I do question Goodwin on our forward structure.  We are one of the worst sides in the competition for converting forward 50 entries into scores, and the big reason for that is that we consistently bomb to the top of the square.  It's far too predictable, we don't have the forwards to take the pack mark at the end of it and it doesn't fit in with the rest of our gameplan.  Last night it not only cost us the opportunity to score, but it repeatedly turned into a 12 point play when Adelaide ran the ball the length of the ground and goaled.  As much as Adelaide looked better than us on the night, if we'd actually scored those goals instead of conceding them we still could have won. 

The reason I think this is a massive coaching fail is that Goodwin consistently plays an undermanned forward line to get extra players into the middle.  At the centre bounce our half-forwards are at the back of the square looking to charge in and rush the contested ball forward.  That's great, but when we get a clean clearance the players are banging the ball long in to the 50 (presumably on instruction) to a 6-4 outnumber where the defence is already set up to protect that space because

I do question Goodwin on our forward structure.  We are one of the worst sides in the competition for converting forward 50 entries into scores, and the big reason for that is that we consistently bomb to the top of the square.  It's far too predictable, we don't have the forwards to take the pack mark at the end of it and it doesn't fit in with the rest of our gameplan.  Last night it not only cost us the opportunity to score, but it repeatedly turned into a 12 point play when Adelaide ran the ball the length of the ground and goaled.  As much as Adelaide looked better than us on the night, if we'd actually scored those goals instead of conceding them we still could have won. 

The reason I think this is a massive coaching fail is that Goodwin consistently plays an undermanned forward line to get extra players into the middle.  At the centre bounce our half-forwards are at the back of the square looking to charge in and rush the contested ball forward.  That's great, but when we get a clean clearance the players are banging the ball long in to the 50 (presumably on instruction) to a 6-4 outnumber where the defence is already set up to protect that space because WE ALWAYS PUT IT THERE!  The only time our attack has looked dangerous all year has been when we had no tall options and had to work the ball around and find the open man. 

I do love the direction the club is going and the work Roos and Goodwin have done, but this is a clear fault in the way we play and I can't understand the coaching group allowing it to continue. 

40 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I can definitely see where you are comming from on this one Sir and really like your thinking in many senses, but actually not sure abandoning the NT would be the right move.

We might be up and about at the moment and perhaps we could squeeze that extra $1M out of MFC membership, but:

1. If we can squeeze that exta out in the better times, we need to bank it for thexample leaner times;

2.  Slightly different propersition I know, but case in point, even strong Vic teams like Hawthorn didn't abandon their interstate relationships/sponsorship deals during the good times;

3.  The geographic proximity of Adelaide and WC to the NT in terms of airline routes means that more often or not I think we will end up playing one of those sides in the NT and their supporters will out number ours due to the economics of air travel, size of supporter base etc.  To some extent, the whole propersition needs our opponents supporters to turn out on mass as well for it to make sense financially for the NT gov to come to the party as well 

 

I'm guesing that somewhat, the reality is there are a disproportionate number of teams from Vic and that until one or more fold/relocate perminantly, then these sales of interstate games to the smaller states are a necessary survival mechanism for the lesser power/supporter base Vic clubs.

Asides from all that I'm actually considering how watching the mighty Demons in the NT could work in well with a bit of a holiday there myself with the old man!

Playing in Tasmania is totally different to playing up in the NT. 

The longer we keep this interstate deal going, the harder it is going to be to make finals and go deep into September

Next week i wouldn't be at all suprised to see more soft tissue injuries occur, because of last nights extra fluid loss. 

Make Finals and the club could sell $1 Mill worth of merchandise if they are clever

I'm with Ralphius. To my (not very competent, I admit) eye, it seems that we're better off when Hogan's not there. I know he's still getting into form, but even before his recent troubles, we still seemed to just bomb it long to him and hope for the best. When he was out of the team we found ways to improvise a decent score. Like a few others here, for now, at least, I'd rather see him on the ball or cruising around the forward line, rather than being its sole focus. 

6 hours ago, praha said:

No they didn't.  We competed extremely well in that area.

Crows won in one place and one place only: rebound transition. I keep seeing people say they smashed us in the middle and contested ball. They didn't at all. Stats prove that and if you watched the game you'd have seen we won quite a lot of ball. Admirable considering Crows are no.1 for contested ball and we're missing 2 of our top contested ball winners.

They won by moving the ball from defense to attack with ease. It was uncontested ball they smashed us in, not contested.

Yes they did - when the ball was there to be won when it mattered (first half) Crows won clearances and contested footy. I don't have stats, it was my observation from watching. Also I'm not saying we didn't win our fair share of the footy, we did, but the quality was a lot better from the Crows

Then we won the ball we turned it over across half forward and they rebounded.

