4 hours ago, ProDee said:

Not a finals side. 

 

If we had an injury list like last year we would be ! But not looking good this year I'm afraid 

1 hour ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Our worst 4 players in each game we lose are often the reason we lose. Watts, Kent, Weid and Garlett were our worst today, and the story once again is we couldn't convert our hard work. We are being tortured by a lack of outside class, especially trting to find a target inside 50. Bugg's misses, Jones' horrendous kciking, the embarrassing clangers from our 3 KPD players, and our ingrained habit of not lowering our eyes for close forward targets.

I thought we had a fair crack at the game, were annihilated by their tall forwards and backs, but our worst 4 cost us 30+ points. Watts is beginning to concern me. He has some credits, but he and Kent lacked any phhsical presence at all today. Both very low intensity, low pressure, and ineffective. Garlett has had a great year so will allow him one shocker, but he can go missing for runs of matches so I hope that is not starting now. 

It feels very much like 2011 and 2016 all over again. Fairly hollow admission that. 

 

I think it's more telling that these guys barely laid any tackles. It's less about converting the shots, because Bugg missed all of those for us. It's more about actually bringing intensity to the forward 50, the middle of the ground and half back. These guys didn't today. It didn't help that our mids' tackles were also well down.

3 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Weids probably got a game today off the back of some good tackles last week. Everyone on here was raving about his game so I didn't say anything. I thought he was average at best last week and should've been back at Casey. Having said that, I have no idea who would come in for him.

That's the problem who comes in for him? He's completely unsighted for the majority of games, he did have some good crunching tackles last week but as a key forward he's offering us nothing. That's not to have a go at the kid he should be playing the season at Casey. Just unfortunate Hogan and Smith are out and Pedersen has to cover Gawn/Spencer in the ruck.

8 minutes ago, Soidee said:

I will make a very controversial commen here and fully expect to be hammered, however I do not think this team will take serious steps forward while Jonesy is still skipper.  My opinion I own it.  

Hmm. Big call. No doubt his form has been ordinary. Who is the best alternative, though?

Edited May 21, 20178 yr by Deemented Are Go!

46 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The competition is so even this year anyone can beat anyone on their day (other than Brisbane). I hoped we would win today and thought we were in with a good showing but I didn't "expect" us to win. And that's not because I thought "typical Melbourne" or any other self loathing neurotic crap either 

We win games we're expected to lose whenever we're the HUNTER.

We lose games we're expected to win whenever we're the HUNTED.

From the senior coach to the bootstudder (yeah, I know), we simply don't know how to prevail when the opposition plans effectively against us.

To be a true contender, we need to find out how to drag ourselves over the line in a close game we should have lost.

3 hours ago, Abe said:

I just can't understand how we forget to show up with effort and intensity, this is a whole new group with the same issues as the previous group 

I've seen people say this through the thread, do you have examples of lack of effort and intensity? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I didn't really see it. We were outplayed for parts of the game (especially early before we adjusted) but that's not always down to effort and intensity. Our tackling was down on last week but North were flinging it around in the first quarter not allowing us the chance to land a tackle on them.

3 hours ago, Ash35 said:

Bulldogs won a flag last year without a recognised ruckman......and a make shift forward line.

Roughead and Boyd are still capable of playing ruck and competing.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I've seen people say this through the thread, do you have examples of lack of effort and intensity? I'm not saying it didn't happen but I didn't really see it. We were outplayed for parts of the game (especially early before we adjusted) but that's not always down to effort and intensity. Our tackling was down on last week but North were flinging it around in the first quarter not allowing us the chance to land a tackle on them.

How about any number of attempts to go near the ball from Dean Kent?

And bombing the ball into attack is no good if you can't get it within about 20m of goal.

Bombing it to 40-50m out is a downright mistake, just begging for a rebound goal. Oppo defenders' eyes light up when they see us bomb it to 50 out. Especially if -yet again - they play a spare in defence.

