Deep Dive into Dees Issues

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Ratings?

 

Virtually every time we are on Prime Time we completely embarrass ourselves.

Well i was trying to stay a bit half glass full Jnr.  From here on in i'm probably better off just filling one with two fingers off the top shelf!

[ding 5,126]

1 minute ago, Rusty Nails said:

Well i was trying to stay a bit half glass full Jnr.  From here on in i'm probably better off just filling one with two fingers off the top shelf!

Im up to 4 finger pours Rusty. Will wake with a headache tomorrow for sure. This club will do everyones head in by the end of the year.

 

 

 

I blame Jack. (Watts, not Daniels)

[faultydet 7,594]

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

I want them to recruit players that want to win. People that hate to lose. 

We need heart and desperation. Get the psychologists to test them.

They also need AFL standard skills.

If only Ding had the AFL skill level, as he hates losing!

 

 

He'd give away 10 x 50M penalties every game screaming about the umpires bias.

On the other hand, when he was a high schooler, he went by the name of "Kev" because he was a goal hog like Kevin Bartlett. Did NOT know about a goal assist back in the early 80's. Have ball, must shoot.

Edited August 3, 2020 by faultydet

[Pates 9,660]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Ratings?

Virtually every time we are on Prime Time we completely embarrass ourselves.

It must be really infuriating for the club (as it is for us fans) that this seems to be a common trend. I mean the Brisbane game would've been a good one to have us prime time even with it being a loss, but of course it had to be our (thus far) worst performance of the year. Not exactly going to grease the wheels on any potential sponsorship deals.

[Elegt 872]

2 hours ago, goodwindees said:

Strange that so many on here have said so often, “in Jason Taylor I trust.”  

sack Jason Taylor, spud of a recruiter

[Dr.D 1,771]

blind Freddy could see that Harmes should be tried as a tagger again. 

I said this a while back

[godees 860]

3 hours ago, Elegt said:

sack Jason Taylor, spud of a recruiter

He knows what he is doing. Last year wanted Georgiadis in the twenties (picked at ?18, earlier than predicted) and was very keen on Zac Butters. Both very handy players for this stage of their careers.

Our draft picks are also influenced by the coaches and outcome of trades. 

[binman 42,860]

7 hours ago, ding said:

Watts was a great kick. He almost never helped us win.

We need players who have both attributes.

Except when he did.

[Half forward flank 1,022]

2 hours ago, godees said:

He knows what he is doing. Last year wanted Georgiadis in the twenties (picked at ?18, earlier than predicted) and was very keen on Zac Butters. Both very handy players for this stage of their careers.

Our draft picks are also influenced by the coaches and outcome of trades. 

Most recruiters are over rated. Finding a good recruiter is the key. What you point out is nothing more than an amatuer could do with the help of all the phantom guides. I like Jackson and Pickett but as always time will tell . At the moment Georgiadis and Serong are looking good, another tall, small combo.  My query on Jackson is recruiting a ruckman and playing him as a forward until he is big and mature enough to be the key ruckman.

[spirit of norm smith 16,436]

42 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

My query on Jackson is recruiting a ruckman and playing him as a forward until he is big and mature enough to be the key ruckman.

Jackson is lost as a KPF. He runs to the pockets and his marking is still requiring work.  No contested marks in the last 3 weeks.  His go is his athleticism and 2nd efforts.  Both outstanding.  More midfield like. So his position is Ruck in the mould of Brodie Grundy. Given we have Max who should play until his 33-34, I think Jackson is 3-4 years away from assuming the ruck role.   My “Eagles” mate reckons they see him replacing Nic-Nat and will entice him home with a truckload of cash to get him.  

