POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 19

[PaulRB 6,392]

I think one of the "cultural" shifts that Roo's has recruited to and instilled in his team these past years, is that it's the responsibility of the players to make it happen on the field.

The coaches role is to prepare them to be their best.

Maybe it's the MFCs culture of having bigger than life successful coaches in Norm Smith, we forgot it's the players that do the business. 

The emergence of some potential champions on our list is why Goodwin will be a success, otherwise he'd be like Dimma at the Tigers, trying (and failing) to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

[poita 3,902]

I have never taken less joy out of a win that that - absolutely pathetic from start to finish. Thank god for Jack Watts, he and he alone won that game for us.

There was absolutely no joy in the reaction of the players in the GC goalsquare after Lynch's kick went wide, not sure if they didn't care or if they didn't think they deserved to win.

For as supposed leader Bernie Vince was rubbish all game, and almost capped it off by giving the game away at the end. The sooner we stop giving players, excluding our best 4 or 5, new contracts during the season, the better. Vince, Garlett, Kent - none of them have done anything since resigning.

Why Roos has hitched his wagon to the likes of Wagner, M.Jones, Kent and Harmes is beyond me. These guys consistently make bad decisions and skill errors, even under the bare minimum of pressure, let alone when the heat is on. As for Chris Dawes, he doesn't even deserve a spot at Casey, let alone in an AFL side. Won't lead, won't run, won't put his hands down to pick up the footy. Just go away.

If Roos reckons that result might be more important long term than a 10 goal win, he should go away now too. That brand of football got us nowhere in 2014, so I'm not sure why it has resurfaced in late 2016. We will lose by 10 goals plus if we play like that in any of our remaining matches.

[jnrmac 20,108]

15 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

It is the game plan that worries me! It ensures no matter how many extra disposals we get, how many extra inside 50's we have, the scores will still be close, if we are lucky. This obsession with the corridor is killing us, it is too predictable and too difficult to execute and is high consequence if it fails. A number of times we switched play across half back then we had options loose up the line on the southern wing but the ball carrier is only looking inboard then kicks to a  50/50 contest in the centre so if it is turned over our goals are wide open. Why switch play if you are not wanting to create loose players to then use them?

 

This is undoubtedly true but the coaches instructions would be go there quickly if there is an opportunity. However it depends on quickness of brain and execution. They are encouraged to 'take the game on'. When you put yourself under pressure and have generally poor skills then games like yesterday is what happens. Opp'n teams know that and bring fierce tackling pressure to us. Our skills usually crumble. We just aren't there yet but I guess that is the way the coaches want us to play. The more games and confidence our players get the less mistakes we will make. Although some with dodgy disposal skills to begin with (like TMac - who also has decision brain fades) clearly make it harder. Matt Jones screaming down the wing in the first quarter and simply turning it over to GC when a demon was well clear on his own just breaks supporters hearts.

In fairness to the players trying to 'switch play' its much easier from the stands to see whether someone is clear across the ground. For those that haven't been on the G it falls away quite sharply from the centre square to the boundary so a player on a flank is having to look 'uphill' if they are looking across ground. Some opp'n jumpers are also harder to see against the background crowd as well.

[sue 9,107]

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This is undoubtedly true but the coaches instructions would be go there quickly if there is an opportunity. However it depends on quickness of brain and execution. They are encouraged to 'take the game on'. When you put yourself under pressure and have generally poor skills then games like yesterday is what happens. Opp'n teams know that and bring fierce tackling pressure to us. Our skills usually crumble. We just aren't there yet but I guess that is the way the coaches want us to play. The more games and confidence our players get the less mistakes we will make. Although some with dodgy disposal skills to begin with (like TMac - who also has decision brain fades) clearly make it harder. Matt Jones screaming down the wing in the first quarter and simply turning it over to GC when a demon was well clear on his own just breaks supporters hearts.

In fairness to the players trying to 'switch play' its much easier from the stands to see whether someone is clear across the ground. For those that haven't been on the G it falls away quite sharply from the centre square to the boundary so a player on a flank is having to look 'uphill' if they are looking across ground. Some opp'n jumpers are also harder to see against the background crowd as well.

That is an interesting point. I've also often wondered how much the flashing and changing ads along the boundary affect players.  Anyone here ever played on such a ground?

