Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 22/07/14 in all areas

  1. We had Collingwood players come to our school today, Harry O, Clinton Young and Jonathan Marsh (rookie list). I asked them about Melbourne's improvement and their thoughts on the way we play. It was amazing to hear them say how much harder we are to play against and the competitive edge that has been added over the past year. They also commented on how brutal our defence has become to play against, stating during the Queens birthday game it was tough to break it down. Most of all i was impressed to see the respect that has clearly been instilled into opposition players who no longer take us lightly. This time last year we had Collingwood players, Goldsack and Jamie Elliot to stated we werent too good at the moment. Great to hear.
    9 points
  2. I noticed on numerous occasions on Sunday that the Port players would grab the Melb player's arm ,before immobilising them with the other arm. If the tackled player has had no prior chance to dispose, and cannot get the ball to boot, he must dispose of the ball illegally, with one hand. Is that a free? There appeared to be no consistency in the umps' interpretation. (The only consistency was that we were penalised for this, but they weren't ,on the couple of occasions we managed to pin them in this way. Riley did it once....is it an Adelaide tactic?) If a player's arm is behind his back in a "hammer lock", there is no point in trying to handball, which would just result in a throw. So it appears to the ump that he is not making a genuine attempt to dispose. Therefore, I think it's an excellent tactic to grab one arm, and pull it back when tackling. Too often players grab the hips, and the tackled player then lifts his arms and gets a handball off. We should copy Port 's tackling methods. Incidentally, I would like to argue against the hackneyed myth of "rewarding the perfect tackle". However perfect the tackle, if a player has no opportunity to dispose, and is unable to kick or handball because of the tackle , it SHOULD NOT be a free . Commentators and umpires do not seem to understand this. The over-riding principle should be to protect the player who has the courage to go in first for the ball.
    8 points
  3. It was probably locked because you are a d!ckhead. I'm only assuming, so that wasn't abuse. But you are a d!ckhead and Newton sucks.
    6 points
  4. Me and Roosy are Grimes apologists.
    6 points
  5. I believe he will pick a successor from within the current coaching group unless an outstanding candidate appears. Rawlings started coaching in 2007 so has 8 years experience. By all reports he has great rapport with the players. He was head VFL coach, interim AFL coach and has worked under Terry Wallace, Michael Voss, Mark Neeld and now Paul Roos. Ok, apart from Roos that isn't an outstanding list of coaches but importantly he has experience at 3 clubs under different regimes. If he is re-contracted at the end of this year, I'd be surprised if he doesn't become the one (unless an outstanding option or former Roos pupil appears). By 2017 he will have 10 years assistant experience including 3 years of Roos mentoring. If that doesn't make him an ideal candidate to continue Roos' work I'm not sure what would. A one year understudy is insufficient to learn all you can from Roos.
    5 points
  6. Anyone think Rawlings could be a chance
    5 points
  7. Why are our tall forwards always injured....oh wait
    4 points
  8. What? Are people seriously still in doubt that Roos will see out the 3 years?
    4 points
  9. Story in the Age today. Has put off all contract talks until the end of the season. We could organise a trade of late draft picks so as to not effect our FA compo pick.
    4 points
  10. Roosy was impressive as always. Hutchy said at the end of the interview we could talk to you all night and I thought yeah, I would have happily sit here listening to Roosy for a few hours. Still hard to believe he's actually our coach. As for the rest of the show, was the first time I've seen it and it was pretty bad. Four people with terrible opinions at a table arguing with each other. And Caro... What a horrible, spiteful person. Glad I tuned in for the Stuart Dew backstory and how the search for a successor is taking shape.
    4 points
  11. I imagine we'll just get Neeld back in and take it from there.
    4 points
  12. "kick to the top of the square was a default mechanism from the Neeld game plan which we are still trying to shake from the players" (paraphrasing)
    4 points
  13. Four wins is improvement enough on the Neeld years. But to add to that, we've lost five games in which we were in front at some point in the fourth quarter (GWS, Bulldogs x 2, Port x 2). We've also lost another two games in which we were in a legitimate winning position (St Kilda, Gold Coast). Then there are the middle of the road games in which we've been competitive without being really in a winning position (Sydney and Collingwood). Then there's the four game we weren't in (West Coast, North, Freo, Geelong). Four wins, four games we could (truly) realistically have won, another two in which we could possibly have won, and another two in which we pushed better sides than us all day. That is so, so, so much better, and I haven't even started yet on the type of football we've played or the individual improvements.