[Half forward flank 1,022]

40 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Jackson is lost as a KPF. He runs to the pockets and his marking is still requiring work.  No contested marks in the last 3 weeks.  His go is his athleticism and 2nd efforts.  Both outstanding.  More midfield like. So his position is Ruck in the mould of Brodie Grundy. Given we have Max who should play until his 33-34, I think Jackson is 3-4 years away from assuming the ruck role.   My “Eagles” mate reckons they see him replacing Nic-Nat and will entice him home with a truckload of cash to get him.  

That sounds entirely predictable from the outset.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

11 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

What’s that military quote about plans? I think it’s something like “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”

I reckon Goodwin needs to print that out and put in the coaches box just so he’s reminded to make changes.

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" - Mike Tyson

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Except when he did.

To be fair, he did say 'almost' never helped us win.  I'll never forget the Queen's Birthday winner.  One of my favourite Melbourne memories.

But we need blokes with good skills who impact games more often than he did.  I think that's clear.  I know some bemoan moving Watts on due to his skills, but not having him is not even close to our problems.  I'm not saying that you're suggesting that bin, but if Clayton Oliver had Jack Watts' kicking skills, we'd be on the right path.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Wiseblood

[Dr. Gonzo 24,206]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

The article makes some interesting points. One of those is the argument that there is merit to a club staying strong and keeping the faith despite the outside noise. 

It also makes some odd points. He suggests trying Hannan or Fritsch in the backline, in some sort of attempt to replicate Howe. What has Hannan shown to suggest he could be a defender? And worse, did the author not watch Fritsch in the backline in 2019?

The stat about inside 50s vs tackles inside 50 (4th vs 14th) is important, but the question is what is the cause of that? IMO, one of the causes is being outnumbered forward of centre, meaning that it's too easy for our opponent to clear the ball before we can put pressure on. Another cause is kicks resulting in intercept marks: I'd love to see the stat for intercept marks conceded, and I suspect it would be high. No chance to lay a tackle if they've marked it. And another cause is the wrong mix of forwards (e.g. too tall vs Port).

I don't agree that we need to find a different sort of "high half forward" to put pressure on. We have them: Melksham, Hannan, Pickett, vandenBerg, even Spargo/ANB/Hunt when they're in the team, can all chase and apply pressure. But it's much harder to do when we butcher the ball and turn it over going inside 50. If we hit more targets, or create more even-numbered contests inside 50, we'll be able to generate more pressure.

So much of our malaise stems simply from turnovers. If we reduce the turnovers, many facets of our game improve.

Which is why it's hard to lay the blame solely at Goodwin's feet. There are things he can do better of course but when the players stink it up like they did last Thursday you could have Norm Smith in the box and it wouldnt matter

[Young Blood 2,620]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Which is why it's hard to lay the blame solely at Goodwin's feet. There are things he can do better of course but when the players stink it up like they did last Thursday you could have Norm Smith in the box and it wouldnt matter

I agree. No structuring, change of tactic, position changes or inspirational speeches would have changed the way we absolutely butchered the football last week. That one wasn't down to coaching. We were completely overwhelmed by a better side early that set the tone and we seemed hampered by the short break in trying to respond. The poor execution early shot our confidence for the rest of the game. That and the physicality they had around the football to limit out midfielders.

I am not saying Goodwin is exempt. I would love to see the coaching staff come up with some things they could change in game to shift a game's momentum. Its all or nothing with our contested ball/front half game plan.

I think it was Jobe Watson last week when asked what can Melbourne do to start winning the ball in the middle from Max's ruck work. His suggestion although simple seemed at least progressive which was because Max was dominating so much he could actually afford to knock the ball further to the wings to the advantage of our wing players to create some run on. The unpredictability alone of that idea is interesting.

[binman 42,860]

10 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Ratings?

 

Virtually every time we are on Prime Time we completely embarrass ourselves.

True. And i have to think that this was in part a driver of Bartletts comments - our sponsors would have been livid.

[old dee 23,787]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

True. And i have to think that this was in part a driver of Bartletts comments - our sponsors would have been livid.

