8 hours ago, dieter said:

 

And, why the hell is the MFC selling a home game to Etihad? Is it a contractual thing? Makes no sense.

 

 

We don't sell a game there, we are made to play there every year, due to the AFL contract with Etihad. 

21 hours ago, WAClark said:

It's the domino effect. 2 or 3 players can make the whole group look silly by not playing their role. Selection as well as overall effort played a part against the Saints.

This would suggest we were outperformed in key areas due to the wrong personnel. That's just not the case. The midfield, forward line and backline were all slow and flat bar 2 or 3 performers. They couldn't possibility have foreseen that. Our delivery forward was actually very good, evident in Hogan's 7, Watts' 2 and kicking 15 goals. Our inability to win the stoppages and our incoherent zoning cost us. That was a laziness thing. I don't see how anyone playing VFL could have come in and made much difference. We still would have lost. It's not like we were missing key players.

I think Roos is just shouldering more of the blame now because in the first 1.5 years he often said "them" and "they" and blamed the playing group too often. The buck ultimately stops with him but I don't think we lost on Saturday because of bad coaching or wrong selections.

Edited May 3, 20169 yr by praha

50 minutes ago, praha said:

This would suggest we were outperformed in key areas due to the wrong personnel. That's just not the case. The midfield, forward line and backline were all slow and flat bar 2 or 3 performers. They couldn't possibility have foreseen that. Our delivery forward was actually very good, evident in Hogan's 7, Watts' 2 and kicking 15 goals. Our inability to win the stoppages and our incoherent zoning cost us. That was a laziness thing. I don't see how anyone playing VFL could have come in and made much difference. We still would have lost. It's not like we were missing key players.

I think Roos is just shouldering more of the blame now because in the first 1.5 years he often said "them" and "they" and blamed the playing group too often. The buck ultimately stops with him but I don't think we lost on Saturday because of bad coaching or wrong selections.

How could they have not forseen that? Short break after a night game, they've dealt with that before, it's not an unknown circumstance. The Saints played the same day as us and made 3 changes, 2 of which tore us apart. How amateur do you have to be to not think we might need fresh legs?

As for stoppages, you don't think Oliver could have helped there? ANB and Stretch could have provided some run?

At the end of the game Roos spoke about how the coaches need to learn more about picking teams for different grounds, that pretty strongly indicates they mucked up selection.

 

8 hours ago, praha said:

This would suggest we were outperformed in key areas due to the wrong personnel. That's just not the case. The midfield, forward line and backline were all slow and flat bar 2 or 3 performers. They couldn't possibility have foreseen that. Our delivery forward was actually very good, evident in Hogan's 7, Watts' 2 and kicking 15 goals. Our inability to win the stoppages and our incoherent zoning cost us. That was a laziness thing. I don't see how anyone playing VFL could have come in and made much difference. We still would have lost. It's not like we were missing key players.

I think Roos is just shouldering more of the blame now because in the first 1.5 years he often said "them" and "they" and blamed the playing group too often. The buck ultimately stops with him but I don't think we lost on Saturday because of bad coaching or wrong selections.

I think there was a fair few on here who were able to foresee it. Of course it looks like they're all flat because they're shouldering the load for the 2 or 3 who didn't show up for whatever reason. 

On 5/1/2016 at 4:36 PM, The Song Formerly Known As said:

Just answers questions in a huge roundabout way, and spouts coaching philosophies. Blah blah bloody blah 

But this is exactly what he's here for in his third season. To take the flack for Goodwin as we put in place and test Goodwin's attacking philosophy. Wouldn't be surprised if they've decided to back the system in every time (making minimal moves - note), they'll see which players work their way through things in this system and which players drown. 

6 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

But this is exactly what he's here for in his third season. To take the flack for Goodwin as we put in place and test Goodwin's attacking philosophy. Wouldn't be surprised if they've decided to back the system in every time (making minimal moves - note), they'll see which players work their way through things in this system and which players drown. 

This is so underestimated. Nobody in the media questions Roos when he talks utter guff but I've always thought he is taking the heat for both the players and the rest of the coaching staff.

And I'm absolutely certain they are letting it roll this year and seeing what happens. As they get towards the end of the season, Goodwin will know who he wants to go with and who he doesn't. I predict that at least a couple of big names won't be in our Rounds 20-23 teams...

7 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

But this is exactly what he's here for in his third season. To take the flack for Goodwin as we put in place and test Goodwin's attacking philosophy. Wouldn't be surprised if they've decided to back the system in every time (making minimal moves - note), they'll see which players work their way through things in this system and which players drown. 

mate, he has done that since he bloody arrived at the Dees!

3 minutes ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

mate, he has done that since he bloody arrived at the Dees!

Is that a bad thing?