There is no right or wrong tere it's just opinions, but look at how the Crows rebounded from rushed or poor possessions. We were easily beaten all day

Hopefully with Viney, Jones, Tyson we can turn this around in the next few weeks

 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Playing in Tasmania is totally different to playing up in the NT. 

The longer we keep this interstate deal going, the harder it is going to be to make finals and go deep into September

Next week i wouldn't be at all suprised to see more soft tissue injuries occur, because of last nights extra fluid loss. 

Make Finals and the club could sell $1 Mill worth of merchandise if they are clever

Thank You Dr  SWYL.

I was not aware of your expertise in high performance training and preparation .

You enlighten us all with your scientific genius.

Yes we all hate the Darwin game.

No -there is no way a game in the tropics flattens a team facing near freezing conditions at home.

if I was a player I would be happy to go north for a couple of days to escape the freezing cold.

29 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Thank You Dr  SWYL.

I was not aware of your expertise in high performance training and preparation .

You enlighten us all with your scientific genius.

Yes we all hate the Darwin game.

No -there is no way a game in the tropics flattens a team facing near freezing conditions at home.

if I was a player I would be happy to go north for a couple of days to escape the freezing cold.

But how do you rehydrate 5kg's compared to the oposition?

i disagree that an elite sportsman isn't effected by hot conditions for a period of time

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I do question Goodwin on our forward structure.  We are one of the worst sides in the competition for converting forward 50 entries into scores, and the big reason for that is that we consistently bomb to the top of the square.  It's far too predictable, we don't have the forwards to take the pack mark at the end of it and it doesn't fit in with the rest of our gameplan.  Last night it not only cost us the opportunity to score, but it repeatedly turned into a 12 point play when Adelaide ran the ball the length of the ground and goaled.  As much as Adelaide looked better than us on the night, if we'd actually scored those goals instead of conceding them we still could have won. 

The reason I think this is a massive coaching fail is that Goodwin consistently plays an undermanned forward line to get extra players into the middle.  At the centre bounce our half-forwards are at the back of the square looking to charge in and rush the contested ball forward.  That's great, but when we get a clean clearance the players are banging the ball long in to the 50 (presumably on instruction) to a 6-4 outnumber where the defence is already set up to protect that space because WE ALWAYS PUT IT THERE!  The only time our attack has looked dangerous all year has been when we had no tall options and had to work the ball around and find the open man. 

I do love the direction the club is going and the work Roos and Goodwin have done, but this is a clear fault in the way we play and I can't understand the coaching group allowing it to continue. 

Spot on. Great analysis. 

1 hour ago, Unleash Hell said:

Yes they did - when the ball was there to be won when it mattered (first half) Crows won clearances and contested footy. I don't have stats, it was my observation from watching. Also I'm not saying we didn't win our fair share of the footy, we did, but the quality was a lot better from the Crows

Then we won the ball we turned it over across half forward and they rebounded.

There is no right or wrong tere it's just opinions, but look at how the Crows rebounded from rushed or poor possessions. We were easily beaten all day

Hopefully with Viney, Jones, Tyson we can turn this around in the next few weeks

 

But winning from rushed and poor possessions isn't the same as winning the clearances and contested ball. I feel your viewing was selective. Stats aren't subjective. We won pivotal stoppages and clearances and went forward more than they did but simply lost it on the rebound. We competed well and fought hard at clearances and around stoppages.  It was simply a matter of Adelaide's defense and rebounding being a league above.  Not to understate how good they were but we stood up well against a very strong contested ball winning side. They absolutely annihilated us on the rebound out of our F50. That has nothing to do with stoppages or clearances.

55 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Yes they did - when the ball was there to be won when it mattered (first half) Crows won clearances and contested footy. I don't have stats, it was my observation from watching. Also I'm not saying we didn't win our fair share of the footy, we did, but the quality was a lot better from the Crows

 

I'll help you out with some of the stats - 45 to 36 clearances - close to if not our worst deficit for the year. 7 goals to 2 their way from clearances - our lowest return for the year. Not sure our precise midfield tackle stats - but I would hazard a guess it was our poorest for the year.

Then you can add the eyes on top of that - they had far, far cleaner clearances. And the most important factor, we were dominated in the centre-clearances when it counted - during the first quarter and consistently after anytime we put on a bit of scoreboard pressure. That equals a smashing.

21 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

But how do you rehydrate 5kg's compared to the oposition?

i disagree that an elite sportsman isn't effected by hot conditions for a period of time

We could drink our own bathwater to replace lost salt.