    4 points
  14. Excuse you, that would be Roosy and I.
    4 points
  15. Not much that hadn't been covered already. Most notable was: - re the Wingard free, did not dispute that it was a free, but questioned whether one should have been awarded to Pedersen for a similar incident. The manner in which he said it indicated to me that he shared the frustration over the imbalance in the umpiring. - broke down the three key mistakes towards the end of the game. Jones quickly playing on he attributed to Jones not hearing the whistle so [censored] happens basically. Dawes bomb to no-one he said was clearly the wrong choice, but Dawes knew that as soon as he came off the ground. Grimes OOTF he said was the "most forgiveable" given the situation and the fact that Grimes has no option but to play on quickly and therefore attempt the risky kick under pressure. - said he had not heard about the Malceski rumour until coming on the show and that he had not approached him. Did however confirm that a player like Malceski is needed, i.e. a running half back with clean distribution. Conceded that as good as our defensive group is, we lack a player of that ilk.
    4 points
  16. A poster recently pointed out how awful we are because both Geelong and Freo (who belted us in the past 2 weeks) got smashed by the Saints and GWS ran Geelong close. That was his evidence to show how inept and far off we are compared to every other team. Mind-blowing logic but let's have a look at our season rather then team X beat team Y so Team X is way better then MFC. We have 4 wins to date. R4 Carlton, R7 Adelaide, R9 Richmond, R13 Essendon. 4 games we really should've won. Rd 1 v Saints, Rd 8 Bulldogs, R15 Bulldogs, Rd 18 PA. Winning positions late in those games but couldn't get it done. Plenty of skill errors/decision making but some shoddy umpiring decisions compounded the problem. 5 games we got close (pushed) but never looked like winning it. R5 GC -8, R11 Power -20, R6 Sydney -31, R12 Pies -33, R3 GWS -32 4 games we were beaten all over the park and scoreboard R2 WCE, R16 Freo, R17 Geelong, R14 North So 4 games out of 17, we were not up to scratch. Hardly "so far off the competition, it's not funny" We are doing this with only Jones, Tyson, Cross and Vince as our "trusted" mids. We need to build on that list (Viney, Riley, Toumpas, Trengove, Salem, Kent, Michie need to step up). But clearly this season is a pass and something we can build on.
    3 points
  17. True. It's annoying seeing supporters moan about us taking Toumpas instead of Wines. Fact is Toumpas was better than Wines at under age level, and 18/18 recruiters would've picked him over Wines. Macrae is better than both of them comfortably at this stage. He's averaging 27 disposals, 5th highest total disposals in the entire league ahead of guys like Pendlebury, Cotchin, Boak, Selwood, Martin. He has had an incredible year and is head and shoulders above everyone else from that draft. Would've been nice to land him...
    3 points
  18. With 7 matches during 2014 where we have scored 51 or less points it's apparent we are having more trouble scoring this season than any time in recent memory so I went through the records to check and found a few interesting facts. 1. We have yet to kick a century this year (best was 14.7.91 V Richmond. The last time we failed to kick a century during a season was 1953. 2. Our average score per match this season is 61.2 points. This is our worst since 1920 when we averaged 58.8 points during a 5 win 11 loss season. 3. Our leading goal scorer this season is Chris Dawes with just 16. Since 1920 the lowest winning tally was 20 by Barrie Vagg in 1966 The silver lining is our Average points against this season. At 83.8 points per game this is the best since 1971 when we conceded 81.4 points per game during a 11 and a half win season. Considering we reached the finals 12 times since 1971 our defence is holding up well.
    3 points
  19. I don't know who locked the thread but, on my reading it didn't add anything to this site so it was a good idea, as is the closing of this thread quite frankly.
    3 points
  20. Jade Rawlings is very highly resepected. Youre talkiing shlt HH
    3 points
  21. Can you imagine if her and Barrett procreated? The offspring would be something halfway between an old jar of pickles and a prolapsed rectum.
    3 points
  22. Good post, I wrote something similar this morning: I think the rules are very clear. If you have had prior opportunity you must correctly dispose of the ball immediately (which is what Dunn did however the umpire blew his whistle too early). The same thing happened when Pedersen chased down Impey, he disposed of the ball straight away only this time the umpire didn't blow his whistle before Impey disposed of the ball like he did in the Dunn case. If you don't immediately dispose of the ball it is holding the ball. If you haven't had prior opportunity you must just attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. If the ball drops out of your hands or is knocked out, that is not a throw or incorrect disposal in this situation becuase you have not had prior opportunity so long as you are attempting to dispose of the ball. There is and never has been a rule called "dropping the ball" and there is a very big difference between dropping and throwing. Perfect example was when Watts had the ball on the weekend and he didn't just drop the ball, he actually threw it becuase he had one arm held. It was only that the umpire was blind-sided that he couldn't see so got away with it. If the ball dropped out of his hands or fell out it would have been fine becuase he didn't have prior opportunity and you could see he was trying to free his other arm to dispose of the ball. He just got lucky that the umpire didn't see him throw the ball. The sad part of this rule is that flopping around like a fish out of water now constitutes trying to dispose of the ball and I think that some changes to the rules in these pack situations need to be addressed. There was a great example in the game on the weekend where a commentator literally had no idea of the rules. The situation was Howe picked up the ball and was tackled straight away, he went to kick the ball but was slung in a tackle and the ball missed his foot. Therefore, he didn't have prior opportunity but he did attempt to dispose of the ball. Anthony Hudson was then saying along the lines of "that was incorrect disposal, therefore it should be holding the ball". Anthony Hudson was wrong and the umpire correctly called play on. People watching then hear what Hudson says and think that is the rule which confuses them even more.
