Injuries Hurt Daniher's season

There is a lot of hysteria floating around this site at the moment. This article contains a few interesting facts.

[post=http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21655014-11088,00.html]http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21655014-11088,00.html

There is a lot of hysteria floating around this site at the moment. This article contains a few interesting facts

You posted this 30 seconds before I was going to!

Fopr those who said in previous posts that injuries are not a reason, no excuse, etc... have a read and then have a think and then come back.

Nobody here was saying that injuries are the only thing to blame (expect maybe Yze_magic on a Tuesday!), but those who discounted injuries and used Adelaide as a comparison, read the article!

I personally think we should have beaten Hawthorn, but all the other sides we have played are supposedly good sides who we have played when we are ENORMOUSLY undermanned and crippled by record injuries.

This is the time to be a supporter (or a miracle cure worker!).

The link above didn't work for me. Try this one:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19742,00.html

Great article, may quieten the ND bashers.

Sensible indeed.

may quieten the ND bashers.

Not really.

Because Melbourne haven't had injury problems for all of the past six or seven years.

The article in the Herald Sun adds to my post re ND and some people's hasty judgment. There is another thread going on the article.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/com...5E19742,00.html

Interesting article, I guess we have to be patient and not expect too much. Bitterly disappointing after the expectations before this season. Still does not explain why they played such crap football in round 1 BEFORE there were many injuries though.

Sensible indeed.

A good article but we must keep in mind the rubbish game plan ND brought in this year. The run and carry game was terrible to watch in preseason and he should have figured it out but in round 1 and 2, it was all for everyone to see the crap brand of football. players were told to slim down for this game plan which is a terrible idea. our best midfielders are strong bodies who like it in tough, not slick running machines.

Also the mentality of the dees need changing and that has to come the leadership and most importantly from ND. We get beaten by bottom teams and lose to teams we shouldn't. We had to win rd22 last year for a top 4 possie and up against an injury ravaged team like the crows, we got smashed.

A new regime is required where ruthlessness is instilled and not just spoken of.

A good article but we must keep in mind the rubbish game plan ND brought in this year. The run and carry game was terrible to watch in preseason and he should have figured it out but in round 1 and 2, it was all for everyone to see the crap brand of football. players were told to slim down for this game plan which is a terrible idea. our best midfielders are strong bodies who like it in tough, not slick running machines.

Also the mentality of the dees need changing and that has to come the leadership and most importantly from ND. We get beaten by bottom teams and lose to teams we shouldn't. We had to win rd22 last year for a top 4 possie and up against an injury ravaged team like the crows, we got smashed.

A new regime is required where ruthlessness is instilled and not just spoken of.

Great post.

I just wrote something similar over at Demonology in regards to the pre-season and "run and carry".

We all know that Daniher has acknowledged that Melbourne overdid the "run and carry" during the pre-season games and that it was intended to be used for games at AAMI and Subiaco.

But surely, if the players continually overuse the tactic (even at the MCG) then that implies that it has been drilled into them in a way which suggests that too much emphasis was put on this game plan and that Melbourne's natural ability to play long and direct football took a backseat.

There's an old football saying that has a lot of relevance to this situation: "The way you train is the way you play" (Or something along those lines)

There's an old football saying that has a lot of relevance to this situation: "The way you train is the way you play" (Or something along those lines)

How often do you see them train?

How often do you see them train?

I've never seen them train. But I've seen them play.

If Melbourne spent most of their time training for a long and direct style of play then I would expect to see that being the predominant tactic used on game day.

Why train one for one tactic only to use another?

I've never seen them train. But I've seen them play.

Thanks I suspected so.

Thanks I suspected so.

So are you saying that there was very little emphasis put on "run and carry" at training and that all the players just out of nowhere decided to predominantly use this tactic all through the pre-season and into the start of the season proper?

I dont think there'd be that many amongst us here who would not concede ol Reverend is between a rock and a hard place. he is very much on a hiding to nothing this year ( and if I can think of another relevent poignant cliche I'll add that in later..lol ).

But before you all start uttering "all bets off '.. consider who has been largely responsible for the creation of either the rocks or hard places. None of this is particularly overnight. Our instability and suspect performances are nothing fresh out of the box. We've seen them al lin some form for 10 yeaars now.

Yes you could look at this year in isolation and begin to think its all just damn bad luck, poor MFC, poor Danners...poor us !!..or You could view this year as a aberation of form , from an availability standpoint , in so much as all the injuries seem to be striking hard.

Some argument could be made for saying "well how do we know that we might not have played better had all been available?". But on what evidence would you come up with an answer much different to past results ? Certainly the preseason practice and NAB werent much to get excited about. When faced with limited evidence one becomes forced to look at trends and other evidentiary clues as to how you could create a realistic appraisal of current circumstances.

What happens at Melb from a game/manpower utilzation standpoint is often slow and predicatble , all done with such a variance of skill and application it has given rise to the oft quoted despondent question.."which Melbourne is going to turn up ? ". Melbourne would have to be one of the easiest teams to coach against. You know ND wont go too far out of his comfort zone, will be very reluctant to try anything maverick, to deny the opposition a sense of understanding. As an up and coming player you wont be expecting to many phonecalls , and for some they just wont ever come You 'll languish on the sofa question how 'him' or 'him' stil gets a guernsey when playing like cr@p !!

You'l know the nature of the board will be to all but dismiss the actual game as any of their concern or responsilbility, but continue the age old wisdom that all will be fine in the end..

I think its wonderful in a way that the Rev has seemingly endless patience and faith in his charges, that they have the ability and where withall to turn it around. But does this work ? History suggests ..NO !!

