When do the insipid performances stop

[Binmans PA 26,728]

The other thing about Goffy's post is that it highlights how important someone like Brendan McCartney is to ensuring belief stays within the group. He's been there with Geelong. It took Bomber 7 years in charge before it clicked. I'm not saying it'll take that long, but it shows the importance of persistence and if Macca is happy with the development of our list, that says it all really.

Edited May 22, 2017 by A F

[leave it to deever 16,586]

4 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Well, in 2015 the Dogs lost 4 (including the Elim Final) by under 10 points. Premiership next year.

Hawthorn in their 'reload' period had a few - 4 losses under ten points, and a draw, in 2010. Result - top 4 finishes for next half decade.

2004, Sydney started their season with a 2 point loss, and from round 3 managed three consecutive losses after being in front, by 12, 10 and 13 points. Troubles returned late in the season, with a 15 point fade-out loss to Geelong in round 16, and then they blew a 7 goal 3/4 time lead over North in round 19, to lose by 6 points. Premiership the next year.

In 2006, Geelong copped three different 1-goal losses and a draw, to miss out on finals. They also blew a 3/4 time lead against Richmond (Richmond!?), kicking no goals to the Tiger's five in the final quarter.

But the real comfort for the suffering is Geelong in early 2007. A 4 point loss to Hawthorn in round 4, and then a 16 point loss to the Kangaroos in round 5, which prompted a big club heart-to-heart honest conversation about not getting ahead of themselves and doing the hard work. They promptly came out and annihilated Richmond by 157 the next week, and lost just one more game for the season. The rest is history.

So, there you go. Even within a single season, if the close losses make a club look at itself and decide what it wants to be, and what it can be, then yes it can be a catalyst for becoming one of the greatest teams eve

You do make a well thought out, impassioned and respectable case. 

[Coq au vin 754]

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The 3rd Q yesterday i would call insipid, considering what was on the line

1.2 we managed. Where are our Leaders during the 1st and 3rd Q's (when the expectation is at it's highest points?

it's a big problem Goodwin has on his hands as head coach. 

I wish him luck....

One of the leaders was busy kicking the ball to opposition players.

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

3 minutes ago, Diamond said:

One of the leaders was busy kicking the ball to opposition players.

Yes i know. Happens quite often

[ding 5,126]

5 hours ago, Travis16 said:

You seem to misunderstand excuse v explained reason. Taking out the No 1 ruckman, and a big bodied key forward, and saying these are merely excuses for losing, as opposed to reasons why, is ludicrous.  Personnel MATTERS.  

I do think we could have won yesterday, but there are multiple reasons why we didnt, and missing key players is certainly one of them. The season is very even and on any given day almost any team can beat another, so personnel available is even more relevant.

lol you completely ignored the fact that we won last week without these same 2 players, which reinforces my opinion that its being used as an excuse. 

MFC have made some of their supporters masters of it.

[ding 5,126]

4 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Gawn makes us a 3 goal better side. Spencer a 2 goal better side.

Hogan a 2 goal better side. 

That's the difference. 

Until we get a ruckman we will struggle to win. Can't keep losing hit outs 70/30 and expect to win. 

In addition our full forward is a 19yo developing player that is only in the side because we don't have a ruck and a full forward. 

If injuries are minimal in the second half of the season I expect us to come home with a bang. 

I expect us to win 8 from last 11 games and make finals football. 

Geezus dude, you are on some wild gear if you honestly think we will win 8 of our last 11.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,899]

On 2017-05-21 at 8:28 PM, drdrake said:

You look at Essendon they expect to win, the club has been smashed but has a winning culture we have a flakey culture and that is what we get on field 

Essendon were deplorable against us and also got beaten by Carlton.....

I'm not trying to make excuses but people on here really have short memories. A couple of wins and suddenly Essendon 'expect to win'? Give me a break.

[pineapple dee 2,892]

On 21/05/2017 at 7:38 PM, Pipefitter said:

When the bald unpire with number 15 retires. He didn't give us 1 all day.

Correction Pipe, that bald pretender of an umpire did give us one free in the third quarter. I was watching the play over the top of his shiny bald head and blow me down if he didn't call a free to us from 60 metres away. His partially sighted colleague, standing near the wing and a couple of metres from the action missed the bleeding obvious and it fell to umpire knucklehead ( sorry Nicholls ) to look into his black soul and give 1 free to the dees. He was therefore responsible for paying at least 10% of Melbourne's frees. Let's not bad mouth Umpire Nicholls please !!!!

