18 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not sure where you got your list

Of the unavailable players only Moore, Langdon & Beams could be considered big losses.

The dees would kill for that injury list.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i realize that. But we also have a lot of similar players that lack some pace. 

That is the Current FD and Coach to a certain extent

Probably a combination of coach/FD and recruiters but yeah I agree. I think we've tried to amend that at last year's draft but there's been too many misses for mine over the last 4 or 5 drafts. Guys like Hulett, Mitch King, Dion Johnstone never even looked close to making an AFL career and the jury is still out in a few others. Still to early to judge guys like Spargo, Jordon, Baker etc but it seems theyve tried to go with some page over contested players. I'd like to see them focus on skills at this year's draft.

Still it juts proves that it's impossible to compare like for like and say "well Richmond and West Coast have had injuries and they're still top 4" because it doesn't work like that.

13 minutes ago, binman said:

The dees would kill for that injury list.

I couldn't even tell you who some of those guys are. Tohill? Noble? Murphy? Kelly?

Wells and Dunn are finished so can hardly count them. Wells has barely played for 3 years.

7 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Because some supporters on this site simply can't handle cold hard criticism directed at the club, not least from a past player.

It cuts at them and so they become triggered and feel the best way of handling the truth is to say things like, "yeh well Garry Lyon appointed Neeld so he doesn't know n e thingggg".

I could care less about the Neeld thing. And i don't mind his criticism of the club. All power to him. A terrific servant for the club and he has more that earned the right to knock us. 

What i mind is that he is a paid professional analyst who is rubbish at that job. I don't care how he 'feels' about the dees. Not in that role anyway. Maybe down the pub over a few beers, but not on a show that is supposed to offer some level of professional analysis, requiring some level of professional detachment. 

His comments sounded like a fan boy whose feelings had been hurt, who had been let down. If he truly believes last year was an aberration, do some basic research and back up that opinion with some facts. Do some work rather than waffle on. He's supposedly 'thought about it long and hard' and gives no substance to his argument. At all. Not single rational argument to back his opinion. That's the best he can do after thinking long and hard?  I mean c'mon.

Browny tried hard to get him to expand on his thoughts, for example asked him about the quality of the midfield. But got nothing from Gary. Embarrassing stuff.

In all seriousness he sounded like many posters on Demonland. The difference is he is getting paid to have an informed view and make rational, well argued assertions. 

Cold, hard criticism? You are pretty easily pleased Steve.

Personally i prefer a bit more rigor in my analysis. Each to their own i suppose.

Edited July 23, 20195 yr by binman

On 7/22/2019 at 10:09 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Not sure he disputes anything swyl .. it's fact you constantly repeat yourself in every single match day/Goodwin thread over and over again. Becomes tiresome.

Not as tiresome as the people who continually blame and bag Garry Lyon for everything that has gone wrong with the club whenever his name is mentioned

Edited July 23, 20195 yr by DavidNeitz9

7 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Because some supporters on this site simply can't handle cold hard criticism directed at the club, not least from a past player.

It cuts at them and so they become triggered and feel the best way of handling the truth is to say things like, "yeh well Garry Lyon appointed Neeld so he doesn't know n e thingggg".

100% spot on Steve

I think Goodwin should, and will, have some learnings from this year, I suspect about adopting more of a tempo approach within games and in relation to playing players in their natural positions.

That said, there is absolutely no doubt that we have been cruelled by injuries throughout the year. It seemed to me that the other On The Couch panel members realise this, and they still believe we are a top 4-6 team - they simply allowed Lyon to have his rant. I expect it was all quite pre-meditated and that the show’s producers love the debate it has generated.

The reality is that we should’ve beaten the team that the panelists on the same program stated were favourites for the flag the day earlier and, but for profligate kicking would’ve beaten, albeit with a forward line consisting of Harrison Petty, Bailey Fritsch and Jordan Lewis, and having one of our key mids out injured for the entire second half.

There’s a bit of D Trump hyperbole to Lyon’s rant - but, as we all know, populist rants are super compelling to the masses who love that sort of rhetoric.

I’m backing Goodwin in. Would be good to bring in some new high quality assistant coaches though in the off season IMO (some of whom I expect will be available).

