I'm not sure what the rules are for posting articles but i found this one a particularly insightful and thorough one with a few surprises from an outside perspective.

 

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/05/10/the-shoulda-coulda-woulda-melbourne-demons-could-be-the-afls-2017-what-if/

19 minutes ago, DominatrixTyson said:

I'm not sure what the rules are for posting articles but i found this one a particularly insightful and thorough one with a few surprises from an outside perspective.

 

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/05/10/the-shoulda-coulda-woulda-melbourne-demons-could-be-the-afls-2017-what-if/

Nails it.

Brilliant analysis.

MELBOURNE..the mighty Couldabeens !!

Good article.  I think it provides a reasonable summation of where we are at, and the challenges ahead

I.e. all promise, no pizza!

Incisive, logical, and with that all too rare thing on Demonland, perspective. A comprehensive and astute analysis all told. 

Excellent the whole of 'land should read this. We are a puzzle piece or two and a few injuries away from having been 6 - 1. 

It explains why they were so keen on using Weed. 

It also explains Goodwin's vision a little and to why he persisted with the players he has for as long as he has.

What I cant decide is, if our lapses in concentration/attitude is a result of a young team, trying to put it together or is it something NQR within the playing group (or enough of the playing group to drag the rest of the team down).

Take Adelaide for example. They maintained a fierce intensity for six weeks and then dropped it like hot scone v North. They expected to cruise to victory and took the team lightly (hoping feverishly that this happens this week). This is not acceptable but predictable, whereas with us, its par for the course. We seem to do it every week - ie play with earth shattering intensity for parts or sometimes, most of the game before literally dropping the ball. They didn't come to play against Hawthorn and had to try and fight back. Against Freo, they thought they could take the 3rd Q off. I'm not sure if the reason is they cant maintain the rage or that they're just not big and strong enough to put it together for a whole gam. Or it's laziness (or being easily satisfied) or some combination or other reason.

We're never going to smash sides if the players decide to take a breather with a handy lead (Freo).

The times in games when they were playing hard and fast footy and had it all over their opponents (Richmond, Geelong), only to not hit the scoreboard. What does that do for commitment to the contest?

The article showed great insight and shows we are close to putting it together but, for me, the maturity of the team (physical and mental) is a big (whopping) part of it.

Maybe the guy who wrote the letter to Goodwin and cut up his membership should have read this first.

excellent article. The lift is going up at the moment, get ready for the rarified air!

9 minutes ago, small but forward said:

Maybe the guy who wrote the letter to Goodwin and cut up his membership should have read this first.

excellent article. The lift is going up at the moment, get ready for the rarified air!

well, its a much better refurbished lift. The UP button is green and lit....  Not sure i see much otherwise, just yet 

Well written article. The mental side of the game still needs work

Thanks OP for posting this article - fascinating read. 

Big wraps on our defence, interestingly. 

A very realistic assessment me thinks. 

Good article, but certainly don't agree with some of it. The following bit almost debunks the rest of the article: "if you can’t make good, calm decisions and execute long kicks to the advantage of your opponent, you’re not playing in Goodwin’s backline". He then proceeds to name Frost and McDonald. 

Now while Frost's decision making is improving every week and at times he is calm in order to take the game on at the right moment, I wouldn't necessarily refer to him as a calm decision maker who can execute long kicks to the advantage of his team mate. It's almost as if the author hasn't watched these two play before. There is one thing you would never associate with Tom McDonald and that's good decision making.

But it was interesting to read the compliments on our ability to play what he calls 'stop-start football'. @Dr. Gonzo mentioned Hawthorn's ability to control the tempo against us early, which he says upset our structures and tempo. That may well be backed up by this article.

Anyway, the biggest thing I took from it was that we're a better side than our ladder position or W/L record would suggest and also that it's only a matter of time before it all clicks. The author is almost certainly a Melbourne supporter too.

4 minutes ago, A F said:

Good article, but certainly don't agree with some of it. The following bit almost debunks the rest of the article: "if you can’t make good, calm decisions and execute long kicks to the advantage of your opponent, you’re not playing in Goodwin’s backline". He then proceeds to name Frost and McDonald. 

Now while Frost's decision making is improving every week and at times he is calm in order to take the game on at the right moment, I wouldn't necessarily refer to him as a calm decision maker who can execute long kicks to the advantage of his team mate. It's almost as if the author hasn't watched these two play before. There is one thing you would never associate with Tom McDonald and that's good decision making.

But it was interesting to read the compliments on our ability to play what he calls 'stop-start football'. @Dr. Gonzo mentioned Hawthorn's ability to control the tempo against us early, which he says upset our structures and tempo. That may well be backed up by this article.

Anyway, the biggest thing I took from it was that we're a better side than our ladder position or W/L record would suggest and also that it's only a matter of time before it all clicks. The author is almost certainly a Melbourne supporter too.

without dount there's some "inaccuracies" but over all it describes us fairly well. Certainly one of the best overall analysis by anyone in the media

52 minutes ago, A F said:

Good article, but certainly don't agree with some of it. The following bit almost debunks the rest of the article: "if you can’t make good, calm decisions and execute long kicks to the advantage of your opponent, you’re not playing in Goodwin’s backline". He then proceeds to name Frost and McDonald. 

