It is the variability that infuriates me; i don't think it is right to say that we 'drop' the bundle at pressure games, but rather that we cannot sustain our level of required performance across a season. So, we'll win some pressure games and lose others.

Spot on.

If there is one thing I really want to see Dean Bailey achieve, it's consistency consistency consistency.

We are unrealiable and all over the place. That's exactly why so many of us can't agree on how we'll perform in 2008... nobody knows.

It is the variability that infuriates me; i don't think it is right to say that we 'drop' the bundle at pressure games, but rather that we cannot sustain our level of required performance across a season. So, we'll win some pressure games and lose others.

I wrote the following well into the season in 2006. You may, or may not find it interesting:

(2006)

"Last year I wrote ad nauseam "outside midfields are consistently inconsistent". A bit has changed since then but not enough to make the discernible difference we crave.

Prior to round one most supporters whose opinion I rate predicted we'd finish 5-8. They thought 2007 – 2009 was far more likely to bring success. They've a fairly good handle on their club.

To predict our future we need to understand our past. Our better players in 2005 weren't 'first dibs', some not even 'predator'. Bruce, Green, TJ, Davey, Yze, et al were always going to be 'inconsistent' when they had to rely on others winning contested ball. It goes without saying that if you can’t win enough of your own footy you lend yourself to inconsistency unless you’re constantly given a meaningful supply. They weren’t. Our only true 'first dibs' footballer in 05 was Junior and without support he struggled. On days where Junior excelled, our 'predators' managed to break even, and our outside class was given space to work, the Dees could look world beaters while leaving their supporters salivating. But it was a house built of cards. The cracks in the ice were ever present and a dark abyss just beneath the surface cast a large black cloud.

What was needed in 06 to sufficiently make the in roads required for us to become a top 4 side ? An awful lot. So what’s happened ? Junior has had his best year, McLean has been a revelation, an unknown Bartram led the way in tackling and 1%’s, Pickett added grunt, Davey got better, Green has quietly gone about his business, and TJ, Bruce, and Yze enjoyed this more even spread of contributors. The game plan has been more defensive and accountable, tackling and 1%’s a team focus, and on our day we’ve shown a side with more steel. But by season’s end supporters still bemoan inconsistency.

Until McLean, Jones, Sylvia, Bartram , etc, mature in their football so they can consistently win clearances, feed the ball to those incapable of winning their own footy regularly, and build their bodies to a level capable of withstanding the rigours of AFL footy, our supporters will scratch their heads wondering what’s gone wrong. They’ll blame a mentally fragile group, they’ll blame a lack of leaders, but they don’t understand the fabric of our side. Currently, our leaders aren’t ball winners. Some have improved in this area and even become reasonable predators, but they are still too reliant on others. You can’t alter the course of a game if you can’t get your hands on it. This breeds the dreaded ‘inconsistency’.

The good news is that our future leaders can win tough contested footy. They will be in a position to make a statement and alter the course of game. By nature, they will bring consistency to the team. The bad news is they need to get 50+ plus games into them.

Can Neitz hold on to 2008 ? I think he’ll need to. The future is bright, just not immediate. Don’t get sucked in by a 5 goal win on Friday night, a poor loss the following week, and call them ‘flaky’. There are reasons. You just need to recognise them. Our bleating won’t make it happen any quicker.

Mind you, a ‘star’ wouldn’t go astray."

I liked it the first time H and it's lost none of its relevance. This line of thinking also helps explain why the on-going injury clouds over Sylvia, Batram and McLean concern us greatly.

Jarka, your theory is that 'we drop our bundle in pressure games'. If your theory is worth anything, it will stand up to the rigor of looking at pressure games that we did win as well as two finals that we didn't. Now, we beat sydney in sydney in 2006 - again injuries playing a heavy part against us, beat we gt up an got up well. We beat geelong on the MCG at night with another injured team playing a first and second-gamer. These were both pressure games that we desparately needed to win in order to stop our season disappearing before it started, played against heavily favoured oppositions. I think that if we were to look at it closely (depending on what we define as 'pressure' games), we'd be at about 50% win/loss.

It is the variability that infuriates me; i don't think it is right to say that we 'drop' the bundle at pressure games, but rather that we cannot sustain our level of required performance across a season. So, we'll win some pressure games and lose others.