[Soidee 1,496]

Until The MFC can turn up to the MCG and play ferocious focussed football against all teams, particularly teams below us and in poor form, we will not be a team that deserve trust!   I don't trust this club yet to win consistently.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,827]

Some of you people seem to have the mentality that this is a training drill and MFC just needs to turn up and apply ourselves to get the result. We do have to play against an opponent who aren't just going to let us get away with doing things solely on our terms.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Dr. Gonzo

[Coq au vin 754]

10 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Essendon were deplorable against us and also got beaten by Carlton.....

I'm not trying to make excuses but people on here really have short memories. A couple of wins and suddenly Essendon 'expect to win'? Give me a break.

We have difficulty against opposition with tall players, especially forwards. E.g. Richmond, Hawthorn, North. We were lucky against Essendon that on that particular day Daniher couldn't hit the side of a barn door. If he was on song it could have been a very different story. The game against Adelaide is looking more like an aberration. However they missed quite a few goals too.

[John Crow Batty 8,376]

Just love how all the apologists keep looking for excuses in our structures, experience, blaming umpires,  personnel or lack of to explain away why we have lost so many close games. In four of our losses the games were all winnable in the last few minutes. We always defer to the sides that want to win more than us. If we broke even and won 50/50 we would be flying high. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by america de cali

[mauriesy 6,913]

14 hours ago, ding said:

lol you completely ignored the fact that we won last week without these same 2 players, which reinforces my opinion that its being used as an excuse. 

MFC have made some of their supporters masters of it.

How do you reckon North might have gone on Sunday without Brown and Goldstein (and no talls left to back either of them up)?

I also reckon it's taking a lot out of Pedersen, Watts and TMac.

Edited May 22, 2017 by mauriesy

[pineapple dee 2,892]

30 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Just love how all the apologists keep looking for excuses in our structures, experience, blaming umpires,  personnel or lack of to explain away why we have lost so many close games. In four of our losses the games were all winnable in the last few minutes. We always defer to the sides that want to win more than us. If we broke even and won 50/50 we would be flying high. 

What you're saying is correct America but people who frequent Demonland remember umpires applying the long standing rules of the game. We are entitled to be upset when we see blatant infringements ignored on a regular basis. This is borderline cheating by the umpires. Umpires are human beings and subject to making mistakes like everybody else. Their job is near impossible to carry out but even so, they could perform a damn sight better that what they're currently doing. This is not umpire bashing, it's simple frustration about the "Chook lotto " approach we have at the moment.

[John Crow Batty 8,376]

3 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

What you're saying is correct America but people who frequent Demonland remember umpires applying the long standing rules of the game. We are entitled to be upset when we see blatant infringements ignored on a regular basis. This is borderline cheating by the umpires. Umpires are human beings and subject to making mistakes like everybody else. Their job is near impossible to carry out but even so, they could perform a damn sight better that what they're currently doing. This is not umpire bashing, it's simple frustration about the "Chook lotto " approach we have at the moment.

Agree, the umps were perhaps the worst I have ever seen in this game, but we overcame their outrages to draw level in the last quarter. It was not them that caused us to stop playing. 

[praha 10,574]

Really though we've been pretty good this year. Been in a winnable position in every game, but ultimately lost it in the air. The North game was hardly insipid. Our game against Geelong last year was insipid. Sunday was a tough game, we faltered, but calling it insipid is hyperbolic. 

 

[ding 5,126]

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

How do you reckon North might have gone on Sunday without Brown and Goldstein (and no talls left to back either of them up)?

I also reckon it's taking a lot out of Pedersen, Watts and TMac.

Exhibit A

Last week proved we can win without them, so why use it as an excuse.

[bandicoot 1,395]

16 hours ago, ding said:

Geezus dude, you are on some wild gear if you honestly think we will win 8 of our last 11.

We lost to geelong because Gawn was off for the second half.

we lost to Richmond because spencer didn't play after 1st qtr.

we lost to hawthorn and north because we didn't have a ruckman.

that would have made us 8-1. 

[bandicoot 1,395]

14 minutes ago, ding said:

Exhibit A

Last week proved we can win without them, so why use it as an excuse.

Because it isn't sustainable. You might get a win here and there but over the long run it will cost you games. 

