15 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

I love the way a Bugg has become our pest.

The surname is almost too good to be true, considering the type of game he loves playing.

4 hours ago, CityDee said:

King has a track record of running Roos down .  The suggestion that he hasn't achieved what he should have , has been overpaid and doesn't have the game style -goodwin will change everything crap.

if we had of won another 6-8 games over the last 2 seasons we wouldn't have the talent on our list that we have now and would be no closer to a flag.

Roos has had to reset the whole culture/setup at the club and nurse a broken group back to health we all know how bad it was.

Roos is all about creating an environment where everyone has input is on the same page empowered and responsible. The accusation that Goodwin will change everything is a contradiction on how things are at the club (a step back to the dark days if it was so)  and the gradual build and adding of layers each season. 

In my opinion Roos is confident that with a little luck we can slingshot this season after the slow build over the last 2 years.

King who I had previously admired has got this it wrong . It seem's he has an agenda , to create a story ?  petty jealousy? bad blood with Roosy? I dont know but I dislike his attempt to prove that there is conflict at the club.

Nice stuff City

3 hours ago, Glenn Molloy said:

Spot on City Dee.  I'm tired of the fact that every footy analyst praising Goodwin for our style of play sinks the boot into Roos at the same time.  Do people not remember how bad we were when Roos took over?  There is no way we could be playing this more attacking brand of footy without implementing key defensive structures, building training standards and a hardworking culture, and recruiting ball winners with grunt.  Who has been the one overseeing all that?   I have no doubt that Goodwin has had a big influence on our offensive style, but that doesn't mean that Roos isn't on the same page.  It's not like he's going to get back into the coaches box for the H&A and say "Hey guys, the NAB challenge style was good, but I'm a defensive coach and I want you to start chipping the ball backwards more".  Honestly, David King needs to get a grip.  He's so obsessed with sounding cutting edge on his analysis of playing style and being seen as straight talking that he just makes outlandish statements knowing that a few of them may be correct and we'll forget about all the ones that are wrong!!

 

Mooney is one commentator that gets Roosy's style and grand plan. Has said that defence is the hardest thing to teach a bunch of younger players but that it has to be taught if the group is to work as a complete defensive unit (forwards included) and cover for each other when things don't go their way. He believed this would have been the focus in the first year or so until it was drilled into them. Reckons most players who come into the AFL know how to run forward and attack but most are pretty poor at defending and it doesn't come naturally as it's not something they have trained for in their junior teams.

Basically this is what he believed Roos has been focusing on and fine tuning the last few years (with the resulting ugly results on the park and scoreboard) and that he has now flicked the switch, allowing the players some rope to run and carry and attack. For those who aren't already aware, Moons can be heard on 1116 SEN if interested (can't recall the exact day but pretty sure he does a short review of the weekends matches on Monday mornings around 10/11...maybe Tuesdays).

Roos, like most great leaders, has built a great team of coaches & assistants around him, getting the right people into the right jobs in the football department. They work as a team, which is far better for us than depending on one person, even one person as capable as Roos. Like all great leaders, Roos is aware that he's not the best person for everything that's needed for sustained success. 

If we get into the "it's Roos" or "it isn't Roos" argument, we miss the point. It's the team that Roos has built. Whatever Roos's capabilities as coach, it's his leadership capabilities that we have needed most. And part of those leadership capabilities is making sure that he can step out, when the time is right, without us missing a beat.

How long is it since you picked up both local newspapers and the lead story on the back page of each was a positive one about Melbourne?

6 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Healy normally [censored] all over us, but watching the replay last night, he was actually very complimentary at every possible opportunity. He actually sounded quite biased yesterday.

He said in the pre game that many rate St Kilda ahead of Melbourne....for which he disagreed. Was a pleasant surprise...

I'm surprised at some of the views that Goodwin is the man now. We have improved from the day Roos walked in the door, every single thing about the team is better. What has been frustrating is we haven't experienced a linear improvement, rather two steps forward, one step back over 24 months. This past month has been two steps forward by itself, for everyone's belief....players, coaches, staff, media, fans and opponents.

what I am surprised about is how we have become, seemingly over preseason a ferocious, tough, no excuses footy team. There simply aren't any soft blokes playing anymore, and more importantly we have a large group of youth, led by Viney who rate the rough stuff, and I'm certain compete in this at training, games and over a game of ping pong. I can't imagine a Ben Kenneddy or Clayton Oliver being able to hold game time if Viney, Jones and co thought they shirked the odd contest.no these blokes go full bore, and we are starting to add skills to this.

Best of all, a foundation build on hardness at the ball is sustainable long term, whether your game plan is likes the Swans, Cats or Hawks. The Dee's are coming people, look out.....