So presumably Crows go down next week as well?

2 hours ago, xarronn said:

Reasons why no change for NT deal:

1. Pretty sure we recently signed up for an extension on the NT deal - 3 years? So little or no chance of changing any time very soon.

2. I know that PJ has worked out the finances and I am happy to rely on his calculations v a levy on memberships or some other  alternative. ie a bird in the hand v bird in the bush.

3. Anyone who says the money doesn't matter, clearly doesn't have to find the money to pay for the Football Department, The Womens Team or the NT Academy etc.

4. The NT Academy - not only does this cost money but it is advantageous for us to have a presence there and lets see what that might do for us.

5. If we had not had the injuries, is there any reason why we should not have beaten Adelaide? What is this hellhole stuff? There was exactly the same commentary about Etihad until we started winning. Winning or losing is more about the team not the venue, especially in Darwin.

6. We lack majority support in Darwin? Why would we expect that to not be the case? Have we been a dominant team for 10 years? Do we have 55 to 60 thousand members as Adelaide or Port or West Coast do? But if we do become a dominant team for the next few years, a lot could change.

7. I am not suggesting that this deal should stay in place forever, but what would we have done without the finances from this deal in the last few years and what might happen if if we collapse again in a few years time?

 

This is a complete losers mentality in regards to finances we would have got 40000 plus playing the crows in Melb. We have been playing there for 8 years in Darwin with a 3-5 win loss record our record after these matches is appauling and if any supporter of the Melbourne Football Club is happy with this is happy with mediorcrity. The game that is played up in Darwin if played at all should lead into a bye and not against an South Australia based team why not take Freo or Bris up there. Don't have an issue with Alice Springs because the climate is ok and they got Gold Coast up there. I firmly believe mistakes have been made continously with regards to Darwin. 

10 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Last night was Just further evidence that we lack smart, composed and skilled top-tier key defenders. 

No it wasn't.

2 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I do question Goodwin on our forward structure.  We are one of the worst sides in the competition for converting forward 50 entries into scores, and the big reason for that is that we consistently bomb to the top of the square.  It's far too predictable, we don't have the forwards to take the pack mark at the end of it and it doesn't fit in with the rest of our gameplan.  Last night it not only cost us the opportunity to score, but it repeatedly turned into a 12 point play when Adelaide ran the ball the length of the ground and goaled.  As much as Adelaide looked better than us on the night, if we'd actually scored those goals instead of conceding them we still could have won. 

The reason I think this is a massive coaching fail is that Goodwin consistently plays an undermanned forward line to get extra players into the middle.  At the centre bounce our half-forwards are at the back of the square looking to charge in and rush the contested ball forward.  That's great, but when we get a clean clearance the players are banging the ball long in to the 50 (presumably on instruction) to a 6-4 outnumber where the defence is already set up to protect that space because WE ALWAYS PUT IT THERE!  The only time our attack has looked dangerous all year has been when we had no tall options and had to work the ball around and find the open man. 

I do love the direction the club is going and the work Roos and Goodwin have done, but this is a clear fault in the way we play and I can't understand the coaching group allowing it to continue. 

There are several issues starting with players behind the centre square.

You rely on players running and providing handball options to carry the ball forward. Because kicking the ball fwd sees you outnumbered - in some cases by 6 to 2. We did that a lot though. It was frustrating in the extreme.

It was bad in the Swans game but the players were buggered and couldn't keep up with the running. It is a very taxing style of play and relies on players being composed with the ball, spreading and running in waves.

It was hot in Darwin and we fell down in that area. It was no coincidence that in the Sydney game when we started with a 6, 6, 6 structure in the final quarter we played better and stopped Sydney rebounding the ball out of defence.

We never really did that against Adelaide and their defence waltzed the ball out all night with ease. This coupled with some unbelievably bad fumbles, turnovers and dropped marks meamt we were chasing our tails all night.

Despite that , when Hunt kicked his monster barrel after the 3/4 siren I thought we were still in with a shot. Only 22pts down. Alas it was not to be.

9 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Have a look at Hunts goal at 3/4 time. 

Now that I've seen, first angle doesn't do it justice. The wide shot shows how far he actually kicked it, this kid's going to be a star. 

11 hours ago, grazman said:

Port are very Jeckyl and Hyde.   Beaten at home by Richmond and in terms of form they haven't really beaten anyone in the 8 (except for Sydney at the start when they were depleted on their way to 0-6).

We don't usually play well after being in Darwin, but I think getting fresh legs back in is a must.  We will need more than just Tyson and Watts,  depending on Casey form I think we should also consider Stretch (outside run) and maybe Kennedy/Trengove if Viney doesn't get up.