[Nasher 33,616]

13 minutes ago, poita said:

The sooner we stop giving players, excluding our best 4 or 5, new contracts during the season, the better. 

Wow.

[Macca 17,009]

Like any other club we're dependent on our best players playing well in order for the team to win or at least compete well.

With the odd exception It could be assumed that our best and most dependable players are Vince,  N Jones,  Viney,  Hogan,  Garlett,  Watts,  Gawn,  Tyson,  T-Mac & Jetta.  Our other senior players either can't get a game or aren't that good and can't be relied upon.

In our recent game against the Saints only 3 of the 10 played up to their best form but 6 or 7 of the 10 played well against the Eagles last week.  Against the Suns yesterday only about 5 of the 10 were at or close to their optimum.  Of course, the rest of the team needs to contribute in some ways but as a general rule, the form of our best 10 players is a good indicator of how the team plays.

Many of the other players in the seniors are youngsters or inexperienced players and the form of those players is understandably going to be up and down.  The onus placed by the match committee on the youngsters or inexperienced players would be on the low scale - and rightfully so.

 

 

 

 

[Demon Jack 6,921]

Stretch has fantastic pace. Coming along very nicely and ahead of schedule.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

5 minutes ago, Demon Jack said:

Stretch has fantastic pace. Coming along very nicely and ahead of schedule.

He's an automatic selection now for me.

Good pace, neat skills (excluding one shocker yesterday) but what I love the most is he is so clean with the ball, rarely fumbles which is something we lack.

[jnrmac 20,108]

26 minutes ago, sue said:

That is an interesting point. I've also often wondered how much the flashing and changing ads along the boundary affect players.  Anyone here ever played on such a ground?

When I played on the ground there were no flashing signs and around 3 people in attendence!

I reckon the signs would be right in your eyeline when switching across the ground.

Edited July 31, 2016 by jnrmac

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

28 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

For those that haven't been on the G it falls away quite sharply from the centre square to the boundary so a player on a flank is having to look 'uphill' if they are looking across ground. 

Didnt the MCC brag about how they spend millions of dollars a few years back to get rid of that bump?

Not really improtant haha I agree with everything else you said

[jnrmac 20,108]

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Didnt the MCC brag about how they spend millions of dollars a few years back to get rid of that bump?

Not really improtant haha I agree with everything else you said

I don't recall that but its still there for drainage purposes I believe

[sue 9,107]

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

When I played on the ground there were no flashing signs and around 3 people in attendence!

I'm guessing that my asking if anyone here had ever played on such a ground might be viewed as provocative.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

1 hour ago, Pates said:

Hoping it'll be better than seamless. I sort of wonder sometimes if Roos is our get out of jail free card. Largely his tenure at Melbourne has been without controversy or discussion. I wonder at times if it gives players a bit of an out. 

This will be Goodwins team next year and I really hope the boys are able to play for him the same way the Hawks boys play for Clarkson. 

Its unkown but honestly I'm intrigued and excited. 

Absolutely this happens. I've said a number of times before, when Roos admits 'mistakes' in the media, it's almost always being used to cover for and draw heat away from the playing group. Will be interesting to see what happens when they're fully exposed, although I'm pretty confident it will be fine.

[jnrmac 20,108]

1 minute ago, sue said:

I'm guessing that my asking if anyone here had ever played on such a ground might be viewed as provocative.

Sue, you racy thing you...

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 hour ago, poita said:

I have never taken less joy out of a win that that - absolutely pathetic from start to finish. Thank god for Jack Watts, he and he alone won that game for us.

There was absolutely no joy in the reaction of the players in the GC goalsquare after Lynch's kick went wide, not sure if they didn't care or if they didn't think they deserved to win.

For as supposed leader Bernie Vince was rubbish all game, and almost capped it off by giving the game away at the end. The sooner we stop giving players, excluding our best 4 or 5, new contracts during the season, the better. Vince, Garlett, Kent - none of them have done anything since resigning.

Why Roos has hitched his wagon to the likes of Wagner, M.Jones, Kent and Harmes is beyond me. These guys consistently make bad decisions and skill errors, even under the bare minimum of pressure, let alone when the heat is on. As for Chris Dawes, he doesn't even deserve a spot at Casey, let alone in an AFL side. Won't lead, won't run, won't put his hands down to pick up the footy. Just go away.

