2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

This was my favourite one from Talking Carlton, sums up their cluelessness perfectly:

”I'd love to see Silvagni to go in the middle too, straight to Petracca when he's there” 

 

I wish I could laugh react to this 100 times over... What the competitive advantage do they think silvagni has over tracc. If that happens tracc would legit have 40 and kick 5 

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

This was my favourite one from Talking Carlton, sums up their cluelessness perfectly:

”I'd love to see Silvagni to go in the middle too, straight to Petracca when he's there” 

 

Please please please make this happen footy gods. Trac a lazy 30 kicks and 5 goals if it does.

18 minutes ago, GCDee said:

I wish I could laugh react to this 100 times over... What the competitive advantage do they think silvagni has over tracc. If that happens tracc would legit have 40 and kick 5 

At least we agree on his goal total haha.

10 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

we were putrid in Round 1

Carlton fought back

We were not "putrid". We lost the game in about 5 minutes in the first quarter. The rest of the game was relatively even albeit frustrating for our lack of finish in front of goal.

8 hours ago, McQueen said:

Pommy [censored] who sounds like he’s been in the country all of 5 minutes breaking down a game analysis. 
 

[censored] off mate. 

I found his thoughts interesting to listen to McQueen, a lot more interesting than some of the posts on this site celebrating the possible omission of certain players from our team. 

No problem if you don’t agree with him, I believe we will win this weekend but I thought it was relevant to the topic. 

Edited June 10, 20204 yr by Dee Zephyr

Silvagni’s best role is as a midfield tagger

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We were not "putrid". We lost the game in about 5 minutes in the first quarter. The rest of the game was relatively even albeit frustrating for our lack of finish in front of goal.

Your expectation is a lot lower than mine, Doctor.

I, too, think we were putrid.  I'm not letting the final margin cloud my judgement.  We had one key area to improve on from 2019, and it was glaringly obvious that we didn't.  A terrible disappointment.  I just hope, somehow, that we've managed to use the last 70-odd days to somehow fix it.  

4 hours ago, faultydet said:

We are in no place to be bagging any other side. How many times have we thought "this will be easy", only to get pumped?

 

I'm confident of a win, but not confident that we can't lose.

Exactly. We're the second worst side in the league at the moment if you factor in the second half of 2019 and round 1 2020.

Carlton won 6 of their last 11 games in 2019. We won 2 of our last 11 games in 2019.

There's an argument to suggest that Carlton are entitled to go in favourites based on form. We are however favs to win.

With that being said, it will be bitterly disappointing if we lose on Saturday and a lot of our supporters will have already given up hope of finals at round 2.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We were not "putrid". We lost the game in about 5 minutes in the first quarter. The rest of the game was relatively even albeit frustrating for our lack of finish in front of goal.

Valid point about us breaking even after quarter time, so from that perspective it wasn't "putrid".

The thing that concerned me was that the other day I watched Queens birthday last year where our skills hit rock bottom that day. Then compare that to round 1 2020 and our skill level was generally just as bad. How can we expect our skill level to improve dramatically from round 1 to Saturday? If it doesn't we'll likely be 0-2.

 

 

16 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Your expectation is a lot lower than mine, Doctor.

I, too, think we were putrid.  I'm not letting the final margin cloud my judgement.  We had one key area to improve on from 2019, and it was glaringly obvious that we didn't.  A terrible disappointment.  I just hope, somehow, that we've managed to use the last 70-odd days to somehow fix it.  

It was a disappointing game but it was round 1, in Perth, against the premiership favourite a couple of hours after the players were told theirs would be the last game of the season for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't happy with the game or the result, but putrid for me would mean getting blown out of the water like the Dogs did. We played well early, didn't convert our chances and lost the game in about 5 minutes. Not great but certainly not "putrid".

Edited June 10, 20204 yr by Dr. Gonzo

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was a disappointing game but it was round 1, in Perth, against the premiership favourite a couple of hours after the players were told theirs would be the last game of the season for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't happy with the game or the result, but putrid for me would mean getting blown out of the water like the Dogs did. We played well early, didn't convert our chances and lost the game in about 5 minutes. Not great but certainly not "putrid".

Please.  They should've been ready to fire based on their 2019 efforts (as well as their last game in 2018 at the same venue against the same opposition).  This was their first chance to start earning back some respect, mostly from their own supporters, and they turned up half asleep.  And what a cheap brush-off using the "last game for who knows how long" line.  Should've added to that motivation to put in a better performance.  Didn't seem to worry the Eagles, especially in the first quarter, that this could be their only game for the year.  They played like a true professional outfit that had one job to do and did it as they and their supporters would've expected.  We didn't.

And don't give me this "in Perth" excuse.  We actually play well over there.

It took us 80 minutes to lose the game, but the result was beyond doubt by quarter time (and I'm being generous there).

