1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

Isn't "making less fewer errors" the same as "improved out of sight"?

No.

ANB has improved out of sight. Oscar has eliminated some of his big flaws. One of the previous posters was saying that OMac doesn't have any 'weapons'. He is trying to play a role in a team defence. Hunt has weapons, so does Hibberd and Jetta. 

OMac has improved no doubt but not out of sight.

It helped that the Port player just kinda stood there and got no help with a shepherd, but I did enjoy this sight.

26 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

His arm was raised after Dixon's arm collected him. He was running full tilt trying to stay inside the boundary.

well that is what i was suggesting too (not saying)

raising the arm after being collected helps it to slip up around the neck

i'm not saying that, but the frozen photo shot adds a slight suggestion of that

in normal motion, it just looks like a clumsy high tackle

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

One of the previous posters was saying that OMac doesn't have any 'weapons'.

I've just watched the replay and it's interesting how differently you see things compared with how you saw them at the game.  For me it's excellent because I sit in the Southern Stand so to get the Northern Stand perspective is excellent.

But to my point.  I think Oscar does have a weapon - he gets the ball all the time.  He reads the play very well and that makes him very valuable.  And against PA he made very few mistakes.  A couple of kicks and a couple of spoils (now there's a new one to have a go at him for) were not ideal but otherwise he was just plain good.  I'd much rather he got the ball 23 times a game and made important spoils than got 6 kicks a game and not a spoil in sight.

I could make some other observations about other players but who cares really, we won; end of story.  Now for North.

 

There's a lot of pages to scroll through and apologies if it's been mentioned already but that was our best 1st quarter of the season.

4 goals 4 behinds. 

Wow.

Edited July 24, 20177 yr by Demon77

19 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I've just watched the replay and it's interesting how differently you see things compared with how you saw them at the game.  For me it's excellent because I sit in the Southern Stand so to get the Northern Stand perspective is excellent.

But to my point.  I think Oscar does have a weapon - he gets the ball all the time.  He reads the play very well and that makes him very valuable.  And against PA he made very few mistakes.  A couple of kicks and a couple of spoils (now there's a new one to have a go at him for) were not ideal but otherwise he was just plain good.  I'd much rather he got the ball 23 times a game and made important spoils than got 6 kicks a game and not a spoil in sight.

I could make some other observations about other players but who cares really, we won; end of story.  Now for North.

 

his game was ok. the non spoil on Dixon early should never have happened. he also dangerously spoiled back into the corridor twice. but on the whole he just seems to be in the right place most of the time and spoiling fairly well. I wish he was a good kick but he isn't.

His improvement is underrated and especially away from goal he is a lot more self assured.

 I think we should look harder at the defender, who, is caught on the outside of his direct opponent to spoiling to the inside, rather than traditionally trying to get the ball toward the boundary, where all the crumbers gather, or run past.

 Just wonder if this is the way to go, diminish free kicks, clearer path out, less opposition players, and harder to get a goal kick with the congestion.... 

56 minutes ago, Dees_In_October said:

It helped that the Port player just kinda stood there and got no help with a shepherd, but I did enjoy this sight.

That is the very definition of a deer in headlights! He was completely frozen!

42 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well that is what i was suggesting too (not saying)

raising the arm after being collected helps it to slip up around the neck

i'm not saying that, but the frozen photo shot adds a slight suggestion of that

in normal motion, it just looks like a clumsy high tackle

Its also a way of trying to shrug the tackle. I'd be betting that was Nevs instinctive reaction. 

4 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

Correct, he did not duck. He took the ball going full speed and did not duck.

That was a careless tackle by a guy so was frustrated he was being repeatedly beaten at contests by a bloke who is 22cms shorter and 25kgs lighter. Dixon lashed out in frustration because he is a sook and a proven loser. Amazing to think he is nearly 27 years old already and still can't string it together. Loser.

Jetta on the other hand busts his ass with hard work and has become one of the best defenders in the league over the past few years. He's All Australian standard. And a winner.

Someone should tell Matthew Lloyd on Sunday's show. Jetta does not feature at all.

Coaches votes are in. Amazed no votes for Jetta from either side. 

MELBOURNE v PORT ADELAIDE
10 Michael Hibberd (Melb)
5 Travis Boak (PA)
4 Max Gawn (Melb)
4 Clayton Oliver (Melb)
3 Jayden Hunt (Melb)
3 Jack Viney (Melb)
1 Robbie Gray (PA)

20 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

 

Look ma I've got a whistle.

I'm a bit confused this week. From the very start of the third quarter, it was just a string of dodgy calls from this pin-head - call after call after call against us - that I thought there's no possible way anybody could refute he was biased against our club. It was so blatant that I even sensed one of the other umps was embarrassed and favouring us to even it up. Dodgy, inexplicable free in the middle - Port kick it forward, and we get a 50-50 in defence.