3 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

kilometres per hour

Hahahaha

post of 2016

30 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

How long is it since you picked up both local newspapers and the lead story on the back page of each was a positive one about Melbourne?

 

When I looked at the match report on the AFL site, I was quite surprised to see that they had such a low free kick count.  At the game, it seemed like there was a free against Melbourne every few minutes, so out of interest I decided to keep track when I watched the replay.  Then I thought that while I'm at it I should keep track of obvious frees they didn't pay.  Then I added the times Hogan was fouled specifically, and then because it's something I noted them doing, the throws.  I've just gotten to Oliver's first goal and while the frees are not too bad at 7-4 the Saints way, the interesting part is that I have 10 obvious frees missed.  Two of those were Hogan being interfered with in a marking contest, and two were blatant throws by St Kilda players.  I think this says a hell of a lot about the standard of the umpiring. 

Dunno why some people are writing off Omac and Wagner. Yeah, they were sloppy at times but the knew where the ball was and went in hard. Not all players adjust to the pace of AFL in their first couple of games. Give them 2 years. If the sloppiness is still there then we can say goodbye, but I think that they will become servicable players.

5 hours ago, dtrinh said:

Totally agree. From what Goody said in his post-match interview he talks about the game style as the way the 'coaching group' wants to play. This talk about not getting a consistent message when Roos takes over the box again during the home and away season is ridiculous. The coaching group develops the game plan and coaches to the game plan. It's not as if Roos takes the reigns and the whole message changes and we change the way we play. David King is way off when it comes to this. From the players feedback over the preseason they talk about how Goody is more hands on and has really brought the attacking side to the game plan. That's not because Goody is the only one that knows how to coach the offence, more so because that's probably what his job was during the preseason. Also helps with his development as the next senior coach.  

King played footy under Dennis Pagan, an old school authoritarian coach, who ran the show at North his way or the highway. Roos is consultative and content to develop his team of coaches and players, to the extent that he can bow out with the club continuing to grow.

Chalk and cheese. 

David King has no idea.

6 hours ago, PaulRB said:

David King has no idea.

David King went on record as saying that there was no way that Geelong could win the flag in 2011 around round 16 of that year. Now I get 'up hill battle' or 'cards stacked against them' or 'aging list will find it hard'. But definitive statements like that are the realm of fools.

I'm still waiting for him to say something smart to get a little bit of credibility back. Not holding my breath though.

Not sure if it has been mentioned but amid all of this talk about our your brigade that will lead us forward in:

Oliver 18, Stretch 19, Brayshaw 20, Petracca 20, Salem 20, Hogan 21, Viney 21, Kent 22, Tyson 22, McDonald 22

there is also a certain young key forward that went in the top 10 of last years draft that has barely got a mention or even a run in the NAB cup, I am glad that for once we aren't putting our hopes on the shoulders of a young kpp draftee and instead have the opinion of let him develop, and start to think of next year when hoges could have a new partner in crime. I am sure injury has played it's part but let's hope Weideman can develop and show his class at Casey ready for a big impact in the coming years.

Very exciting times ahead for the football club!

ok, 3/4 time and it's not as bad as I thought at the game.  Frees are even, there have been four obvious throws not called and I've only seen two really obvious fouls on Hogan. 

I do however have 22 obvious frees missed.  Obviously this one is going to be open to interpretation and I'm seeing more that should have been paid to Melbourne than the Saints, but I AM sticking to the really clear ones and ignoring any that would have been impossible to see or judge due to the number of players around, etc. 

 

Edit:

Full Time now.  Honestly, While I'm not at all impressed with the number of missed frees, the ones called were relatively even.  The Saints didn't throw the ball anywhere near as often as I thought they did.  Also of interest that we got three 50m penalties and goaled from them all. 

Edited March 14, 20169 yr by RalphiusMaximus

8 hours ago, picket fence said:

Who?? Past Tense player will not get a game unless team extremely depleated! That's assuming he actually gets on the park!  IMV  both Trengove and  Grimes, far too slow for the game now. Just look at how Slow Grimes was yesterday!!

Out with the Old, In with the New Guard! The rebuild is progressing beautifully!

Lol...at 24 Treners is old guard.

Can't wait to see the "I was wrong" post when he starts carving the game up.

6 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

David King went on record as saying that there was no way that Geelong could win the flag in 2011 around round 16 of that year. Now I get 'up hill battle' or 'cards stacked against them' or 'aging list will find it hard'. But definitive statements like that are the realm of fools.

I'm still waiting for him to say something smart to get a little bit of credibility back. Not holding my breath though.

He also made the great call the the Saints wouldn't win a game last year. This year it was GC would be lucky to win 4.

