1 hour ago, Greg Schneider said:

Yeh never once been a concern with Kozzy has it …

12 hours ago, Macca said:

As a collective (simplified)

• Our senior players well down on their best

• Their senior players had a good day

• Our youngsters had an off day

• Their youngsters had a good day

Now, if we put up that sort of performance against a good team, heaven knows what the margin might have been

Against Essendon, it's enough to give them a chance at victory and they duly took it

Sure, we can move on, but there's a lot we can learn from the loss

It's starts with turning up, ready to play (against any opposition)

An eye-opener for King, but it's probably good that he's seen things early

Completely agree.

It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that all lined up. Need to take what we can from it.

Jackson Clark posted this. Not sure if it's been posted elsewhere.

WAS KING MAKING EXCUSES – OR MAKING SENSE?

BY – LORIS BERTOLACCI

Was Steven King deflecting after Melbourne’s loss, or was there genuine performance merit in the “lethargy” comment?

I actually think it was both smart leadership and strong high-performance thinking.

After the Essendon loss, King said Melbourne “didn’t look as sharp as last week” and looked “a bit lethargic.”

Some fans hear that and think excuse making … I don’t.

I think it was a smart coaching move to shift the review from emotion to process, while also having very real merit in the public data.

The scoreboard alone gives the first clue.

Melbourne actually led at half-time, but then lost the second half 69–18.

That kind of collapse immediately raises better questions than simply saying, “we just played bad.”

The better question is: what changed in sharpness, repeat effort and outside shape after half-time?

The available numbers strongly support that assessment.

Compared to the previous week’s strong win over Gold Coast, Melbourne dropped from 138 to 115 contested possessions, 39 to 32 clearances, 59 to 39 inside 50s, 79% to 71% disposal efficiency, and 42 to 67 total errors.

That alone suggests a side that was slightly flatter, slower to first possession, less clean with ball in hand, and not sustaining territory.

But the real red flags were the outside game indicators.

Essendon won uncontested possessions 261–197, marks 139–78, inside 50s 54–39, contested possessions 142–115, and clearances 40–32.

This is where King’s comment has real merit.

When coaches say a team looked “flat,” they are often talking about the exact public clues we can see here: less support running, slower spread, and reduced repeat efforts late.

From a sports-science perspective, this is exactly the type of game where internal data becomes critical.

Rather than berating players, the review inside the club would immediately move toward GPS high-speed running, acceleration and deceleration load, repeat sprint drop-off from first half to second half, RPE and wellness trends, HRV and sleep status, Gather Round travel disruption, the six-day break after three big weeks, key midfield and high-speed players’ freshness, and maybe even force plate jump neuromuscular readiness markers.

Individually, the coaching staff can decide who simply played poorly versus the above factors.

It’s often multifactorial but the public loves “team” reasons for losing.

From my own experience, after three very strong emotional or physical weeks, the fourth week can often be where the line drops slightly if freshness and periodisation are just off enough.

This can often be statistically confirmed in elite sports training and competition, not just AFL.

That doesn’t excuse the result, because full credit must go to Essendon.

The Bombers didn’t just benefit from Melbourne being slightly off, they also forced the possible lethargy to be exposed through pressure, spread, overlap support and second-half ball movement.

And they did play better in last two weeks and went into this game with better availability.

So the real football truth is usually this: a slight drop in freshness plus the opposition’s best game often equals an ugly scoreboard.

That’s why I really liked King’s response.

He didn’t hide behind emotion, he moved immediately toward process, preparation, travel, sharpness, second-half repeat effort and readiness markers.

And then individual assessment of each player – from tactics to skills to fitness readiness.

Sometimes a loss is tactical, sometimes the opposition is simply better, and often the truth is both.

The public sees a 45-point loss, but the better football conversation is …

Did Melbourne’s sharpness drop just enough for Essendon’s pressure and spread to brutally expose it?

LORIS BERTOLACCI has worked as a High Performance Manager in the AFL system for 20+ years and has experience guiding athletes in various sports from all around the world.

He is an expert on coaching, strength and conditioning, and rehabilitation and has been working in these fields since the early 1970s.

On 14/04/2026 at 20:46, Dee*ceiving said:

We couldn't and / or wouldn't run far enough, fast enough for long enough.

It was clear to see our tanks were empty not long into the third qtr. In fact we were probably consuming reserve fuel in red time of the second.

It's gonna happen to a young team, playing a taxing game plan. Melk being on one leg 5 minutes in didn't help.

And we lost Salem early too. Two down can't help with the total number of clicks the team has to run.

.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by Macca
Wrong thread