Yes, but until recently we have not played particularly well after playing anywhere.

Does anyone know any stats about how our various opponents have fared after the Darwin game?  IF they have fared as badly as us it strengthens the argument for any Darwin game to precede a bye for both sides.

 

10 hours ago, Diablo Deemon said:

Conditions resulted in so many fumbles below our knees last night. Under the Adelaide pressure we continually 2nd and 3rd grabbed at the ball. We also over handballed due to the pressure. But our handballing created no space or movement at the contest.

Forward of the ball our structure fell down too many players getting sucked up to the contest while Adelaide staying back and defending 30-50 with ease. 

We struggle against contested marking teams and on the flip side our contested marking has been poor. We can't find a player to win a one on one on the wings or take a pack mark. Time and time again Adelaide was able to relieve pressure with a contested mark. 

Entry inside 50 took me back to the Moloney days of bombing and hoping no connection between midfield and forwards

As I saw it both teams were playing at the same ground under the same conditions, yet we fumbled more and we couldn't take the marks that Adelaide did.

I saw it as we were playing against a far more mature settled team with most of their preferred mids available.

9 hours ago, willmoy said:

I reckon the umpiring was "special"

willmoy - are you an alias for Brooooce?

1 hour ago, Win4theAges said:

This is a complete losers mentality in regards to finances we would have got 40000 plus playing the crows in Melb. We have been playing there for 8 years in Darwin with a 3-5 win loss record our record after these matches is appauling and if any supporter of the Melbourne Football Club is happy with this is happy with mediorcrity. The game that is played up in Darwin if played at all should lead into a bye and not against an South Australia based team why not take Freo or Bris up there. Don't have an issue with Alice Springs because the climate is ok and they got Gold Coast up there. I firmly believe mistakes have been made continously with regards to Darwin. 

 

W4A, I agree that it would be far better for us to have a bye after Darwin, as it would be for our opponents. I have no doubt the club would be pushing for the best fixture possible, but I also understand that there may be many other factors at play. It surprises me that you think that date that we play in Darwin is a result of mistakes rather than competing priorities.

We have played Freo and Brisbane up there, - three of the 8 games have been against those clubs.

We all know that we have been crap for many years, so I was curious what our record has been between 2010 and 2016 if we looked at a random round and the results of the following round.

I looked at rounds 14 and 15, - totally selected at random. Had to swap for rounds 16 and 17 in 2015 because we played in Darwin in rd 14 that year. Not perfect but as close as possible to a random comparison with Darwin.

Darwin - 3 W 4 L       In the following round: 0 W and 7 L

Rd 14 - 3 W 4 L        In the following round: 1 W and 6 L

Unsurprisingly, there is barely any difference during such a terrible era.

Finally W4A, I'm sure no Melbourne supporter is happy with mediocrity, but the issue is what does the club have to do to keep it moving forward.  

As far as having a loser's mentality goes, wouldn't that be thinking we cant win in Darwin on a regular and consistent basis in the future?

It wasn't hot and it certainly wasn't humid at the ground last night. It was absolutely perfect conditions to play football.

We were playing a full strength side at the top of the ladder without 6 of our best players. 

Next week we play a top 4 side also without injuries and we may have 2 back, but lose 2 as well. 

Expect a similar result

51 minutes ago, xarronn said:

W4A, I agree that it would be far better for us to have a bye after Darwin, as it would be for our opponents. I have no doubt the club would be pushing for the best fixture possible, but I also understand that there may be many other factors at play. It surprises me that you think that date that we play in Darwin is a result of mistakes rather than competing priorities.

We have played Freo and Brisbane up there, - three of the 8 games have been against those clubs.

We all know that we have been crap for many years, so I was curious what our record has been between 2010 and 2016 if we looked at a random round and the results of the following round.

I looked at rounds 14 and 15, - totally selected at random. Had to swap for rounds 16 and 17 in 2015 because we played in Darwin in rd 14 that year. Not perfect but as close as possible to a random comparison with Darwin.

Darwin - 3 W 4 L       In the following round: 0 W and 7 L

Rd 14 - 3 W 4 L        In the following round: 1 W and 6 L

Unsurprisingly, there is barely any difference during such a terrible era.

Finally W4A, I'm sure no Melbourne supporter is happy with mediocrity, but the issue is what does the club have to do to keep it moving forward.  

As far as having a loser's mentality goes, wouldn't that be thinking we cant win in Darwin on a regular and consistent basis in the future?

