1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

This week ?? lol

Yeah this week. Just because a team is capable of beating an opponent doesn't mean they will beat them every single time. Upsets happen, that's why we watch sport. A game may have 2 opponents equally capable of beating the other but only one will get the points.

To say "we didn't beat the Hawks/Tigers/Freo/Cats therefore we are incapable of beating them" is a logical fallacy

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah this week. Just because a team is capable of beating an opponent doesn't mean they will beat them every single time. Upsets happen, that's why we watch sport. A game may have 2 opponents equally capable of beating the other but only one will get the points.

To say "we didn't beat the Hawks/Tigers/Freo/Cats therefore we are incapable of beating them" is a logical fallacy

By definition the capable do, otherwise you're incapable. 

Either possibility might exist prior but only  one prevails at outcome.

Might want to tidy up the are's and were's.

Im not trying to be cute but many create a virtual strawman's argue by introducing elements that might be there but aren't.

If we were to say Johny couldn't climb the wall there are really only two possibilities. 1) he didn't want to 2) he found it too hard . The 'constant' here is the wall. As it was at that time.

He may revisit the wall. The wall might be in disrepair and Johnny does climb it. OR the wall might be the same but Johnny is better prepared and does climb it.

In both latter scenarios he is Capable. In prior he is not.

As with much a lot depends on what presents at the time. The ability to ascertain capability remains there throughout and is effectively determined by outcome.

GWS lost. I assume, reasonably they didn't want to lose, therefore they were incapable of winning.Otherwise they would.

MELBOURNE have been unable to put away some teams so likewise on those occasions were incapable of winning.

On balance, despite all the niceties of winning so many qtrs of footy we seem seldom capable of winning.

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

By definition the capable do, otherwise you're incapable. 

Either possibility might exist prior but only  one prevails at outcome.

Might want to tidy up the are's and were's.

Im not trying to be cute but many create a virtual strawman's argue by introducing elements that might be there but aren't.

If we were to say Johny couldn't climb the wall there are really only two possibilities. 1) he didn't want to 2) he found it too hard . The 'constant' here is the wall. As it was at that time.

He may revisit the wall. The wall might be in disrepair and Johnny does climb it. OR the wall might be the same but Johnny is better prepared and does climb it.

In both latter scenarios he is Capable. In prior he is not.

As with much a lot depends on what presents at the time. The ability to ascertain capability remains there throughout and is effectively determined by outcome.

GWS lost. I assume, reasonably they didn't want to lose, therefore they were incapable of winning.Otherwise they would.

MELBOURNE have been unable to put away some teams so likewise on those occasions were incapable of winning.

On balance, despite all the niceties of winning so many qtrs of footy we seem seldom capable of winning.

Mate you can't see the forest for the trees. Two teams may play each other 10 times and they win 5 each. Or one team may win 7 the other 3. Or even 9 and 1. Both are equally capable of beating the other, the outcome of any singular game is irrelevant.

Cast your mind back 4 years. Melbourne were incapable of beating the overwhelming majority of teams. Many games lost by 60, 70, 90 points. Had we played those games 100 times we probably wouldn't have won any. That is "incapable".

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So if they play again this week will GWS be capable of beating the Saints?

Dr I don't give two hoots about GWS for the reason that last weekend is a hiccup in their season they will be there when September arrives.

our inability to win is chronic and their is no sign of it improving. We do the same things over and over again.

I would love to be able to see some change but so far nothing.

I see we are short of quality players. Quality players can perform week in week out for the whole game. Not so good players can perform for periods of time but then they start to get tired and they drop off and the quality of the opposion  shines through e.g. Our last quarter failures. 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

I see we are short of quality players. Quality players can perform week in week out for the whole game. Not so good players can perform for periods of time but then they start to get tired and they drop off and the quality of the opposion  shines through e.g. Our last quarter failures. 

Fixed for you:

Experienced and mature players can perform week in week out for the whole game. Inexperienced and younger players can perform for periods of time but then they start to get tired and they drop off and the quality of the opposion  shines through e.g. Our last quarter failures. 