He got the Neeld call right and has been dining out on that for a while.

He's been smart to tag in on the Champion Data bandwagon and use them to pretend he is some kind of footy analysis guru.

End of the day, I really don't care what King says or thinks...

11 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

When I looked at the match report on the AFL site, I was quite surprised to see that they had such a low free kick count.  At the game, it seemed like there was a free against Melbourne every few minutes, so out of interest I decided to keep track when I watched the replay.  Then I thought that while I'm at it I should keep track of obvious frees they didn't pay.  Then I added the times Hogan was fouled specifically, and then because it's something I noted them doing, the throws.  I've just gotten to Oliver's first goal and while the frees are not too bad at 7-4 the Saints way, the interesting part is that I have 10 obvious frees missed.  Two of those were Hogan being interfered with in a marking contest, and two were blatant throws by St Kilda players.  I think this says a hell of a lot about the standard of the umpiring. 

Watched the replay twice, and the only time I noticed the umpiring was when Hogan stopped to remonstrate with one even though the ball was still in play.

They've been consistent with the new holding the ball  and deliberate out of bounds interpretations. The one exception was when Jack Steven placed the ball over the line like a rugby try, but wasn't pinged. The umpire could have easily been blindsided.

I haven't noticed the umpires in all 3 NAB Cup games, which is a good thing.

 

24 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Watched the replay twice, and the only time I noticed the umpiring was when Hogan stopped to remonstrate with one even though the ball was still in play.

They've been consistent with the new holding the ball  and deliberate out of bounds interpretations. The one exception was when Jack Steven placed the ball over the line like a rugby try, but wasn't pinged. The umpire could have easily been blindsided.

I haven't noticed the umpires in all 3 NAB Cup games, which is a good thing.

 

There were some interesting interpretations of "not 15" on Sunday

6 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

There were some interesting interpretations of "not 15" on Sunday

Agree with that. 

2 hours ago, Good Times Grimes said:

There were some interesting interpretations of "not 15" on Sunday

Some were before the ball was kicked!

On 3/14/2016 at 1:00 PM, mo64 said:

A lot of that's due to the high press being implemented by Goodwin. It doesn't allow the opposition backmen easy options further afield. On the flip side, the high press highlights the skill level of your backmen in one-on-one contests, zoning and when we've got the ball. In all 3 NAB cup games, Garland, O Mac and Wagner's poor skill levels and decision making have shown up badly. 

As an aside, apart from Sandy, the Fox commentators weren't that bad. They did mention that last year we turned the ball over deeper in defence than any other team. That should change with Goodwin's high press.

Why does the high press "highlights the skill level of your backmen in one-on-one contests, zoning and when we've got the ball."?

16 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

How long is it since you picked up both local newspapers and the lead story on the back page of each was a positive one about Melbourne?

 

Im going to guess not since the morning afte the Elimination final win in 2006 vs the Saints 

17 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Some were before the ball was kicked!

That struck me too. Well at least before it became clear how far the ball was going to travel and the only player in the direction of the kick was further than 15m away.  But then again, sometimes 15m was more like 25m in that game.  Did this happen in other NAB games?

To the cynical about the AFL (and who isn't) sounds like a new ploy by the AFL to make the game free flowing.  If the player marking it  can be easily tackled, call it a mark.  If he is in the clear, force him to play on.

Edited March 15, 20169 yr by sue

On 14 March 2016 at 0:57 PM, Redleg said:

We have a sensational development Coach, who will now have the time to properly develop players and add them to our production line. we are the new Melbourne Football Club.

I await the day when I see headlines that say " star wants to leave his club, to play with the perennial finalist, Melbourne".

 

On 14 March 2016 at 1:05 PM, Clint Bizkit said:

Most importantly, we have a sensational recruiting team.

Next year do we need to throw some of Roosy's wage at McCartney and Taylor to ensure they stay put.

12 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Why does the high press "highlights the skill level of your backmen in one-on-one contests, zoning and when we've got the ball."?

If we've got the ball in our forward half and there's a turnover, there's more space for the opposition to work with. We actually out scored the Saints from turnovers predominantly because of Garlett and Watts. Saints used a high press, and Garlett and Watts were able to get out the back and score. But when I watched the replay, I only care about how our backmen went with the high press.

Garland was guilty of mistakes with all three points above. Three led to goals and the other was a point. The obvious one was his kick across goal in the 1st. But also in the 1st, he was caught out of position by getting sucked into an area he shouldn't have been, resulting in 2 Saints players on their own. They missed the goal, but Garland was the chief culprit for poor zoning. And twice he had the opportunity to neutralise a on-on-one contest with his opponent and failed, which resulted in goals.

Against top teams that move the ball well, we could get caught out unless our backline improves.