25 minutes ago, DubDee said:

The funny thing is if Gawn had of kicked the goal and won us that game threads like this one would be replaced by 'Can we go 9-0?' type threads.

I disagree, it was the way we played which is the issue and not necessarily the outcome.

28 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I disagree, it was the way we played which is the issue and not necessarily the outcome.

Surely the first ensures the second CB?

36 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I disagree, it was the way we played which is the issue and not necessarily the outcome.

In which case we should be taking a lot of positives from the result.  To play so poorly and still lose by just 3 points to a team that is likely to finish top 4 - 6, shows that once the match day cobwebs have been completely shaken out, we will be pushing all teams in the competition and will easily make finals. (if we lose to Brisbane I will be coming back here to delete this post )

I've never seen so many supporters up in arms over a poor quarter of football.  In round one.

Now I know why the Sarah Hanson-Youngs and Jacqui Lambies get voted into parliament.

46 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I disagree, it was the way we played which is the issue and not necessarily the outcome.

We didn't play that bad. We need to fix our forward 50 entries and the lapse in the last few minutes of the first half. The negative hyperbole on here is astonishing.

On 27/03/2018 at 7:07 PM, MurDoc516 said:

We aren't in trouble. Round 1 doesn't mean anything. Just last year a team went from 0-6 to playing in finals. 

And then they went on to win 16 of their next 18

On 28/03/2018 at 12:36 PM, beelzebub said:

Round 2 will be informative to say the least

Go Dees

For me round 2 & 3 should be about how much not whether we can, for round 4-6 being Hawks, Tigers and Bombers will tell us how we’re travelling.

 

5 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

For me round 2 & 3 should be about how much not whether we can, for round 4-6 being Hawks, Tigers and Bombers will tell us how we’re travelling.

 

Round 2 and 3 are almost nothing games in the sense if we win they tell us little as to where we are against the  other teams vying for 5 to 12 in the comp.

Lose on the other hand we can kiss a spot in the top 4 goodbye.

 

5 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Round 2 and 3 are almost nothing games in the sense if we win they tell us little as to where we are against the  other teams vying for 5 to 12 in the comp.

Lose on the other hand we can kiss a spot in the top 4 goodbye.

 

Never believed we would make higher than 7th DJ. The list still has too many holes.

6 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

For me round 2 & 3 should be about how much not whether we can, for round 4-6 being Hawks, Tigers and Bombers will tell us how we’re travelling.

 

Round 2 will show very quickly a number of things:

Can coaching/ selection learn?

Was round 1 an aberration to the real norm?

Have we a sustainable game style ?( Personally i think there may be a fundamental flaw in thinking. The season is a marathon...yet we rely on a style played at frenetic pace...more like backing up 100m sprints. Its a long season.

Who's in favour...who might not be ?

Yes it'll be only 2 games... astute observation can provide insight.

The Lions are actually a real danger game. 

Im enthused by the optimism shown by some. Im not convinced weve got this right yet.

That was a pretty average effort all things considered.

Scoreboards seldom lie. Had the Cats kicked straighter we wouldn't have been in it.

Go Dees

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Round 2 will show very quickly a number of things:

Can coaching/ selection learn?

Was round 1 an aberration to the real norm?

Have we a sustainable game style ?( Personally i think there may be a fundamental flaw in thinking. The season is a marathon...yet we rely on a style played at frenetic pace...more like backing up 100m sprints. Its a long season.

Who's in favour...who might not be ?

Yes it'll be only 2 games... astute observation can provide insight.

The Lions are actually a real danger game. 

Im enthused by the optimism shown by some. Im not convinced weve got this right yet.

That was a pretty average effort all things considered.

Scoreboards seldom lie. Had the Cats kicked straighter we wouldn't have been in it.

Go Dees

Point taken but the two wins in the JLT probably told us as much as these games will tell us about our ability to mix it with the power teams.

Agree wholeheartedly re your comment on the game plan .. like others yet to be convinced that it will take us anywhere meaningful.

It's relevant to note that every team in the competition finished round one with areas they know they need to work on.  Obviously some more than others.

Richmond would be bemused by Carlton kicking 5 goals before they woke.

Carlton leak scores, as evidenced by Richmond's 36 scoring shots. 

Essendon would be lamenting how an undermanned and underdone Adelaide led them by 20 points at 3/4 time.

Adelaide would be concerned how a team that is poor around stoppages and contested ball beat them when they had them on the ropes.

The Saints may have lost to Brisbane, but for Jack Steven.  The game was alive in the last against a very young and inexperienced team.

Brisbane would be reasonably happy, but concerned that their kicking efficiency, which was a strength in 2017 went noticeably backwards in round one.

Sydney got the chocolates, but at 3/4 time they only led West Coast by 5 points despite Buddy putting on a clinic.

I could go on, but the point is we're not the only team to have issues we need to address.  All of our opposition are imperfect.  Richmond lost 3 games in a row last year by under a goal.  Do you think their fans would have been questioning their mental toughness ?  They also lost to Adelaide by 76 points with them having 35 scoring shots to their 14.  Their supporters would have argued black and blue many times throughout 2017 that there was no way they'd win the flag at that point.

