Or we might not...it’s going to be fun to watch though. I am just rapped footy is back! Go Dees!

41 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

WD I'm no expert so I'll leave that to the coaches and recruiting staff.  All I know is footy ovals are pretty big.  There's a lot of ground to be covered.  When you have the pill you can do that by great use of the ball with good vision and skills that allow you to hit up targets quickly by hand or foot to maintain possession, no matter where the next best option might be.  If you can't see or find one you're only other option is to try and run away from your opponent or kick/paddle/hand ball the ball to your advantage and hope it bounces nicely so you can run on to it somewhere away from the opponent chasing you and reset again.

When we haven't got the ball we need to be able to close down quickly on our opponents and pressure them when they are attempting to dispose as per above and win ball back either on ground or through the air.

Either way you need a good sprinkling of players who can cover the ground quickly and are very deft of vision and skills by hand and foot (ideally both sides of the body). Obviously such players are extremely hard to come by which is why you probably only see a handful or less in most teams.  The Hawks prefer them like this but are willing to take a one sided player ....usually left footed, and it seems to work a treat for them with the game plan Clarkson runs.  At the MFC I am currently struggling to come up with one of those who has good to explosive speed, strength, vision and sublime finishing skills.   Tracc looking like he is going to be a cracker at this point.  We had one other in Watts, who had his moments in patches, but his effort side was questioned by many during the course of his career at times.  Alas he has now moved on as we decided to look elsewhere.

We still have a long way to go if we are to be a serious finals contender with the current list IMO.  Our speed, finesse and finish (especially our method of entry coming inside 50 and finding targets or getting it to their advantage) is still a big work in progress for mine and we will need many further recruits and personnel changes before becoming a genuine and consistent finals contender.

Could not have said it better RN. You are spot on. 

4 hours ago, old dee said:

If that were the case why did we lose to the Cats? Gawn is not a match winner we saw that on Sunday. Most of the games we won last year were when he was out injured, Hawthorn proved for years you don't need a dominate Ruckman to win flags and Richmond did last year. The best Ruckman are the ones who do more than win hit outs which is his main claim to fame. Viney is a grunt player very valuable but I don't see the skill that match winners show, it also helps if you can get on the field. Oliver is very good in fact probably our best player but he ain't there yet it might help if he kicked a bit more. 

Silly comment, by that logic any team with a "match winner" should win every single game.

Gawn misses one shot and all of a sudden it's not possible for him to be a "match winner"?

Watch Viney's game against West Coast last year and tell me again he can't be a match winner.

oh, how we will remember this post round one thread and look back and have a jolly good chuckle. 

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is truly incredible! 

FMD 

17 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

oh, how we will remember this post round one thread and look back and have a jolly good chuckle. 

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is truly incredible! 

FMD 

Not sure why you have that attitude DAG 99% of what I have read is just discussing our shortfalls and attributes. The split is reasonable even. If you only want to read glowing reports about the MFC go to the MFC site. This is a fan site where people give their opinions and quite often they vary.

And to your last comment. No Thank You.

23 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

oh, how we will remember this post round one thread and look back and have a jolly good chuckle. 

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is truly incredible! 

FMD 

Although there's nothing to suggest that what we've seen so far is different to any basis of qualms last season. I think it's more likely that we'll look back on this thread and say, "here is where it all began" than we are to look back and laugh. 

Happy to be proven wrong.

34 minutes ago, old dee said:

Not sure why you have that attitude DAG 99% of what I have read is just discussing our shortfalls and attributes. The split is reasonable even. If you only want to read glowing reports about the MFC go to the MFC site. This is a fan site where people give their opinions and quite often they vary.

And to your last comment. No Thank You.

Yeah fair enough. I just think we should wait a few more rounds before making broad judgements on our performance. 

I agree the debate has been rational , though (for once!) 

17 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Yeah fair enough. I just think we should wait a few more rounds before making broad judgements on our performance. 

I agree the debate has been rational , though (for once!) 

You are correct it is only the first game and if Gawn could kick we would be still be  without a loss in 2018. What troubles me is the faults of last year seemed be there in the first game. I guess we will know more in another 36 hours.

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by old dee

5 hours ago, old dee said:

If that were the case why did we lose to the Cats? Gawn is not a match winner we saw that on Sunday. Most of the games we won last year were when he was out injured, Hawthorn proved for years you don't need a dominate Ruckman to win flags and Richmond did last year. The best Ruckman are the ones who do more than win hit outs which is his main claim to fame. Viney is a grunt player very valuable but I don't see the skill that match winners show, it also helps if you can get on the field. Oliver is very good in fact probably our best player but he ain't there yet it might help if he kicked a bit more. 

I'm not a fan of this argument, OD. In fact it's slightly absurd. Just because these guys didn't win us the game last week doesn't mean they're not match winners. Geelong don't win every week. By your logical Dangerfield and Selwood can't be match winners either then.

On 29/03/2018 at 2:33 AM, 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.

James Hird, Michael Voss.....

5 hours ago, old dee said:

Massive leap there Dr. If you go back through my comments I have said we will play finals and I still believe that however I don't think we are a danger to the GF for the reasons I have stated. We do not yet have the 25 players necessary to win a spot in a GF. Let alone win one. We still don't have a match winner when the chips are down. If we did we would now be 1 and zero not the other way around.