[hardtack 10,187]

10 minutes ago, ding said:

Exhibit A

Last week proved we can win without them, so why use it as an excuse.

I get the feeling the game against the Crows really drained a few of them and in particular Watts who has been taking on a hell of a lot since Spencer's demise; he looked knackered from almost the first bounce.  Add to that the fact that they were competing against one of the best rucks in the comp, it certainly didn't help.  For me, we really lost this game as a result of playing TMac up forward for that first quarter... I think that probably cost us goals.  In fact, that move surprised me as I seem to recall Goodwin saying after the Crows game that it was not something he would do regularly, but that these moves could sometimes take an opposition by surprise if used sparingly (or something along those lines).

I'm just waiting for the day that we can jump out of the blocks from the first bounce and not look back (praying that will be the Queen's Bidet game when my son and I will make it down).

[The Sailing Demon 379]

Not that I call injuries an excuse, but I do think that people under estimate how damaging Max Gawn and Jesse Hogan are rotating up forward. when they are both in the forward line there is usually a mark taken.
The JLT series was a good example, if it's not Jesse marking, then it's Gawn, and if not Gawn, it's Watts.

All will be proven when those 2 boys return, we will make a hot run for the finals in the second half of the season if they remain healthy.

We don't just lose 2 players, we lose about 4.
Pedo has to go into ruck so we miss him forward, same with Watts, can't keep patching these circle holes with square bandages, team structure is imperative to a win, it's not grade footy when all we have to do is rely on 2 or 3 wicked players to dominate games, theres a science to it and when you remove an element in somethings makeup then the whole thing turns to custard.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,827]

1 hour ago, praha said:

Really though we've been pretty good this year. Been in a winnable position in every game, but ultimately lost it in the air. The North game was hardly insipid. Our game against Geelong last year was insipid. Sunday was a tough game, we faltered, but calling it insipid is hyperbolic. 

 

Exactly - disappointing to lose but not worth demanding resignations and crying that the teams no good etc 

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

1 hour ago, praha said:

Really though we've been pretty good this year. Been in a winnable position in every game, but ultimately lost it in the air. The North game was hardly insipid. Our game against Geelong last year was insipid. Sunday was a tough game, we faltered, but calling it insipid is hyperbolic. 

 

13 shots at goal in the first Q are pretty insipid to me. 

6.7 could have very easily been 10.3

we cannot let teams own us for entire quarters

momentum swings are a part of the game. 

But not for entire quarters IF we are to believe the team is improving to September levels

[mauriesy 6,913]

1 hour ago, ding said:

Exhibit A

Last week proved we can win without them, so why use it as an excuse.

The logical extension of that is that we should be able field half our Casey team and still be able to win. After all, losing some "top 5" players is "just an excuse" and our attitude is just "insipid".

Losing Gawn (and Spencer) throws our whole team out of position. Not only don't we have an AA ruck, who can also work in the forward line or back line by intercept marking against opposition talls (McEvoy a fortnight ago, Goldstein yesterday), but we have to shift players like Watts, Pedersen and Tmac out of position. Watts is probably playing worse because he gets banged up having to ruck against bigger and taller opponents. Pedersen runs around the ground full time, does a fantastic job, but gets stuffed by the end of the match with the workload. TMac in the ruck means our backline talls become two players (OMac and Frost) who are inexperienced and have played less than 30 games each.

Losing Hogan means we lack big talls in our forward line. A player like Weideman has to play as the main forward, a role he is not yet up to. Effectively, he has to play like a Roughhead, instead of like a Gunston where he'd be better suited. Lack of talls also reduces Garlett's crumbing ability because the ball doesn't come to ground or off the packs as much. We can't play Watts forward as much because he spends more time rucking.

I think the team has done a fantastic job of covering Gawn and Hogan's loss, but at some stage it's going to show. Sunday was a warm, dry day and having experienced talls really mattered. We were killed by North's, especially Tarrant, Thompson and Hansen in the backline. They then got drive down the field through linking handballs and fast transition to score goals.

I think to label the team's performance "insipid" is a disgrace. It was a hard, tough match and they didn't really flinch.

 

[mauriesy 6,913]

52 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

13 shots at goal in the first Q are pretty insipid to me.

Insipid means "weak". Yes, they were outplayed and jumped at the start. But they weren't "insipid".

But whatever floats your boat as a keyboard warrior.