Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/02/2020 in all areas

  1. Boo-hoo. There’s millions of Aussies affected by COVID who have accepted a pay cut/lost their job; have had their family life disrupted by being locked down and becoming default teachers, whilst still trying to do their normal job. As for the public shaming - well, if you’re happy to bask in public praise, you have to cop the public criticism when you put in a sh1tful performance (not for the first time in recent years).
    11 points
  2. If your gonna make a video (Max and Gus) and post it on the demons website before the game about how important your golf clubs and surfboard are whilst away from the state, then surely they must be well rested and ready to bring 100% of their ability to each game of footy which has been reduced in length by 20%? Disrupted family life?! Please! Try having 3 kids (7yo, 4yo and 1.5yo) at home every day while both parents work full time and you have to home school the oldest one while the others harass you constantly.
    10 points
  3. Why do we have to be so revisionist about 2018? We beat West Coast in Perth and GWS at the G in the final two rounds, both of whom were top 8 sides. We finished the H&A year with more wins over the 2018 top 8 than Collingwood did. Our draw was no "easier" than Collingwood's, in fact it was harder. It's all largely irrelevant to the current discussion but I just cannot stand people making up sh*t about 2018 to suit their current narrative.
    6 points
  4. Hopefully they cop it on the chin and move on, if they feel offended or upset they can jog on.
    5 points
  5. In these bleak times, we can still take enjoyment from Collingwood losing a match they should have won.
    4 points
  6. You've got fundraisers trying to raise money to make us the best club we can be and you've got the footballing face of the business, the players. The performance was unacceptable and one of the fundraisers came out and gave them a whack for it. If players are disappointed, imagine if they played at Collingwood or Hawthorn. Neither club would accept the [censored] the players dished up the other night.
    4 points
  7. Maybe they'll start to understand how filthy the supporter base was on Thursday night then.
    4 points
  8. Jordan Lewis (4x Premiership Winner): “I certainly think he has the right to. He is a voice to the members purely from the football club and that was his assessment,” Lewis told Saturday Stretch. “And I don’t think we can disagree with him. “It was a hard game to watch and the players would be disappointed with their performance and the coaches would be disappointed as well. “It just shows that everyone in football, whether you’re playing or not playing or part of the board, everyone hurts when you put out a performance like that.” Why Demons president ‘has the right’ to publicly criticise team after ‘lifleless’ performance
    4 points
  9. Why on earth would we need Goodwin to respond? We need a response on the field. I'm in agreement with Bartlett's initial comments here, now continue keeping them accountable behind closed doors.
    4 points
  10. Defending begins from your fwd 50 plus mids..ours was no existent.. the ball was flying out of our fwd 50 with zero pressure...Not sure what’s happened to Roos foundations of playing both ways...
    4 points
  11. It was noted on game day , post match about our behaviours on the sidelines. Players and coaches looking confused. The ‘ Round So Far’ video with Cornes makes for some interesting viewing. No direction, lifeless, no buzz and no voice coming from the interchange were some words used about us coming out of the Port camp post game according to Cornes. They were surprised at how poor we were. We saw the Swans throw the kitchen sink at the Saints in the 3rd quarter and get within a couple of kicks before they were eventually overrun by a better team. After Port showed their hand in early in the game it seemed too hard a task by us to turn it around. Why after a solid 3 game block did we witness one of the most inept performances in the last 4 years? Spiritless and unprofessional on so many levels this performance. Blokes wanting to dish off the ball for the sake of it, not my responsibility you take it and do something. That’s what it looked like to me all night.
    4 points
  12. Guys, come on. This season is bad enough already without posters pretending to want to fight each other over a difference of opinion. Just put each other on ignore.
    4 points
  13. [censored] yeah Freo!
    3 points
  14. It's not the same volume though, is it? It's 17 games, not 22, and it's 16 minute quarters, not 20. That's not all that important though. The reality of professional sport such as the AFL is that it is discussed in the media and in public. It is a very different situation to most other industries. Matthew Nicks apologised to Adelaide supporters yesterday, for what the Crows dished up. As has been said by others, if the players lap up positive commentary when we do well, then it's not unreasonable for them to be hit with criticism when we play poorly. Maybe when that criticism comes from within the club, as it has done here, it will act as some sort of light switch or circuit breaker for the players who otherwise justify disregarding criticism as "noise". I don't advocate for Bartlett, or Pert, or Goodwin, or anyone else from the club, mouthing off frequently. But a one-off from Bartlett has the potential to do good, or certainly more good than harm.