If Roos reckons that result might be more important long term than a 10 goal win, he should go away now too. That brand of football got us nowhere in 2014, so I'm not sure why it has resurfaced in late 2016. We will lose by 10 goals plus if we play like that in any of our remaining matches.

Alright lets have a slightly more positive look at these points shall we.

1. Joy? no I dont think thats the word I or anyone else to describe that win. Relief, maybe but surely you can see the importance of that? Good teams find a way to win no matter how bad they have played, Hawthorn have made an art form of that this year. (yes they havn't been that bad but you get my point) 

2. I loved the players response yesterday that know they played [censored] and we relieved to have the points time to move onto next week, exactly what we wanted to see, would you rather see them celebrating like the won the flag after a performance like that? They were clearly as dissapointed with their effort as you are

3. Bernie yeah he played [censored] and has most of the back half of the year. Your contract talk is horse [censored] though, if don't sign players and they wont stay! of the 3 you mentioned im not sure why Kent is getting hate he was alright yesterday and was good last week too he hasnt set the world on fire but he has been far more consistant as the years gone on.

4. Wagner has been poor since he got injured and I agree should probably be at casey but he has shown enough to be part of the future. Jones is in the side because he and Stretch are the only 2 players who can play as a running wingman. There is nobody who runs and spreads better than Jones. Pray we target a more skilfull player this offseason to take his spot but for now he is it (personaly i would rookie him, handy backup). Kent and Harmes were both pretty good yesterday yeah they made mistakes but they are hard, they put pressure on and are best 22 almost every week. Harmes might lose his spot on a back flank once salem gets his body right but for now he is playing it well. I'm as much of a Dawes hater as anyone else but he was more than servicable yesterday played his role, competed, if he brings that every week he will be a good holdover while others develops (i doubt he can do that consistantly though)

5.This win is infinitely more valuable than a 10 goal win. What do you learn from a 10 goal win? Usually just that the other team played [censored]. They go home yesterday knowing they played terribly... but could win anyway! When is the last time a melbourne side was able to find a way to win when nothing was going right? No, playing like that wont work often, but winning those types of games is the difference between finals and no finals. Nobody plays to their peak 22 weeks of the year, have to learn how to win without it. 

No, we shouldnt be 'happy' with how they played but no point being so negative, a wins a win and I would much rather that than be sitting here with a loss.

[Dee Dee 1,108]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

 

In fairness to the players trying to 'switch play' its much easier from the stands to see whether someone is clear across the ground. For those that haven't been on the G it falls away quite sharply from the centre square to the boundary so a player on a flank is having to look 'uphill' if they are looking across ground. Some opp'n jumpers are also harder to see against the background crowd as well.

As far as I am aware the playing surface is completely flat these days and was made so for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

Prior to that time the ground was like a small hill, this being for drainage purposes. However today there is a special sand and pebble drainage structure under the grass that has successfully replaced the hill. This "fact" was given to me by a tour guide at the G a couple of years ago.

[old55 23,625]

It was a massively frustrating game.

But coming up to 10,000 metres we killed them on the outside which is a completely different story from the Essendon debacle.  Our decision making and skill execution forward of the centre was absolutely shocking, if this had been on then we would have won easily.

I think the other problem we had yesterday was our total inability to convert Max's dominance on the inside.  I think we have a structural problem there, the opposition acknowledges we're going to get first hands on it and tackles immediately, it's what happens after this first possession that's crucial.  Either another stoppage, rinse and repeat, or the ball comes out and we don't have an advantage.  I've seen us running a 7th player off the back of the square at the centre bounces, presumably to provide an outlet, but I've only ever seen that player actually get involved in the play once.  Some other plan is required maybe a different mix at the bounce instead of 3 insiders.

[old dee 23,801]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

When I played on the ground there were no flashing signs and around 3 people in attendence!

I reckon the signs would be right in your eyeline when switching across the ground.

Well I played before much bigger crowds than you jnr.

I clearly rememberer one day we had close to 50.

[Moonshadow 17,676]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Well I played before much bigger crowds than you jnr.

I clearly rememberer one day we had close to 50.

Well..... I played there in the little league in front of 40,000. At the time I remember thinking they were there to watch us!

Edited August 1, 2016 by Moonshadow

[old dee 23,801]

Just now, Moonshadow said:

Well..... I played in the little league in front of 40,000. At the time I remember thinking they were there to watch us!

