13 hours ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

He kicked his first set shot goal in I don't know how long and a Joe-the-goose. Apart from that he did bugger all. And when the game was in the balance in the last quarter, instead of passing to the top of the goal square to a free team mate, he decided to blast away and kick it on the full.

Dawes is a very limited player who is gifted games.

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

You're still away Zorky?! Long stretch mate, best wishes to ya!

I take a philosophical approach with Dawes. Would think he'd be 50/50 at best to be around next year, and even if he is I wouldn't expect him to play many games, but I'm big on picking a team on form and he played well enough last week to get another game this week IMO. The young guys just aren't quite ready. The plan with the Weed seems to give him a development year at VFL level, but I wouldn't mind seeing Hulett some time before the end of the season.

 

 

I hope he isn't there in 2017. If he is he better not be on more than a 12 month contract for not much moolah.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-07-28/next-five-weeks-crucial-for-club

Quote

 

Mathews said Melbourne’s clash against the Suns at the MCG on Sunday was critical.

“It’s a great opportunity to finish this season that we’ve got so much out of so far – and finish it well, and that starts this weekend against the Gold Coast,” he said.

“We look no further than that and we’re preparing well at the moment and it’s an opportunity for us.”

 

Suns by 10.

Goals.

Early this year we beat Brisbane by 10 goals and it was very underwhelming.  We never really got going that day.

I think a 10 goal win here will also feel like we've only done just enough.  I'm hoping for 100+.

21 hours ago, poita said:

On paper we should win this easily, but it all depends on which Melbourne turns up.

We score over 21 points a game (71) less with Dawes in the team than without him (92) , and over 31 points a game (102) less than with Pedersen in the team. We have to get our forward line setup right this week, and in my mind that means no Dawes.

 

I don't think these stats are at all fair. Assuming they are career stats (for the time both Dawes and Pedersen have been at Melbourne) it includes games played under a more defensive gameplan under Roos as well as games when Neeld was coach. Of course the average scores were going to be lower then. The fact that Dawes and Pedersen happened to play in many of those games was probably not the major reason the total scores were lower.

38 minutes ago, samcantstandya said:

I hope he isn't there in 2017. If he is he better not be on more than a 12 month contract for not much moolah.

Can't imagine he'd be on more than 12 months for minimum pay if he's around next year, surely.

 

21 hours ago, poita said:

On paper we should win this easily, but it all depends on which Melbourne turns up.

We score over 21 points a game (71) less with Dawes in the team than without him (92) , and over 31 points a game (102) less than with Pedersen in the team. We have to get our forward line setup right this week, and in my mind that means no Dawes.

 

Funny, can't remember the last time Pedersen kicked 5 goals...

 

 

9 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't think these stats are at all fair. Assuming they are career stats (for the time both Dawes and Pedersen have been at Melbourne) it includes games played under a more defensive gameplan under Roos as well as games when Neeld was coach. Of course the average scores were going to be lower then. The fact that Dawes and Pedersen happened to play in many of those games was probably not the major reason the total scores were lower.

They are stats from this year. Same game plan, same midfield feeding them. Last weekend was a prime example of how our forward line doesn't work with Dawes in the side. 67 inside 50s for 8 goals is appalling by any standards.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Funny, can't remember the last time Pedersen kicked 5 goals...

 

It is not how many goals Pedersen kicks versus how many Dawes kicks. It is how the forwards complement each other. If having Pedersen in the side brings out the best in Hogan and Watts, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter what Pedersen contributes. The fact that he takes more marks and kicks more goals than Dawes is a bonus.

1 minute ago, poita said:

 

They are stats from this year. Same game plan, same midfield feeding them. Last weekend was a prime example of how our forward line doesn't work with Dawes in the side. 67 inside 50s for 8 goals is appalling by any standards.

It is not how many goals Pedersen kicks versus how many Dawes kicks. It is how the forwards complement each other. If having Pedersen in the side brings out the best in Hogan and Watts, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter what Pedersen contributes. The fact that he takes more marks and kicks more goals than Dawes is a bonus.