I even spent 3qtr time drafting a diplomatic letter for the MFC to send to AFLHQ - roughly along the lines of,

'While the Melbourne Football Club are in no way alleging bias or questioning Nicholls' professionalism, there is a strong supporter perception of bias, and although unreasonable, there could be an unfortunate media and public reaction should he make further erroneous decisions in the future which are to the opposition's advantage. Such a reaction would ultimately diminish the standing of the game and bring unwanted attention to the MFC. We therefore request that the AFL schedules alternative umpires from its talented roster to officiate future games involving the Melbourne Demons.'

I don't normally do this crap - write angry letters to agencies and accuse umpires of bias. I had even considered wasting the rest of my day putting together a video package to send to the media. The guy has sent me bonkers.

But then he paid a couple important dodgy ones our way in the final quarter. What the hell is going on? Is he just a terrible umpire, coincidentally terrible against us? Or did he get a tap at 3qtr-time from his mates? See - bonkers.

 

Edited July 24, 20177 yr by Skuit

1 hour ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I've just watched the replay and it's interesting how differently you see things compared with how you saw them at the game.  For me it's excellent because I sit in the Southern Stand so to get the Northern Stand perspective is excellent.

But to my point.  I think Oscar does have a weapon - he gets the ball all the time.  He reads the play very well and that makes him very valuable.  And against PA he made very few mistakes.  A couple of kicks and a couple of spoils (now there's a new one to have a go at him for) were not ideal but otherwise he was just plain good.  I'd much rather he got the ball 23 times a game and made important spoils than got 6 kicks a game and not a spoil in sight.

I could make some other observations about other players but who cares really, we won; end of story.  Now for North.

 

O-Mac played 15 games last year and has played 15 games so far this year. A good time to compare statistically where he's at. Marks up 20% and 1%ers up 30% for the same time of year is pretty significant improvement. My general observation is outside of what the stats show he is making less errors with and without the ball.

2016: Marks 117, 1%ers 85

2017: Marks 148; 1%ers 124

Oscar was on the wrong side for the 2 corridor spoils. It was pretty hard to hit it anywhere else. Did they score from them? I don't think so. They were bad spoils because of where they went, but on the other hand it was good to see him commit and put his fist into it after that meek first effort of the day with that [censored] Dixon. 

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

 

OMac has improved no doubt but not out of sight.

But he is getting harder to see!

40 mins in, [censored] all about us on 360. All Richmond, Collingwood and Toby Slugger. 

3 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

40 mins in, [censored] all about us on 360. All Richmond, Collingwood and Toby Slugger. 

Watching the same and had the same thought. Even the earlier show no comment but then it was Robert Walls who has such a dislike for Melbourne.

4 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

40 mins in, [censored] all about us on 360. All Richmond, Collingwood and Toby Slugger. 

Yep, it's all Slobbo too. Yuk.

Don't worry about what the 'box' is showing.....just whatvthe scoreboard is.

So much media....so much agenda

On 22/07/2017 at 5:43 PM, Abe said:

Lewis behind the ball was massive! His leadership and setting the boys up reminded me of Luke hodge. 

Without him I worry port may have stolen that game. 

I also though trengove was solid, looked very composed with the ball. 

Hogan found a bit of form. 

 

That was Lewis's best game for MFC IMHO on a day made for him. In close tricks, defensive smarts and lack of errors make me think he is getting back to his best. 

Happy for the media to ignore us. The last time they fawned over us we put in a stinker against the Swans. 

They can leave us alone as far as I'm concerned. 

19 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

40 mins in, [censored] all about us on 360. All Richmond, Collingwood and Toby Slugger. 

Carey just gave us a big rap on Talking Footy,  he is very bullish on The Dees! 

5 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Oscar was on the wrong side for the 2 corridor spoils. It was pretty hard to hit it anywhere else. Did they score from them? I don't think so. They were bad spoils because of where they went, but on the other hand it was good to see him commit and put his fist into it after that meek first effort of the day with that [censored] Dixon. 

I'm out of the Omac discussion (though i as looking forward to SMJ's promised involvement by involvement review of his game - oh well, and it does raise a chuckle that earlier in the season he was being criticised for not being able to spoil at all and now it is for spoiling into the corridor) so this is not an attempt and defending him, but you make some good points here.

I think some football watchers don't really understand the zone. And i include the ex footballers who do 'special comments' in that. More often than not key defenders do stand their man the way they used to, the way Lynden Dunn does for instance, certainly ours don't. They stand to the side and to the front, with a small sometimes behind, often in a diamond around the key forwards 

It means they are often running to a contest to spoil and have far less capacity to direct a spoil or drop it to their feet and cause a stoppage (it also is why so often a jetta is going up against much bigger players).  And in most instances they will have to spoil in the direction they are running. A good example is the attempted spoil on Dixon that Omac missed. He was coming from the corridor to that contest. If he had made the spoil, as he should have, it would have gone towards the boundary because that is the way he was running.

