I was 'intrigued' to see how such a young Melbourne team managed to get into a winning position, nearly lose it and then move away for a 4 goal victory on Sunday.

Given the leadership group was largely off the ground, why was this so, and does it say something about the Bates, Sylvias, Jones etc leadership qualities already showing out?

Or was it just luck?

I was 'intrigued' to see how such a young Melbourne team managed to get into a winning position, nearly lose it and then move away for a 4 goal victory on Sunday.

Given the leadership group was largely off the ground, why was this so, and does it say something about the Bates, Sylvias, Jones etc leadership qualities already showing out?

Or was it just luck?

Maybe it was quality of opposition.

Two reasons:

1. We didn't try to "slow it down". Not sure whether it was the change of coach or the change of on-field leadership that did it, but we kept trying to score right until the end. Our team stinks at wearing down the clock (or "icing the clock" as some call it, whatever that means).

2. Our opposition were/are tanking in a big way.

2. Our opposition were/are tanking in a big way.

I think that hits the nail on the head, Nozz.

whilst a coach may assemble a ...well... less able team in order to let some points slide. I dont think once the game is under way that any player is going to stop and let another team go past.

whilst a coach may assemble a ...well... less able team in order to let some points slide. I dont think once the game is under way that any player is going to stop and let another team go past.

I don' think the team was tanking. They were fully committed I think.

Two reasons:

1. We didn't try to "slow it down". Not sure whether it was the change of coach or the change of on-field leadership that did it, but we kept trying to score right until the end. Our team stinks at wearing down the clock (or "icing the clock" as some call it, whatever that means).

2. Our opposition were/are tanking in a big way.

Exactly.

I was far more interested in point number one than point number two.

Clearly Mark Riley's idea of winning close games involves attacking at all costs. Daniher had a different method, which we simply could not implement this season.

As for Carlton, their coach might be trying to tank, but his players are bad enough not to have to.

Carlton is woeful.

I don' think the team was tanking. They were fully committed I think.

The players themselves would never "tank" deliberately. However, when you leave out the only bloke in your side who can kick goals and the only bloke in your side who can ruck in any capacity whatsoever, it makes it very difficult to win a game of footy. We beat Carlton in this game primarily because they went out of their way to field a worse team than us. That's pretty much the crux of the issue.

Maybe it was quality of opposition.

Yeah, I agree, Carlton were never going to win that game regardless of their opposition.

If the Carlton runner rushed out to Andrew Walker in the last quarter and told him to miss a crucial goal with 8 mins left, then I can confidently assume Carlton were tanking.

Also, if Carlton were tanking, there was no way they would've risked Andrew Walker with his suspect shoulder. By playing a suspect Walker (who the Blues highly rate), it was a desperate act to counteract the loss of key personal in Fev, Stevens and Whitnall.

I'd like to think Carlton were playing to win. If they weren't then we may as well forget about the result on Sunday and bemoan another wasted week.

If the Carlton runner rushed out to Andrew Walker in the last quarter and told him to miss a crucial goal with 8 mins left, then I can confidently assume Carlton were tanking.

Also, if Carlton were tanking, there was no way they would've risked Andrew Walker with his suspect shoulder. By playing a suspect Walker (who the Blues highly rate), it was a desperate act to counteract the loss of key personal in Fev, Stevens and Whitnall.

I'd like to think Carlton were playing to win. If they weren't then we may as well forget about the result on Sunday and bemoan another wasted week.

I don't think they were tanking as such, but the events over the week prior to the game did them in. Imagine your best player and leader throwing a hissy fit on the ground then when he was dragged he took his boots off and refused to go back on, what sort of message does that send to the young kids? Their senior leadership is in a worse state then ours.

Daniher had a different method, which we simply could not implement this season.

"Tempo" Football?

"Tempo" Football?

The fact of the matter is, Daniher got us over the line in nearly all of our close games last year.

I remember we had a run of 3 or 4 matches where we won by under a goal.

This year however, we lost a number of games in the dying minutes because of a number of things:

1- Unwillingness to push players back (especially against the Bulldogs)

2- Unwillingness to move the ball forward quickly when we have possession

3- Poor execution of 'possession footy', especially given our distinct lack of skills across half-back.

Riley took a risk on Sunday and it payed off.

We played as if we had another quarter to go, instead of 'icing the clock' and inevitably turning the ball over as we always do.

I personally think it is a better option with the way we play to continue to play our normal style in close games, because what gets me is, for example we're 10 points up, 2 minutes to go in the 3rd, why ice the clock when we could possibly score another goal and extend our lead?