Weren't both those games during the H&A season and not finals? Sorry, but it's completely different. Not sure who it was but there's a famous quote floating around about the real season starting in September, I think it was Kennedy or Jeans, but it's a concept that our club seems to miss. Without September success the H&A results are meaningless.

Jarka, I think that narrows the debate to a meaningless level and prevents any understanding of how to fix the problem. Pressure is pressure - different in amount but not quality.

Liek Goodvibes, H, I liked it the first time I read it. It is a real important idea. I wonder if you could also talk about the backline. To what extent will the development of Bell and Frawley fit with the view you've espoused?

a fit Moloney has a lot to offer this football club. some people think that if McLean and Sylvia dont stand up this year they could soon become the next Bruce and Green. as previously said were Bruce and Green the problem? time for Brock and Col to deliver consistantly. and dont any one give me `it takes to time to learn the new game plan rot`

Jarka, I think that narrows the debate to a meaningless level and prevents any understanding of how to fix the problem. Pressure is pressure - different in amount but not quality.

Liek Goodvibes, H, I liked it the first time I read it. It is a real important idea. I wonder if you could also talk about the backline. To what extent will the development of Bell and Frawley fit with the view you've espoused?

Tim, like yourself and others in this thread I think that we are going in the right direction with the leadership qualities amongst our youngsters, and I agree that we're probably a good couple of seasons away from being competitive.

With regards to our backline and more specifically Bell and Frawley...I've been a Bell fan right from the beginning of his career and I'd love to see what he could do if he played a whole year uninjured. With Frawley I'm not so optimistic. I think he'll play alot of games for us and be a serviceable player but I have my doubts of whether he is the KPP we desperately need in the backline, hopefully he'll prove me wrong, but I see him more of a taller rebounding flanker.

Having said that if we get our midfield right then it won't matter if we don't have stars in the backline. When your mids are on top then the opposition take longer to go forward giving the defenders time to get numbers to the contest, in fact when your mids are on top then the whole team, forwards and backs, look much better. Quality rucks and mids are the key to the game.

Now rucks is another story altogether....

a fit Moloney has a lot to offer this football club. some people think that if McLean and Sylvia dont stand up this year they could soon become the next Bruce and Green. as previously said were Bruce and Green the problem? time for Brock and Col to deliver consistantly. and dont any one give me `it takes to time to learn the new game plan rot`

Green and Bruce have been played out of position for the last 6 years due to the fact that we've lacked real inside mids.

Putting together a premier team is pretty tough. 22 players in a team. If you come up with two good players a year you have a gun team after 11 years. Of course things do not work out that way, dud draft selections, injuries, loss of form etc. Add to that less money to spend on recruiting than other clubs. Its tough.

Geelong put together a gun team with largely not so hot selections. It can be argued that given how tough drafting is the father son rule won it for them.

WCE won a flag with not so hot selections. Could be argued their very expensive recruiting set up and ability to recognise talent and keep them hidden until rookie time helped.

Reality is that you need to recruit 2 point something good players per years to be a premier team - AND A SPRINKLING OF THEM need to be superstars.

At least we got our quota when we got Bate, Dunn and Newton. Lets hope Morton, Grimes and Maric follow suit.

Green and Bruce have been played out of position for the last 6 years due to the fact that we've lacked real inside mids.

i would have had Green playing as a forward pocket.

Past is stuck in the past and the future is still yet undecided but what about us now? Talking about how good we will be in 2010 is pointless because you dont know whether or not we will be and talking bout 2006 is meaningless because that was 2 years ago with different players different style different coaching staff dont get into the debate of before and later think about now!!

Past is stuck in the past and the future is still yet undecided but what about us now? Talking about how good we will be in 2010 is pointless because you dont know whether or not we will be and talking bout 2006 is meaningless because that was 2 years ago with different players different style different coaching staff dont get into the debate of before and later think about now!!

while some talk centres around the future and the past , 2008 is very much on the agenda

Past is stuck in the past and the future is still yet undecided but what about us now? Talking about how good we will be in 2010 is pointless because you dont know whether or not we will be and talking bout 2006 is meaningless because that was 2 years ago with different players different style different coaching staff dont get into the debate of before and later think about now!!

while some talk centres around the future and the past , 2008 is very much on the agenda

My point was that the 2006 best-22 will not be the same team that ends up on the field in 2008 taking into account the turnover that Fan mentions.