There should be a bit more perspective at round one.

Edited March 29, 20187 yr by ProDee

We started the game well but the writing was on the wall with the Cats having 8 shots at goal from 9 fwd entries in the first 1/4. Our scoring disguised how poorly we were playing.

We failed to quell that at qtr time despite the coaching staff knowing exactly what the issue was and the 2nd qtr was a debacle for us. At half time we had managed to repel just 4 solitary attacks from 24 Geelong inside 50s. They had 20 shots on goal. It was simply not good enough.

We managed to fix it at the break but let's not kid ourselves Geelong were handicapped by rotations and yet we still couldn't beat them because of a very inefficient fwd line and the inability of our fwds to hold the ball in..

Chris Scott outcoached Goodwin with his use of Hawkins and Menzel to create the match ups they wanted and drag Lever back to the last line of defence. Similar to what clubs did to Jared Rivers who was much less effective one on one. The defensive set up needs a lot of work.

Watch against brisbane to see what we have learned. We let Bris back into the game in rd 22 when leading by 40 points. They will be bouyed by that. We need to smash them and snuff out any chance of a repeat performance from them.

 

6 minutes ago, ProDee said:

It's relevant to note that every team in the competition finished round one with areas they know they need to work on.  Obviously some more than other.

Richmond would be bemused by Carlton kicking 5 goals before they woke.

Carlton leak scores, as evidenced by Richmond's 36 scoring shots. 

Essendon would be lamenting how an undermanned and underdone Adelaide led them by 20 points at 3/4 time.

Adelaide would be concerned how a team that is poor around stoppages and contested ball beat them when they had them on the ropes.

The Saints may have lost to Brisbane, but for Jack Steven.  The game was alive in the last against a very young and inexperienced team.

Brisbane would be reasonably happy, but concerned that their kicking efficiency, which was a strength in 2017 and went noticeably backwards in round one.

Sydney got the chocolates, but at 3/4 time they only led West Coast by 5 points despite Buddy putting on a clinic.

I could go on, but the point is we're not the only team to have issues we need to address.  All of our opposition are imperfect.  Richmond lost 3 games in a row last year by under a goal.  Do you think their fans would have been questioning their mental toughness ?  They also lost to Adelaide by 76 points with them having 35 scoring shots to their 14.  Their supporters would have argued black and blue many times throughout 2017 that there was no way they'd win the flag at that point.

There should be a bit more perspective at round one.

Very good observations here. 

It helps to balance the immediate negativity. 

Yes, we should have more perspective at round one, but remember for many of us, our contribution to this site is a form of therapy and helps with our current mood state. It is an emotional game and we follow it more often with emotion rather than reason and detached thinking. 

Most often, reflection and time, alter our perspective, but by then, we have sent the post. 

Sorry darling, I did not mean it.  

34 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Round 2 will show very quickly a number of things:

Can coaching/ selection learn?

Was round 1 an aberration to the real norm?

Have we a sustainable game style ?( Personally i think there may be a fundamental flaw in thinking. The season is a marathon...yet we rely on a style played at frenetic pace...more like backing up 100m sprints. Its a long season.

Who's in favour...who might not be ?

Yes it'll be only 2 games... astute observation can provide insight.

The Lions are actually a real danger game. 

Im enthused by the optimism shown by some. Im not convinced weve got this right yet.

That was a pretty average effort all things considered.

Scoreboards seldom lie. Had the Cats kicked straighter we wouldn't have been in it.

Go Dees

Sadly BB when it comes to Melbourne every game is a danger game. 

Round 1 of not some of our players still don’t get it. 

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Round 2 will show very quickly a number of things:

Can coaching/ selection learn?

Was round 1 an aberration to the real norm?

Have we a sustainable game style ?( Personally i think there may be a fundamental flaw in thinking. The season is a marathon...yet we rely on a style played at frenetic pace...more like backing up 100m sprints. Its a long season.

Who's in favour...who might not be ?

Yes it'll be only 2 games... astute observation can provide insight.

The Lions are actually a real danger game. 

Im enthused by the optimism shown by some. Im not convinced weve got this right yet.

That was a pretty average effort all things considered.

Scoreboards seldom lie. Had the Cats kicked straighter we wouldn't have been in it.

Go Dees

Fully Agree.  We only played Lions in Rd 22 last year, and should have creamed them but didn't. This was the game that cost the finals. Whilst there were good signs last week, the Lions are better also this year.  A narrow win will be seriously concerning.

A huge win, maybe not that much meaning - unless backed up again against the Roos.

11 hours ago, Drunkn167 said:

I find it pretty funny how so many people who post on these forums believe they know more about selecting an AFL side then someone who has played in 2 winning premierships, played over 250 AFL games, is a 5x All-Australian and an Australian Football Hall of Famer, not to mention all the others with huge amounts of experience on the coaching panel who go into discussing the selections for each week, but yeah, you've watched a lot of football so you know which guys to pick to play.