Putird doesn't mean getting blown away.  We were putrid against the Gold Coast last year and still won.  And we were putrid, especially Quarter 1 Round 1, 2020.  What was disappointing was that the Eagles clearly took the foot off our throat for the rest of the game and we were still not good enough to threaten at any stage.  But if your definition of putrid means getting blown away, why don't you go back to the score at quarter time - they kicked 5 goals and we didn't kick any.  Is that blown away enough for you?

Lift your standards and expectations, Dr.

 

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

Please.  They should've been ready to fire based on their 2019 efforts (as well as their last game in 2018 at the same venue against the same opposition).  This was their first chance to start earning back some respect, mostly from their own supporters, and they turned up half asleep.  And what a cheap brush-off using the "last game for who knows how long" line.  Should've added to that motivation to put in a better performance.  Didn't seem to worry the Eagles, especially in the first quarter, that this could be their only game for the year.  They played like a true professional outfit that had one job to do and did it as they and their supporters would've expected.  We didn't.

And don't give me this "in Perth" excuse.  We actually play well over there.

It took us 80 minutes to lose the game, but the result was beyond doubt by quarter time (and I'm being generous there).

Putird doesn't mean getting blown away.  We were putrid against the Gold Coast last year and still won.  And we were putrid, especially Quarter 1 Round 1, 2020.  What was disappointing was that the Eagles clearly took the foot off our throat for the rest of the game and we were still not good enough to threaten at any stage.  But if your definition of putrid means getting blown away, why don't you go back to the score at quarter time - they kicked 5 goals and we didn't kick any.  Is that blown away enough for you?

Lift your standards and expectations, Dr.

 

I guess my perception is based on a scale of past experience. Thinking back to the "putrid" performances in 2012/13 I can't put round 1 in the same boat.

But it's semantics really, it was disappointing - if we lose on Saturday that will be the season done as far as I'm concerned. We should be putting the Blues away by 5 goals.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I guess my perception is based on a scale of past experience. Thinking back to the "putrid" performances in 2012/13 I can't put round 1 in the same boat.

But it's semantics really, it was disappointing - if we lose on Saturday that will be the season done as far as I'm concerned. We should be putting the Blues away by 5 goals.

There's different levels of putrid, Dr, and Round 1 2020 was on one of those levels.

Perhaps I got sucked in to 2018 too much.  Perhaps I raised my expectations too highly for this group (both playing and coaching).

7 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

This was my favourite one from Talking Carlton, sums up their cluelessness perfectly:

”I'd love to see Silvagni to go in the middle too, straight to Petracca when he's there” 

 

If Vanders plays, Silvagni will be the first of his casualties....but then again, it is most likely that Vanders will not play this match. The Tracc has a big day ahead of him, plus one. 

6 hours ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Why does where he is from have anything to do with it? This sort of bias has to be called out.

Not cool, McQueen.

I wouldn't apply the same sentiment if it was a Dee's supporter.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was a disappointing game but it was round 1, in Perth, against the premiership favourite a couple of hours after the players were told theirs would be the last game of the season for the foreseeable future.

I wasn't happy with the game or the result, but putrid for me would mean getting blown out of the water like the Dogs did. We played well early, didn't convert our chances and lost the game in about 5 minutes. Not great but certainly not "putrid".

We were made to look 3rd rate in round 1. There is no getting around it, regardless of clever use of stats etc.

 

And it's so typical of many supporters to give an excuse for losing, when BOTH teams got the same news at the same time, and only ONE performed to a standard that says their heads were in the game. It's always us who are being excused for a sub standard effort. And people wonder why we have been a laughing stock for 50 years.

 

For people to be thinking we are going to smash Carlton this week, I think you have your head in the clouds. The Blues may very well smash us.

13 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

How to beat Melbourne. 

Thought this was pretty good.

Thought that was quite informative with some good obsevations. Thanks for posting.

2 hours ago, The Chazz said:

There's different levels of putrid, Dr, and Round 1 2020 was on one of those levels.

Perhaps I got sucked in to 2018 too much.  Perhaps I raised my expectations too highly for this group (both playing and coaching).

No there's not.

You're welcome to set your expectations as high as you want. If you choose to mark the team harshly for Round 1, you're entitled to. 2019 gives you that.

But I don't think it's unreasonable for others (myself included) to look at Round 1 in a different context and come away from it less disappointed than we otherwise might have been in "normal" circumstances.

It's very easy to sit at home and say "the players should have played to their best ability regardless of the suspension of the season". Very easy to say, very hard to do. 

I don't agree that West Coast played to any sort of different, or more professional, standard than us. Indeed, but for our finishing inside 50 the game was relatively even (both statistically and in terms of watching it and the general "feel"). 

The game was played under extremely odd circumstances and if our players were affected by them, I completely understand that. It is therefore my view that it is reasonable for any MFC supporter to take our Round 1 performance with a grain of salt.

