Was Petterd on at all in the first quarter?

Don't think he played in the first half. Definitely not in the first quarter, then maybe only for a short period in the second.

At least they tried different things with Frawley. I know he wasn't brilliant, but he does some really nice things with the ball in close. One of his handballs in a pack directly created a goal.

He came on for 5 min or so in the second 1/4.

Frawley made some really nice leads up the centre of the ground when thrown forward but we ignored him and went to the pockets instead.

He came on for 5 min or so in the second 1/4.

Frawley made some really nice leads up the centre of the ground when thrown forward but we ignored him and went to the pockets instead.

Speaking of players getting ignored, should Colin Sylvia stick a giant neon sign above his head saying "I'm open"?

He gets ignored time and time again by his teammates, despite always leading to the right position.

Thought he was one of our better players last night, and it's good to see him slowly creeping into the midfield.

Was Petterd on at all in the first quarter?

Nope Clint I don't think that he was.......

And I have similar sentiments to Dan.

On the one hand you applaud the passion and want (maybe the need) to keep going for the team and after last nights debacle that should absolutely be looked on as a positive, but it also showed a distinct lack of discipline or possibly even understanding of what was happening.

However we can all understand the frustration he must have felt especially given he wasn't played at all in the first however many minutes.

I think his antics will endear him to fans, and we see that at least he has fire in his belly. But if you look at the bigger picture, his actions show:

- a clear sign that we have no on-field leadership.

- our discipline is failing.

- a player that has been there only a few months has no faith in ND.

- to opposition clubs that the wheels are falling off. I'd be thrilled if I saw that and knew my team was playing the dees next week.

But in the end we had nothing more than a horribly frustrated and aggravated kid who didn't think he should be taken off the ground (and given the way he was playing he probably shouldn't have been - but that is another argument), but the questions Dan raised about what this incident may have shown up within the team are intriguing, and it will be interesting to see what happens from now on in.

if i was a ricky, i woulda done the same thing. jeez if the game is over and your doing the best for your team unlike some other players, what's the point of even turning up on the night. i can only wish that ND is gone and hope to see ricky shine in the future for the red and blue

Speaking of players getting ignored, should Colin Sylvia stick a giant neon sign above his head saying "I'm open"?

He gets ignored time and time again by his teammates, despite always leading to the right position.

Thought he was one of our better players last night, and it's good to see him slowly creeping into the midfield.

i know he dyes his hair blonde and all to be more noticable.

i couldnt believe we played tempo footbll at the end of the second and ignored 3 players open on 3 different occasions who were in or around the 50

i know he dyes his hair blonde and all to be more noticable.

i couldnt believe we played tempo footbll at the end of the second and ignored 3 players open on 3 different occasions who were in or around the 50

Melbourne were playing tempo football when they were seven goals down FFS!

actually we were 10 down

actually we were 10 down

Its not necessarily a decision to play tempo as the slowness of the decison making and then making the move by foot and hand.

What seemed like tempo was also a reaction to Richmond flooding back with numbers behind the ball and the inability of MFC players to offer any decent leads up the ground.

It was amazing the number of times MFC players with the ball in some space had the look of despair when they looked up and had no options up the ground.

Visually it just looked awful.

I dont see how sacking one coach who has done alot for the Club over 10 years (albeit not a flag) does anything bar making the Club a media circus and unstable place for a new respective coach.

I dont think MFC would reappoint ND for 2008 and I have thought that since Rd 3. I am sure of it now.

I do not see the benefit of a public blood letting. Rather I would prefer the MFC Board direct its energies toward the sensible recruitment of a new coach for 2008.

I agree. It would be unprofessional and disrespectful to sack him now.

The decision not to reappoint him for next year should be done now then and ND have the option of seeing out his contract or walking now. As much as I don't believe he is the man to take MFC forward, there are some precedents for finishing to the end of the year - Walls at Brisbane and Shaw at Collingwood. It may take some of the pressure off him, the club and the players and we all know we can't handle pressure.

The last statement was a bit bitter but I have seen Melbourne make two grand finals in my lifetime and not get within 10 goals in either. Failure to handle pressure is endemic at this club.

It was amazing the number of times MFC players with the ball in some space had the look of despair when they looked up and had no options up the ground.

And you attacked me when I talked about Melbourne's lack of forwards against St Kilda...

And you attacked me when I talked about Melbourne's lack of forwards against St Kilda...

Different game and different situation.

I honestly tried to explain back then as others did but you dont want to consider anything but your own limited outlook.

Its so repetitous now its gone beyond boring and is not worth another considered response.

Different game and different situation.

I honestly tried to explain back then as others did but you dont want to consider anything but your own limited outlook.

No it's not.

Melbourne did not have enough options up forward. Just like they did against St Kilda. It was almost identical how Melbourne players looked up, had no options and as a result turned the ball over because the opposition had loose men in their defense.