I hate to destroy your experience Mr Shadow.

But they were not!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

16 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes I totally agree Uncle if Jesse doesn't have clear line of sight between his designated role and the team's mission statement and goals then there will enevitably be engagement and alignment issues and confusion about the strategic direction the team is pursuing. No wonder he struggled today and the fact he slid into the point post hurting his knee didn't help either. 

What you're saying might be true but this sounds like something that would come out of middle management at an insurance company. Gives me cold sweats.

He's a footy player, a key forward. His job is to run, bullock, hustle, mark, kick and create goals. I don't think there's any confusion or engagement issues, he's just had a slump the last couple of weeks. He's still working his backside off though and the delivery isn't helping. He needs to take advantage of his opportunities though I agree.

[old dee 23,801]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What you're saying might be true but this sounds like something that would come out of middle management at an insurance company. Gives me cold sweats.

He's a footy player, a key forward. His job is to run, bullock, hustle, mark, kick and create goals. I don't think there's any confusion or engagement issues, he's just had a slump the last couple of weeks. He's still working his backside off though and the delivery isn't helping. He needs to take advantage of his opportunities though I agree.

I agree Dr.

It intrigues me that people seem to be cutting him no slack for the injury he had after hitting his knee on the post in the second quarter.

He was clearly in pain from that point on.

I was surprised when he appeared after the long break.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

15 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I will take the 4 points. Always better than 0

But by God we need to import some leadership next year or Goodwin will be torn apart

A new Captain for Christmas please Santa. 

Thanks. 

I don't think importing leadership works. You can have some peripheral leaders like Cross or Vince but the true leadership, that which drives the team towards success, will always come from within.

[Adam The God 30,286]

28 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It was a massively frustrating game.

But coming up to 10,000 metres we killed them on the outside which is a completely different story from the Essendon debacle.  Our decision making and skill execution forward of the centre was absolutely shocking, if this had been on then we would have won easily.

I think the other problem we had yesterday was our total inability to convert Max's dominance on the inside.  I think we have a structural problem there, the opposition acknowledges we're going to get first hands on it and tackles immediately, it's what happens after this first possession that's crucial.  Either another stoppage, rinse and repeat, or the ball comes out and we don't have an advantage.  I've seen us running a 7th player off the back of the square at the centre bounces, presumably to provide an outlet, but I've only ever seen that player actually get involved in the play once.  Some other plan is required maybe a different mix at the bounce instead of 3 insiders.

Yeah, it's a good point. I find that inside slider (the 7th player) to be too offensively focused. They should provide an outlet as you say, but IMO they should also provide a defensive sweep if the opposition wins the ball. 

Often that 7th player is a quick player like Hunt or Petracca that can shut down an opponent quickly. I'd stick with the inside extractors and keep the outside pace like Hunt and Stretch on the outside. I think in time, Oliver is going to have a similar impact on our clearance abilities as a Sam Mitchell has for Hawthorn. Let's hope he's as durable, because Oliver has that vision, poise and skill to be able to bring outside players into the game. I think Petracca is another that could be employed in this role, although he's better with his feet, but he can certainly break a tackle in a similar way to a Dangerfield, which will also give our mids separation from the stoppage. 

[Undeeterred 3,124]

24 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It was a massively frustrating game.

But coming up to 10,000 metres we killed them on the outside which is a completely different story from the Essendon debacle.  Our decision making and skill execution forward of the centre was absolutely shocking, if this had been on then we would have won easily.

I think the other problem we had yesterday was our total inability to convert Max's dominance on the inside.  I think we have a structural problem there, the opposition acknowledges we're going to get first hands on it and tackles immediately, it's what happens after this first possession that's crucial.  Either another stoppage, rinse and repeat, or the ball comes out and we don't have an advantage.  I've seen us running a 7th player off the back of the square at the centre bounces, presumably to provide an outlet, but I've only ever seen that player actually get involved in the play once.  Some other plan is required maybe a different mix at the bounce instead of 3 insiders.

Gold Coast did an interesting thing yesterday on Gawn and it killed us.

They designated a ruckman that wasn't Nicholls, who would engage Gawn at the throw up. Then Nicholls would come across and contest the tap, so he was two on one around the ground the whole game. 

Even when he did manage to get hands on it, he was in so much traffic he seemed to be not able to do much with it.