    3 points
  23. Correction: We've had a "bare minimum of wins". And enjoyment.
    3 points
  24. I doubt Frawley knows much at all either. He and his manager have decided to make the decision after the season, and I think Frawley would currently be blissfully ignorant as his manager runs around making all sorts of insane demands to see what he can get for his client. I honestly believe making a decision at season's end is in Frawley's best interests, and that it is what he is honestly going to do. It's the best way for him to make a fully informed decision, and while it might be a selfish decision, so it should be.
    3 points
  25. He kept Boak to the second lowest number of possessions he's had this year.If Boak had had 40 possessions the same people ignoring Jordie's input would be asking why we didn't tag him. It's the football equivalent of being colour blind.
    3 points
  26. What frustrated the hell out of me is for the greatest majority of the game when a player took possession of the ball and was jumped on the umpire quickly blew the whistle and balled it up. But on four occasions he decided to sit and wait and wait and then ping for no attempt - each time it was against us. (there was one also against wingard - although he was just lying on it with no-one on top of him). Now maybe there was no genuine attempt to get it out but why did this happen only when we were on the bottom of the pack. The Viney holding the ball. No problem if you want to call that a free against but there were about 10 others that were identical that ended up in a ball up situation. It seems we really get the rough end of the "no genuine attempt" ruling. They umpires dont pay it all - except against us. As had been pointed out - if they want to pay that holding the ball against Viney - fine - pay others against the other mob which were no different - if they want to pay a free against Watts - then pay the same to Pederson at the other end. The problem with 3 umpires is that dont all interpret the same way and we end up with the rough end of the pineapple.
    3 points
  27. Baghdad Bob is right though. There's a huge discord here on Demonland between this year's reality and this year's expectations. In reality we are a 4-6 win team that sits 16th @ 73%. What matters to me is not the umpires, or Grimes, or Dawes, or Bail, or Jones, or a thousand other errors that Demonlanders can pick on and slash their wrists over every week throughout the season. What matters to me is where we have come from and where we are going. I can only see positives this year, and personally I get sick and tired of the carping at specific players, and the disillusionment generally, over what has been a much more competitive outcome. I didn't expect any transition under Roos to be quick, but for the building blocks to start to come into place in his first year. BTW, get 22 Daniel Crosses and you'd have a team like North Melbourne ... a bottom-of-the-8 team with a great, honest work ethic, but no one star who can break a game apart when it's really needed.
    3 points
  28. I'm not overly concerned about the low scoring this season. Roos' job was to stem the bleeding first and foremost. He's made reasonable ground on that objective. If we are scoring an average of 61.2 a game NEXT season, then I'll start to worry.
    2 points
  29. The team will get a pass mark when it beats Brisbane and GWS.
    2 points
  30. Use pick 3 on Petracca Trade pick 4 for Tomlinson and their second rounder
    2 points
  31. It was Malthouse's wife wasn't it? Yeah she loved hearing that piece of news. It was cringeworthy watching her try to bait Roosy on the dinner that precisely no-one but her gave a stuff about. She is such a slimeball. An ugly human in every sense.
    2 points
  32. The only times Caro showed any genuine interest in anything for the entire show was firstly, when she tried to bait Paul Roos about not going to Gills dinner (to which he gave her absolutely nothing to work with which obviously irritated her), and secondly, when it was mentioned that someone's wife had an argument with Mark Robinson - her eyes just lit up like a fat kid in a candy store!
    2 points
  33. But he's a whole lot better than "Mark!!" Jamar!
    2 points
  34. The reasoning behind the wording and interpretation of the "holding the ball" rule is to encourage movement of the ball, and free flowing play. It is having the opposite effect. The game is rapidly getting more and more ugly. In my opinion, the free kick should go against the tackler who is second to the ball, then grabs the player who went in first. He then makes every attempt to STOP him from disposing of the ball, by hugging the ball to the tackled player's chest. So in fact it is the TACKLER who is "holding the ball". The tackler should be required to try to either wrench the ball from the opponent, or knock it free. If he causes a stoppage by hugging the ball to his opponent, it should be a free against the tackler, and it should be paid straight away, before other players dive in to generate the "rolling maul".
