an enjoyable site to see, the MFC players endeavouring to put in sustained pressure for a whole qtr, a while half of a game, and I'll be blowed pressure acts for the full game!!! if we can keep that type of pressure up, keep incrementally improving some of the delivery/reducing the brain frts then we go someway to winning 10 games.

Gawn is (no pun) just huge for us, he goes down and it becomes a lot harder to get first use of ball let alone his pressure releasing marks around the ground.

I would hate, HATE, to be a defensive player in our fwd 50. The skill level our of guys in there on the weekend was high but the pressure acts through the roof and Port players chit the bed. Again if this can continue season long we will see a large number of turn over goals starting from the fwd line rather than midfield or from defence.

Yes Cards, one of the things I really liked about the Grimes game is he constantly pumped the ball into the forward line at the top of the square. It resulted directly in two goals, one from Van, and the other from Pederson. Let's hope it continues, as there was not much consistency in that field apart from that. I think Grimes might be a real plus for us this year.

[binman 43,693]

In an otherwise good summary of the dees game by Ashley Browne i found this line interesting:

The Demons were missing only Nathan Jones and Bernie Vince from their best team and lost Angus Brayshaw to a knee injury in the opening 30 seconds, but on paper, Port appeared a class above.

I would have thought we at had at least 2 maybe 3 other missing from our best 22. Roos said just last week that Dawes is best 22, Lumumba is a lock to come back in when fit and despite not playing a game as yet i'd have Petracca is my best 22. And you'd also have to add Melksham even though he is out for the year. 

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-29/after-the-siren-nab-challenge-week-2

 

[rjay 25,061]

10 minutes ago, binman said:

In an otherwise good summary of the dees game by Ashley Browne i found this line interesting:

The Demons were missing only Nathan Jones and Bernie Vince from their best team and lost Angus Brayshaw to a knee injury in the opening 30 seconds, but on paper, Port appeared a class above.

I would have thought we at had at least 2 maybe 3 other missing from our best 22. Roos said just last week that Dawes is best 22, Lumumba is a lock to come back in when fit and despite not playing a game as yet i'd have Petracca is my best 22. And you'd also have to add Melksham even though he is out for the year. 

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-29/after-the-siren-nab-challenge-week-2

 

You see, the trouble is Ashley the game is never played on paper.

...and who's paper is it anyway?

[old dee 23,866]

7 minutes ago, binman said:

In an otherwise good summary of the dees game by Ashley Browne i found this line interesting:

The Demons were missing only Nathan Jones and Bernie Vince from their best team and lost Angus Brayshaw to a knee injury in the opening 30 seconds, but on paper, Port appeared a class above.

I would have thought we at had at least 2 maybe 3 other missing from our best 22. Roos said just last week that Dawes is best 22, Lumumba is a lock to come back in when fit and despite not playing a game as yet i'd have Petracca is my best 22. And you'd also have to add Melksham even though he is out for the year. 

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-29/after-the-siren-nab-challenge-week-2

 

I agree with Ashley Brown.

Dawes is not best 22 anymore and will only play a few game around the middle of the year if any.

The Prince is a long way from playing in the seniors and by the time he gets to that level of fitness he will IMO have trouble getting a spot.

Petracca is a kid who has not played a game.

Then as you say the Drug Cheat is not on our playing list till 2017 

Looks fairly accurate to me.

[binman 43,693]

13 minutes ago, old dee said:

I agree with Ashley Brown.

Dawes is not best 22 anymore and will only play a few game around the middle of the year if any.

The Prince is a long way from playing in the seniors and by the time he gets to that level of fitness he will IMO have trouble getting a spot.

Petracca is a kid who has not played a game.

Then as you say the Drug Cheat is not on our playing list till 2017 

Looks fairly accurate to me.

As i said our senior coach said a few days ago Dawes is best 22.  It is a moot point how long it is before Lumumba or Melksham plays they are both in our best 22 .

I agree it is harder to argue the trac is in our best 22 which is why i said in my best 22.

[old dee 23,866]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

As i said our senior coach said a few days ago Dawes is best 22.  It is a moot point how long it is before Lumumba or Melksham plays they are both in our best 22 .

I agree it is harder to argue the trac is in our best 22 which is why i said in my best 22.

We are going to disagree on this binman. 

I watched Pedersen on Saturday he played every bit as good as Old Iron Hands and did you see his mark in I think the last quarter that stuck like araldite. It would have bounced off Dawes hands and Port would probably have cleared the ball. But the main problem in Dawes being best 22 is he is constantly injured.

IMO we cannot consider him as a possible regular player this season.  If you cannot get on the park you are the 41st best player not the best 22.