What you say is true Drunkn, and I'm usually loathe get antsy about the side picked, but to say that coaches/selectors are immune to having questions asked about what (in this case) was head-scratching stuff for most observant Melbourne supporters, is the same as saying that those coaches/selectors can't/don't sometimes make mistakes. Of course they do, even if it can never be claimed that any selection is objectively wrong. But round 1's selection certainly begged the question. 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

I've never seen so many supporters up in arms over a poor quarter of football.  In round one.

Now I know why the Sarah Hanson-Youngs and Jacqui Lambies get voted into parliament.

Simply, They're not.

12 minutes ago, DV8 said:

Simply, They're not.

Hanson-Young still is...

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Round 2 and 3 are almost nothing games in the sense if we win they tell us little as to where we are against the  other teams vying for 5 to 12 in the comp.

Lose on the other hand we can kiss a spot in the top 4 goodbye.

 

Not true DJ.

 

There are plenty of games to catch and overtake others even if we go zippo & 3.

Its not until 1/3 way into the season, that things really start to take shape.  The starts to seasons, always throw up inconsistencies in teams.

===============================================

9 minutes ago, Webber said:

What you say is true Drunkn, and I'm usually loathe get antsy about the side picked, but to say that coaches/selectors are immune to having questions asked about what (in this case) was head-scratching stuff for most observant Melbourne supporters, is the same as saying that those coaches/selectors can't/don't sometimes make mistakes. Of course they do, even if it can never be claimed that any selection is objectively wrong. But round 1's selection certainly begged the question. 

It depends on who is asking the question. - who thought the question up ?   And their seasons motivation/goals.

As against the footy dept's thoughts on capability & the goals set for this season.

The two questions and answers maybe at odds with one another.

 

Some may believe we can go all the way and others may think that is pure fantasy.

1/ So some want to win every possible game as the only 2018 goal.

2/ Whilst others may think finishing 5th would not be achievable this year.

The 2nd scenario is more probably realistic.  So the development of the team will be for the long term, rather than for 'a one season stand'.

So IF we are on more of a slow burn in development, designed to be able to last years into our futures.  Remember, if this rebuild falters, it could be the clubs last.

 

More important than a flag at this stage,,,  is getting this rebuild right, and sustainable for reinstating this club back up amongst the power clubs competing on equal footing for the longer term.

Then we will have many chances to jag a flag.

35 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Hanson-Young still is...

Upset over one Qtr.  Not.

5 minutes ago, DV8 said:

Upset over one Qtr.  Not.

I knew what you meant, kid.

Just jerking your chain. 

6 hours ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

Mate, I love your work on here but surely you would agree there was no way Maynard could have been selected to play in Round 1 based on what you saw in any of the pre-season matches?

I don't care how hard he trains, I don't care how good a bloke he is - he did nothing in any of the pre-season matches to warrant selection.  His kicking and endurance are not up to AFL standard.

Goodwin's selection policies are a huge problem.  They cost us a finals spot last year when he went to Jake Spencer and Tim Smith ahead of Cam Pederson.  They also cost us the game on Sunday.

Don't be a sycophant and think that just because he was a great player, he is a great coach.

you know more than a couple of pre-season matches are used to pick the team right? Maynard was picked to perform a specific role, a role the FD must have thought he is best placed to perform from those not already in the 22

Anyone has to right to question selection but you should not treat it a fact than error was made.

and selection cost us a finals spot? thats a joke. the 22 on the field didn't even try in the first quarter against the pies. mental frailty was the cause

Edited March 29, 20187 yr by DubDee

6 hours ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

Mate, I love your work on here but surely you would agree there was no way Maynard could have been selected to play in Round 1 based on what you saw in any of the pre-season matches?

I don't care how hard he trains, I don't care how good a bloke he is - he did nothing in any of the pre-season matches to warrant selection.  His kicking and endurance are not up to AFL standard

Let me play devils advocate here for a second. Maynard was chosen because he is a bull around stoppages. He was brought in mostly to try and quell the influence of the Cats elite midfield, which admittedly didn't work and he'll probably be dropped, but he still had 15 touches and the second most tackles out of any player.

Plus it was only his second game, and the club probably wanted to test him against a team as good as Geelong. 

I know we lost and it sucks but the outrage here is really over the top.

1 hour ago, Webber said:

What you say is true Drunkn, and I'm usually loathe get antsy about the side picked, but to say that coaches/selectors are immune to having questions asked about what (in this case) was head-scratching stuff for most observant Melbourne supporters, is the same as saying that those coaches/selectors can't/don't sometimes make mistakes. Of course they do, even if it can never be claimed that any selection is objectively wrong. But round 1's selection certainly begged the question. 

Yeah I can understand why people would be asking questions about selection given we lost and it sucked.

It just bugs me because I know how hard these guys have worked and why they were selected, yet nearly every single poster is trying to tear into these 2 players as the reason we lost, which was always going to happen given the uproar when the teams were announced.

But if you look at the stats the main guys people are trying to blame the selection panel on were no where near the worst on ground.

I know people are angry but it gets pretty ridiculous on these forums after a loss.