In that case, your point is valid and I withdraw.

2 minutes ago, poita said:

 

They are stats from this year. Same game plan, same midfield feeding them. Last weekend was a prime example of how our forward line doesn't work with Dawes in the side. 67 inside 50s for 8 goals is appalling by any standards.

It is not how many goals Pedersen kicks versus how many Dawes kicks. It is how the forwards complement each other. If having Pedersen in the side brings out the best in Hogan and Watts, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter what Pedersen contributes. The fact that he takes more marks and kicks more goals than Dawes is a bonus.

Over their careers Dawes averages more goals and is 0.2 behind in average marks.

I think you might be overstating Pedersen's influence just a tad... Plus Hogan has talked about how much he likes playing with Dawes, he's never mentioned Pedersen.

They really do not differ in influence, so a bit silly to suggest we're 5 goals a game better off with Pedersen.

 

Geez, there is some confidence in this thread!

Not saying we won't win but we have to be careful down back.

Sam Day, Tom Lynch and Peter Wright are in great form.

 

17 minutes ago, poita said:

 

They are stats from this year. Same game plan, same midfield feeding them. Last weekend was a prime example of how our forward line doesn't work with Dawes in the side. 67 inside 50s for 8 goals is appalling by any standards.

It is not how many goals Pedersen kicks versus how many Dawes kicks. It is how the forwards complement each other. If having Pedersen in the side brings out the best in Hogan and Watts, which I believe it does, then it doesn't matter what Pedersen contributes. The fact that he takes more marks and kicks more goals than Dawes is a bonus.

Also, this is shallow analysis. Let's talk about the opposition.

Pedo games:

GWS (injury depleted)
Essendon (want to talk about that result?)
Collingwood (when they were terrible)
Richmond (who are terrible)
St Kilda (high score, but we lost by 6 goals)
Gold Coast (who were at their lowest)
Bulldogs (high score, but we lost by 5 goals)

Dawes games:

Hawthorn (reigning premiers)
Collingwood (we won by 8 goals, more than when we played them with Pedo)
Sydney (horrible conditions against a top 4 team at their ground)
Adelaide (top 4 when we played them)
West Coast (5th placed team at their home ground)

This is why context is important with stats.

 

 

#dawesmyths

Visiting Demonland sometimes is like watching an episode of Home Away or Neighbours - every small act from a MFC player or coach causes rage, swooning, relationship breakdown, rolling eyes, tantrums, and posturing. 

I just dont see Dawes or OMac as our biggest problems. Our turnovers down back contribute to our losses, yes, but when we lose games it is usually our defensive spread and/or the outside pace of our opposition which kill us. Maybe Dunn, Grimes and Garland are given little or no game time because their defensive spread is poor? Maybe Oliver, Hulet and others younger players' fitness is still developing and by the last quarter they would not be able to spread defensively because of exhaustion? 

The danger with Gold Coast is not the quality of their midfield - it is whether our midfield will be diligent and hard-working enough to cover them when Gold Coast have the ball. If they get it down to Lynch, 2 Metre Peter and the others with ease, we will get killed. 

I reckon Dees by 20 points in a close but clumsy game.

A few stats on the full 25 man squad

	MFC	GCS		Diff
Average Age	23.5	23.4		0.2
Average Games	69.3	68.5		0.8
Back Line
Ave Age	23.3	25.0		-1.7
Ave Games	47.7	108.5		-60.8
Fol (includes wing)
Ave Age	24.5	21.5		3.0
Ave Games	100.8	43.0		57.8
Fwd
Ave Age	22.0	21.9		0.1
Ave Games	85.7	68.0		17.7
Int
Ave Age	22.0	21.9		0.1
Ave Games	46.9	56.4		-9.6
Melbourne
Games	Backline	Fol	Fwd	Int	total
0-50	3	1	3	5	12
51-100	3	3	0	1	7
101-150	0	0	3	1	4
151-200	0	1	0	0	1
200+	0	1	0	0	1
					25
GCS
Games	Backline	Fol	Fwd	Int	total
0-50	0	5	2	5	12
51-100	4	1	4	1	10
101-150	0	0	0	0	0
151-200	1	0	0	1	2
200+	1	0	0	0	1
					25
	MFC Back	GCS Fwd		Diff
Age	23.3	21.9		1.5
Games	47.7	68.0		-20.3
	MFC Fwd	GCS Back
Age	22.0	25.0		-3.0
Games	85.7	108.5		-22.8