 

 

[binman 43,693]

14 minutes ago, old dee said:

We are going to disagree on this binman. 

I watched Pedersen on Saturday he played every bit as good as Old Iron Hands and did you see his mark in I think the last quarter that stuck like araldite. It would have bounced off Dawes hands and Port would probably have cleared the ball. But the main problem in Dawes being best 22 is he is constantly injured.

IMO we cannot consider him as a possible regular player this season.  If you cannot get on the park you are the 41st best player not the best 22.

 

 

Fair enough. It is hard to see both Pederson and Dawes in the team and as you say Peders can clunk them. He is probably better as the second ruck as well.

[Deecisive 1,709]

A great second half. It was very encouraging to see the forward line pressure, this is something that we have sadly been missing in the past. Too often the ball would be kicked into our forward line and either end up with a score or bouncing back out. Saturday the guys put loads of pressure on port which resulted in turnovers and goals.  We need more of this type of pressure.

[Skuit 10,031]

Just re-watched the third quarter replay and it confirmed my on the ground impressions from a forward pocket vantage point – our forward structures and delivery i50 remained relatively poor. A lot of missed opportunities and we really should have kicked eight or even nine. The dominance was built on the back of forward defensive pressure and creative midfield movement at the clearances. In ways, this is especially pleasing.

[The team we love 416]

Having watched the game again tonight, I noticed in the last quarter our centre bounce players were regularly one or two of Bugg, Kennedy, Oliver, and Harmes. Even with our second string midfielders around the ball, we continued to beat them around the contest. 

Interestingly, VB Didn't appear to be on the ball for the whole of the last quarter, which puts into context how many possessions he found earlier  

Great to see from these new/young blokes. 

Edit - VB. Bloody auto correct 

Edited February 29, 2016 by The team we love

[Skuit 10,031]

Viney?

[The team we love 416]

9 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Viney?

Viney was in there most centre bounces, but I was listing our second tier. 

[Skuit 10,031]

18 minutes ago, The team we love said:

 

Interestingly, Didn't appear to be on the ball for the whole of the last quarter, which puts into context how many possessions he found earlier  

 

I meant this mystery line?

[The team we love 416]

Sorry, fixed it mate. 

[Skuit 10,031]

van-oh-you-didn't-Burg as he checksides from 45 out on the boundary . . .

[Deestar9 1,647]

Pederson gives his all but he is a dumb footballer.....not much footy nous.   Dawes any day for me.....may not be the best mark but great kick for goal & reads the play beautifully.......has had to hold our forward line together many times & I would love to see him play in a functioning forward line where he just plays his role.

[dazzledavey36 55,303]

7 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

Pederson gives his all but he is a dumb footballer.....not much footy nous.   Dawes any day for me.....may not be the best mark but great kick for goal & reads the play beautifully.......has had to hold our forward line together many times & I would love to see him play in a functioning forward line where he just plays his role.

Dawes?

Yeah nah.. hes finished

[DeeSpencer 26,065]

30 minutes ago, The team we love said:

Having watched the game again tonight, I noticed in the last quarter our centre bounce players were regularly one or two of Bugg, Kennedy, Oliver, and Harmes. Even with our second string midfielders around the ball, we continued to beat them around the contest. 

Interestingly, VB Didn't appear to be on the ball for the whole of the last quarter, which puts into context how many possessions he found earlier  

Great to see from these new/young blokes. 

Edit - VB. Bloody auto correct 

He's exciting as a midfielder but I think Vanders is better as a half forward at this stage and the team is much better having him there. I think he and Watts make a nice combination for the 3rd and 4th taller options. Watts brings the skills and poise and doesn't play to his height, Vanders brings the hammer and can hopefully play above his height. 

[DeeSpencer 26,065]

11 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

Pederson gives his all but he is a dumb footballer.....not much footy nous.   Dawes any day for me.....may not be the best mark but great kick for goal & reads the play beautifully.......has had to hold our forward line together many times & I would love to see him play in a functioning forward line where he just plays his role.

Dawes is a little smarter than Pedersen but he's far from a great reader of the play, he's not a good kick for goal at all and who knows what role he can play. Given he's not suited to being 2nd ruck and he won't be the focal point it's hard to say what role suits him. Anyway, we've been over this many times.

I will say that Pedersen looks fitter than he ever has been at this time of year. He seemed to compete ok in the ruck contests he was involved in. Took a couple of nice grabs and slotted the goals. And didn't stuff up much else (one bad inside 50 kick that turned a near certain goal in to a lot of work for Vanders). He's got the lead on Frost as the 2nd forward/ruck at this stage.