On 08/05/2017 at 6:32 PM, Hell Bent said:

I`m surprised at how calm I am these days after such frustrating losses, it is something that used to rile me no end but it has happened so many times particularly the last decade that it simply doesnt surprise anymore.

One thing that REALLY pi$$es me off though is hearing Goodwin saying that he questioned their attitude for this match. How pathetic has our leadership become to allow this to happen. I am more than happy to cop a loss when we have busted a gut for 4 quarters BUT we will never go anywhere as a club until this crap is rectified.

We still have no real leaders on field and this is part of the problem and has been for years. 

29 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

We still have no real leaders on field and this is part of the problem and has been for years. 

Agree we are still weak on leaders but I think there is a fine difference with attitiude and effort. I though the effort was fine on the weekend. I suspect what Goody was referring to was the attitude about where we position ourselves, how we run to position, adhering to structures and game plan.

It clearly fell down on the weekend and has at times during other games.

26 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

We still have no real leaders on field and this is part of the problem and has been for years. 

This is the main problem and it is why us "older blokes" are still Banging on about it. 

Because we have seen it unfold multiple times before. 

I want Goodwin to succeed, but i worry when i hear that he is mates with all the players and they love him. On one hand that is great, but Goody has to ride these guys hard. Probably harder than he realizes at this point. 

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This is the main problem and it is why us "older blokes" are still Banging on about it. 

Because we have seen it unfold multiple times before. 

I want Goodwin to succeed, but i worry when i hear that he is mates with all the players and they love him. On one hand that is great, but Goody has to ride these guys hard. Probably harder than he realizes at this point. 

Ridiculous statement.

You want to go back to the Neeld era when the players hated the coach?

The fact that the players love Goodwin doesn't mean Goodwin doesn't apply pressure as and when required, either.

I am in total agreeance of what Wallace said about our key backs and I have been for a while now.

Two McDonald brothers and Frost as our key defenders will only take us so far because they're such limited players in what they can provide.

Sure Frost 'took them on' and a few of his runs came off this week, but if supporters expect that to be the norm then they're kidding themselves. For every time he does create a positive passage of play like that, he'll almost certainly do something that costs us a goal or an opportunity for the opposition to score. Whether that's a dropped mark, failing to kill a ball in the air or not hitting a target by foot. I'm talking about basic errors.

Oscar and Tom are exactly the same. 

And for everyone who believes that Oscar and Frost have time, I will point at Tom McDonald and ask what time has done for him? Nothing. He still makes the same costly errors time and time again. Oscar and Frost are totally limited players in what they can do and whilst they may get better at the things they're already good at, both have way too many question marks surrounding other aspects of their game.

It's easily our most obvious weakness and it's not about potting players. It's about wanting our team to improve. And for that to happen, there's no way in the world those three defenders will help take us to the top. 

The best key defenders make mistakes at times. But nowhere near as often as Tom McDonald. Which is why he's not yet a 'great' defender. He doesn't do it consistently well enough for long enough. Frost is not a natural footballer and that's already a problem in an unsettled defence. Speed as a weapon is not enough at this level. Oscar isn't ready and just shouldn't be playing but we have no other option.

We better bring in a serious defender next year.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Ridiculous statement.

You want to go back to the Neeld era when the players hated the coach?

The fact that the players love Goodwin doesn't mean Goodwin doesn't apply pressure as and when required, either.

No i don't. But it has to be more middle ground. 

Fear of Failure is not always a bad thing, i just don't players getting too comfortable

(fine line i know) i am remembering school days in class. I didn't push myself that extra 1% if i thought a teacher was friendly. As in they will understand. 

If i held a little fear or awe to a teacher i wanted to prove myself to them, so i worked harder. 

2 hours ago, old dee said:

Dr I don't give two hoots about GWS for the reason that last weekend is a hiccup in their season they will be there when September arrives.

our inability to win is chronic and their is no sign of it improving. We do the same things over and over again.

I would love to be able to see some change but so far nothing.

I see we are short of quality players. Quality players can perform week in week out for the whole game. Not so good players can perform for periods of time but then they start to get tired and they drop off and the quality of the opposion  shines through e.g. Our last quarter failures. 