Gawn returns. Who goes? Ltd assume Weid is back at Casey.

Who goes? 

Watts or Pedo?

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I don't feel angry about this loss, even though I should.  I'm not sure why really.  We should have won this game but I still feel as though we had a red hot go and were undone by things outside of control (mostly, anyway).

Their height had us covered all day and we could do little about it.  Most will smash Oscar for it, but Ben Brown was too tall for him and when he was allowed to get a run at it Oscar had little chance.  I'm not sure what else he can do.  I still feel as though we need another key backman, though.

What I got out of today was that we missed Jesse big time this week.  Watts and Weideman didn't trouble the scorers and both Thompson and Tarrant were too strong in the contest for them.  With Hogan, he can beat both of those one on one or at worst get the ball to ground.  We didn't have that today and it meant our smalls, like Garlett and Kent, were kept out of the game.  We kept bombing it in and they kept marking it.  Not much our small players can do in this situation.

The last thing I got out of the game is that we're now a side who are never out of the contest.  Even after a horrid first term I knew we would bounce back... and we did.  We might not have won, but that will come.  We aren't pushovers anymore and sides can't walk all over us anymore.  Once we learn how to win more consistently then we'll be a tough side to play.

Finally, kudos to Mitch Hannan who played superbly today.  I was really impressed with his efforts.

Good post. Tarrant, Thompson, Hansen, Goldstein, Brown, Waite - they're were just too tall for us. The point about our small forwards being taken out of the contest due to a lack of balls brought to ground is a good one too, they were all ineffectual (bar Hannan who played tall).

3 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

He was ok last week lets be honest but ts sad that ok is good enough

Before anyone screams who else is there remember that he never kicks goals. Better off without him....he is far from ready. 

What can we do? Stick him in the goal square to take a defender out of the play?

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

OMac and Weid have to go. They are only getting games because of their height. We are playing 2 men down with those 2 in the side.

Kent is an absolute downhill skier. Whenever we get beaten he is down at the bottom of the stats.

The umps were an absolute disgrace. Bernie got punched with a clenched fist to the gut and the ump was 5m away. No free or report. We got 10 frees in a whole game of footy that was as fierce as you will see, They should all be sacked,

 

Bit tough on OMac I thought he did as well as could be expected. He shouldn't have been on Brown, it should've been Frost. That's not his fault. Only reason I can think is they wanted Frost further up the ground to create run through half back while Brown was sitting deep around 10-15m out from goal.

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Good post. Tarrant, Thompson, Hansen, Goldstein, Brown, Waite - they're were just too tall for us. The point about our small forwards being taken out of the contest due to a lack of balls brought to ground is a good one too, they were all ineffectual (bar Hannan who played tall).

They were also to quick for us, as when they got the ball and spread, they scored. They were also too switched on for us. They were also too skillful for us, as we struggle to  pass a ball with pressure by hand or foot. They also had a ruckman and a full forward which we didn't. They were also too aggressive for us. they also decided to play for the whole game, which we didn't. They also had every player contributing which we didn't. They also had forwards who lead to the ball carrier and then hold their marks, which we didn't. They also brought their own umpires.

Edited May 21, 20178 yr by Redleg

3 hours ago, rjay said:

No, they didn't tag Oliver.

They just got the better of the midfield battle to day.

Swallow was basically hugging Oliver at the centre bounces. They were scragging him non stop.

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What can we do? Stick him in the goal square to take a defender out of the play?

That's pretty much what I'd do. Keep him deep so we "lengthen" the forward line and ideally create some space in front of him.

It's too easy to defend against us with everyone pushed up. And Weideman doesn't have the tank to keep running up to the centre and then sprinting back.

Outside of Jeffy, none of our forwards are kicking goals regularly. So we should set up for what we've got out there, not for what we'd have if Hogan was in.

So much often suggested about the wins we SHOULD have won.

