3 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Yeh.

JLT.

Where you implement what you've worked on for the entire pre-season and hopefully address some key areas that need improving. Single quarter lapses in our case. We played a full strength team against the Saints. There's not really an excuse if it's been close to an ingrained issue from the year previous.

We did happen to spend most of that third quarter with guys like Hannan, Maynard and Salem taking all of the centre bounces for the term.  The moment we went back to the norm Oliver won the first two clearances and we kicked a couple of goals.

The fade outs, I agree, are a worrying theme if we include last season's, but the JLT game against the Saints shouldn't be included in that given we experimented for parts of that third term.

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

You're welcome to be a doomsayer.

I just reckon you're one of those knee jerk supporters that panic too quickly.  It's round one.  

No biggie to me. 

He does make a very good point about the single qtr lapses though. Cant be denied if you look at the scoreboards for JLT and Round 1. If we trained to improve that stat, it didnt really work. 

Work in progress.

 

4 hours ago, Webber said:

Having digested Sunday's game over a couple of days, sadly I reckon this year's version of the Demons might have some significant problems. Inevitably we compare to last year to see signs of evolution, but such a comparison so far is worrying. 

Maybe the biggest flaw in our overall game last year was that we were consistently outmarked. Ends up that in 2017, we were 15th ranked for marks. Sunday gave me no reason to think this has been in any way corrected. Teams who can control the tempo of possession are going to expose us in the air in attack, and frustrate our marking efforts in the front half. Having no Tom McDonald, one of, if not our best marking target, doesn't help. 

Our best football last year relied on a fierce ascendancy at stoppages. Thus by controlling the ball at stoppages and by sheer weight of attack we were able to find a way to goals. However, we lack efficiency when the ball is ours, and are prone to turnovers. Being consistently dominant at clearances is much harder way to win games of footy than being better organised and better users of the ball. Psychologically it also requires key figures who can lead a team dynamic. Teams know that we are inevitably prone to lapses, and that we are more vulnerable without Jack Viney's lead from the front influence. 

Defensively we are too brittle, for periods that last too long. The second quarter was a reminder that teams can open us up when we lose defensive accountability. This is in part of function of the above, and that we struggle to regain possession when our high demand pressure game drops off. 

Selection. It doesn't matter how much Simon Goodwin says he picked Sunday's team on preseason form, any of us who have followed pre-season know that these are 'alternative facts'. How either Dom Tyson, Angus Bradshaw, arguably Billy Stretch and even Tom Bugg were not preferred to Corey Maynard and Josh Wagner (no slight on their efforts) rightfully had most of us baffled. The concern is that this is driven by a mysterious agenda, or at worst that there are personality or political issues at the club. 

I know barring a shoelace's influence, Max would've kicked that goal on Sunday, but that would have done nothing to alter my thoughts as above. It's hard to see us beating a hometown Brisbane this week, who showed last year that they can match it with us. On the other hand, we had at least half a dozen players on Sunday who were well below their best, and will hopefully wake up. Based on one telling game though, I'd say we're going to need some luck to make the eight, and some inspiration, and top four is at this stage fantasy land. 

Too soon? 

YEAH RIGHT ON THE MONEY, THATS WHY WE WONT MAKE THE 8 !!

^^

I'd be concerned now @Webber

Wow, I thought we were very ordinary against the Cats, but it’s a little too soon to write off the season just yet. 

Half the team didn’t turn up and we still only lost by 3 points. Give it till mid season before finishing us off!

1 hour ago, ding said:

Mate, you are basing that statement on a last gasp loss against a top 4 favorite in round 1.

ROUND 1.

Revisit your post after round 5 or 6 please. If we havent improved by then, i will happily admit you were right and i was wrong.

Go Dees.

I am not talking about round 1.

1. The training camp fiasco

2. Trading Watts

3. Injuries to key players

4. Rumours of Goodwin not playing players out of spite

5. That second quarter performance

I'm just saying that in past years when we've been in the news for similarly damaging things, we've struggled as a club to weather the storm. 