    3 points
  15. Will Buckley buckle under pressure and admit the buck stops with him for bucking the protocols? Buckley’s I’d say. Anyway it will cost him big bucks.
    3 points
  16. This exchange shows some fantastic analysis from both of you, cheers for talking technical football! IMOs Rusty's description is exactly what happened and binman, your analysis of the zones is correct. We play a game where players need to leave their direct opponent to cover. We've seen this for a decade in AFL but its rarely shown well on tv. The stand out for me in the piece was actually how we allowed the player to get the easy block on Lever. He looked half hearted, but honestly that's because by the time it happened there was nothing he could do. Lever and OMac were fine with their player swap. That's how positional defenders play. You can see Harmes got sucked towards the ball, and his player dropped back and blocked the space in front of Lever forcing him to run wide. In that situation, Harmes needed to play as part of the zone rather than man on man, but he didn't. I think the reason he didn't is the great big hole in front of him that TMac (next to the umpire) and Gawn jogged towards the goals: if they had pushed a touch harder into that space, Harmes wouldn't have had to choose between defending the lead and protecting the block. Once it was clear the lead was off Harmes rejoined the zone and pushed hard to try and cover Georgidaes, but he didn't get there. TMac, howver, jogged into nowhere when the kick came in. He was front on, watching the lead unfold and should have seen the block on Lever that gave Georgiades space and run to him. Even if he didn't push hard the first time to block the hole, he should have seen the block happen, and pushed to cover Georidaes, but he continued to jog towards no man's land (not the lead block and not the hot spot - Georiades). When he finally did react (later than either Harmes or Langdon) and move towards the right position, it was too late. Note, TMac was the spare player and needed to hit the contrst. Langdon was reluctant to go hard because that would have left his man free at the fall of the ball.
    3 points
  17. I'm in favour of Bartlett's comments. I know there have been a few who have queried whether it's appropriate for him to have unloaded on the entire club. IMO, it is. If there was any thought in the minds of the coaches or players that they had indefinite/unlimited time to work on their issues, this messaging indicates that is not correct. We have problems. They need to be fixed. And we can't wait forever for them to be fixed.
    3 points
  18. Along with the Tommy Mac selection we can say it was one of the poor selection moves. His impact was negative, Boak took him to the cleaners. ...If anyone needed to step up in the middle it was Angus but yet again he was left on the outer. We're often beaten at the selection table before we hit the ground... It was very definitely a mistake...
    3 points
  19. Has everyone forgotten we had a major football department review and overhaul a mere 9 months ago? We chose to have the coaches we have. Or we couldn't get who we wanted so had to settle for second, third best. Lots of names being thrown around. Looks like wishful thinking. I mean why would the names being mentioned want to come to the mfc. Re Richardson. I was critical of his appointment and I've had a really good look at his CV. I see nothing that says he is a good coach or has been part of a successful club. He leaves the Saints and they now sit 3rd on the ladder. I have yet to see a positive impact of his recruitment to mfc. I hope someone can shed some light on why we hired him.
    3 points
  20. Wins! We should be winning COMFORTABLY in the next 2 games if we're serious. Wins in the next 2 games are expected, they don't mean anything. It's the performances EVERY WEEK for the remainder of the season, nothing less than 100% effort will cut it. Every week. No excuses.
    3 points
  21. Complrtely agree. A bizarre selection. I thought we'd play him back, but he said prior to the match he'd play midfield and a bit forward. If he was manning Boak in the middle did he follow Boak to half back as well? We've already got Gus and Harmes being played out of position because we can't fit them in the midfield and we bring in yet another mid? Did they want to use Harmes on Gray and Gus on a wing, therefore neither could play on Boak? I just don't understand the thinking. Can anyone constructively illuminate me on this?
    3 points
  22. Sheeds would have shaken the whole Club. which is exactly what we needed. We have had numerous opportunities over the years, but appointing First Time Coaches is easier, and they behave themselves
    3 points
  23. Good stuff Gorgo....2 seconds ! Keep em coming. Consider yourself selected for the upcoming spring carnival... ...not long now. Stay safe gang.