This suggests a number of things to me, one he is a little too patient in his requirements of a return on this faith and secondly that he himself isnt driving and demanding more and instead allowing the team to be responsible de facto for the results alone is the next best thing to a cop out.

Armies are armies...but they need to be lead well , instructed in usefulness and guided by good strategy. Give the same ingredients and occasion to two different chefs and you wil probably come out with two different dishes made to two deifferent recipes. One works, and the other is only SO-SO at best !!.

So whilst the Heralds article is a wonderful statement of the bleeding obvious it actually skirts what the real problem is at Melb and that my fellow supporters is that we lack any real success, there's no silverware to shine !!!!

A good article, i agree.

However I believe what needs to be pondered and considered unforgiveable are the losses we sustained in rounds 1 and 2.

We had a good enough team in to beat St Kilda and failed miserably. ND was out-coached completely.

And we should have been capable of beating Hawthorn in round 2 even with Neitz going off early and Robbo finishing the game off the ground injured.

If we had won both those games we would be 2 and 3 facing Port at the G with Neitz returning. A good chance to even the ledger and dare i say it be knocking on the door to the 8. Those early losses have cost us plenty and in my opinoun add to the 'its time for a new coach' argument.

A good article, i agree.

However I believe what needs to be pondered and considered unforgiveable are the losses we sustained in rounds 1 and 2.

the problem with rounds 1 and 2 is that in both games we had no fit players on the bench to rotate. this is adressed in the article as well. we have the lowest rotations than any other club in the league. is that because we dont want to rotate or because we hanv tbeen able too? given that we generally agree daniher is happy to do what other sides do when he is coaching, it makes sense we would have lots of rotations as well. when it happened to us during the saints i thought thats karma for last time we played them. but to happen the next 3 weeks as well left us in all sorts of trouble.

I was about to post the article myself, finally someone with some brains writes something worthwhile:

With little flexibility, the Demons have made 167 bench rotations in five weeks, the lowest in the comp. Sydney has made a whopping 284.

It means players are on for longer. More fatigue. More injuries. It's a vicious circle.

In Round 4, Brad Green started out of the goalsquare. Daniher had no choice later but to throw Green in the midfield, rather than give him a rest.

Under the weight of the added workload, he tweaked a hammy. You can't win.

Coaches will forever tell you injuries aren't an excuse. St Kilda's Ross Lyon was at it again on Friday night.

That's rubbish, of course.

You can't rate Daniher on win-loss. Forget the first eight weeks of the season.

Judge him from Round 9 onwards . . . if he ever gets back 80-90 per cent of his full weaponry.

If the injuries roll on, all you can rate him on is spirit and attack on the footy.

And if the crutches keep getting overworked at Junction Oval come Round 11, surely Gardner has to break his pact and talk about Daniher's contract.

Extend Daniher by a year, maybe two. Give him the chance to play the kids and build towards a shot at a flag in 2008 -- without the pressure of coaching for his life.

was there any need to post the article almost in its entirity this far down the thread? just your thoughts would have sufficed as most people who have read this thread also read the article at the top...

was there any need to post the article almost in its entirity this far down the thread?

Thats about a quarter and thats the most important bit

I agree its not fair to judge ND on 2007 form, due to injuries.

Judge him solely from his other 9 years at the club.

Thanks for the memories Neale, but its time to move on

i'l lask this then ..

How prudent is it whenyou know that some of your stalwarts ( supposedly ) might be carrying a niggle...and that they wil be forced to play more game time that you DONT augment them with MORE fresh legs. Forget for the moment any notion of actually winning but of surviving to fight a better battle another day.

he is reluctant to play the kids !!! he has only ever done so by circumstances of adversity...he is unlike Malthouse or Sheedy or Mathews who make this a feather in their repsective bows. He doesnt do it when he can balance it better , he is simplisticly REACTIVE...has no understanding of being PROACTIVE....certainly no evidence i can discern. And thats the real shame for we may have really gotten somewhere at times if we had take the Demons to the game, instead of letting the game come to us !!

Thats about a quarter and thats the most important bit

but it wasnt needed and it clutters the thread...

i'l lask this then ..

How prudent is it whenyou know that some of your stalwarts ( supposedly ) might be carrying a niggle...and that they wil be forced to play more game time that you DONT augment them with MORE fresh legs. Forget for the moment any notion of actually winning but of surviving to fight a better battle another day.

he is reluctant to play the kids !!! he has only ever done so by circumstances of adversity...he is unlike Malthouse or Sheedy or Mathews who make this a feather in their repsective bows. He doesnt do it when he can balance it better , he is simplisticly REACTIVE...has no understanding of being PROACTIVE....certainly no evidence i can discern. And thats the real shame for we may have really gotten somewhere at times if we had take the Demons to the game, instead of letting the game come to us !!

That's garbage Bub.

Have a look at this thread and post 27.

Another case of venting an ill iinformed opinion without the facts.

So are you saying that there was very little emphasis put on "run and carry" at training and that all the players just out of nowhere decided to predominantly use this tactic all through the pre-season and into the start of the season proper?

I wouldn't mind getting an answer to this question.

Great article, may quieten the ND bashers.

Give him a break: the high number of early-season injuries at Melbourne, such as those to Nathan Jones and Nathan Brown, has made it hard to judge the performance of Demons coach Neale Daniher. Picture: Michael dodge

His break is well & truly overdue & will happen this season, bye bye eND...

ps:- I'm judging him over the last 6 seasons that I've had big doubts about his inability to win when the going gets serious...