We beat Adelaide last year and should have beaten the Premiers. As it stands, getting to within 3 points of a top 4 team from the following year means jack [censored] if you don't at least play finals. I'm just concerned that the wheels will fall off.

5 minutes ago, praha said:

I am not talking about round 1.

1. The training camp fiasco

2. Trading Watts

3. Injuries to key players

4. Rumours of Goodwin not playing players out of spite

5. That second quarter performance

I'm just saying that in past years when we've been in the news for similarly damaging things, we've struggled as a club to weather the storm. 

We beat Adelaide last year and should have beaten the Premiers. As it stands, getting to within 3 points of a top 4 team from the following year means jack [censored] if you don't at least play finals. I'm just concerned that the wheels will fall off.

So am i, but i am doing my best to wait until it actually happens before i lose my [censored].

14 hours ago, ProDee said:

We had a lot of players down.  They also had opponents to contend with.  It is what it is.  It's round 1.  Much will be learnt and competition for spots is hot.

Geelong were beaten in inside 50s by 23, contested possession, tackles, clearances, and lost 3 of the 4 quarters ?  Did they not learn anything over summer ?

It's round 1 and there were positives to take out of the game as well as areas the coaches will address.

GWS flogged Footscray by 80 odd points.  Guess what ?  There will be players and areas of the game they need to improve upon.

The game, entirely through, was very winnable for Melbourne. By the middle of the last quarter, had we stuck to a plan that covered Geelong's momentum and challenges, we should have been a good deal further ahead than we were, and the critical scoring that we are capable of should have prevented Geelong's surge. Yet, we let them stay with us on the scoreboard, to come back through miskicks, loose play, hopeful disposals and other coverage considerations for the 4 quarters. 

Now those elements must be reinforced as negative lessons for the whole year - that was the implication to which I referred. It is difficult to posit a more accurate analysis on this conundrum of our play due to the number of variables that the game of football can herald.  It was there last year, the year before and the year before that and yet, it is lesser now than it had been previously. That does not say that it no longer exists, mind you.

It does indicate that there really is quite a way to go in terms of playing defensive football when it might count towards the neck of the bottle - the final siren outcomes. This is not negative football in the slightest, it is 'shutdown' football that encourages offensive action and further scoring because we might be in a position to take advantage of the domination of the game itself. I speak in 'ideals' because that might represent the control of circumstances to enable success. I look forward to such levels of play and success in future matches to come, as I guess most MFC supporters would. It does not lessen the importance of mere, ordinary performance; this must be better controlled across a game. Tolerance of such is not the domain of a keen supporter and the belief that the coaches will bandage such characteristics of play invalidates supporter expectations and hopes. Positive performances do not necessarily need to be mentioned here as we all acknowledge those contributions in real time and on post-event reflection. 

8 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

The game, entirely through, was very winnable for Melbourne. By the middle of the last quarter, had we stuck to a plan that covered Geelong's momentum and challenges, we should have been a good deal further ahead than we were, and the critical scoring that we are capable of should have prevented Geelong's surge. Yet, we let them stay with us on the scoreboard, to come back through miskicks, loose play, hopeful disposals and other coverage considerations for the 4 quarters. 

Now those elements must be reinforced as negative lessons for the whole year - that was the implication to which I referred. It is difficult to posit a more accurate analysis on this conundrum of our play due to the number of variables that the game of football can herald.  It was there last year, the year before and the year before that and yet, it is lesser now than it had been previously. That does not say that it no longer exists, mind you.

It does indicate that there really is quite a way to go in terms of playing defensive football when it might count towards the neck of the bottle - the final siren outcomes. This is not negative football in the slightest, it is 'shutdown' football that encourages offensive action and further scoring because we might be in a position to take advantage of the domination of the game itself. I speak in 'ideals' because that might represent the control of circumstances to enable success. I look forward to such levels of play and success in future matches to come, as I guess most MFC supporters would. It does not lessen the importance of mere, ordinary performance; this must be better controlled across a game. Tolerance of such is not the domain of a keen supporter and the belief that the coaches will bandage such characteristics of play invalidates supporter expectations and hopes. Positive performances do not necessarily need to be mentioned here as we all acknowledge those contributions in real time and on post-event reflection. 