    3 points
  24. Wow. That is a disgrace!!
    3 points
  25. I was told this by an ex assistant coach at the Dees back in 2015 when we bumped into him while we were having beers and a BBQ just before new years eve in Corowa. He comes up every year during the summer period by the Murray with his family. Melbourne sought out Ross Lyon, Michael Malthouse and also Alistair Clarkson at the time. The theme was to go for an experienced coach as the board felt the players needed a fair shake up by a good hard taskmaster. When they spoke to Ross Lyon he declined as he had already told the club that he had committed to the saints. Garry Lyon and Ross Lyon shared the same manager in Craig Kelly, and Kelly even told Lyon that Ross had verbally committed to the saints but just hadn't signed as of yet. Ross then behind everyone's back has a secret meeting with the dockers and the rest is history. Even his manager Craig Kelly was caught completely off guard. Melbourne wanted him, but Ross had bigger things going on. Clarkson was offered a huge package deal. Garry Lyon and to a degree Stynes really pushed Clarkson hard, but he was contracted at the time and knew that a dynasty was only around the corner. Lyon then spoke to Malthouse. Mick had already confirmed that he was taking time off coaching (this was in 2011 after he finished up at the pies) and instead was looking at going into the media. It was there that Malthouse Apparently gave a glowing and raving endorsement about one of his young and up and coming assistant coaches in Mark Neeld. After the Dees missed out on their targeted experience men, they then changed their direction and interviewed the likes of Brendan McCartney, Alan Richardson and Mark Neeld. The rest is history as they say. All I will say is Garry Lyon tried what every melbourne supporter wanted at the time and that was go for the experienced coach we needed. Unfortunately we just ran out of options it seems. I dont blame Garry for the Neeld [censored] up.
    3 points
  26. Yeah umm no. The last time he was involved seriously with the club, he brought Mark Neeld in. Garry is a passionate MFC supporter, but he should be nothing more or nothing less.
    3 points
  27. I think Bartlett speaking out was more of a way to connect to members. He knows we’ve had enough.
    3 points
  28. True. Maybe our picks just don’t develop because of the rotten culture they are put in?
    2 points
  29. They are up there having a holiday then it would seem. Well rested and bringing a well rested game. Again, it comes back to the fact that nobody in this playing group has much fear, if any, of SG. No venom no ability to "enforce" and impress upon the playing group the minimum acceptable standards required to get a game, week in and week out.
    2 points
  30. I think a very great number of people agree with you fully. We have seen it all - from ridiculous and continuous team selections, a complete lack of strategies for any particular game/opposition, a noticeable breakdown in communication and spirit between team members, under-performance in the development of talented but raw players, and so the story goes. We have provided a need in major footballing skills personnel to seek alternative employment with other clubs - their attrition proved to be so fatal that most cannot get a regular game, elsewhere. Wasted footballing careers and members'/supporters' expectations - these hopes are not unreasonable - static incompetence across the FD amateur array, that now reflects the poor decision-making of the MFC Board and its leadership. Next season, in footballing terms, is still a long, long way off to achieve just some of the remediation that is long overdue (years) and thus, in the eyes of the beholders, it is time, this week, to sack Goodwin and re-appoint a whole FD to begin the process of re-establishing our dignity and due entitlement.
    2 points
  31. At the end of the day, this is it. Part A of the organisation is trying to move the club forward and expand and Part B is not keeping up, but also being lacklustre about it. That’s frustrating for Part A, which more pertinently has the ultimate say over the structure and composition of Part B!
    2 points
  32. The most perplexing part of all this is that we have a full list. Last year was explained away by injuries and yet here we are. And, where is the player development? - all our 2018 draftees are treading water if not going backwards. I am always mindful that coaches have families and a sacking has great personal consequences but it is crisis time and I fear that Goodwin won’t be able to come back from this. There is no spinning the loss on Thursday. It seems to have become a watershed because it highlighted systemic flaws in the game plan, inability to execute basic skills and lack of pride and passion.
    2 points
  33. I have kept saying that just because you sign a contract to pay a coach x-amount per year, it does not mean you have to pay him the same if you end the contract early. All you have done is agree to pay him x-amount over the designated time if the coach is there for the designated time. If you cut the coach loose before the end, you negotiate a reduced pay-out.
