7 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Fit enough but Billings historically hasn't done the hard stuff was my impression. As soon as the Saints stopped allowing passengers on defense he struggled to get a game.  Personally I'd give up the extra 4 pressure acts and 2 tackle a game as the 2nd HFF if he can hit McAdam or BF inside 50 once or twice a game.  We kick 1 more goal per game last year we have a percentage of 130+ and the number 1 offensive team, the margins are that slim.  

Totally agree.

If he is fit enough, we can well and truly cover any lack of defensive effort/nous he might have.

 I have no doubt we have given him a chance for exactly the reason you suggest - he can hit a target.

And as important, perhaps more so, weight a kick to a forwards' advantage, a much underrated skill, and one ridiculously few dees players have, including tracc and Oliver. 

Makes it so much harder for our key forwards. Must do their heads in when we kick to their opponents advantage.

Apart from reducing our chances of marks inside 50 it's a big factor in the number of intercept marks we give up. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Tomlinson is 30 and has played 170 games, how much more game time does he need? 

Im not saying T Mc is going to be any better but I’m very keen to see if a move down back does unlock some form for him. 

Wasn't referring to his age Ds.

He played some very good games and then inexplicably got dropped.

What I mean by game time is a string of games where he can feel the pulse of the game and be his best without losing momentum and relegated to the twos. Confidence means a lot and double in footy.

We give Tmac and a couple of others more chances than Tommo. I personally think he's a quality player who we should trust in more. That's all.

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by leave it to deever

 

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

Wasn't referring to his age Ds.

He played some very good games and then inexplicably got dropped.

What I mean by game time is a string of games where he can feel the pulse of the game and be his best without losing momentum and relegated to the twos. Confidence means a lot and double in footy.

We give Tmac and a couple of others more chances than Tommo. I personally think he's a quality player who we should trust in more. That's all.

He has the easiest job in footy playing on second talls and gets dropped because he’s either no good or there’s no match up.

And his body language is abysmal at times. He’s a depth player who somehow got elevated to a starter over summer.

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

He has the easiest job in footy playing on second talls and gets dropped because he’s either no good or there’s no match up.

And his body language is abysmal at times. He’s a depth player who somehow got elevated to a starter over summer.

There's no easy job in footy mate.

6 hours ago, demon3165 said:

Well I guess you don't watch many games then, even Goodwin has admitted they had problems with connecting with the forward line the last 2 years.

Well if you look at stats, Melbourne averaged about 14 marks  inside 50 which is AFL average, and if you're asked the same question time and time again you might start believing you have a bigger problem then most teams, these myth  stick and are over blowing, I dare you go back look at marks inside 50 I you might be surprised, Melbourne's biggest problem in scoring has been kicking too many behind in most of our losses we kick  more behind than goals,  like yeah look a little deaper and stop being a gullible fool

8 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Just a random observation:

In 6 of our last 8 games of footy including the weekend's game, this is how many behinds the oppo has kicked:

Richmond 8

Carlton 8

Hawthorn 6

Collingwood 6

Carlton 7

Richmond 9 (praccy match)

These behinds are below average for a game of footy and it's not helping us win games. Is this just a coincidence or the oppo getting easier shots at goal on us?

 

It’s not the behinds  that matter it’s the goals! Also the total scoring shots. Also I think you forgot the Swans game which they scored about 11 or 12 I think.. 

29 minutes ago, marieisademon said:

Well if you look at stats, Melbourne averaged about 14 marks  inside 50 which is AFL average, and if you're asked the same question time and time again you might start believing you have a bigger problem then most teams, these myth  stick and are over blowing, I dare you go back look at marks inside 50 I you might be surprised, Melbourne's biggest problem in scoring has been kicking too many behind in most of our losses we kick  more behind than goals,  like yeah look a little deaper and stop being a gullible fool

So Goodwin is gullible as well then? Forget stats look at the game and see where our problems were all you have to do is take off the rose coloured glasses and look.

And seeing you like stats we had 37 more entries than the Pies and still lost but you fail to see the problem. 

We would want to get off to a good start to the year, that is all I'm going to say.

# F M D

Edited February 20, 20242 yr by YesitwasaWin4theAges

On 18/02/2024 at 12:54, Nascent said:

A lot of cobwebs dusted off there. 

No injuries.

Young players getting a run.

Could have been worse.

I wouldn't be writing anyone off on this performance but not many players excelled either. 

Skills and ball movement will improve... surely

One would hope so eventually

I watched most of the game and turned it off once I realised that not much has changed with entries to our forward line. My one and only take from the game is, the Melbourne forwards are nearly always trying to mark the ball from behind. When are they going lead to the front of their opponemts? The result of their positioning means that the midfield have no other option but to, bomb long!