But T Mac more often than not kicks it to the opposition. Doesn't this mean "to the advantage of your opponent"?

The odd inconsistency, and some charitable profiles, but a pretty reasonable thrust that we are not there yet, but we are coming.

16 minutes ago, small but forward said:

But T Mac more often than not kicks it to the opposition. Doesn't this mean "to the advantage of your opponent"?

That sentence is either a typo (opponent should be teammate) or it's extremely sarcastic which doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the article. I reckon the former. 

Ryan Buckland is a great writer and he notes many of the important features of our season so far (the biggest one being our low scoring per minute in possession).

Makes some errors (e.g. naming TMac as a good kick and good decision maker) but overall a good analysis.

He had me at the opening line :

"Melbourne fans have the worst job in football"

great read! 

The Roar is a great site with some really good articles.

3 hours ago, A F said:

...

Anyway, the biggest thing I took from it was that we're a better side than our ladder position or W/L record would suggest and also that it's only a matter of time before it all clicks. The author is almost certainly a Melbourne supporter too.

In another article he speaks of watching Norf's win over Adelaide as almost a supernatural experience and promised to try to not go on about it too much.

It's a nice article but it reads like selective counting to me. The stats can be deceiving because there are so many variables in aussie rules. We see every season that teams with "elite" performance in certain stats aren't very good teams.

The two best gauges of performance are win-loss record, and percentage. If the two are similarly high -- high percentage, high ratio of wins to losses -- then the team is playing well.

At the moment we are 3-4 with a percentage over 100%. That makes us a slightly better team than "just" average. Looking at stats and saying, "they should be higher up the ladder with more wins" just suggests that the stats are flawed, because the team *isn't* higher up the ladder with more wins. Stats don't factor in psychological performance and well being, or the cohesion (or lack thereof) of a group of players. So a team can be elite in 1 or 2 quarters for a match, which will boost their stats, but be well, well below the league average in other areas. That's a bad team. No two ways about it.

At the moment the stats show we are very good in some areas, but the gap between wins and losses is rather significant. To see us be "elite" in some areas during wins but then below average in the same areas in losses actually points to a very fickle, inconsistent, poor *team*. Sometimes individual performances all connect together perfectly, but most of the time selfish and lazy football costs you.

I just don't see how this article is positive. If anything it highlights some very glaring issues that continue to persist with this team. Sorry to burst the author's bubble.

11 hours ago, A F said:

Good article, but certainly don't agree with some of it. The following bit almost debunks the rest of the article: "if you can’t make good, calm decisions and execute long kicks to the advantage of your opponent, you’re not playing in Goodwin’s backline". He then proceeds to name Frost and McDonald. 

Now while Frost's decision making is improving every week and at times he is calm in order to take the game on at the right moment, I wouldn't necessarily refer to him as a calm decision maker who can execute long kicks to the advantage of his team mate. It's almost as if the author hasn't watched these two play before. There is one thing you would never associate with Tom McDonald and that's good decision making.

But it was interesting to read the compliments on our ability to play what he calls 'stop-start football'. @Dr. Gonzo mentioned Hawthorn's ability to control the tempo against us early, which he says upset our structures and tempo. That may well be backed up by this article.

Anyway, the biggest thing I took from it was that we're a better side than our ladder position or W/L record would suggest and also that it's only a matter of time before it all clicks. The author is almost certainly a Melbourne supporter too.

If the stats do tell us anything, it's that our backline is actually quite good, just slightly above average. I think people really turn a blind eye to how well gelled out backline can be. Some of the upfield turnovers are far more infuriating, and most of Hawthorn's first half goals on the weekend actually came from issues further up the ground. Opposition transition and an inability to transition *out of* defense puts even more pressure on the backs, which causes errors. Defenders are never going to directly cost goals unless they directly turn it over to the opposition, which the backline rarely does. The McDonald's are actually very composed with the ball in hand. OMac was one of our best on the weekend, but people chuck a stink when he punches air, or his player kicks a goal. I call these people "lowest common denominator" supporters. Most of the team's turnovers come in the middle of the ground. Our backline isn't the one bleeding goals.

26 minutes ago, praha said:

 

I just don't see how this article is positive. If anything it highlights some very glaring issues that continue to persist with this team. Sorry to burst the author's bubble.

On reading I also didn't take it so much as a Rosey Rosey , we're nearly there style of appraisal.  I see it as an open backhander.

We could be really good, but we're not.

It suggests to me we're 'also rans' unless we addreds some serious problems.

This guy is a Melb supporter, right? 

 

More from Ryan Buckland on KPD disposal efficency.....Rance quite a bit worse than TMac....and Frawley & Hurley ha ha!

DE stats are pretty raw with no context but interesting nonetheless. Frost clearly tries to take the game on and it doesn't always come off....

 

 

 

Nice write up, do not think it is 100% accurate, Tom Mcdonald composed, do not think so.