Also explains why we get so few FTA games. We really are  the perfect example of a team to fill in the numbers. Every non MFC supporter knows we are no danger to there finals ambitions.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by old dee

[binman 42,860]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

To be fair, he did say 'almost' never helped us win.  I'll never forget the Queen's Birthday winner.  One of my favourite Melbourne memories.

But we need blokes with good skills who impact games more often than he did.  I think that's clear.  I know some bemoan moving Watts on due to his skills, but not having him is not even close to our problems.  I'm not saying that you're suggesting that bin, but if Clayton Oliver had Jack Watts' kicking skills, we'd be on the right path.

Agree we need players who impact games. And agree Watts never impacted games nearly enough. And he was certainly not a competitive beast.

But even the best teams will have no more than handful of players who can really impact a game, in terms of being the difference between winning and losing.

The key is you have mix of players, with a mix of attributes and a mix of positions they can play. Competitive ball winners, outside runners, marking targets, crumbing forwards etc etc.

Watts influence was underrated i reckon as he regularly led our goal assists and by far our best inside 50 kick. That influence has been evident more in his absence. The key thing is he was our only elite kick (lewis had dropped off by then). And we so desperately need one now. Many said fritter was a like for like but as we have seen heis kicking is fr from elite.

The ridiculous focus on competitive ball winners who love a contest (nd presumably a fierce will to win) has lead to alist that has way too many similar players and saw us take Sparrow at 29 and Jordon at 33 in the same draft. And for that matter saw Brayshaw get less time in his best position when sparrow got big minutes in the guts, forcing brayshaw play more mintes where his lack of pace was exposed.

Compare the mix of players port have drafted - roze, georgiades, butters, marshall, dursmaa. All different, with a range of attributes, and all playing in different positions (having done so in juniors)

Edited August 4, 2020 by binman

[jnrmac 20,058]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Which is why it's hard to lay the blame solely at Goodwin's feet. There are things he can do better of course but when the players stink it up like they did last Thursday you could have Norm Smith in the box and it wouldnt matter

The coach and the players have stunk it up for a year and a half. Nothing has changed. And we have a full list.

Anything else is just a pathetic excuse.

[spirit of norm smith 16,436]

49 minutes ago, Yung Blood said:

I think it was Jobe Watson last week when asked what can Melbourne do to start winning the ball in the middle from Max's ruck work. His suggestion although simple seemed at least progressive which was because Max was dominating so much he could actually afford to knock the ball further to the wings to the advantage of our wing players to create some run on. The unpredictability alone of that idea is interesting.

Agreed. Footy is a relatively simple game.  Gawn needs to use his dominance much better. Hit outs to advantage is the measure ... not just hit outs.  

[hemingway 7,625]

6 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree we need players who impact games. And agree Watts never impacted games nearly enough. And he was certainly not a competitive beast.

But even the best teams will have no more than handful of players who can really impact a game, in terms of being the difference between winning and losing.

The key is you have mix of players, with a mix of attributes and a mix of positions they can play. Competitive ball winners, outside runners, marking targets, crumbing forwards etc etc.

Watts influence was underrated i reckon as he regularly led our goal assists and by far our best inside 50 kick. That influence has been evident more in his absence. The key thing is he was our only elite kick (lewis had dropped off by then). And we so desperately need one now. Many said fritter was a like for like but as we have seen heis kicking is fr from elite.

The ridiculous focus on competitive ball winners who love a contest (nd presumably a fierce will to win) has lead to alist that has way too many similar players and saw us take Sparrow at 29 and Jordon at 33 in the same draft. 

Compare the mix of players port have drafted - roze, georgiades, butters, marshall, dursmaa. All different, with a range of attributes, and all playing in different positions (having done so in juniors)

Excellent summary. 

[Lucifers Hero 39,730]

12 hours ago, ding said:

Anyone who thinks women dont "get" footy should be referred to your posts.