2 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Is that a bad thing?

in part know, in other parts yes. Sometimes it would be nic eif he was honest about our list, players etc. instead of falling back into philosophies about building football clubs, and educating youth etc, 

18 minutes ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

in part know, in other parts yes. Sometimes it would be nic eif he was honest about our list, players etc. instead of falling back into philosophies about building football clubs, and educating youth etc, 

I'm not sure. I think it's better this way rather than getting in a press conference and saying 'Gee, Dunny has no idea about where to stand in a zone, amirite?'.

I think he's been pretty clear on a few occasions (to the anger of a lot of people) about the precise state of the list. 

20 minutes ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

in part know, in other parts yes. Sometimes it would be nic eif he was honest about our list, players etc. instead of falling back into philosophies about building football clubs, and educating youth etc, 

Just as another example, remember how mental everybody went when they published an 'honest' appraisal of the Casey players each week? I know that was partly because only the Casey players got that type of review, but it would cause a lot of angst if Roos was publicly honest like that. You've got a mate who plays VFL I think - when you make it personal, imagine how he would react if the coach kept hanging it on him in public.

These guys are people too, and they have to interact with the coach on a daily basis. Being 'honest' for the sake of the members or, worse, the general public, would create a pretty toxic relationship with the players pretty quickly, I reckon.

On 5/1/2016 at 0:50 PM, mdemon said:

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, several players could have possibly been rested but as others have noted, bit hard to pick which ones (and also hard to justify changes to a winning team)

I agree it's hard for majority of supporters to determine who really needed a rest, but sure the fitness department would have a bit more data at their disposal, to have some sort of idea about players' thresholds, endurance, etc. Isn't that what they spend all pre-season assessing? 

Edited May 4, 20169 yr by nrc73
typo

22 hours ago, stuie said:

At the end of the game Roos spoke about how the coaches need to learn more about picking teams for different grounds, that pretty strongly indicates they mucked up selection.

I wonder if he was referring to himself or other supporting MFC coaches.

19 minutes ago, nrc73 said:

I wonder if he was referring to himself or other supporting MFC coaches.

Roos gets the final say doesn't he? He'd have to be included.

 

Just now, stuie said:

Roos gets the final say doesn't he? He'd have to be included.

 

Agree the buck stops at Roos. Intrigues me what the discussion was at selection committee. In the past Roos has taken personal ownership for a mistake. This time he indicated it was the mistake of the collective coaching group.

Just now, nrc73 said:

Agree the buck stops at Roos. Intrigues me what the discussion was at selection committee. In the past Roos has taken personal ownership for a mistake. This time he indicated it was the mistake of the collective coaching group.

Just found it bizarre that they seemingly worked out selection for Etihad last year and it worked, then they went against it this year, and after a short break.

 

1 hour ago, The Song Formerly Known As said:

mate, he has done that since he bloody arrived at the Dees!

He has, but I still reckon that's what he's doing this year.

20 minutes ago, stuie said:

Just found it bizarre that they seemingly worked out selection for Etihad last year and it worked, then they went against it this year, and after a short break.

 

Youre not alone

Selecting seemed "different' in the preseason 

Seemed more purposeful 

 

i.e   horses for courses

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Just found it bizarre that they seemingly worked out selection for Etihad last year and it worked, then they went against it this year, and after a short break.

 

Good point Stuie. It probably means there's a lot more going on that what we know about.

Roos loves his smoke and mirrors. 

13 minutes ago, Choke said:

Good point Stuie. It probably means there's a lot more going on that what we know about.

Roos loves his smoke and mirrors. 

Would have thought he'd love wins more....

 

4 hours ago, Choke said:

 It probably means there's a lot more going on that what we know about.

Or not.

12 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Or not.

But then there's no fun.

I prefer conjecture and conspiracy theories.

This week, Frost should be moved back (this should have happened three months ago) to play on Wright (Rising Star nomination coming his way), ANB should be in the team and Garland should still be at Casey.

I don't buy in to this "horses for courses" stuff.  North had a far taller team than the Dogs last Friday night, and they won the game.  This is the Dogs team that probably plays more games than any team at Etihad, especially to start this year in particular, so would know a bit about team selections.

Effort, attitude and ability will win more games than it will lose, regardless of where we play.  Finals teams generally bring all three each week.  We are in a situation where if we don't bring all three, we will get shown up (as we saw against Essendon and St Kilda).

34 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

I don't buy in to this "horses for courses" stuff.  North had a far taller team than the Dogs last Friday night, and they won the game.  This is the Dogs team that probably plays more games than any team at Etihad, especially to start this year in particular, so would know a bit about team selections.

Effort, attitude and ability will win more games than it will lose, regardless of where we play.  Finals teams generally bring all three each week.  We are in a situation where if we don't bring all three, we will get shown up (as we saw against Essendon and St Kilda).

I tend to think along the same lines.

Our strength is usually our clearance work and our contested marking. The thing is St Kilda more than matched us in the middle and then ran us off our legs after that. If we win that midfield battle, like we did early in the game, our tall forwards would have run amok, which they did early, and Hogan did all day anyway.

We should be a good enough side to back ourselves to win by playing to our strengths, and bringing that attitude you mentioned, which wasn't there on Saturday.