You want Oscar McDonald dropped, so I didn't bother reading.

Sorry.

10 hours ago, praha said:

I am not talking about round 1.

1. The training camp fiasco

2. Trading Watts

3. Injuries to key players

4. Rumours of Goodwin not playing players out of spite

5. That second quarter performance

I'm just saying that in past years when we've been in the news for similarly damaging things, we've struggled as a club to weather the storm. 

We beat Adelaide last year and should have beaten the Premiers. As it stands, getting to within 3 points of a top 4 team from the following year means jack [censored] if you don't at least play finals. I'm just concerned that the wheels will fall off.

I get your meaning Praha. And Ding, these matters are not about 'right or wrong' but more the thoughts and observations internalised by an astute interpreter of the game. We do not need to criticise one another quite so much on DL - and yet we all continue to so do - as it is one base of support for the team and Club. Opinions matter, varied as these may be. 

13 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

The thing with the number of marks is that in contests we seem to prefer to bring it to ground.  We also don’t do the mega chip around and easy marks that the Cats used. They had heaps more disposals because they chip across half back and half forward to find a path, and we just blaze forward at all costs.  This means they got far more marks than us.

our game plan requires frenetic, whole ground defence, with change of angles to create options.  The sky is not falling.  We were out coached for 1/2 of football.  Hopefully we have learned, and will not be left flat footed for a half again.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Webber said:

No team in the history of football has 'preferred' to bring the ball to ground in a marking contest. They want to mark it, being as it's elementary to maintaining possession. The chipping around difference is one thing, but Geelong held a 13-7 contested marking ascendancy. Any game plan that is built on anything 'frenetic' cannot hold up. It's too hard to maintain, and full of risk.

Tell that to Richmond and Bulldogs Webber.

The problem isn't necessarily the plan of attack, the problem was our small forwards failing to apply pressure to keep the ball inside our 50. Poor positioning in and around marking contests and poor pressure to lock the ball in was the issue. From memory we were one of the best at scoring from stoppages last year so not getting that ball locked in for a ball-up would have had a big impact

13 hours ago, Webber said:

No team in the history of football has 'preferred' to bring the ball to ground in a marking contest. They want to mark it, being as it's elementary to maintaining possession. The chipping around difference is one thing, but Geelong held a 13-7 contested marking ascendancy. Any game plan that is built on anything 'frenetic' cannot hold up. It's too hard to maintain, and full of risk.

Obviously. But you kinda proved my point earlier: we weren't winning contested marks and as such we relied on our small forwards to apply the pressure and kick the goals. They didn't. The next best thing a key forward can do aside from actually mark the ball, is put it at the feet of small forwards. This is literally the role of the small forward. Hogan and Pederson played their roles. in bringing the ball down when they could. Pederson attracts the defense like a bad rash, and is clearly respected by opposition defenders. As is Hogan. The reality is that a pretty essential fundamental of the game was failed on Sunday: why have small forwards at all if not to contest at ground level and pick up the crumbs of a contested marking contest? To suggest that forward line structures are not built around the idea of bringing the ball to ground is extremely naive. If your small forwards aren't competitive, you will lose every game. You key forward could kick 100 goals in a season. It wouldn't matter. 

Edited March 27, 20187 yr by praha

2 minutes ago, praha said:

Obviously. But you kinda proved my point earlier: we weren't winning contested marks and as such we relied on our small forwards to apply the pressure and kick the goals. They didn't. The next best thing a key forward can do aside from actually mark the ball, is put it at the feet of small forwards. This is literally the role of the small forward. Hogan and Pederson played their roles. in bringing the ball down when they could. Pederson attracts the defense like a bad rash, and is clearly respected by opposition defenders. As is Hogan. The reality is that a pretty essential fundamental of the game was failed on Sunday: why have small forwards at all if not to contest at ground level and pick up the crumbs of a contested marking contest? To suggest that forward line structures are not built around the idea of bringing the ball to ground is extremely naive. If your small forwards aren't competitive, you will lose every game. You key forward could kick 100 goals in a season. It wouldn't matter. 