Don't give me this "limited outlook" crap. You have supported Daniher for the past few years and you even supported "run and carry" while the rest of us could see that neither Daniher nor his pathetic attempt at a game plan were any good.

You have even been against Melbourne kicking the ball long into their forward which had a good number of forwards in it.

Guess what happened when Melbourne did this against the Crows and the Pies?

Oh, that's right. They won.

And you have the nerve to say that I have a "limited outlook"?

And you attacked me when I talked about Melbourne's lack of forwards against St Kilda...

But in the second half we had 9 forwards, because Daniher didn't want to leave anyone unmanned.

Did that help at all? We kicked a few, yes, but we were never going to get enough opportunities in such a crowded forward line.

The problem is not with the number of forwards, or even with the style of footy we play, it's with the fact that we can't use the footy, we can't get the footy, and we don't seem to want to chase after it either.

But in the second half we had 9 forwards, because Daniher didn't want to leave anyone unmanned.

And Melbourne won the half with their full-back kicking three goals.

No, it's nothing to hang their hat on but Melbourne did look better with more players up forward.

And Melbourne won the half with their full-back kicking three goals.

No, it's nothing to hang their hat on but Melbourne did look better with more players up forward.

The only reason we looked better was because we manned-up.

If we had 4 forwards and Richmond had 4 defenders, we would have played better, kicked more goals and mounted a better comeback.

Instead, we had 2 giants who are not much chop, Robbo with 3 defenders all to himself, Sylvia being ignored, Bate leading 80m out, Davey getting lost in the traffic and we kicked a few thanks to BEN HOLLAND. Christ that is not even something to rest your hat against, let alone on.

No it's not.

Melbourne did not have enough options up forward. Just like they did against St Kilda. It was almost identical how Melbourne players looked up, had no options and as a result turned the ball over because the opposition had loose men in their defense.

Don't give me this "limited outlook" crap. You have supported Daniher for the past few years and you even supported "run and carry" while the rest of us could see that neither Daniher nor his pathetic attempt at a game plan were any good.

You have even been against Melbourne kicking the ball long into their forward which had a good number of forwards in it.

Guess what happened when Melbourne did this against the Crows and the Pies?

Oh, that's right. They won.

And you have the nerve to say that I have a "limited outlook"?

It wouldn't have mattered who played in the forward line tonight as the midfield couldn't get their hands on the ball at all!!!!! They were a disgrace and a forward line is only as good as the delivery into it. I agree they should have played man on man for when they did kick it long they kicked it staight to polak.

It wouldn't have mattered who played in the forward line tonight as the midfield couldn't get their hands on the ball at all!!!!! They were a disgrace and a forward line is only as good as the delivery into it. I agree they should have played man on man for when they did kick it long they kicked it staight to polak.

Yes, the midfield were ordinary, but it doesn't help when they actually do get the ball and are forced to kick to a forward line that were continually out-numbered.

With a forward line that is in a 50-50 situation, the delivery into it doesn't have to be perfect. Yes, the first option should be any players on a lead (but not leading to a pocket), however if there is nothing available then the next option should be to just kick the ball in long, because even if one of the forwards doesn't take a mark, you have crumbers at their feet waiting to pounce.

He still seems kind of irritated about spending half a game on the bench:

http://melbournefc.com.au/Season2007/News/...px?newsId=45857

"I sat on the bench for the whole of the quarter and for half of the second quarter. It was pretty frustrating.

"During the warm-up I felt really good and really bouncy. I knew I was starting on the bench but wasn't really sure how long I was going to stay there. But that's for the team and whatever we need."

I love this kid!

He still seems kind of irritated about spending half a game on the bench:

http://melbournefc.com.au/Season2007/News/...px?newsId=45857

"I sat on the bench for the whole of the quarter and for half of the second quarter. It was pretty frustrating.

"During the warm-up I felt really good and really bouncy. I knew I was starting on the bench but wasn't really sure how long I was going to stay there. But that's for the team and whatever we need."

I love this kid!

What does Petterd expect; when you're down by 8 goals mid-way through the second term to the bottom side, you don't make too many changes

What does Petterd expect; when you're down by 8 goals mid-way through the second term to the bottom side, you don't make too many changes

Yeah, and Adem Yze was killing them out there...

(Well he was killing me with his lazy kicks off the ground. Without a doubt the most infuriating player on our list! :angry: :angry: :angry: )

how many typos can there be in a professional article jaded? lol

how many typos can there be in a professional article jaded? lol

Maybe it was written by a Melbourne supporter having an aneurism while trying to write about the horrors of Friday night?

good edit to get rid of the spelling mistake

would have been funny if at quarter time when neale gave them a blast if petterd had of put his hand up and said "dont blame me, i kept my seat warm"