Leaderboard

Tom Sculley. I'm sorry for thinking that you were a lying, deceptive, dishonest, greedy little p$!%#. You're obviously worse than these things. Ditto Fat Fill.

Hogan

Im sorry Cale Morton

We won't look for depth, we already have that. We will look for class.

A few points: 1) Really bad selection decision not dropping a tall for Dawes. I'm not saying this with the benefit of hindsight as I made the comment as soon as the final teams were in on Saturday. The forward line looked really unbalanced on paper and so it proved on game day with a lack of pace and mobility inside 50. 2) This lack of balance up forward created a double problem. Firstly, we couldn't win a ground ball inside 50, especially in the first half when there were a lot of spillages inside 50. Secondly, we couldnt pressure their exits, as their small defenders ran away and exposed our lack of pace and mobility up forward. 3) Yes the ball movement around the ground was too slow, but I think credit must go to the opposition for stifling our flow. Collingwood defended our ball movement very, very well and just did not allow us any quick flow into our forward line. We also lack line breaking ball carriers off half back, players like Malceski and Shaw who could have broken the game up with their overlap running. 4) I wasn't too disappointed leaving the ground today. For me it was another step in the right direction with our effort and our defence and our competitiveness. 5) Of course 3 goals is not enough to win a game of footy and there's no doubt we need to get the balance between attack and defence right. But Roos has always spoken of getting defence right first and then focusing on other aspects of our game. And boy is he doing a mighty job with our defence. Last year we conceded 120 points against the Pies, this year we halved that to 60. The turnaround is nothing short of amazing. Defence wins titles amd for the first time in a long time I'm seeing a well drilled, well organised Melbourne team consistently giving 100% effort with a sustainable defence-orientated game plan. 6) I cannot believe some of the criticism on here. From where we have come from last year, a side that got pumped by a then-mediocre Gold Coast team at the MCG by 10 goals and a side that lost to Essendon by 25 goals, to a side that is now competing solidly against top sides. We have had competitive losses against the Swans and Pies and should've beaten Port. Of course it is still furstrating to lose but we have come a very long way in a short space of time. 7) If we bring the same effort next week we should be in with a good chance of beating Essendon.

There are posts everywhere which include what are now embarrassing comments. It's time we made an official list of humble pie statements. I'll start: Lynden Dunn - I apologise for repeatedly stating you weren't worth keeping on our list. I was wrong, and so horribly wrong. Neville Jetta - I apologise for claiming that you're a great trier but too slow. I was wrong Cameron Pedersen - I apologise for stating that you weren't up to AFL standard and that the only time you showed anything it was in defence. I was wrong.

I'm shocked that anyone that has had to sit through some of the crap we dished up in 2012-13 would complain about what they saw yesterday. Do you not remember when Essendon sticked us by 150 points 14 months ago? Go back and watch Ross Lyon's first season at Freo. He had a lot of talent and a lot of experience at his disposal but he taught them how to be more defensive and harder to score against and as a result they are now in line to have 3-5 years of consistent success. On paper they are probably only a top 6-8 team. Roos is building a structure and setting a standard for effort that new players have to then come into the side and work hard to attain. I thought it was fantastic that he never went away from his plan all day. You don't teach young footballers that hard work is a non negotiable by 'flicking a switch' and allowing them to be less accountable and run forward in hope. They'll learn themselves to take their chances because they'll know how hard they are to come by. Then we'll have a great team. If you sat in the stands during those consistent 100 plus loses I can't believe you don't agree. 2014 is only about setting standards, and it's a massive step forward.

Unlike a lot of the people on here. I loved the way the game was played yesterday. Hard, tough football where most kicks had to be earned. I hate the basketball end to end high scoring games. Give me a hard contest every day. Unfortunately we couldn't quite match it with Collingwood. Next year if our improvement continues we will win these games. Also the people on here who believe Collingwood were coasting, should listen to Beams after game comment that this was one the hardest game he had played in all year

This is where I disagree. McKenzie, Michie and Riley are midfield depth. They are not class. Strauss and Clisby are back 6 depth, they are not class. Toumpas, Kent, Salem and JKH are class, they are not depth, they just haven't developed. Undeveloped class like these guys are not depth players. We will not draft players who don't have the potential not to be class and we may look to trade out some lower end depth to speculate on class in the draft.

Out: Salem In: Kent I just don't think Salem is keeping up with the pace of the game that well and really struggled today and has been just hanging on for some time now. I've held the view all year that Kent is clearly in our best 22 and should be in the side, and from all reports was BOG for Casey on the weekend. The single change seems logical and timely. JKH played his worst game for the club to date but Roos has demonstrated that backing the player is his preferred method, so I suspect he'll get the opportunity to redeem himself. And lol at the guy who suggested Matt Jones might be dropped. There always seems to be one.

I won't correct this one, pal.

Swans didn't smash us did they?

Presumably the end goal is that all your friends see you've been to the MCG and it promotes the stadium. What that actually achieves I'm not sure but it will tick off somebody's KPIs so good luck to them.

What higher honour could be bestowed than the commendation of this august group of scholars and experts?