    2 points
  34. After the two games in Adelaide we could commandeer The Ghan up to Alice and play Collingwood, Fremantle and Essendon. The first two can fly in from Perth together and the Bombers can get the same train down from Darwin. If Gold Coast are also penciled in to play in the top end against someone they could get the same train down and play Collingwood. Essendon and the Pies could each be based at one of the drug and alcohol free communities in the area to keep them out of trouble.
    2 points
  35. If you want to discuss the game take it to the post match thread or start another thread about the defensive zones. Interesting discussion but let’s keep this thread on topic.
    2 points
  36. Fantastic research. All I see is OMac giving his man too much space and not sticking on him.
    2 points
  37. DZ.... what a win by the ‘Hawks, very interesting series coming up against the 2 headed monster. The play ins are not of that much interest but getting going early will be a good sign for the Avs. I think Vegas with the addition of Lehner will tip them over the top, they look really good and adding a guy of that quality in net, wow.
    2 points
  38. That's the great thing about being a man of few words, when you speak people listen.
    2 points
  39. Dazzler, Brown, Reiwoldt and Lyon's football record speaks for their football skill - not their ability to analyse a game of football. Riewoldt is not too bad but give him a couple more years out of the game and he'll be as [censored] poor as the other two at what they are now paid to do. Analyse football. I acknowledge Omac didn't have great game, but unlike some of his team mates he kept working hard. And to be honest in a game where the team was so pathetic i judge players on effort. Omac is a limited player, but kept giving his all. I thought Sparrow was just ok but i give him huge tick because he busted a gut and kept going. I also acknowledge my Omac bias, which is why i said i would look the the vision to see if i was right about him not playing on Georgiades much at all (and if he didn't, that talk about him being schooled by a rookie being wrong). I have just finished watching: every involvement in the game of both Georgiades and Omac on AFL stats pro. I watched the involvements of Westhof too to see who was on him. And Lever's involvements for good measure. For context, Georgiades kicked 3.2, had 11 possessions, 4 uncontested marks and one contested mark. Half of his possessions he got up field with omac nowhere in sight. Two of the non contested marks were taken on Omac but both were all but impossible to spoil. The bottom line: Omac had a poor game. Certainly played on Georgiades, and more than i thought was the case. But as i suspected he was not on him all the time. Not even close to it. And in terms of Omac being schooled by Georgiades, or taught a lesson that is just wrong. Not one of his goals were Oscar's fault. And only one of his two points could remotely be considered Omac's fault (a mark on the lead that was impossible to stop). In fact with all three of the goals Georgiades kicked, Omac was wasn't even on him. Goal one i''ll get to last. Goal 2, Omac was on Westhoff, who went he up with in a one on one marking contest. Lever appeared to be on Georgiades. Lever flew unnecessarily (as Omac had it covered), so two up, when only one was needed. Lever did not impact the contest, Omac did, spoiling the Westhof attempted mark. Gray got the crumb and hand balled forward to a running Georgiades, who goaled. The third goal was terrible from the dees, but again nothing to do with Omac. Omac was again on Westhof. May was on Dixon, with Maxy dropping back. Those players all flew for a mark and with no one on him Georgiades ghosted in from the side, passing Salem in the process to take an easy mark. Lever was at the front of the marking contest and stayed down. It is not clear who was on Georgiades but it wasn't Omac. I would have thought Lever should have been watching him, but maybe that is unfair. But in any case that goal was not on Oscar. So to the first Georgiades goal. I looked at the vision of that more than 10 times on the kayo replay. I paused it it a number of times to see who was in screen etc and then watched the replay they showed on the broadcast (which was a different angle - from behind the goals)) a number of times. That goal was not Omac's fault. In fact the irony is that a strong case could be made that the fault lay with his May and Lever. And actually also to lazy defensive running from our mids and wingers. May gives away a free kick to Dixon, when the ball was 40 metres away and about to be kicked towards them both. From the edge of the square - and with a pretty short delay - Dixon kicks the ball to a big pocket of space that Georgiades runs into and takes an easy, uncontested mark. Lever is trailing and Harmes and Tmac make ineffectual attempts at spoiling. Omac is on Westhof in the goal square. From the vision from behind the goals you can see what has happened. As we all know - and people paid to analyse football should know - the dees play a zone defence with the bigs making a triangle. Omac plays deep as the top point of the