9 minutes ago, adonski said:

How's your boy Travalgia doing frappa, look the goods this week compared to Lindsay?

What? Ive never expressed an interest in Travaglia. I said Lalor would be far and away the best player in this draft and everyone now knows why. 

Knew XL would bring composure and good outside running. Hadn't appreciated how good his footy IQ was.

Still hold concerns for the contested part of his game....wasnt hugely tested on it on the weekend as stayed very outside. Not talking about his backing into packs btw...moreso his ability to win a hard ball or win 1v1s preventing him having the scope to be a mid rather than a winger. 

Time will tell - but was a fantastic debut. 

I was very impressed with XL and his debut performance. Very polished, classy, and awesome disposal effeciency given the wet weather.

He did something in the last quarter which really stood out to me. He knew he had an opponent on his tail, and instead of just taking possession immediately (almost 90% of current players actually do this) he tapped it beautifully into space, burnt off his opponent gained a few extra metres to allow him to take clear and clean possesion without being tackled instantly.

46 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

at the end of the day we lost by 3 points to a flag contender playing 6 debutantes - good result overall, acknowledging we blew it in the last quarter and by missing gettable  set shots.

Exactly. Was excruciating listening to the commentary panel gush over GWS after the game. 

Just my view,  When its close at the end, You need your best players on the ground competing.  Its about management of their field time and energy,

GWS did it, took one bloke off who complained about going off, then he was back on slightly refreshed for the last 4 minutes or so.

3 hours ago, waynewussell said:

This is the bloke who has more goals in 150 games than any other of the 'modern day' Melbourne forwards (including Neitz, Schwartz and Robbo). He was also our leading goal kicker in 2024!

So?

 

 

2 hours ago, Damo said:

 Those enjoying Aj'S forceful attack in the forward line and wanting Fritch dropped need to understand the balance needed up forward.

Having natural talent is more valuable than simply putting in a lot of effort.

I too wish Fritta would put in better efforts but we need to keep playing skilled footballers. He is very talanted when on song.

Talent is nothing without effort.

There are millions of talented people in the world who never make anything of themselves because of lack of effort. 

3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

I think the main error in that last play was Clarry.  He was on Callaghan but as soon as the kickin happened elected to run to the Kelly/Jones contest leaving Callaghan free in the corridor.  That mistake meant GWS had the one extra streaming through the middle.  

Yep maybe in hindsight but in modern footy, they set up in layers and I guess Clarry pushes up to lock it in but it doesn’t happen. 
 

All in all though good performance and it’s these small margins that make such a difference 

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

So?

 

 

So, talking as if he has been a long term liability is superficial... So?

I don't think moving Fritsch upfield is a good idea, short term. Short term, I want the sneaky 2 or 3 he seems to conjure from minimum disposals. Long term, I think the coaching panel are attempting to make him a better player! That is why I don't think they are going to revert on Fritsch after one game.

2 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

So, talking as if he has been a long term liability is superficial... So?

He has been a liability since the end of 23.

Last year in the first halves when the heat was on there were 9 games where he has 2 possessions or less at half time.

Lack of effort and tacking pressure is a cancer in a team/system game. When 1 player doesn't do it the system breaks down.

But yeah he kicked 6 in a grand final so he can play how he wants for the next 10 years.

We'll just ignore that he remained our leading goal kicker last year! You call that liability??? Yes he can improve on his weaknesses, who can't? Constantly calling for him to be dropped is childish. He will be dropped if the coaches think he failed to play his role on Sunday. I would give it another try in better conditions. There may be a chorus of supporters baying for his blood, Im not one of them.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Well you threw the first barb, I just reteliated.  The reason I'm repeating myself is that people (a) don't like what I've got to say and (b) keep quoting me for a more detailed explanation

And if you don't believe our forward line is by far our biggest issue, then what is it then?

The midfield and defence was good and has been consistently good

Where as the forward line continually let's us down.  And that's not even an opinion, it's a clear observation

We obviously view the sport differently 

I've mentioned in my last two posts in this exchange with you what I considered to be the biggest issues yesterday: our fitness, our inability to defend transition, and letting two goals through in stoppage/congestion in our D50.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your views as to why these issues were not as important to the result as the forward line - and indeed, I'm interested in what it was about the forward line yesterday that was the issue over and above the correct, but generic, statement that our forward line continually lets us down.

2 hours ago, Demongirl35 said:

I am still wondering why Trac wasn’t in the middle for the last centre bounce

It doesn't make sense that you'd have our number 1 centre bounce crew in Gawn/Oliver/Trac/Viney take the opening bounce of the season which was a roaring success.

But in the game deciding last centre bounce, you put in someone (Langdon) that's barely had a centre bounce attendance in his career.

In fairness, it was a clear set play where Gawn would tap it to Langdon and Langdon would use his pace to stream clear and bomb it inside 50. But Langdon just missed Gawn's hitout, Gawn then fumbled the loose ball it and game over sadly.

If I was at the presser post game, I'd be asking Goodwin why he has such a poor record in close games (6 point margin or less) since round 22 2023. 1 win from 8 games. 