 

Edited July 23, 20195 yr by Ron Burgundy

8 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

I thought he was making a nmbid as Demonland's new Village Idiot, he's going to take some beating 

Nah, surely it's someone with a personal connection to Ratten who is aiming to further his agenda (not that this site is Linkedin or Seek.com  I suppose), why else would you put that stuff out there?

Edited July 23, 20195 yr by Engorged Onion

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Probably a combination of coach/FD and recruiters but yeah I agree. I think we've tried to amend that at last year's draft but there's been too many misses for mine over the last 4 or 5 drafts. Guys like Hulett, Mitch King, Dion Johnstone never even looked close to making an AFL career and the jury is still out in a few others. Still to early to judge guys like Spargo, Jordon, Baker etc but it seems theyve tried to go with some page over contested players. I'd like to see them focus on skills at this year's draft.

Still it juts proves that it's impossible to compare like for like and say "well Richmond and West Coast have had injuries and they're still top 4" because it doesn't work like that.

Of course you can compare lists. Players are all picked from the same sources. 

We haven’t been good at elite fitness , that is the root cause of all this. 

Other lists are fitter, even after injuries and they have a Plan B ready to instill

That is the basic reason we are 17th

20 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Not exactly diving into detail regarding those games are you.

I wonder why.

Pot kettle?

When was the last time you went into depth about anything?

14 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Injuries are a poor excuse The pies injury list is:

  Anton Tohill
  Ben Reid
  Christopher Mayne
  Daniel Wells
  Darcy Moore
  Dayne Beams
  Jaidyn Stephenson
  James Aish
  Jamie Elliott
Jeremy Howe
  John Noble
  Josh Thomas
  Levi Greenwood
  Lynden Dunn
  Nathan Murphy
  Samuel Murray
Scott Pendlebury
  Tom Langdon
  Will Kelly
 

They have had injuries all year. They aren't playing well at the moment but they put us to shame with their effort

Huh? If we've got one thing going for us it's our effort. Collingwood's injuries have made them play worse than they could, which is sort of what's happened to us.

Collingwood's done a better job of it though, but I don't subscribe to the argument that because one club is capable of adjusting to injuries then all clubs should be able to.

However, I also don't subscribe to the argument that we can put our 2019 down to injuries and nothing else.

13 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I've seen ladders which reverse the narrow wins/losses and we won only 2 or 3 games and are bottom 3.  Another ladder removes the GCS results and we are bottom 17th.

So on what measure does the ladder position not truly represent as much as many are reading into it?

Based on the football we're playing.

There isn't that much between us and the sides above us. 

12 hours ago, praha said:

There really isn't. Unless you don't consider finals a genuine KPI. Like I've said wins alone aren't a good metric in isolation. Look at ladder position, %. A number of metrics. Linear growth is reasonable if you're a 2 win side with a 50% percentage. But a season with finals is clearly the aberration. I can't see how you could argue otherwise. 

12 out of 13 seasons without finals. Logic says that 1 season is the outlier. So yes this year is the outlier in a selective group of years that covers 2014-2019 in that it's the inly season without linear improvement. But it's also the 5th of 6 years where we haven't played finals.

So in the much grander, "We're In This To Win Flags Not Just Improve Our Win-Loss Ratio" scheme of things, last year was the aberration.

Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. 

It's been argued by a number of posters in this thread, convincingly, fairly and with reason and statistics. You just don't like it.

It's possible that 2018 was the peak of our growth. It's also possible that 2019 is an aberration. Both are arguable. Based on the four previous years of linear growth, I'm more than happy to back in the latter argument against yours. But of course, we won't know for sure until we see 2020. 

13 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Pot kettle?

When was the last time you went into depth about anything?

Huh? If we've got one thing going for us it's our effort. Collingwood's injuries have made them play worse than they could, which is sort of what's happened to us.

Collingwood's done a better job of it though, but I don't subscribe to the argument that because one club is capable of adjusting to injuries then all clubs should be able to.

However, I also don't subscribe to the argument that we can put our 2019 down to injuries and nothing else.

Based on the football we're playing.

There isn't that much between us and the sides above us. 

Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. 

It's been argued by a number of posters in this thread, convincingly, fairly and with reason and statistics. You just don't like it.

