FACT - we have yet to prove that we can match it with the top sides.  We have in fact wilted under pressure quite predictably all too often. 

BUT - that has nothing to do with Watson's opinion, of which I have zero respect.  After it is  he who still says the disgraced ex-Downlow Medalist close to him didn't do drugs and wasn't a weak leader when "the issue" arose, and that it was not up to the team captain to question orders from His Lordship.

Its a No from me at the moment, if we can turn over a big team at the G then i will change my mind. That test is coming up against Sydney in a months time.

Until then we are what we are flat track bullies. I hate it but it is what it is.

Our team dynamics need to changed the right balance needs to be found times running out but it can be done.

Terrible article firstly Watson doesn't give the best reason why we aren't balanced he said we didn't have a crumber. We did until last week with Garlett then Spargo playing, we have more problems than just that.

Can we compete with the best? we just did against Port dominating key stats but not on the scoreboard where it really matters.

Can we beat the best? That's a different question. ATM the moment it's no.

With all the talk only being able to beat bottom teams what's the bet we lose to one I'm thinking Freo. That would be typical Melbourne.

Until we beat another side in the top 8, this question will continue to be asked.

9 hours ago, Yung Blood said:

We have competed with the best. There is strong evidence. We performed really well in three quarters against Geelong, Richmond and Port putting ourselves in positions to win those games.

I thought we were really unlucky against Port with a few things not going our way in the last quarter (injuries/bad calls in crucial moments). I definitely think this team has competed with the best and has put them selves in line to beat the better teams. The small sample this season is enough proof I think.

This team is in no way polished or settled. There's still so much room to improve which is exciting as a supporter. The areas in which we need to improve are clear and in front of us.

Agreed.

We've had two shockers - Hawthorn and Collingwood. The Richmond game fell apart but we showed significant positive signs. We should have beaten both Geelong and Port and, had we done that, we would be equal top of the ladder without this question being asked.

But we didn't win those games, and so we deal with this question and the uncertainty until we beat someone better.

2 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Exactly what Jimmy Bartel was saying after the match, the crash and bash contested possession ethos was great but further success will require a bit more composure and strategy to set up scores and absorb opposition attacks. 

Bartel was talking about how we transition the ball away from winning the contest.  It's not either/or,  we want beasts in-under. But we need class on the fringe of the contests, to advance the ball to better positions.

 

And his other factor, is when we are ready to kick the ball inside 50.  We have to be at our most composed for this entry disposal, going in.

This, (Re the fringe of the contests) is why, I want Sloane.  He has the class, and can win his own possessions inside as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need more class players, than just Sloane.

11 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We can compete with the Top sides for about 40-50% of a game. 

Who are these "top sides".

I'll pick apart their losses for you.

18 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

We need a cover for Lever, we need a class mid who hits targets in the f50 with regularity, we need a goal crumbing forward, and we need Viney or Jones to take the club on their shoulders when the tide turns against us, Like Selwood does, Like Ziebell did on the weekend, Like Pendles has for years.

We can compete, we should hav3 beaten both Geelong and Port. We need ice in the veins and about 30 more games into half a dozen players.

 

Sounds about right Gorg.  Trouble is we have none of the above (at level / form required to acheive what's needed right now).

Next year?

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Who are these "top sides".

I'll pick apart their losses for you.

Go right ahead if you wish, we still can’t stay with them for 100 minutes

16 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Go right ahead if you wish, we still can’t stay with them for 100 minutes

Who are the top sides, though?  You didn't answer the question.

25 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Who are the top sides, though?  You didn't answer the question.

We all know who they are WB

Don’t be so pedantic

Time will tell and i believe we can win another 6 games at least. We are better placed to attack the second half of the season in regards to personnel than this time last year IMO. I realise the fixture is a tough one, but it is what it is. If we can keep most of our best 22 out there for the remainder and miss finals....well...then we are not good enough and people have every right to feel aggrieved..again. Hopefully the players feel bitter after the Port loss, more so than R23 last year. T Mac telling the media to F off is a good start. 

I find it hard to see a benchmark right now, the obvious is Richmond. A 16 game winning streak at the G but also 3 losses interstate.

Swans can win games when being dominated but have dropped 3 at the SCG.

West Coast are getting the wobbles for one reason or another and 2 of their 3 losses have been at home. Collingwood in 4th?? Don’t rate them but hey.

Port? They’ve had a cushy three week stay at home recently and fell over the line in two of them but 4 points is 4 points.

We have some work to do no doubt but the four walls shouldn’t be caving in just yet. 

Edited June 27, 20186 yr by Dee Zephyr

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We all know who they are WB

Don’t be so pedantic

The point is there are no infallible "top sides".  None of these sides should scare you.  None of these sides play 120 minutes.

West Coast just lost to flaky Essendon at home.

Sydney have lost at home to North and both of the Adelaide teams.