Terrible, small forward line. And robbing the backline of Dunn, please... And the desire to drop Dawes is an utter rejection of what your eyes have seen in the last 6 weeks since he has returned. He has straightened us up immeasurably and as a forward myself I can tell you, the way we have been kicking to him is the only pathetic aspect of our game at the minute. Defenders are hanging off him and hitting his body late from behind and our mids are letting them do it by kicking it on top of his head. Deliver the ball better and then complain about his output.

They need not; Pedersen rucks adequately to give the players 5 minutes a quarter rest. I think the bigger issue with Gawn is that he needs more than that. I do not see the hurry with Gawn. I love him - he's reasonably athletic for his size and he gets involved, and he's just so damn big. He's 21 and is years off his best though, and for every game where he has an impact, he has another where he offers nothing. I think for every game we play him we're rolling the dice as there's a 50/50 chance we'll get nothing from him; in a side that is already too top heavy, it just seems silly. Let him spend the next couple of years playing heaps of uninterrupted footy in the VFL and build his engine up, and whip him out when he's really ready to impact consistently.

We had them covered for height in just about every forward match-up (at times it was Keefe v Gawn, Frost v Dawes, Langdon and Seedman v Watts and Pederson etc.), but in trying to expose a team for height down back you need to be careful not to expose your own team for a lack of pace and mobility. I think we went too far yesterday, especially against a good running side like the Pies who have quick ball carriers down back. If we retain a Dawes-Frawley-Pederson-Watts forward set up then one of Gawn and Jamar should not play. Jamar as the better ruckman at present gets the nod for me. It's not that Gawny played badly yesterday, it's more a case of his presence throwing our balance out. You cannot have four talls in your forward line and then play two ruckmen on top of that. In today's footy I think you really need to go with one specialist ruckman and a back up option who can play as a tall forward. If they want to play Gawn and Jamar then one of the other tall forwards needs to be dropped. But for me, I'd currently go with Jamar in the ruck and Pederson as the back up ruckman / third tall forward.

How many Inside 50s did we have? And how slow did we move the footy?

I am also now thinking that Riley would be a very handy in against the Bombers. They don't react well to tackling pressure, and the Pigdog will give them no relief. If JKH gets rested as seems very possible based on Roos' post match comments, Riley to come in.

Beat me by about 30 seconds

We are not going to win with 3 goals but it was a unique rarity for a team with 3 goals to still be in the game in the last quarter. Umpires cost us a couple and gave them a couple of cheapies. It could have been a different result if we had those extra 2 coming into the last qaurter.

I remember not so long ago, when I used to fear dangerous small forwards...

Smart fella P-man. Smart, handsome fella.

How the fk does Bernie Vince get ping for holding the man on Pendles when they were both having a one on one scuffle! Pulled it out of his ass that umpy. Another protected species is pendles..

What I find interesting after attending today's game was seeing up close, at times when it was near me, what the umpires don't pay and what they do. The umpires weren't paying much and I generally like that but then they would pick out something when they didn't need to and you wonder why? There was the so called deliberate kick out of bounds, the ignoring of Elliot's high flying when the ball was no where near him, ignoring Clokes holding but pinging Dunn when he did, ignoring what was happening to Dawes in the contests but then paying a soft contest to Beams right in front when there was no chopping of the arms in the contest, which they weren't paying that day anyway.....I can go on and on. It didn't cost us the game but it is frustrating. My point is that the AFL, commentators and fans get in a tizz over the lack of goal camera technology. The idea that a ball may go thru for a goal and we don't know for sure whether it was touched or hit the post is a huge problem that may decide games and so. But really tight games are decided much more often by umpiring decisions up the field every week. And the fact interpretations change from week to week.

Dawes's work rate is always A1 and had to play against 2 or 3 today but it seems that his only trick is to run flat out on the lead in a straight line. The result is that he ends up too far from goal. Its also too predicatable, too easy to intercept and too easy for 3rd man up. Today he wasn't helped by the slow delivery and no small players at his feet. But I feel he needs to me able to mix it up a bit - stand and use his body a bit more or outsmart his opponent a little as to when and where he runs. Today, it seemed that there was no real teamwork on the forward line; this goes for the talls and the smalls that played there. It looked as if there were so many talls the smalls were told to stay out of there.

I'll give Roosy the benefit of the doubt. In a very short space of time he has turned around the worse midfield and defence in the league. They had to be first cabs off the rank in turning us around. They will get it right. Watts Viney and not sure who the other was all missed very gettable shots in the first 10mins of the last quarter and JKH'S has nailed other set shots previously like the one he missed in the last. Plenty to work with

It was 4 until the game was destroyed.

I think a couple of the kids are stuffed. I am hoping Tyson was just done by McAffer and will be back to his form next week but Salem needs a break and JKH might need one too.