Frost, who started closer to Dixon, but in front of him also missed the spoil. If he made it he would have likely had to have hit it towards Ports's goals and perhaps even into the corridor as he was running back slightly with the ball.

The second Omac spoil to the corridor he was running from the boundary to the goal square to make the spoil. He had to spoil - imagine the barbs if he hadn't. Where else could he have hit it? And it is easy to forget the fact that he made the spoil, saving what would have been a goal and then did well to get the ground ball, clean up and be part of a chain of possessions from our well drilled and connected back six that worked the ball out of our defensive half. 

 

Edited July 24, 20177 yr by binman

4 hours ago, binman said:

I'm out of the Omac discussion (though i as looking forward to SMJ's promised involvement by involvement review of his game - oh well, and it does raise a chuckle that earlier in the season he was being criticised for not being able to spoil at all and now it is for spoiling into the corridor) so this is not an attempt and defending him, but you make some good points here.

I think some football watchers don't really understand the zone. And i include the ex footballers who do 'special comments' in that. More often than not key defenders do stand their man the way they used to, the way Lynden Dunn does for instance, certainly ours don't. They stand to the side and to the front, with a small sometimes behind, often in a diamond around the key forwards 

It means they are often running to a contest to spoil and have far less capacity to direct a spoil or drop it to their feet and cause a stoppage (it also is why so often a jetta is going up against much bigger players).  And in most instances they will have to spoil in the direction they are running. A good example is the attempted spoil on Dixon that Omac missed. He was coming from the corridor to that contest. If he had made the spoil, as he should have, it would have gone towards the boundary because that is the way he was running.

Frost, who started closer to Dixon, but in front of him also missed the spoil. If he made it he would have likely had to have hit it towards Ports's goals and perhaps even into the corridor as he was running back slightly with the ball.

The second Omac spoil to the corridor he was running from the boundary to the goal square to make the spoil. He had to spoil - imagine the barbs if he hadn't. Where else could he have hit it? And it is easy to forget the fact that he made the spoil, saving what would have been a goal and then did well to get the ground ball, clean up and be part of a chain of possessions from our well drilled and connected back six that worked the ball out of our defensive half. 

 

Just watched this video and thought it had a good example of the point i'm making above:

Not sure how to do a gif but freeze this video at exactly 5:31. This is a really good example of my point about their diamond zone set up,  players not standing key forwards (or indeed hardly any forwards) and instead running to the contest to spoil.

It's a stoppage so everyone has time to get in position for Wines' kick. The obvious target is their key forward Dixon. Despite this there is not one dees players in touching distance of him. In fact of the nine defenders inside the 50 metre arc, only 2 are right next to a Port player (note they only have 7 forwards in the arc). Omac is set up way behind both Dixon and another Port player. Frost is in front, Jetts and Hunt are to the side, with Hibberd not far away also guarding space.

When you roll the tape (so to speak) you will see that Wines does in fact kick to Dixon (with the zone set up making it hard for anyone to lead into space, with maxy getting back hard to fill the hole in front). Omac comes from a long way back (wheres' the block?) and jetts comes from the side to both effect the spoil. Other defenders then come to the contest, fight for the ball, win it and with out number try to work it it out, initially by hand (backwards and towards the Port goal square, which used to be no no - hit the boundary line!), ending with Hibberd who tries to clear the 50 but mishit it. 

Now of course they don't always set up like this and there will be times they will play the old school man on man on the KPFs that Dunn loves to play but it is instructive they don't here, and didn't all day, against one of the best contested marks in the league in Dixon. And it worked a treat. he was ineffectual really and the zone really frustrated their attempts to bring the ball in to their forward line, keeping in mind they are one of the highest scoring teams in the AFL. In the end they had to use Boak to run though the corridor and inside the 50 metre arc to generate goals scoring chances. Which worked but took him away from getting high possession numbers. 

The zone also allows us to attack from the back half, through using free men, chains of handballs and wave running which when on we do so well. Great to watch. 

 

Edited July 24, 20177 yr by binman

10 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Coaches votes are in. Amazed no votes for Jetta from either side. 

MELBOURNE v PORT ADELAIDE
10 Michael Hibberd (Melb)
5 Travis Boak (PA)
4 Max Gawn (Melb)
4 Clayton Oliver (Melb)
3 Jayden Hunt (Melb)
3 Jack Viney (Melb)
1 Robbie Gray (PA)

And warren tredrea gave hibberd 3, boak 2 and gray 1 on triple m.

i was howled down here for claiming he had bias and that his votes were incorrect. As you can see, there were 4 Melbourne players ahead of gray.

how he is allowed to vote on port games is beyond me? Shouldn't be allowed out of the state.