The role of small forwards and maximising the ground ball after a marking contest is indisputable, and we did very poorly at that on Sunday, but nobody in their right mind prefers not to mark the ball in a contest. First priority = Mark (We are in the bottom four). Next priority = shark the spilled ball. (We were average to good at this last year). Unless we improve the first priority, we will struggle, no matter how good our roving forwards are. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! 

12 minutes ago, Webber said:

The role of small forwards and maximising the ground ball after a marking contest is indisputable, and we did very poorly at that on Sunday, but nobody in their right mind prefers not to mark the ball in a contest. First priority = Mark (We are in the bottom four). Next priority = shark the spilled ball. (We were average to good at this last year). Unless we improve the first priority, we will struggle, no matter how good our roving forwards are. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush! 

we have been the worst at contested marks fo a long long time

I cannot understand why this hasnt been addressed in selection and training over  the years

It is not exactly a new phenomena is it Webber? Not marking just increases the pressure at the contest until we lose it.

Too many are committed to the contests making it easy for good sides to clear and transition to goal

Our game plan is the problem in my opinion like the first five minutes of schoolboy football So bloody frustrating to watch

16 hours ago, Webber said:

It's hard to see us beating a hometown Brisbane this week

I thought the post was pretty reasonable until I got to this. Sure, they might knock us off, but 'it's hard to see us [win]'? Seriously?

However, regardless of whether we'd won or lost, I did have some of the same concerns re: how we played.

16 hours ago, willmoy said:

There are two blokes that need to be in that side. Posters know who they are .One hard and one for creativity. Both can also increase our marking capability. Probably outcoached, wouldn't hurt to review that possibility, surprisingly they lasted fitness wise to us. Menzel by himself, easy goals and marks won it for them and by god they were so clean.

You betcha, they were clean. Over surprising distances as well as close-in. Easy goals were the killer - had these been stopped, we would all been drinking a few too many beers this week in celebration. There just was next to nil running from our backline so the ball was pumped back in for another scoring mission by Geelong. 

13 hours ago, ProDee said:

You're welcome to be a doomsayer.

I just reckon you're one of those knee jerk supporters that panic too quickly.  It's round one.  

No biggie to me. 

Pointing out an obvious flaw in our game that has lingered for some time is a knee-jerk reaction or panic ?  Nah.

Quite the opposite actually. Especially given how widely recognised it is to those in the industry who continue to talk about it as an issue.

I understand why some Melbourne supporters turn a blind eye to it, but I didn't think you were one.

 

13 hours ago, D4Life said:

Wow, I thought we were very ordinary against the Cats, but it’s a little too soon to write off the season just yet. 

Half the team didn’t turn up and we still only lost by 3 points. Give it till mid season before finishing us off!

At the end of the day (season), you are probably correct about this. It still is a formidable combination of players. But sometimes, I just wonder how, with this profile of footballing equipment, the team might be coached and selected by: Roos, Daniher and even the very successful Ian Ridley? ( Roos' defensive emphases is what is needed right now. )

If Gawn kicked the goal and we won the goal would we be as concerned? I’ll be concerned if we lose to Brisbane. 

Edited March 28, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

59 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Pointing out an obvious flaw in our game that has lingered for some time is a knee-jerk reaction or panic ?  Nah.

Quite the opposite actually. Especially given how widely recognised it is to those in the industry who continue to talk about it as an issue.

I understand why some Melbourne supporters turn a blind eye to it, but I didn't think you were one.

 

In game quarter lapses do concern me, but it's round 1.  I know there were 8 last season and I know if the pattern continues we won't be a chance for the flag, but we have a sample size of one game.

I'm not going to roll all of last season into this season, because it's a new year with a different team.  A team with an evolving game-plan, players with new roles, and more maturity.  i get that you just think it's more of the same, but I'll reserve judgement, because I rate the list and I rate Goodwin. 

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

In game quarter lapses do concern me, but it's round 1.  I know there were 8 last season and I know if the pattern continues we won't be a chance for the flag, but we have a sample size of one game.

I'm not going to roll all of last season into this season, because it's a new year with a different team.  A team with an evolving game-plan, players with new roles, and more maturity.  i get that you just think it's more of the same, but I'll reserve judgement, because I rate the list and I rate Goodwin. 