Why do we continually get dealt the 6 day breaks after these exhausting road trips eg. West Coast WA and Adelaide NT who is the mastermind dishing up these fixture lists for our club which is beyond impossible to handle such a gruelling schedule. How much money are we getting from the AFL to be dealt these p h ucked up schedules? I would really like to know, if I was a player i would be filthy with all this really really angry.

44 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

It wasn't hot and it certainly wasn't humid at the ground last night. It was absolutely perfect conditions to play football.

We were playing a full strength side at the top of the ladder without 6 of our best players. 

Next week we play a top 4 side also without injuries and we may have 2 back, but lose 2 as well. 

Expect a similar result

Always to the point George - Exactly

1 hour ago, Win4theAges said:

Why do we continually get dealt the 6 day breaks after these exhausting road trips eg. West Coast WA and Adelaide NT who is the mastermind dishing up these fixture lists for our club which is beyond impossible to handle such a gruelling schedule. How much money are we getting from the AFL to be dealt these p h ucked up schedules? I would really like to know, if I was a player i would be filthy with all this really really angry.

TBH our supporters sound like a bunch of princesses complaining about a 6 day break. I'm glad I haven't heard Goodwin whinge about this. This is a professional sport, if we can't get the team motivated and ready after a 6 day break then we don't deserve to be playing finals. I really didn't like the quote that we played 4 games in 18 days. The eagles did the same thing in rounds 1-4 this year March 26 to April 13, travelled twice to Melbourne in that time but you don't hear them complaining. Collingwood also did it this year round 5-8 April 25 - May 13. I remember Buckley complaining about 5 day break between Anzac day their next game and thinking he should suck it up. Our supporters need to do the same. 

Also find it surprising why the same supporters don't quote that we had a two week break before the run and why we weren't rusty from the all the time off! Stats can also be quoted to go the other way. 

TBH, people spouting the 'play anywhere anytime or we don't deserve to play finals anyway' line sound like they have no idea about modern football. It is a professional sport. A taxing, contact sport, in an incredibly even competition, and any small competitive advantage can make a difference. Motivation has nothing to do with it. It's about bodies, recovery time and the impacts of flying and travel. No need to whinge (except just to let the AFL know that our spate of exertion injuries coincided with our run of short breaks), but it can't be dismissed as a factor in potentially missing the finals.

13 hours ago, praha said:

But winning from rushed and poor possessions isn't the same as winning the clearances and contested ball. I feel your viewing was selective. Stats aren't subjective. We won pivotal stoppages and clearances and went forward more than they did but simply lost it on the rebound. We competed well and fought hard at clearances and around stoppages.  It was simply a matter of Adelaide's defense and rebounding being a league above.  Not to understate how good they were but we stood up well against a very strong contested ball winning side. They absolutely annihilated us on the rebound out of our F50. That has nothing to do with stoppages or clearances.

Im not actually sure what we're arguing about. Refer to skuits post below - re stats.

I've said all along that our inability to hit targets and hold the ball across half forward was the major factor in the loss. In another thread i pointed out how misleading stats were on jkh (not singling out a jnr player) but he turned the ball over multiple time across half forward which allowed adel to run. All factors.

All im saying is we wrre pretty well beaten all day. The slippery conditions and fast track all favoured Adel. Our injuries also contributed. It really was a credit to the boys for getting close at 3qtr time as we didn't look like it all game. Maybe the conditions came in to play?

Let's move on to next week, where clearences are going to be massive v port.

Ive got a feeling we'll srop next week but hopefully make a massive run in the last games 

13 hours ago, Skuit said:

I'll help you out with some of the stats - 45 to 36 clearances - close to if not our worst deficit for the year. 7 goals to 2 their way from clearances - our lowest return for the year. Not sure our precise midfield tackle stats - but I would hazard a guess it was our poorest for the year.

Then you can add the eyes on top of that - they had far, far cleaner clearances. And the most important factor, we were dominated in the centre-clearances when it counted - during the first quarter and consistently after anytime we put on a bit of scoreboard pressure. That equals a smashing.

 

Six day breaks I can cop, everyone has to have them. 

It is just the scheduling of them that seems a bit ridiculous. 

Why do we have three on the trot, as per a couple of weeks back?

Why do we have one immediately after a Perth game and now another straight after Darwin?

 

Edit - actually, Darwin is 7...  still, rage remains!!  Agh 

 

3 hours ago, JTR said:

Six day breaks I can cop, everyone has to have them. 

It is just the scheduling of them that seems a bit ridiculous. 

Why do we have three on the trot, as per a couple of weeks back?

Why do we have one immediately after a Perth game and now another straight after Darwin?

 

Edit - actually, Darwin is 7...  still, rage remains!!  Agh 

 

Thank you someone that actually agrees.