Couldn't agree more fatty, but the point I was really trying to make was "will the 2008 version be better or worse than the 2006 version".

If you conclude that it is "about as good or better" then why the pessisism?

Whatever your views this is a terrific discussion. I do however, like Demonophile, believe that injury is the most significant factor in a teams performance.

I do however, like Demonophile, believe that injury is the most significant factor in a teams performance.

I can't really agree with that statement. You have to have the talent and ability first and then you have to have the luck with injuries and the like but if you don't have the coach and you don't have a good list, you're not going anywhere irregardless of injury. As a club, we were struggling from the get go last year. Our standard and style of play in the preseason and early rounds before the injuries hit suggested we were not going to finish top 8. The injuries were just the nail in the coffin.

Couldn't agree more fatty, but the point I was really trying to make was "will the 2008 version be better or worse than the 2006 version".

If you conclude that it is "about as good or better" then why the pessisism?

Whatever your views this is a terrific discussion. I do however, like Demonophile, believe that injury is the most significant factor in a teams performance.

Hi Fan,

I appreciate the time that you put into listing our round-by-round injuries and also your analysis. However, I can’t help but thinking it was a wasted effort. I would have just said we had an injury-riddled season. Nobody disagrees.

Its been said elsewhere and its fairly obvious now that our 2007 season was shot before it started, irrespective of injuries. ND rolled the dice and he lost. The way we played footy in the practice matches and the first few rounds of the season was deplorable. I don’t think it got any better due to injuries, confidence and general confusion on the field. I agree with you that injury is a key factor. But if you can’t play a mode of football that can beat the opponent, then you’re also in trouble.

Whispering Jack made a valid point about self-belief and mental attitude which was unfortunately, largely ignored in the above discussion. The points made on inconsistency are also valid.

You’ll also notice that Bailey didn’t come out and say we believe we have the team this year to challenge. He said we’re building a team around the younger group. Yes, its obvious and he might be hedging, but you’d still expect that this will take time to develop.

I don’t know if the current list is better or the same as the 2006 version – I think its pointless to compare them. Injuries aside, I think Bailey is going to have a huge impact on our onfield performance - but in what direction and to what extent is unknown.

I’m not pessimistic, Fan. As I do at the start of every season, I’m just sitting on the fence at this stage. Its far safer!!!!

Its interesting to note Hannabal’s comments with respect to our midfield in the past.

I went to a Hawthorn coterie lunch in 2003/2004 where one of the coaches came up immediately before their game against us to talk about game strategy.

This is what he said in summary:

* play 1:1 footy to disrupt Melbourne’s attacking game plan

* throw support behind the FB to hinder Neitz

* prevent Bruce & TJ from getting their hands on the ball.

The last point shows how easily our game plan was unravelled. I’m sure many other clubs tried the same and failed but its interesting to look at the past in this respect.

On a side note, Parkin also spoke and stated that Connolly was an enormous loss to the Hawks. He had a coloured career at Freo but Parkin’s endorsement of CC was emphatic. Irrelevant to the topic but interesting, nonetheless.

Its interesting to note Hannabal’s comments with respect to our midfield in the past.

I went to a Hawthorn coterie lunch in 2003/2004 where one of the coaches came up immediately before their game against us to talk about game strategy.

This is what he said in summary:

* play 1:1 footy to disrupt Melbourne’s attacking game plan

* throw support behind the FB to hinder Neitz

* prevent Bruce & TJ from getting their hands on the ball.

The last point shows how easily our game plan was unravelled. I’m sure many other clubs tried the same and failed but its interesting to look at the past in this respect.

On a side note, Parkin also spoke and stated that Connolly was an enormous loss to the Hawks. He had a coloured career at Freo but Parkin’s endorsement of CC was emphatic. Irrelevant to the topic but interesting, nonetheless.

just to add to that, i remember c.c saying he had the gameplan to beat melbourne on numerous occasions when we played freo. he was very open and confident in it. whatever the glaring deficiency was/is, i'm sure it won't be unknown to bailey now that c.c is on board.