I could go on, but won't waste more time...

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

 

West Coast just lost to flaky Essendon at home.

.

To be fair to West Coast, they are missing their 2 forwards. We wouldn't win much without Hogan and TMac either.

But I take your point, all teams are vulnerable, which makes it more frustrating that we haven't been able to beat anyone currently sitting above us on the ladder, despite them not being unbeatable.

We definitely lack composure when the heat is on, which I think is a combination of lacking maturity, poor/lacking leadership and not having real match winners. TMac is the closest thing we have to a match winner, but when the delivery to him is so god awful, it's hard to expect him to win us games.

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

The point is there are no infallible "top sides".  None of these sides should scare you.  None of these sides play 120 minutes.

West Coast just lost to flaky Essendon at home.

Sydney have lost at home to North and both of the Adelaide teams.

I could go on, but won't waste more time...

Yes i know all that. 

But WE The MFC cannot beat them when it’s our turn to front up. 

I don’t give a Jatz Cracker about what other teams do. 

This is a long term problem the MFC has had for decades. 

We do not handle high pressure. 

I could go on, but i am busy eating breakfast ? 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know all that. 

But WE The MFC cannot beat them when it’s our turn to front up. 

I don’t give a Jatz Cracker about what other teams do. 

This is a long term problem the MFC has had for decades. 

We do not handle high pressure. 

I could go on, but i am busy eating breakfast ? 

So west coast in Perth last year was an optical illusion, as was Crows in Adelaide?

As was QB last year?

I only mention these as you use the words "...Long term..."

This is incorrect on the evidence.

Inconsistent though is probably what we both agree on. 

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I don’t give a Jatz Cracker about what other teams do. 

Then don't reference them as "top teams", as though they present some insurmountable problem.

They don't.

1 minute ago, ProDee said:

Then don't reference them as "top teams", as though they present some insurmountable problem.

They don't.

They certainly do to the MFC. 

This EXACT problem should have been addressed and sorted after Rounds 22-23 last year, once and for all

But clearly it hasn’t. 

 

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know all that. 

But WE The MFC cannot beat them when it’s our turn to front up. 

I don’t give a Jatz Cracker about what other teams do. 

This is a long term problem the MFC has had for decades. 

We do not handle high pressure. 

I could go on, but i am busy eating breakfast ? 

Clearly, Sir, you are a man in a hurry. 

Just now, hemingway said:

Clearly, Sir, you are a man in a hurry. 

I disagree, he's having breakfast at midday.

Just now, hemingway said:

Clearly, Sir, you are a man in a hurry. 

Manila time Ernie

13 minutes ago, SFebey said:

I disagree, he's having breakfast at midday.

It's tomorrows breakfast

37 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

So west coast in Perth last year was an optical illusion, as was Crows in Adelaide?

As was QB last year?

I only mention these as you use the words "...Long term..."

This is incorrect on the evidence.

Inconsistent though is probably what we both agree on. 

Exactly. Inconsistency is what we agree on. 

Any side can pull off a Big Game, we have NEVER done it with any consistency. 

Those games you mentioned above, how did we pull up the following week?

23 hours ago, DubDee said:

better last year when we lost to the Pies and North twice who were in terrible form. Just beat Carlton and lost to a terrible Freo at home?

we are far better than last year and it will show at the end of the year. we are finally beating the average teams and a couple of wins against the good teams are just around the corner

I firstly would like to think this is true but secondly, I think it will be a possibility next year rather than this year. I still hope this year is the one in which we make the finals, despite some pessimism of our current state of play and its refinement across the board.

Another loss - any loss - is probably an omen for our 2018 wash-up. The onfield treatment that we are currently experiencing from the umpires in particular to me is indicative of what the AFL want - and the way the rules and umpire adjudication expectations from other clubs factor in questionable outcomes for the MFC provide strong evidence that this pessimism is not an imaginative figment.

We need to work harder on merging our talents across a whole game - certainly we have more talent than we had last year - rather than exhaust ourselves in 20 minutes of blisteringly good football in matchplay each time we take the field. The 'good' teams extend their application onfield across a whole match; the MFC seldom does this because there are gaps in our application and game style. 

 

Edited June 27, 20186 yr by Deemania since 56

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know all that. 

But WE The MFC cannot beat them when it’s our turn to front up. 

I don’t give a Jatz Cracker about what other teams do. 

This is a long term problem the MFC has had for decades. 

We do not handle high pressure. 

I could go on, but i am busy eating breakfast ? 

Don't forget the oldie but goodie we have beaten Ess and they beat WCE so we should beat WCE

Same for North V Syd

2 minutes ago, timbo said:

Don't forget the oldie but goodie we have beaten Ess and they beat WCE so we should beat WCE

Same for North V Syd

Yes, now THEY are the true useless stat i see trotted out on here on a semi regular basis