You've missed the point though. Using GWS as an example was only to show how ludicrous the thinking is that because a team didn't win proves they are incapable of having won. I only used GWS as the most recent example and the first that came to mind. I could've easily used any number of examples, I could've used West Coast against the Hawks 2 weeks ago or Port against West Coast last weekend.

22 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I am in total agreeance of what Wallace said about our key backs and I have been for a while now.

Two McDonald brothers and Frost as our key defenders will only take us so far because they're such limited players in what they can provide.

Sure Frost 'took them on' and a few of his runs came off this week, but if supporters expect that to be the norm then they're kidding themselves. For every time he does create a positive passage of play like that, he'll almost certainly do something that costs us a goal or an opportunity for the opposition to score. Whether that's a dropped mark, failing to kill a ball in the air or not hitting a target by foot. I'm talking about basic errors.

Oscar and Tom are exactly the same. 

And for everyone who believes that Oscar and Frost have time, I will point at Tom McDonald and ask what time has done for him? Nothing. He still makes the same costly errors time and time again. Oscar and Frost are totally limited players in what they can do and whilst they may get better at the things they're already good at, both have way too many question marks surrounding other aspects of their game.

It's easily our most obvious weakness and it's not about potting players. It's about wanting our team to improve. And for that to happen, there's no way in the world those three defenders will help take us to the top. 

The best key defenders make mistakes at times. But nowhere near as often as Tom McDonald. Which is why he's not yet a 'great' defender. He doesn't do it consistently well enough for long enough. Frost is not a natural footballer and that's already a problem in an unsettled defence. Speed as a weapon is not enough at this level. Oscar isn't ready and just shouldn't be playing but we have no other option.

We better bring in a serious defender next year.

Our backline leaks like a sieve and we need to recruit a top line defender/backline general to stop the flow of goals against us that the current crop seem incapable of doing.

It is too common to see out of form players kick big scores against us like Hawkins. JackR, Roughy, McCarthy and even O'Brien, who had kicked 3 goals in 6 games kicks 2 against us. Daniher had 9 shots at goal in the first half and the game would have been over at half time if he'd kicked straight.

There is a fundamental flaw in our game plan that allows the opposition to score so easily and it is easy, yet we bomb the ball in to our forward line and they seem to have a player drop back and mark, so often, unopposed

We also have to look at those players that are permanently scarred and just turn it up when we play against certain sides that have had the wood on us for years. 

48 minutes ago, Dante said:

Our backline leaks like a sieve and we need to recruit a top line defender/backline general to stop the flow of goals against us that the current crop seem incapable of doing.

It is too common to see out of form players kick big scores against us like Hawkins. JackR, Roughy, McCarthy and even O'Brien, who had kicked 3 goals in 6 games kicks 2 against us. Daniher had 9 shots at goal in the first half and the game would have been over at half time if he'd kicked straight.

There is a fundamental flaw in our game plan that allows the opposition to score so easily and it is easy, yet we bomb the ball in to our forward line and they seem to have a player drop back and mark, so often, unopposed

We also have to look at those players that are permanently scarred and just turn it up when we play against certain sides that have had the wood on us for years. 

Interesting and on its face true. The question that we have to ask ourselves is does the traditional defence fit the game plan and if not do we want the tradition or the game plan.

It's not easy... the idea of our game plan is a forward press based on a strong zone. Break the zone easily and the other side will score easily. You only need to give the opposition player who is leaving the zoned area a break of one or two metres and as they used to say.. "he is off to the races."

Sounds easy to play a loose man back say at about the old CHB position but from what I understand this does not work. If you notice when the ball is in our forward line we have the outriders so the loose kick in defence by the other side comes screaming back in from our players. Bulldogs are great at this.

The other thing I have observed is that it is perhaps far better to kick the ball to a spot about 20 metres directly in front of goal. Go to either pocket or closer to the goal and it easy for the defence to just go the wild punch knowing that the ball will go out of bounds or through for a point. On multiple occasions the Hawk defenders easily punched the ball out and negated our forward attacks.The Bulldogs work the twenty metre out kick wonderfully well and then rely on their midfielders/small forwards to scrap and kick the goal. I heard a commentator call it the "chaos ball" and that aptly describes it.

