Soft vs Hard vs Brave

[Mono 454]

There have been lots of posts here about how 'soft' some players are, especially senior ones.

I don't think any are actually 'soft' - no one playing AFL is, but many/most are not naturally hard. Unfortunately, I think MFC has many (highly) skilled players who are not naturally hard. And I don't think that's new - eg Steven Stretch was a highly skilled player who is now largely remembered for shirking a full on confrontation with Dipeodomenico in the 87 GF. And I remember when the Duke was traded to Carlton, there was talk around that other teams considered Melbourne 'soft', and couldn't believe they were prepared to trade one player who wasn't.

And what's more, I don't think hardness is a learnt thing, I think it is a natural thing - you have it or you don't. It is also very different from 'bravery', like diving backwards into packs (Green has done this on occasion, and he is certainly not 'hard').

I guess the trick is to draft skilled players who are naturally hard. Not easy.

Does Melbourne not value naturally hard players enough?

[praha 10,547]

It's OK when you have one or two soft players, but when your leadership and highest rated players are soft (Bruce, Green, Miller, Yze, White, Newton etc. etc.) you have a problem. This team has been put together with purety and skill in mind, not skill and toughness. We could have gotten away with this team in 2002, but not anymore.

[45HG 1,539]

and the softness has most likely played a factor in our skills deteriorating as we have not been able to pressure the opposition enough nor allow ourselves the confidence of knowing that in a tough situation, we'll usually come out.

[Axis of Bob 10,465]

A bigger problem is when people equate not having a good game with being soft.

Calling someone soft is just a throw away line for many people who are not intelligent enough to separate performance from endeavour.

All those who call White, Miller or Green soft are not learned observors of football.

Especially Miller .... are you serious?

I dare say that those calling them soft have also never played football past juniors.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Absolutely spot on Bob!

[beelzebub 22,697]

yes...might be a bit harsh to suggest soft of body

now soft of mind might be open to argument!!

The game was won and lost before the first ball was bounced !!! the following hours just verified it !!

[praha 10,547]

Soft = physically AND mentally. And just because you play AFL football doesn't mean you're automatically a hard nut and derived of not being soft. Players have been sacked for being soft in the past, I'm sure.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You just went and proved Bob's point.

Calling someone soft is just a throw away line for many people who are not intelligent enough to separate performance from endeavour.

[praha 10,547]

You just went and proved Bob's point.

I don't see how I did that. Bob said that a player's bad performance can't be placed beside their ability to make an effort and have an influence. For example, Miller had a bad game on Sunday, but because he has endeavour he is excused and is not soft?

To me, Miller is the type of player that is hard physically, but mentally isn't. To me, having one and not the other is classified as "soft". He's low on confidence and quality footballers don't get low on confidence. They lift when needed. Miller is a hard-nut that can't kick further then 40 meters. He's a show pony like Yze; Yze likes the classy kicks and big marks, Miller likes the hard hits and fights, yet both rarely put in a good game.

Bruce is weak physically. Mentally is up for debate because I think he's injured atm, but he's always been soft physically. He clearly backs out of contests and craps in his shorts everytime a player is running for him. If you can't see that, you're blind. You can't have one or the other. You need to have both.

And even if Bob's logic is accurate, how can you justify 2 poor seasons by Green? Yze? White? Don't say age. Because in that case they should be retired.

Any team that loses by 100+ points in a season is filled with softy's. How often do you see a premiership side lose by that much? Not often. Melbourne is full of push-overs, Green, Miller and Bruce the leaders in that category.

[The Backyard Charizard 1,178]

According to your description of soft, Name one player in our side who is NOT soft then!?!?!?!

We are either Physically strong and Mentally weak.....

Or Mentally strong and Physically weak.....

A few exceptions come to mind.... Daniel Bell, Nathan Jones, Matty Whelan and The skipper!

The rest of the squad in my opinion are lacking in one or the other....

But to make such a profound statement and called Brad Miller soft is outrageous....

I think the word soft is not the right word for this judgement on players.....

I class myself a a fairly strong bloke in both categories, but I can assure you that if Jonothan Brown was steaming towards me with eyes like a raging bull, I would 2nd guess my choice of career!

[Paul Gardner 6]

There have been lots of posts here about how 'soft' some players are, especially senior ones.

I don't think any are actually 'soft' - no one playing AFL is, but many/most are not naturally hard. Unfortunately, I think MFC has many (highly) skilled players who are not naturally hard. And I don't think that's new - eg Steven Stretch was a highly skilled player who is now largely remembered for shirking a full on confrontation with Dipeodomenico in the 87 GF. And I remember when the Duke was traded to Carlton, there was talk around that other teams considered Melbourne 'soft', and couldn't believe they were prepared to trade one player who wasn't.

And what's more, I don't think hardness is a learnt thing, I think it is a natural thing - you have it or you don't. It is also very different from 'bravery', like diving backwards into packs (Green has done this on occasion, and he is certainly not 'hard').

I guess the trick is to draft skilled players who are naturally hard. Not easy.

Does Melbourne not value naturally hard players enough?

The "other teams" were, most other teams, & quietly they loved to play against the Dees. They would even blood youngsters preferably against us.

[Mono 454]

The "other teams" were, most other teams, & quietly they loved to play against the Dees. They would even blood youngsters preferably against us.

And the Duke played in a premiership too.

[praha 10,547]

KrazyJay - Yep, they're pretty much the only ones imo.

[Guest Schtacker]

None of Moloney, McLean, Sylvia, Jones or McDonald are soft but our midfield is still shizen

[Mono 454]

None of Moloney, McLean, Sylvia, Jones or McDonald are soft but our midfield is still shizen

No they are not soft, but they are not highly skilled, and in the case of Moloney, McLean & Jones, they are not quick. These are (very) good, hard players but not top flight. If they had a Judd or Kerr or Goodwin with them, then .... who knows. Nick Stevens is similar to our boys. With Judd at Carlton, I bet he's relieved.

Melbourne has no top flight players ATM ie skilled, hard and with that extra something. But some are being paid as if they are top flight.