Fans post didn't consider the premiership claims of the other 15 teams. Again in my opinion, this is an area of hope. Reasons can be given for all of our opposition to struggles. It's widely accepted that Sydney and Adelaide are on the slide. Surely the Kangas can't replicate 2007. Essendon's midfield is weak. Richmond is Richmond. Port may take some time to recover mentally from a GF hiding (think Melbourne 2001). Judd or not Carlton are still building. West Coast will still be strong but a team simply can't replace two of the best midfielders of the past decade departing simultaneously. Collingwood have their own departures to deal with and are one of two midfield injuries away from really struggling. Footscray still don't have a September spine and Freo remain mentally questionable. St Kilda don't seem to have the midfield depth necessary given the injury prone nature of many of their key palyers. Even the three teams I really rate as big chances in 2008 (Geelong, Hawthorn and Brisbane) have question marks. The reigning champs are basically the same line-up that showed their mental inadequacies in 2006. If ever a team could suffer a premiership hangover its the boys from sleepy hollow. Hawthorn are progressing nicely but yet to prove their September worth and Brisbane rely heavily on 5 or 6 stars, lacking their previous depth.

thats a great point which i believe most of the negative posters fail to consider. we have some holes, but there are few sides that don't. you don't need to be perfect to achieve success, just beat the opposition thats put in front of you.

Hi Fan,

I appreciate the time that you put into listing our round-by-round injuries and also your analysis. However, I can’t help but thinking it was a wasted effort. I would have just said we had an injury-riddled season. Nobody disagrees.

Its been said elsewhere and its fairly obvious now that our 2007 season was shot before it started, irrespective of injuries. ND rolled the dice and he lost. The way we played footy in the practice matches and the first few rounds of the season was deplorable. I don’t think it got any better due to injuries, confidence and general confusion on the field. I agree with you that injury is a key factor. But if you can’t play a mode of football that can beat the opponent, then you’re also in trouble.

Whispering Jack made a valid point about self-belief and mental attitude which was unfortunately, largely ignored in the above discussion. The points made on inconsistency are also valid.

You’ll also notice that Bailey didn’t come out and say we believe we have the team this year to challenge. He said we’re building a team around the younger group. Yes, its obvious and he might be hedging, but you’d still expect that this will take time to develop.

I don’t know if the current list is better or the same as the 2006 version – I think its pointless to compare them. Injuries aside, I think Bailey is going to have a huge impact on our onfield performance - but in what direction and to what extent is unknown.

I’m not pessimistic, Fan. As I do at the start of every season, I’m just sitting on the fence at this stage. Its far safer!!!!

I don't think anyone disagrees we had an injury riddled season, I just think the vast majority completely underestimate the impact injuries have.

I don't agree our season was "shot before it started". Our preseason involved a loss to the Hawks in the first NAB cup game where Franklin did his thing (against Warnock from memory) in the last quarter. We were only just beaten. Our team was seriously injury depleted in the warm up games. Of course we lost. Too much has been made of the failed "run and carry". We never had a settled team on the park so we'll never know if this was a success or failure but I do agree it looked terrible early.

Bailey is not going to set high expectations. A first year coach has latitude and he's taking it. I would too.

On the Parkin issue he endorsed Britten as the next great coach and said that Carlton had a great young list going forward.

When the Hawks person described how to unravel Melbourne it's a pity he didn't write it down. They killed us in round one 17.17 to 10.10. In the return bout we won 15.17 to 9.9. They remembered it again in 2005 but forgot it in 2006 losing very badly. Plans are great but you've got to do it.

It's a lot easier said than done.