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Bring-Back-Powell

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The ability to finish off a close game is a huge issue obviously. Not sure if many people are aware, but since the round 22 game against Carlton in 2023 when Trac was involved in that controversial goal decision, we're 1-7 in games decided by 6 points or less. And that one close win came against North last year when we conceded the last 6 goals of the game.

We can't win a close game to save ourselves.

Yep, this is an issue. 

Interestingly enough, prior to that Carlton game we had gone 4-2 in games decided by 6 points or less in 2023, two of which involved us holding on at the death (vs Collingwood on KB and then vs Adelaide at the G).

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

It doesn't make sense that you'd have our number 1 centre bounce crew in Gawn/Oliver/Trac/Viney take the opening bounce of the season which was a roaring success.

But in the game deciding last centre bounce, you put in someone (Langdon) that's barely had a centre bounce attendance in his career.

If I was at the presser post game, I'd be asking Goodwin why he has such a poor record in close games (6 point margin or less) since round 22 2023. 1 win from 8 games. 

A few on radio have said that Trac went to the midfield huddle prior to that bounce but looked to call an audible and put himself in the forward line. I didn't notice it at the ground but did anyone else? i.e. it might not have been Goodwin/the coaches' decision.

29 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I've mentioned in my last two posts in this exchange with you what I considered to be the biggest issues yesterday: our fitness, our inability to defend transition, and letting two goals through in stoppage/congestion in our D50.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your views as to why these issues were not as important to the result as the forward line - and indeed, I'm interested in what it was about the forward line yesterday that was the issue over and above the correct, but generic, statement that our forward line continually lets us down.

The transition forward from GWS often came from our dysfunctional forward line

A forward line consisting of 3 lumbering giants who barely touched the ball (collectively 10 kicks & 3 marks)

On top of that another forward (Fritsch) who is poor defensively

So it still comes back to our forward line.  GWS also kick to the hot spot (we don't) so therefore those scrambled goals came from 20 metres out dead in front

Where as our stoppages in our forward line is consistently close to the boundary line.  We don't challenge the hot spot in our own forward line ... often because our forwards lead to the boundary line

And credit to GWS for creating so many opportunities in the hot spot (when the ball was in dispute) ... perhaps we should at least try something similar 

The boundary line has become our enemy (especially in our own forward line)

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Macca

9 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

In fairness, it was a clear set play where Gawn would tap it to Langdon and Langdon would use his pace to stream clear and bomb it inside 50. But Langdon just missed Gawn's hitout, Gawn then fumbled the loose ball it and game over sadly.

Yep. Thought the same. Worth a try as a final roll of the dice. (If I'm being really harsh, I think Caleb Windsor would have been a better choice than Ed Langdon, who in his 11th season of AFL football is finding a way to get comprehensively outmarked by Darcy Jones.) 

We lost that game because GWS handled it better.

That is it.

Skill errors by us gave them many of their goals.

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

The transition forward from GWS often came from our dysfunctional forward line

A forward line consisting of 3 lumbering giants who barely touched the ball (collectively 10 kicks & 3 marks)

On top of that another forward (Fritsch) who is poor defensively

So it still comes back to our forward line.  GWS also kick to the hot spot (we don't) so therefore those scrambled goals came from 20 metres out dead in front

Where as our stoppages in our forward line is consistently close to the boundary line.  We don't challenge the hot spot in our own forward line ... often because our forwards lead to the boundary line

Colourful language, Macca: "dysfunctional", "lumbering giants". I suppose GWS had "perfect pitch", and "nimble principals" before "crushing" us by three points on the back of "superior intelligence" and "immaculate conceptions"!

3 hours ago, Singa said:

Still gutted today. I think the weather conditions actually suited us but we just can't seem to win these close games and our ground ball game particularly in defences will be the death of us.

Frustrating how often other teams 'find a way to win' these close games and we don't

20 hours ago, frankie_d said:

surely we should be able to defend in the last 30 seconds?

 

fitness, skills or coaching? 

Inexperience and luck! AJ should've played safe for time and not given ball back, they also got lucky in their transition with blind handball (Jones) and the Callahan 50-50 with Hendo!

 

Fitness - no

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

We lost that game because GWS handled it better.

That is it.

Skill errors by us gave them many of their goals.

I don't agree here -- many of their scrappy goals came from poor def setup early and poor communication perhaps but not skill errors!

I thought we played brilliantly. the younger players definitely had something to prove and gave it their all. However, they really dropped the ball on that final centre bounce; it was clear we needed our top midfielders in there. It’s also hard to understand how we couldn’t keep the ball in our forward 50 for more than a few seconds.

 

Was anyone else [censored] at the amount of times BT bought up the fact that Bowey motioned the ball was touched? [censored] wanted that overturned.. 

24 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Colourful language, Macca: "dysfunctional", "lumbering giants". I suppose GWS had "perfect pitch", and "nimble principals" before "crushing" us by three points on the back of "superior intelligence" and "immaculate conceptions"!

lol

In all seriousness, losing these games we should win is getting annoying

We had their measure yesterday but found a way to lose (again)

And my point about forward line pressure stands.  We were too tall and slow for their runners

On transition, they did it too easily