You are close to my favorite poster because you understand not just the big picture, but also get the finer details and dont sugar coat our standing in the football world.

Keep it up please.

 

12 hours ago, A F said:

LH's gender has nothing to do with her posting.

I understand where both of you are coming from and while expressed differently, I really appreciate the support.

[sue 9,101]

1 hour ago, Yung Blood said:

...

His suggestion although simple seemed at least progressive which was because Max was dominating so much he could actually afford to knock the ball further to the wings to the advantage of our wing players to create some run on. The unpredictability alone of that idea is interesting.

So flaming obvious. Indicate to the 'small' players that the next tap is going wide and belt it.  Instead he taps it to a player about to be tackled (or often, already tackled before the ball arrives)  who then passes it to someone else also under pressure.  Mix it up FCS.

[Half forward flank 1,022]

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

To be fair, he did say 'almost' never helped us win.  I'll never forget the Queen's Birthday winner.  One of my favourite Melbourne memories.

But we need blokes with good skills who impact games more often than he did.  I think that's clear.  I know some bemoan moving Watts on due to his skills, but not having him is not even close to our problems.  I'm not saying that you're suggesting that bin, but if Clayton Oliver had Jack Watts' kicking skills, we'd be on the right path.

I feel when we moved Watts on we needed to replace him with a similiar player, skill wise. It was pretty obvious. So was needing to replace Hogan, albiet a bit more difficult. For mine even watching the warm ups Hogan was the one you kept an eye on. When the ball left the middle you watched Hogans movement. I am sure our players did too, as of course did one or two opposition defenders.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Agree we need players who impact games. And agree Watts never impacted games nearly enough. And he was certainly not a competitive beast.

But even the best teams will have no more than handful of players who can really impact a game, in terms of being the difference between winning and losing.

The key is you have mix of players, with a mix of attributes and a mix of positions they can play. Competitive ball winners, outside runners, marking targets, crumbing forwards etc etc.

Watts influence was underrated i reckon as he regularly led our goal assists and by far our best inside 50 kick. That influence has been evident more in his absence. The key thing is he was our only elite kick (lewis had dropped off by then). And we so desperately need one now. Many said fritter was a like for like but as we have seen heis kicking is fr from elite.

The ridiculous focus on competitive ball winners who love a contest (nd presumably a fierce will to win) has lead to alist that has way too many similar players and saw us take Sparrow at 29 and Jordon at 33 in the same draft. And for that matter saw Brayshaw get less time in his best position when sparrow got big minutes in the guts, forcing brayshaw play more mintes where his lack of pace was exposed.

Compare the mix of players port have drafted - roze, georgiades, butters, marshall, dursmaa. All different, with a range of attributes, and all playing in different positions (having done so in juniors)

Couldn't agree more, bin.  

One thing that drafting contested ball winners has done to the club as a whole, is that it has limited what we can do game plan wise.  I was happy to back Goody at the time, and in some ways I still do, as it was good to see a coach back himself in a shape the list to the game style he wanted to play.

But he's probably gone a little too far with it, and now if he wants to make a few tweaks, it doesn't leave him with many options.  Even though we added Langdon and Tomlinson to address our wings and the need for more outside run, we don't really have much else to do it, and it shows.  Viney, Trac, Oliver, Harmes, Salem, Jones, Gus etc - none of them are outside runners.  They are more comfortable being at the coal face than getting the ball on the outside, or being the link chain.  So if Goody wants that outside run, he doesn't have many options, and the ones he might have are either not up to scratch or still developing (eg. Jordon, Baker, Rivers etc)

The Port example is a good one.  All those you mentioned bring different things to their side.  While if you look back at ours, we've clearly focused on one thing and added a few things around it.

But this is the list we've got, and we've got to hope that Goody can turn it around in the coming weeks.  This article highlights that solid foundation and that we DO have something good to work with.  It's the link from game plan to end product that is hurting us.