 

I think it is the first time this year that I have done this (I have missed a few games) where we aren't the youngest less experienced side. Although the numbers here are so close you may as well call it a draw. It says something when this is basically our side for this year who have won 7 games so far and we are only just matching another young side in experience who are missing a big chunk of experience through injury yet have won less games than us. 

We should win by 10 goals plus but I really wont be surprised if Lynch and co up forward get a hold of us and we lose. 

15 hours ago, Nasher said:

It says "we think he is a better player than you".

Harsh reality of professional sport: some players are better than others, and selection will sometimes be accordingly biased. 

It's a problem when players have done nothing and get a recall. It destroys the "play well  at Casey and you put yourself in line for a spot in the Seniors" rhetoric.

I like Vdb but boy has he under delivered this year.

28 minutes ago, Chris said:

 

We should win by 10 goals plus but I really wont be surprised if Lynch and co up forward get a hold of us and we lose. 

I'll be devastated if we lose purely because of our weak defense.

Surely our midfield is that far superior to their depleted one, and that will prove to be the difference.

Gold Coast have won 3 from last five we have won 1 from 5

This is still a danger game if we take it lightly

I would love to be able to think and believe we have this game but I cannot due to circumstances beyond my control

would be a devestating blow to lose it. I will be at the G to watch and sing the song I hope

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by jackaub
Numbers wrong apologies

3 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Gold Coast have won 3 from last five we have won 0 from 5

This is still a danger game if we take it lightly

I would love to be able to think and believe we have this game but I cannot due to circumstances beyond my control

would be a devestating blow to lose it. I will be at the G to watch and sing the song I hope

Err pretty sure we beat Freo in the NT...

3 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Gold Coast have won 3 from last five we have won 0 from 5

This is still a danger game if we take it lightly

I would love to be able to think and believe we have this game but I cannot due to circumstances beyond my control

would be a devestating blow to lose it. I will be at the G to watch and sing the song I hope

I don't understand your first line. If you mean we've lost our last five games, that's not right. We won against Freo three weeks ago. If you mean we've lost our last five against the Gold Coast, that's also not correct as we won earlier in the year. So, what did you mean?

Looking at the run home, should GC beat us this week they will likely finish higher than us on the ladder.

That's a wake up call.

 

3 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Visiting Demonland sometimes is like watching an episode of Home Away or Neighbours - every small act from a MFC player or coach causes rage, swooning, relationship breakdown, rolling eyes, tantrums, and posturing. 

I just dont see Dawes or OMac as our biggest problems. Our turnovers down back contribute to our losses, yes, but when we lose games it is usually our defensive spread and/or the outside pace of our opposition which kill us. Maybe Dunn, Grimes and Garland are given little or no game time because their defensive spread is poor? Maybe Oliver, Hulet and others younger players' fitness is still developing and by the last quarter they would not be able to spread defensively because of exhaustion? 

The danger with Gold Coast is not the quality of their midfield - it is whether our midfield will be diligent and hard-working enough to cover them when Gold Coast have the ball. If they get it down to Lynch, 2 Metre Peter and the others with ease, we will get killed. 

I reckon Dees by 20 points in a close but clumsy game.

This is why our midfield needs continued strengthening. We win and lose every game based on the performance our mids bring.

15 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

This is why our midfield needs continued strengthening. We win and lose every game based on the performance our mids bring.

You could argue that for every team though couldn't you?

 

17 minutes ago, stuie said:

You could argue that for every team though couldn't you?

That's my point. Every game is won or lost in the midfield.

4 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

That's my point. Every game is won or lost in the midfield.

Except last week.