    2 points
  35. I'm of the opinion that gws might only use 3 picks in the draft. They did something similar last year. Because they have activated an end of first round pick that gives them 3 picks inside the top 22/23 ish depending on picks allocated for free agents. If they were to gain say our first pick for one of the above mentioned players they might not even use their 2nd round pick. We could bargain for a player and their 2nd round pick. It's something roosy has done a lot. I would say their 3rd round pick is definitely up for grabs around 40. In trading for say shiel they would want our first pick because he is still contracted, but we could give that up for sheil and maybe their 2nd and 3rd rounds. Roosy would then use those in my opinion for a player like the Vince trade. This would get us in a couple more semi-experienced mids. Or we might be able to use one on malceski if frawley goes to not dilute our pick for him. I don't think the swans would get a 1st round pick for him as compensation so a 2nd round pick would be about 38, they would take a pick around 22/23.
    2 points
  36. I've consistently dismissed Thompson as the successor because it just doesn't feel right. I felt it may be too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Too many strong personalities. But I do acknowledge the amazing chemistry between he and Roos on AFL360. They are very much on the same page. Bomba can't stay on at Essendon under Hird. I just don't think it will be tenable and I don't think he'd want to. He also didnt want the senior coaching role to begin with and took it over exceptionally reluctantly. Out of sheer necessity really. So what are Bomba's options? Presumably he'd be looking at a position at another club. Before the drug saga at Essendon he did express a joy at being just an assistant, shielded from the spotlight and the politics. He has experience guiding a relatively inexperienced senior coach from the position of assistant. Some would say with relative success. Could he come to Melbourne? He was quite comfortable taking a back seat previously. Could he handle being an assistant to Roos? I definitely think so. Could he be at MFC as an additional senior advisor to an inexperienced Ling or Hayes as senior coach? I'd be surprised if he didnt relish such a role. Guidance in addition to Roos, that would make Roos' imminent departure less significant? I'm beginning to see it more and more as a possibility. Maybe a pipedream, but I think it would work well for us.
    2 points
  37. Well I found it funny that the one incorrect disposal call from the umpires was against Nate Jones when he had his back to the umpire, in a game where there were numerous opportunities to pay that free kick he totally guessed on that one.
    2 points
  38. of all the rubbish that pollutes the modern game, the instant free kick for being tackled with no prior opportunity just might the number one most infuriating. We copped at least 6 or 7 of these on Sunday
    2 points
  39. Exactly.. A fully fit Clark would have made a huge difference. You only have to look at his 2012 youtube highlights just to see what a big power forward he was. When he kicked 4 goals in the first QTR against gws I thought he would easily kick atleast 8 or night.Plus Dawes would be playing alot better footy with Clark Next him aswell. Not getting double teamed and taking the best defender every week. So many what ifs....
    2 points
  40. I doubt Gary Lyon knows much at all, he spends too much time with Barrett. I loved him as a player but his involvement with the club post playing career has been nothing short of abominable.
    2 points
  41. Whilst I can understand the interest in the successor, I'm more interested and concerned in the now and how Roos intends to lift Melbourne out of the mire, iron out our deficiencies and inconsistent performances, improve our list and our percentage. And significantly get our club off the bottom of the ladder.
    2 points
  42. I'm grateful yourself and others have relayed it as I couldn't stomach that lot.
    2 points
  43. Watched him closely live He nearly always uses the ball well He is almost too clever for his own good he seems to know intuitively where to go defensively or offensively but I just see that his teammates don't use him Many times Dawes had three defenders on him as he led to the flank Watts was making position alone in the safe in the centre the kick inevitably went to Dawes Perhaps his teammates don't like him directing them which I thought he did too much early Third quarter he stopped pointing and just seemed to be everywhere up and down the ground and just could not be ignored Even when Port tried to tag him he seemed to roll off on his own to the right spot until someone used him I have always been frustrated by him but he does not impose himself physically but certainly has skills in excess of most other players I would suggest that when we use those attributes we win "We play well when Watts does" No he plays well we don't always use him "Watts plays well when we do" yes when we are playing well we use him He enhances the team He won't and can't do it by himself it is a team game Watts is a young team player The team and he will only get better
    2 points
  44. He doesn't play for Richmond...
    2 points
  45. I just watched the replay and in no way did the umpires affect the outcome, we benefited from some iffy decisions too The free against Watts to Wingard is a free every day of the week and if the teams and decision were reversed I suspect this site would be in meltdown for it not being paid. The well documented lack of composure in the final minutes when we had possession and the lead cost us the game
    2 points
  46. Look I wouldn't say no to Dylan Shiel, Adam Treloar, Josh Kelly and Jeremy Cameron coming to the dees in exchange for Dan Nicholson and a fourth rounder.
    2 points
  47. Is that a red sky at night, or in the morning?
    2 points
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00
×
×
  • Create New...