Do you think it's possible some of our players may develop over the course of the season? Petracca, Oliver, Hogan, TMac, Viney, Lever etc Even if they're not at the very elite level yet they've shown that they have the tools just need to put it together with experience. Let's support them, never know what they might achieve.

4 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Silly comment, by that logic any team with a "match winner" should win every single game.

Gawn misses one shot and all of a sudden it's not possible for him to be a "match winner"?

Watch Viney's game against West Coast last year and tell me again he can't be a match winner.

My thoughts precisely TU

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Do you think it's possible some of our players may develop over the course of the season? Petracca, Oliver, Hogan, TMac, Viney, Lever etc Even if they're not at the very elite level yet they've shown that they have the tools just need to put it together with experience. Let's support them, never know what they might achieve.

Enviable list of elite  talent mentioned.

If you think we're in trouble tune into today's game.

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

If you think we're in trouble tune into today's game.

I don't think we are in trouble proDee.

Just now, old dee said:

I don't think we are in trouble proDee.

I was using the term in the thread title.

On 29/03/2018 at 10:29 AM, 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. 

insane over reaction on DL.  Round 1 is historically not indicative of the season to come. frenetic football, 5 months build up, players dont have their touch yet etc.

We played a much less than fully fit Geelong who were blooding first gamers and not only lost, but did not play the better footy over the course of the game. 

There's not much chance anyone would have been talking 9 - 0 even if Gawny kicked the goal. 

We are a long way off being a better than 6-9 team on what l saw in Round 1.

We will learn a lot after playing the Lions. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

If you think we're in trouble tune into today's game.

North Melbourne were bad,  St Kilda played as horribly as I have seen a side play for a while.   They were appalling. 

11 hours ago, A F said:

I'm not a fan of this argument, OD. In fact it's slightly absurd. Just because these guys didn't win us the game last week doesn't mean they're not match winners. Geelong don't win every week. By your logical Dangerfield and Selwood can't be match winners either then.

I think there might be some confusion over the term 'matchwinner'.  To me, a match winner is a player who, when the game is in the balance, can pull something out of the bag and force a win.  Again, to me, there are not that many instances last season that come to my mind when someone has risen to the occasion and done something that has decided the result in our favour.  Last year, Tommy Mac in Perth and JW a couple of times.  I'm sure others will come in with other examples that escape me.  That might just be a failing memory....or not.  I agree with OD that we still lack the resources needed to win a GF.  

Objectively reviewing the performance of the coaching team and the players is not disloyalty, it's part (maybe one of the best parts) of footy.  Those people  find it worthy to unconditionally support the current approach regardless of the evidence are also part of the culture and I encourage them to continue doing so.  I might not agree with Saty's and others' approach or commentary but their commitment to the Club is phenomenal.  Others of us will continue to see things and comment differently.

Edited March 30, 20187 yr by Jimcor2

2 minutes ago, Jimcor2 said:

I think there might be some confusion over the term 'matchwinner'.  To me, a match winner is a player who, when the game is in the balance, can pull something out of the bag and force a win.  Again, to me, there are not that many instances last season that come to my mind when someone has risen to the occasion and done something that has decided the result.  Last year, Tommy Mac in Perth and JW a couple of times.  That might just be a failing memory....or not.  I agree with OD that we still lack the resources needed to win a GF.  

Objectively reviewing the performance of the coaching team and the players is not disloyalty, it's part (maybe one of the best parts) of footy.  Those people  find it worthy to unconditionally support the current approach regardless of the evidence are also part of the culture and I encourage them to continue doing so.  I might not agree with Saty's and others' approach or commentary but their commitment to the Club is phenomenal.  Others of us will continue to see things and comment differently.

This isn't 2017 though. Our younger talented group have anothet pre season under their belts.

As @Dr. Gonzo said above, there's nothing stopping these guys from proving themselves matchwinners this year.

On 29/03/2018 at 10:49 PM, beelzebub said:

So therefore they AREN'T there...and we haven't any...atm.

Max kicks the goal on Sunday and he would have been a match winner.

If you look at Richmond they had still have:

Martin  (Trac)

Rance (Lever)

Riewoldt (Hogan)

Cotchin (Viney, Oliver)

Your correct all of ours listed above are in 20-23 age range, so not quite mature enough in body, games and mind, but over the next few years we should be in the zone! Then add Gawn, Hibberd, who are both only 27!

and the Dogs only had:

Bontempelli (probably misspelled)

and 21 players who put manic pressure around the ground!

Our list is no worse than what the Dogs snatched a flag with in 2016!

Still let’s win enough games to make finals this year, win a final, then next year & beyond we should be good to have a crack at an elusive flag!

15 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

North Melbourne were bad,  St Kilda played as horribly as I have seen a side play for a while.   They were appalling. 

I watched about 10 Mins and went back to Computer..  The saints were not getting any numbers to the ball. Total lacking of effort in the part I saw.

It was disappointing and boring.

Then the adds, I did have the TV on in the background (listening) as I played games on Computer. I had mans best friend by my side, the trusty Re-Mote, eventually changed channel.

What happens if we smash Brisbane...

 

1 hour ago, machine11 said:

What happens if we smash Brisbane...

 

We, fire our season up.

and the boys get a kickalong.