Agree, too soon to call. One game in does not define a season. 

We nearly won despite having many players down on the day. However, the Cats had players out and injured, and overall were far from impressive.

Both sides have lots of room for improvement.

At the same time, it was disappointing to see many of the features of last year's MFC playing style still present. Skills, in particular, marking and disposal skills and execution are not up to scratch.  Almost as if there had been no summer break. And the game plan still has me scratching my head.  

A last gasp Demon win would not have corrected that impression. 

On the up-side we saw players such as Petracca, Gawn and Oliver continue their upward progression. They are genuine stars. And Hogan could still be one. 

On the downside, we still have players that go missing in action and players who are handy but will never be elite. 

 

Fascinating thread. Having only now had the chance to watch the game ( an unfortunate family bereavement just recently put footy on the back burner ) I fear I'm somewhat aligned with Webber in the main. I expected a far more composed and dedicated side than that which fluffed it Sunday. Selection ... very questionable in some respects. 

Before the bounce...before this season my thoughts went...We win round 1...off and running..some confidence..build on that refine...  and we're a finals contender.

Lose...and we're already playing catch-up footy....and that was exactly what we played Sunday after the 1st qtr.

I think the club is well placed off the field in admin etc kicking goals there.

I have a little sneaky that the FD world and relationships towards some players is not all honky dory.

Im not convinced our game style can either be executed consistently, nor the coaches capable of sufficient and timely adjustment.

Ill wait till about round 6-7 to start worrying. Im not overly enthused at the moment. 

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Fascinating thread. Having only now had the chance to watch the game ( an unfortunate family bereavement just recently put footy on the back burner ) I fear I'm somewhat aligned with Webber in the main. I expected a far more composed and dedicated side than that which fluffed it Sunday. Selection ... very questionable in some respects. 

Before the bounce...before this season my thoughts went...We win round 1...off and running..some confidence..build on that refine...  and we're a finals contender.

Lose...and we're already playing catch-up footy....and that was exactly what we played Sunday after the 1st qtr.

I think the club is well placed off the field in admin etc kicking goals there.

I have a little sneaky that the FD world and relationships towards some players is not all honky dory.

Im not convinced our game style can either be executed consistently, nor the coaches capable of sufficient and timely adjustment.

Ill wait till about round 6-7 to start worrying. Im not overly enthused at the moment. 

Summed it up beelzebub. Like you, I'm not writing the season off by any means, just voicing what seem to be obvious concerns. I reckon Goodwin and fellow coaches will have to be adaptable and change creative in order to meet expectations, because those concerns were very apparent. And old. But they might be able to iron them out. We'll see. And for those who think they would have been any less apparent had Max kicked straight, not the case, just that they would have been shaded by the post-win veil of temporary happiness. 

It's an interesting thread, and I don't have an opinion either way just yet.

We started all over the Cats, lost it mid way through the first quarter and let them way too easily in the first half, but we managed to keep them to 17 points in the second half.  I think there were some mistakes made, possibly selection, strategy etc. But it's round 1. 

We should rightly be going in as favorites against the Lions, but if anything was learned from last year a team only has to be a small amount 'off their game' and they can be rolled. This season like last season I think will be tight and there are probably 13 or 14 teams who should feel that they are a chance to make the 8.  One thing in our favor this week is that I suspect selection should be a little simpler with possibly Frost in to help counter their talls and free up Lever a bit more, and possibly Tyson or Brayshaw as true mids rather than having as many utilties...  Fagan is teaching this team how to play hard contested footy, I don't think he's going to be trying too many 'cute' things out.

Also I don't have a problem with our style and it's execution... yet, it's another year on, so they should be more adept at executing it, but most clubs are rusty in the first couple of rounds. 

By round 5 we should be ahead of the ledger, but if we aren't then questions quite rightly should be being raised. 

... compared to how Collingwood and the dogs have been analysed both in selections, and positions, I think we are fine for the moment. But it won't last long if we don't deliver this week. 

Round 2 will be informative to say the least

Go Dees