I thought after a night to sleep it off you might actually realise that goals kicked isn't necessarily an indication of how well we played. -We kept a top 4 side to 61 points. -the fact that we had 2 goals in the third (Dawes 50/bernie vince) unallowed took a lot of spice out of the contest. Especially because the Dawes one went down and goldsack kicked a goal. -til 3/4 they only kicked 5 goals and if our 2 goals went through it would have been a different scoreline. -sure we don't go into a match to kick 3 goals but general play around the ground we did not get beat. -probably ran out of legs due to the NT game. -we prevented 85% of the run from collingwood and locked them down very well. -the result could have been changed from 3-5 moments rather than 100s of aspects like last year. The only thing we did really badly was a couple skill error executions, jetta and viney each made one when we could have kicked goals. But at the end of the day this style of football is great, we are harder and harder to beat. Sure we came up against a side that defended equally well, but they are a finals threat and we are not yet. P.S. We are going to play defensive football for a long time to come, so I think you might want to support a team that will not be playing this style because ultimately we will not be a massive scoring team

Oh thank god you said Smith. For a moment I thought you were going to say Weetra.....

Blease has had stacks of opportunity: in the VFL. If he can't do what is required of him in the lower level, I think it's backwards logic to then say he needs an opportunity at the top. Players like Riley and McKenzie have had to knock the door down to get their opportunities, so based on the VFL reports I've been reading, I doubt Blease is even in Roos' mind, let alone at the front of it.

Played a cracker today. We were violated by that umpire deeming the handball to Vince illegal. Killed the game. Fess up Campbell

Did Paul Roos kill Wayne Campbells dog or something? Jeez I know the umpire doesn't lose you the game, but was pretty damn close to it today!

Couldn't have said it better myself...

After today, I'm pretty confident we can beat the red & black goat rooters next week We lacked run today but we also lacked space Not enough credit is being given on here to Collingwood's defensive intent and structures. They were outstanding

Agree. My son was saying this on the way to the game. He was scared that their back flankers would just scoop up the crumbs and continually set up their forwards. That is what they did time and time again. Selection of the team probably started the rot.

Today was patheic Cant believe the amount of people on here whp are content with what they saw Three [censored] goals I am still angry

Today was another step in our road back to playing good football. We were competitive for most of the game again against a top 4 side. We are very much still a work in progress and have a considerable amount of upside, so while I am disappointed with a number of aspects from todays game I am very pleased with the direction the club is going and the effort the players are putting in.

Matt Jones out? Surely you're kidding... If we are to expose their lack of leg speed, Jones is the first player you want to be getting it to. Our hardest runner and burns opponents frequently - he is going from strength to strength at the moment and dropping him would be 'doing a Neeld'*. Kent to come in for a tall, probably Gawn (as much as I love him). *'Doing a Neeld' - an action which is spontaneous, often unexplained and always stupid.

Some of the negativity here is astonishing. How quickly people forget what this team was like a mere 12 months ago. We were regularly losing games by over 100 points. Isn't it nice to complain about losing to a top 4 team by 30 points for a change?!

Regarding the umpiring , can someone tell me when lying on your opponents back stopped becoming an in the back free kick. Feel it has a lot to do with the rolling malls we have to put up with these days. Stop penalising the player who can't possibly hit the ball out and pay in the back instead

Realistically this was the outcome I expected, and we should have lost by a bit less because we fluffed some easy shots in the last quarter, and were robbed of the Vince goal. This was our 2nd worst effort for the year, but I think it was admirable that we fought the game our defensively. Our midfield was well beaten, and Tyson was really tagged out of the game which didn't help. Our forward movement was also woeful, and Dawes had an absolute stinker. We aren't at the stage where we can afford too many of our top players to be down on form. Having said all that, we kept at it, we had a good first half, and our own errors were what really cost us. In the end if we used the ball better we would have gotten closer. The improvement is still palpable, we are still very much on the up, and the lessons learnt today are valuable. We dust ourselves off and we move on, remembering that this time last year we were embarrassed, humiliated and destroyed in nearly every game we played. Today we lost to a far better team in far better form in a respectable manner.

I actually don't think we were that bad. We controlled large chunks of the play at times but didn't enter the 50 anywhere as well as we could have. Salem was disappointing and it's for precisely that reason that I'd play him again. Dunn was great but someone needs to remind Dawesy that he needs to put his hands out in front. Viney will learn but I thought there were times where he was Parker like in his endeavour.

The 'harm minimisation' you speak of held them to 8 goals. It's a defensive basis to a developing game plan. The same one that Sydney and Fremantle use, but with years more familiarity, and a few more stars. Swan has been down on form recently, and Dan Cross played him tight and hard. Cloke was beaten by McDonald, and got some brilliant service in the second half from their midfielders. To say we were meek is to disrespect the defensive effort that they couldn't match with confidence, speed and polish going inside 50. Remember last year? Which version do you prefer? I know which one I do.

Out : Salem, Matt Jones In : Blease (we need some line breaking run), McKenzie for M Jones (turns ball over too often & needs to get it more often). Also - no way JKH should be dropped. He had a bad quarter & and needs an arm around him and pump up & start next week - dropping him would be what Neeld would do so Roos will do opposite. Also, we need to expose Dons lack of leg speed.

Matt jones 23 disposals. What game did you watch joeboy?

From a serious doubter, I thought Watts played well, worked hard , didn't shirk it

Slow ball movement and continually outnumbered in the forward line.