A little pointless perhaps. We are what we are : 4 and 5. Any which way that's mightily disappointing. 

I can't see anything to suggest that ratio will change much for the season. 

We'll have a couple of good wins to come and more hair pulling losses where we'll return to this post game post mortem again and again.

MELBOURNE....where the more things change, the more it stays the same. 

There has to be a plan that the FD are working to. I'm sure there are plenty of metrics to analyse with data from those Champion fellas and hearty nodding will accompany shufflings on whiteboards. 

But for all this a lot doesn't change.

Im sure the club works towards change. Some clubs seem much better at effecting such change.

What's missing in our efforts ?

Why do so many uneviable records belong to us ?

There seems an odd inertia we can't escape.

Find it terribly hard to muster excitement about what we should be. Despite anything we could be we still are middle of the roaders at present. They dont win the choccies.

 

3 hours ago, Older demon said:

Ziebel punching Clarrie behind play and Cunnington punching Bernie on the umps blind side. Hope they both get a week off.

Don't hold your breath 

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Wow. Don't tell me Goodwin has been defeated already?

that doesn't sound great at all...

Haha get a grip. You read one quote from a press conference with no context whatsoever and extrapolate that Goodwin has been defeated. Not one for hyperbole, eh?

1 hour ago, Diamond said:

BS

Care to extrapolate

33 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Swallow was basically hugging Oliver at the centre bounces. They were scragging him non stop.

Sometimes Zeibel or one of the others...it's not unusual and pretty standard fare at any centre bounce but he wasn't being tagged as such.

For some reason a lot on here seem to think opposition coaches haven't worked out Oliver is a key player...they all have known about him since his first game last year. It's what they're paid for.

You don't run a hard tag on Oliver because he doesn't do a lot of damage on the outside, yet. They all try and keep him off his game around the stoppages though so there was not a lot new there.

I think it was you that pointed out how Goldy was very effective for them today & to me it was this more than anything else that put all our mids on the back foot.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Haha get a grip. You read one quote from a press conference with no context whatsoever and extrapolate that Goodwin has been defeated. Not one for hyperbole, eh?

You don't talk like that, ever

it's the psych of the club for so long

It's time Melbourne got angry at losing. 

It is 11 years since we beat Nought. 11 years to a club who are mediocre at best...

 

1 hour ago, Akum said:

We win games we're expected to lose whenever we're the HUNTER.

We lose games we're expected to win whenever we're the HUNTED.

From the senior coach to the bootstudder (yeah, I know), we simply don't know how to prevail when the opposition plans effectively against us.

To be a true contender, we need to find out how to drag ourselves over the line in a close game we should have lost.

I agree, part of that is learning to wrest the game back onto our terms. That will come with maturity 

2 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

You're technically right on the 195+ KPF, but it's a pretty selective bracket. By 2 cm's your missing Pederson, Tim Smith and Hulett from this years list. Waite or Cam McCarthy isn't in that category either.

 

195 is arbitrary, but you have to draw a line somewhere, and when you start getting below this height you're generally looking more at supporting forwards than the KPF's you can build a structure around (there will be exceptions up and down - Watts for one is more in that supporting category because he loses a foot by not marking above his head). But the players you cite being on the below side is my point. We've brought in Hullet, Smith, Hannan, (and Johnstone) into our forward line in the past couple years as support for just Hogan (195), Watts (196), Weids (195), and Pedersen (193), who wasn't evidently in the plans until we lost our ruck brigade. I can see what we're trying but I think we've erred. We're seriously lacking in big-bodied forward height, no two ways about it.

1 hour ago, A F said:

How about any number of attempts to go near the ball from Dean Kent?

To be honest I didn't really notice much of that but I was sitting on the southern stand wing close to the fence. Will try and take note on the replay if I can stomach watching it.

Even so, that's one player, not indicative of the whole team playing with no intensity or effort.