It's possible that 2018 was the peak of our growth. It's also possible that 2019 is an aberration. Both are arguable. Based on the four previous years of linear growth, I'm more than happy to back in the latter argument against yours. But of course, we won't know for sure until we see 2020. 

What stats do you need?

Years without finals since Roos arrived: 5

Years with finals: 1

That one year is an aberration. That's just fact. I'm not saying it as proof that we won't improve or we won't play finals next year. But I'm saying that it is clearly an aberration on a grander scale. You're saying I'm manipulating for the sake of fitting my argument but you're the one saying improvements in win:loss -- not finals -- are the only metric to track improvement. Therefore this year is the aberration. Sure, it is the aberration if we're looking at win:loss in isolation. But I'm looking at finals as the metric. I don't care how many games we win if we're playing finals. If we win 15 one year and finish 4th but win 14 the next year and finish 3rd, I'm not going to chuck a stink because we won fewer games, am I?

Lyon highlights that improvement in won:loss is really only a worthwhile metric if you're coming from a low point. We're beyond that now. Forget about that linear improvement. It's pointless now. Playing finals should be the only metric. Brisband was 0-12 last year and now is suddenly a legitimate flag contender, with finals locked away with 5 rounds to go. We took until round 22 to even start contemplating finals last year. Don't get me started on 2017.

If it makes you feel better than yes this year is the aberration. However you want to look at it. I disagree and think we need to make more substantial changes to turn it around. I am not confident that things will just magically turn around for us next year.

 

9 hours ago, rjay said:

I'm not having a crack at him at all, I'm having a fair crack at the board who didn't carry out their responsibilities.

...and no I'm not having a go at Jimmy now either but he shouldn't have been in a position to make key decisions given the precarious position he was in with his health. How could he possibly have been thinking clearly.

No, the inaction of that board set us back years and I still can't forgive them for it.

Fair enough mate, can understand that point of view for sure.

"They have been pathetic, and know one seems to know why. There better be a good reason other than injuries because I can't put my finger on it, nobody else can understand."

https://www.sportsradio.com.au/they-have-been-pathetic-melbourne-legend-david-schwarz-slams-demons/

 

19 hours ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

I think we have a very good list and one most opposition teams would jump at given the opportunity but i am much more concerned with the coaching/gameplan side of things 

1. all of the top teams have moved the ball a lot more conservatively and relied on forward speed and pressure. we move the ball too quickly, can't apply enough pressure when we get it in there. 

2. i don't think our forward set up or midfield set up work well. too many players get sucked in and really they just have to break even to win the ball and get it in space. and the forwards have no idea how to make space for each other. 

i think we desperately need to find a key forward, 2 pressure forwards and 2 outside midfielders with speed and elite skills 

if we end up with pick 2 i'd seriously entertain the idea of sending it to the Dockers for Langdon, Hill and some sort of other combination of assets. couple of elite outside players would seriously add to the side. 

Having read the range of explanation /accusations (many of which supported and added to my own)  your initial comment has resonated most powerfully and generated a different approach.

We really need two teams in our squad. One which can play the high pressure, high contact, chaos style of finals and one which can play a more conservative, tempo based slow, precise delivery.

Both squads are then selected with some overlapping to match up against the game plan of a specific opponent.

oh and both squads should practice kicking goals until it is instinctive that inside 50 you kick it between the big sticks.

If we could just kick the thing through the big sticks, we’d have been spared a few headaches.

Who is our goalkicking coach? Do we have one? Get Saty on board for all I care. Just get someone. Anyone. 

Lesson 1 -  Wind: what is it and how does it affect my kick?

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Of course you can compare lists. Players are all picked from the same sources. 

We haven’t been good at elite fitness , that is the root cause of all this. 

Other lists are fitter, even after injuries and they have a Plan B ready to instill

That is the basic reason we are 17th

But lists are at different stages in their development. It's not comparing like with like. Especially when talking about depth to cover injuries (and by the way we have had more games lost to injury to best 22 players than those more developed teams).

45 minutes ago, praha said:

Lyon highlights that improvement in won:loss is really only a worthwhile metric if you're coming from a low point. We're beyond that now.