I don't know how good we'll be this year. I can't reconcile us finishing outside the eight when I look at the performance of the 2006 team but like many I'm not putting my house on finishing in the top half. I guess I reckon that if we have a good run with injury (like Geelong last year or the Swans for the last 3) we are top 4, but who knows!! I also think with a young team and "fragile" mature players it takes very little to unsettle us.

while some talk centres around the future and the past , 2008 is very much on the agenda

Yeh i understand that but alot of this thread has been about 2006-2010 and as it has been referred to so many times i think we should take it one game at a time and not get ahead of ourselves.

what i find interesting is that someone mentioned our list for 08 will be better than the last year or two. i agree. dead wood has been removed. young players have more games under their belts and a new coach which appears thus far to not tolerate anything less than 100% from the players. just because you give 100% doesnt allways mean succsess but its a bloody good start. betting agency`s, media, opposition supporters and even some of our own think we will struggle next year. yet Freo who was up in 06 and blew it last year are widely tipped by those who are supposedly in the know to be a force. but they have a new coach just like us. is this because they have the Pav. i would like to think that our players have pride, pride for themselves, pride for the coach which theyre performances reflect upon and pride for the jumper. some allways have had it, some from time to time and some seem to have lost it. Neitz knows this is his last year and will go out with a bang. this doesnt have to mean a flag, but lifting the Dees back into the top 8, giving opposing backs something to remember him by and showing this years crop how to play at this level .... hard and direct. if youve got 22 blokes who have some amount of talent, a good coach and do those two things, good things should follow. bottom line is weve got to much talent to be [censored] next year. for those who tip a bottom 8 finish you can all buy me a beer come round 22. ill be sitting amongst the Redlegs watching Robbo sitting on Polaks head pulling down another screamer.

..............................

My comment on the Hawthorn game and Connolly was an observation only and its about as close to “inside information” that I’m ever likely to get. Opponents didn’t always get it right or what they tried didn’t always succeed because we were too good for them. But it was interesting, in the light of what Hannabal assessed, that they targeted Bruce and Johnstone.

But you’ve got me figured all wrong. I think that you think that I think that ND was bad for the club. As an outsider, I think he is a great coach and was good for Melbourne. I feel bad for him and he lived and died by his sword. Its easy for us in hindsight to bag the results but we, as supporters, have that luxury – the same goes for Craig Cameron. Its unfortunate that they don’t have the same opportunity to defend their position.

I think we’re better than what the market suggests. But I’m not prepared to say we’re top 4 based on our list – there’s too many other factors involved - including injuries. Dean Bailey could turn out to be a bigger catastrophe than Dennis Jones. Who knows – I can’t say.

I’m looking forward to 2008 because, as always, I never know what will happen. I’m used to it.

Back in '06, I created a thread in which I asserted that, contrary to some optimism on the back of our finals berths in '06 and the preceding years, our window of opportunity was not 07-08, and instead those were years in which we could build for a flag tilt in the following few years. Thus, I thought we were over-rated coming into 2007, but our season was certainly derailed by injuries, regardless of how well you thought we'd do.

Although I think the list changes have been a positive move for the Club, we will be relying on many young and inexperienced players to front up in our best 22. I'm also not sure I agree with Fan's assertion that guys like McDonald, Whelan, Robertson, and Yze can avoid the ravages of time, and perform to the same level they could in years past.

As Fan mentioned earlier, injuries are likely to hit us hard in '08, as replacements for best-22 players are likely to be young and inexperienced. While this is great in one sense - many guys will get increased opportunities at AFL level - it's difficult to bank on their output, and I think similar leeway probably needs to be given to the new coaching staff (although I also think this was a positive move for the Club).

I'm looking forward to 2008, but don't expect any great success. I'm sure I'll be excited come finals time if we're there, but - for me - I'm more keen to see how we perform with a view to the future (things like how the younger guys develop, how the older players respond to the coach, and what sort of footy we play), rather than how far we can go in '08. Just my 2c

PS. To those who think we should squash talk of the future because it's speculative, I think that discussing MFC and footy related issues, even where we don't have full info - whether that's because we're not in the inner sanctum, or because we can't predict the future, is [one of?] the primary reasons this forum exists...

I'm also not sure I agree with Fan's assertion that guys like McDonald, Whelan, Robertson, and Yze can avoid the ravages of time, and perform to the same level they could in years past.

I think Wheels, Robbo and Yze were already showing the signs of wear and tear and consequential impact on performance in 2006. And Fan is saying is saying he is not expecting much more than they have given. While winning back to back Bluey's Junior played better in 2006 than 2007 but given his age etc I would be hoping for another 2007 type year. And at the very least others to stand up in the midfield to support he and Jones.