This week, assuming no further changes to the AFL/COVID landscape, will be different. 

The scoreboard flattered us but we were missing a few (that are now available) and WCE were pretty much full strength. Spargo was putrid and surely can’t play round 2. Cost us several goals alone.

Edited June 11, 20204 yr by godees

23 minutes ago, faultydet said:

We were made to look 3rd rate in round 1. There is no getting around it, regardless of clever use of stats etc.

 

And it's so typical of many supporters to give an excuse for losing, when BOTH teams got the same news at the same time, and only ONE performed to a standard that says their heads were in the game. It's always us who are being excused for a sub standard effort. And people wonder why we have been a laughing stock for 50 years.

 

For people to be thinking we are going to smash Carlton this week, I think you have your head in the clouds. The Blues may very well smash us.

Supporters making excuse after excuse and not demanding more and better is part of the reason the club is where it is. Winners wouldn’t accept or make excuses for our round 1 performance. After 2019, our players should have wanted to win and given it their all, no matter what. 

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Supporters making excuse after excuse and not demanding more and better is part of the reason the club is where it is. Winners wouldn’t accept or make excuses for our round 1 performance. After 2019, our players should have wanted to win and given it their all, no matter what. 

Not to make excuses. But isn’t it unrealistic to assume a team who’s average ladder position the past two years is mid table, would knock off the team who’s average ladder position is top 4, including winning a flag... on their deck.

Those wanting to stick the boot in seem to live in a fantasy land where everything is suddenly equal and it’s the players or coaches on the day that determines the result.

its denies the reality of where our group is at (and where West Coast are at), and is a kind of magical thinking (ie delusional). 

19 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

No there's not.

You're welcome to set your expectations as high as you want. If you choose to mark the team harshly for Round 1, you're entitled to. 2019 gives you that.

But I don't think it's unreasonable for others (myself included) to look at Round 1 in a different context and come away from it less disappointed than we otherwise might have been in "normal" circumstances.

It's very easy to sit at home and say "the players should have played to their best ability regardless of the suspension of the season". Very easy to say, very hard to do. 

I don't agree that West Coast played to any sort of different, or more professional, standard than us. Indeed, but for our finishing inside 50 the game was relatively even (both statistically and in terms of watching it and the general "feel"). 

The game was played under extremely odd circumstances and if our players were affected by them, I completely understand that. It is therefore my view that it is reasonable for any MFC supporter to take our Round 1 performance with a grain of salt.

This week, assuming no further changes to the AFL/COVID landscape, will be different. 

How can you not agree?  5 goals to none in the opening 20-odd minutes of a new season.  Even if we want to excuse them because of the bizarre circumstances going in to the game, it was clearly felt more by one side than the other.  That most certainly points to professionalism - one willing to not let adversity impact their own performance, and the other one did.

Chazz, it’s delusory to conflate intention with results. They are not the same, and often don’t correlate. I.e. there are many other more influential factors that determine the results of a sporting contest then the guesses or estimations of a teams “assumed intention” by a biased (and disappointed) supporter.

to keep arguing as if what you’re saying is logical or obvious is really agitating my Vulcan calm.

Please stop.

Edited June 11, 20204 yr by PaulRB

11 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Not to make excuses. But isn’t it unrealistic to assume a team who’s average ladder position the past two years is mid table, would knock off the team who’s average ladder position is top 4, including winning a flag... on their deck.

Those wanting to stick the boot in seem to live in a fantasy land where everything is suddenly equal and it’s the players or coaches on the day that determines the result.

its denies the reality of where our group is at (and where West Coast are at), and is a kind of magical thinking (ie delusional). 

Paul, all due respects, but your post is riddled with excuses.

Firstly, basing an argument on the average of the last two years ladder position is an easy out.  Most were happy to write off our 2019 as an aberration.  In 2018 we played the Eagles in the Prelim, the previous year we were .5% short of playing finals, behind guess who?  The Eagles.

The issue of playing in Perth?  Wasn't an issue in Round 22, 2018 when we managed to beat them over there.  Same deck.

And wanting to stick the boots in?  Of course I do.  As I have previously stated, the glaring issues in 2019 revolved around our delivery inside F50.  We had an entire preseason to fix this.  What was the thing that stood out for me in the Round 1 2020 loss?  Our delivery inside F50.  Now, either our coaching group didn't think it needed addressing, or the players were/are unable to execute it.

Finally, you talk about where our group is at.  You tell me where it's at.  I' imagine if you ask any of the players on on list, or even the coaching group, they would expect that we are finals-worthy side.  So they should - our 2020 list hasn't had many significant changes since 2018.

Wouldn't hurt for you to read Ethan's post a few up from here.  It points out that mindsets, excuses and arguments like yours that need to stop, not the ones demanding improvement from a perennial underachieving club.