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

GWS were capable of beating the Saints last Friday, why didn't they?

See how their fans feel after they've done it 4 times

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Agree we are still weak on leaders but I think there is a fine difference with attitiude and effort. I though the effort was fine on the weekend. I suspect what Goody was referring to was the attitude about where we position ourselves, how we run to position, adhering to structures and game plan.

It clearly fell down on the weekend and has at times during other games.

Agree 

I also think we were out coached and out played in that first half and didn't have the answers to respond before half time. Which is inexperienced players and maybe even coaching staff.

Lewis alluded we are where we want to be in regards to 4 keys stats but failing badly in 2 others. Would love to know what they are and how the loss of gawn and other keys have affected those stats

Just re read an article after the Bombers win, where Goodwin said he would get the side ready for a fired up Hawks team who would try to jump us. 

Think he failed.

38 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Just re read an article after the Bombers win, where Goodwin said he would get the side ready for a fired up Hawks team who would try to jump us. 

Think he failed.

It's like he was worried and had a premonition what was going to happen. And so did a lot of supporters. After 3 minutes it was so obvious who controlled the head space in the game. The problem sticks out like a sore thumb. The solution is yet to be found.

53 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Just re read an article after the Bombers win, where Goodwin said he would get the side ready for a fired up Hawks team who would try to jump us. 

Think he failed.

Miserably.

Hope he learns 

3 hours ago, Dante said:

Our backline leaks like a sieve and we need to recruit a top line defender/backline general to stop the flow of goals against us that the current crop seem incapable of doing.

It is too common to see out of form players kick big scores against us like Hawkins. JackR, Roughy, McCarthy and even O'Brien, who had kicked 3 goals in 6 games kicks 2 against us. Daniher had 9 shots at goal in the first half and the game would have been over at half time if he'd kicked straight.

There is a fundamental flaw in our game plan that allows the opposition to score so easily and it is easy, yet we bomb the ball in to our forward line and they seem to have a player drop back and mark, so often, unopposed

We also have to look at those players that are permanently scarred and just turn it up when we play against certain sides that have had the wood on us for years. 

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting and on its face true.

Is it true, though?

We're 9th in the league for points against. We're 10th on the ladder. Seems about right.

We've conceded fewer points than Adelaide and Geelong, too.

And our percentage is 106.7%, so it's not like our scoring isn't keeping up with our conceding - in fact, it's the opposite.

Do you think St Kilda's backline leaks like a sieve, or has a fundamental flaw in its game plan? They've conceded 9 points fewer than us and scored just 4 points more than us. So, essentially, the same numbers after 7 games. No one thinks they've got a "fundamental flaw", do they?

IMO the issue isn't the number of goals we concede, it's how (off inopportune turnovers and leading to us being out of position) and when (consistently in blocks or 4-5 in a row) we concede them. But those problems aren't just down to the backline "leaking like a sieve". It's a whole team thing.

21 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Miserably.

Hope he learns 

The problem for Goodwin is not just acknowledging the elephant in the room but HTF does he get it out? His biggest challenge has arrived. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Just re read an article after the Bombers win, where Goodwin said he would get the side ready for a fired up Hawks team who would try to jump us. 

Think he failed.

Hawks jumped us for the first 5 or 10 minutes, but were only a goal or two up, and we reeled them in. We ended the quarter with more possessions, clearances etc etc. but wasted it all. When the momentum shifted toward the end of the quarter, they made the most of it and got three of their 5 goals in the last 5 mins or so.

What killed us in that quarter was we just didn't execute basic skills. Our disposal efficiency was lower than 30% at one stage. Three times Jones had a teammate 15m in the clear, but missed them by 15m and speared it straight to their opponent, but he wasn't the only one. We missed easy targets and turned it over all over the ground. And the team that got its three-peat basically by punishing teams for turnovers will make you pay for turnovers like no other..