 

But we weren't beyond that point in 2014-16 which are 3 of the years you are using to prove your argument that 2018 was an aberration. In 2014 we were coming from that low point, probably the lowest point of any non-expansion side since Fitzroy.

27 minutes ago, P-man said:

If we could just kick the thing through the big sticks, we’d have been spared a few headaches.

Who is our goalkicking coach? Do we have one? Get Saty on board for all I care. Just get someone. Anyone. 

Lesson 1 -  Wind: what is it and how does it affect my kick?

Well, it’s interesting to read on the club’s website training is no longer at Goschs today due to a change in the players’ schedule. Maybe they have all been assigned to go find one or they are secretly locked away at Marvel practising.

Any guesses as to what the ‘change’ in schedule means?

26 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Any guesses as to what the ‘change’ in schedule means?

If I was to guess, it's likely because of the sudden media interest that's popped up now that there's no more coaches left to get the sack. 

The pessimist calls that cowardly the optimist calls it protection. It's probably a mix of both. Maybe we're doing that soul-searching thing.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But lists are at different stages in their development. It's not comparing like with like. Especially when talking about depth to cover injuries (and by the way we have had more games lost to injury to best 22 players than those more developed teams).

Yes lists are at different stages. But i think it is easy to see that our fitness and development is bog ordinary compared to top clubs. 

That is what we completely stuffed up last summer. 

Is that just Misson or does it go further?

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Pot kettle?

When was the last time you went into depth about anything?

Whenever I'm asked.

Happy to answer any questions.

6 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Whenever I'm asked.

Happy to answer any questions.

Ok 'steve' what would your plan be to regenerate the club from here on?

Do you think it's a one year task or might take a few?

Targeted players, coaching, FD, committee, board, CEO.

Basically if you were the benevolent dictator at the MFC what would you do?

...be realistic in the targets and how we can get them to the club unlike some with a scattergun approach.

Perhaps this is part of the explanation for our inconsistency within and between games (notwithstanding injuries skill and game plan factors)

Men playing boys... (if you look at every clubs senior list of the number of players they have born before 1994 that is are 26 or older) .. you would get a league ladder like this..

Pies and Cats 20

Hawks and Roos 19

Eagles and Crows 18

Giants and Port 17

Freo 16

Tigers and Swans 15

Bulldogs Bombers and Saints 14

Suns 13

Lions and Blues 12

Dees 11

(and so every Man in the Dees team is critical but if 5 of them Jetta, Vanders, May, Garlett, Melksham and Lewis don’t play many games ... we are in trouble)

or you could look at it from the other side of the street and say it’s not just age but experience that is number of players wha have played more than 100 games (lists as of today)... and the expected ladder would be...

Pies and Hawks 17

Roos 16

Cats, Eagles, Crows and Port 15

Tigers and Bulldogs 14

Giants 13

Bombers, Swans, and Saints 12

Lions 11

Freo and Dees 10

Blues 9

Suns 8

perhaps there’s a correlation of sorts between these two ladders and the Dees season.. perhaps it says don’t go to the draft but get some mature footballers..

 

 

36 minutes ago, grey wolf said:

Perhaps this is part of the explanation for our inconsistency within and between games (notwithstanding injuries skill and game plan factors)

Men playing boys... (if you look at every clubs senior list of the number of players they have born before 1994 that is are 26 or older) .. you would get a league ladder like this..

Pies and Cats 20

Hawks and Roos 19

Eagles and Crows 18

Giants and Port 17

Freo 16

Tigers and Swans 15

Bulldogs Bombers and Saints 14

Suns 13

Lions and Blues 12

Dees 11

(and so every Man in the Dees team is critical but if 5 of them Jetta, Vanders, May, Garlett, Melksham and Lewis don’t play many games ... we are in trouble)

 

 

 

Great post . massive correlation between experience senior bodies and performance

We are still a young team.  The pies and others can cope with injuries as they have more hardened bodies.  and can run out games better.  most of our better players are young also.

we will have our best chance of a flag when Gus, Clarry, Salem, Trac etc are 26-30 imo

Was Garry expecting to be presenting Nathan and Jack the Premiership Cup in around 10 weeks? No wonder he is grumpy.