Old, you seem to be suggesting that the lopsided inside-50 count was due to us being massacred in the midfield. And for once you're exactly right. Our poor midfield got murdered by the Saints because whenever they took possession and looked up, there was no-one to kick it to! And so they were forced to handball to a teammate alongside before they got pinged.

We broke down across half-forward (hence the lack of inside-50s) because we had no half-forward line. Xavier Clarke had his best match to date because he (and others) was able to roam across half-back with no opponent in sight.

Old, you seem to be suggesting that the lopsided inside-50 count was due to us being massacred in the midfield. And for once you're exactly right. Our poor midfield got murdered by the Saints because whenever they took possession and looked up, there was no-one to kick it to! And so they were forced to handball to a teammate alongside before they got pinged.

Make a booking in that Addis Ababa steak house for me will ya!

Old, you seem to be suggesting that the lopsided inside-50 count was due to us being massacred in the midfield. And for once you're exactly right. Our poor midfield got murdered by the Saints because whenever they took possession and looked up, there was no-one to kick it to! And so they were forced to handball to a teammate alongside before they got pinged.

We broke down across half-forward (hence the lack of inside-50s) because we had no half-forward line. Xavier Clarke had his best match to date because he (and others) was able to roam across half-back with no opponent in sight.

I don't agree with that. The real breakdowns occurred when we were running it out of defence. When we won it out of the middle we had little trouble delivering it to the forwards. If you win it out of the middle quickly then you can put it down your forwards' throats before the opposition get a chance to get too many numbers back in the right places.

Extra numbers back is more effective when you're coming from defence. It isn't as effective if you win the ball out of the middle and get a good kick forward. Moloney demonstrated this perfectly in the last quarter when he rammed it down Neitz's throat after a quick centre clearance.

Our midfield got massacred because the Saints got more possessions than us and did more with the ball when they had it. After the first 15 minutes, we were beaten at the contests and beaten at the centre bounces. When the Saints did not have the ball they pressured our players relentlessly denying us freedom to utilise the ball efectively.

Put simply they got the ball more than us. They used the ball better than we did. When they did not have it they pressured our players consistently.

MFC did not help itself with its sloppy execution by hand and foot leading to repeated turnovers and its faliure to exert any pressure on the St Kilda players when they had the ball.

Your inside 50s come primarily from your midfield or HBL breaking opposition lines not from an apparent lack of a half forward line.

I don't agree with that. The real breakdowns occurred when we were running it out of defence. When we won it out of the middle we had little trouble delivering it to the forwards. If you win it out of the middle quickly then you can put it down your forwards' throats before the opposition get a chance to get too many numbers back in the right places.

Extra numbers back is more effective when you're coming from defence. It isn't as effective if you win the ball out of the middle and get a good kick forward. Moloney demonstrated this perfectly in the last quarter when he rammed it down Neitz's throat after a quick centre clearance.

In those situations (centre bounces), we had roughly even numbers in the forward line, which is exactly what I want to see. And the success of the first and last quarters, when we played more directly and with a more traditional structure, surely highlights where we went wrong in the other two.

And you're exactly right about running it out of defence. When we took possession in the opposition back line, we didn't usually have too much trouble getting it to the midfield (though we often did it in a slow,zig-zagging manner) because we had extra numbers through the midfield from our forwards dropping back. Once in the midfield, we failed to effectively get it through half forward because we were outnumbered. While most would consider this a massive flood by St Kilda, from the top deck of the Northern Stand it seemed to be more due to Melbourne half-forwards vacating their posts and leaving their opponents to wall up across half-back.

I thing you all have our current game plan wrong, run and carry implies that you run with the football and take the oposition on to create a better option that will then run and carry the football. We play hot potato style get the footy and handpass or short kick to someone standing still who in turns gets rid of it in the same sought of fashion and this goes on until the footy gets so hot we turn it over.

To me the concept of Run and carry should be direct fast flowing football, run with the football, run take on the oposition and if someone is in a better position then give them to footy so they can run with the footy. Run and carry isn't the over posession crap that we have been playing.

To me our set up was wrong, once we ignored Millers lead which happened time and time again we had no one to kick to. Neita and Robbo played inside 50m Miller the leading CHF and the rest of the forwards played as midfielders. Use Miller, we know he wants to dish it off when he gets it, our midfielders can then run to his feet, get the crumb or handball run carry and try to hit Neita or Robbo, with Davey at their feet looking for the rovering goal.

Simply, even if you turn a 50m kick over at least it is 50m further away than if you turn a handball over.

...we didn't have as many inside 50s as St.Kilda because we didn't have enough forwards

Exactly.

Why kick it into the forward line if there is no one the to receive it? That's the problem Melbourne had. They had no one to kick it to in the first place.

To use a stupid example like you did. Why buy a boat if you live in the desert?

Why kick it into the forward line if there is no (or a couple of out-numbered forwards) to kick it to?

The core problem was the lack of forwards.

The number of entries into the forward fifty can be irrelevant if nothing happens when the ball is down there. Why would the midfielders want to kick the ball down there if there is no one down there to receive the ball, or the players down there (as good as they are) are far more likely to lose out to sheer numbers?

You tell me the answer.

Q. Run and Carry, Do we understand what is going on?

A. Sherlock Holmes often said that once you eliminate the impossible, what remained however unlikely must be true. Obvously, Danners has been possessed by the undead spirit of Neil Balme. Nothing else makes sense.

It was the first time that I saw the team this year. The heady aroma of a fit Moloney, Jones, Bate; and a Sylvia to come, turns to ashes in our mouths.

TJ's stupid kick in the final was probably because he had not targets in the 50m. Reading the players mind from the stand, they got the ball and were free but thought "Oops, I suppose to kick it". Usually it was turned over. If not, the Saints were all back by the time the ball entered the 50. I do not have an issue with Miller's game under the circumstances.

They forgot themselves for a moment in the last and sent the ball forward quickly for a score.

White's article is tantamount to mutiny. I wish him well. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Season2007/N...px?newsId=40354