One reason for not executing basic skills, particularly at the start of a game, is being too fired up. A number of our key players are "hyper" personalities, balls of adrenalin - Jones, Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Hunt & Frost just for starters. If these guys are made to get too hyped up at the start and run out loaded up on their own adrenalin, they might get plenty of ball, but they're going to miss targets.

This emphasis on intensity above all else concerns me. Our gameplan relies equally on good disposal, but poor basic disposal (whether in general play or kicking at goal of both) has been a feature of all of our losses so far.

28 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Is it true, though?

We're 9th in the league for points against. We're 10th on the ladder. Seems about right.

We've conceded fewer points than Adelaide and Geelong, too.

And our percentage is 106.7%, so it's not like our scoring isn't keeping up with our conceding - in fact, it's the opposite.

Do you think St Kilda's backline leaks like a sieve, or has a fundamental flaw in its game plan? They've conceded 9 points fewer than us and scored just 4 points more than us. So, essentially, the same numbers after 7 games. No one thinks they've got a "fundamental flaw", do they?

IMO the issue isn't the number of goals we concede, it's how (off inopportune turnovers and leading to us being out of position) and when (consistently in blocks or 4-5 in a row) we concede them. But those problems aren't just down to the backline "leaking like a sieve". It's a whole team thing.

That doesn't tell the whole story, it's more to do with opposition inside 50's and our own inside 50's, I'm not sure where you'd get the details of this but I'd hazard a guess that we have a lot more inside 50's than our opponents, in most games, yet they score more often than we do.

  Here are some statistics that show how we are able to restrict our opponents capacity to get their hands on the ball but they seem to be able to score so much easier than we do.

Statistical Rankings
	High Rankings		Low Rankings
	Ranked 3rd in Kicks Per Game   Ranked 5th in Handballs Per Game   Ranked 2nd in Disposals Per Game   Ranked 4th in least Opponent Kicks Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Handballs Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Disposals Per Game   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Kicks Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Handballs Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Disposals Per Game Diff.   Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent Marks Per Game Diff.		Ranked 18th in Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 16th in least Opponent Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Hitouts Per Game Diff.

26 minutes ago, Dante said:

That doesn't tell the whole story, it's more to do with opposition inside 50's and our own inside 50's, I'm not sure where you'd get the details of this but I'd hazard a guess that we have a lot more inside 50's than our opponents, in most games, yet they score more often than we do.

  Here are some statistics that show how we are able to restrict our opponents capacity to get their hands on the ball but they seem to be able to score so much easier than we do.

Statistical Rankings
	High Rankings		Low Rankings
	Ranked 3rd in Kicks Per Game   Ranked 5th in Handballs Per Game   Ranked 2nd in Disposals Per Game   Ranked 4th in least Opponent Kicks Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Handballs Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Disposals Per Game   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Kicks Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Handballs Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Disposals Per Game Diff.   Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent Marks Per Game Diff.		Ranked 18th in Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 16th in least Opponent Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Hitouts Per Game Diff.

Ranked 10th in premiership points the only stat that matters.

36 minutes ago, Dante said:

That doesn't tell the whole story, it's more to do with opposition inside 50's and our own inside 50's, I'm not sure where you'd get the details of this but I'd hazard a guess that we have a lot more inside 50's than our opponents, in most games, yet they score more often than we do.

  Here are some statistics that show how we are able to restrict our opponents capacity to get their hands on the ball but they seem to be able to score so much easier than we do.

Statistical Rankings
	High Rankings		Low Rankings
	Ranked 3rd in Kicks Per Game   Ranked 5th in Handballs Per Game   Ranked 2nd in Disposals Per Game   Ranked 4th in least Opponent Kicks Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Handballs Per Game   Ranked 1st in least Opponent Disposals Per Game   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Kicks Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Handballs Per Game Diff.   Ranked 1st in Team to Opponent Disposals Per Game Diff.   Ranked 5th in Team to Opponent Marks Per Game Diff.		Ranked 18th in Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 16th in least Opponent Hitouts Per Game   Ranked 18th in Team to Opponent Hitouts Per Game Diff.

That's a mis-directional, you said "our defence leaks like a sieve" when it clearly doesn't at 10th for points against.