triangle and Lever and May higher. Omac is the goal keeper and if an opposition player (which is usually a big) pushes back to the goal square Omac is responsible for him. Mids, wingers and small defenders fill any space (or at least should). Which is exactly what happened. Our defence had pushed up, as we were in attack. Port win the ball in their back half (too easily), go through the corridor and Dixon gets the free from May. At that point Omac was on Georgiades. As Dixon is getting ready to kick Westhof pushes towards the goals square, as does Georgiades. What does Omac do? What he is supposed to do. Drilled to do. The role he plays in our zone defence, in our structure. The same structure everyone (including those same three so called analysts) have been banging on has been improved with him back in the side. Omac goes to the goal square and takes the Port big who has pushed back there (Westhoff). At that point Georgiades is no longer his player, because like every team in the league we play a zone, not man on man defence. If in that situation if he breaks the rules of the system and goes with Georgiades he leaves Westhoff alone in the goal square. And of course that is where Dixon would have kicked it (and Omac would have rightly been bagged for allowing this). So he does what he is supposed to do, goes to the goal square, takes Westhoof and hands off to Lever. It is then Lever's job to cover Georgiades. Georgiades becomes his man. And he gets nowhere close to him. So i was really confused because you had said Lyon, Brown Reiwoldt said that goal was on Oscar and i couldn't understand why they would think that. So i then watched the post game discussion by Lyon, Brown and about that goal you mentioned. They showed and talked to the behind the goals vision, but in slow mo and with fancy arrows to boot. I watched that vision about 5 times too, trying to get their point Lyon argues that Omac should have bodied Georgiades, that he let him waltz in to space. Which is complete rubbish. If he had bodied him before Dixon kicked it is a free. And once Georgiades took off his job was staying on Westhoff. That goal was on May for giving a stupid free kick, Lever for not getting to Georgiades and all the players who should have gut run to make sure he didn't have acres of space to run into (remembering there was a stop in play with the Dixon free). And that is who Lyon, Brown and Reiwoldt should have been bagging. Not the one player doing his job properly. The fact they don't get it goes to my point about their abilities as paid analysts.Its got nothing to do with their criticism of Omac. Actually it does in this instance because that criticism was so ill informed. I don't want to hear their 'narrative'. And i could care less about them being ex champions of the game. I want to hear informed, intelligent comments about the game. And given they can't meet this reasonable expectation i don't rate them as analysts. Both Lyon and Bronwn played in an era without zones and everything was on one one. And it shows. Maybe they might want to try actually getting up to speed about how footy is played circa 2020 so they don't sound like a couple of middle age ex footy heads down the local pub.
    2 points
  40. I agree with Bernie. President should have told them how wonderful they were and that it doesn’t matter, as it is only a game of football. He could have complimented them on their appearance and how nice they looked in their MFC jumpers. He could have also mentioned how fit they are, as seen by the way they strongly walked off the ground after the game as a tight knit group and that they busted their guts with a brilliant 4 quarter effort. Yeah you nailed it Bernie!
    2 points
  41. I hope the players are more filthy on their performance, like the Members are
    2 points
  42. I think some people are confusing performance of the team and a person's personal vlife, which Ithink is not becoming of a logical discussion of our Football Club. The media do not run MFC and are renowned at making mountains out of molehills. We are in danger of cintinuing the vindictiveness . Before I get shot at,there is nothing wrong with players liking a coach and success is not branded on fear. Apparently he is a very good person to work with, so please cut out the personal "sniping "
    2 points
  43. This is a [censored] poor post. Criticism for his coaching is warranted. Getting personal like this is weak as p iss.
    2 points
  44. Wrong. Lever had Westhoff for the night and Oscar had Georgiadas And please do not deflect the blame off Oscar and on to Lever who played his role and was one of our best alongside May. That's a [censored] act by you. Leave Lever out of this. Even Garry Lyon, Joanthon Brown and Nick Riewoldt were scathing post game of Oscars weak defensive effort on Georgiades in that first goal. If that's coming from 3 big names of the game then I'll listen to them. The fact is, Oscar got taught a lesson by a 3rd gamer. It was a weak performance by him.
    2 points
  45. If so, he joins a group that includes Daniher and Paul Roos of coaches who regularly saw the players serve up soft efforts in weeks where it looked like they just couldn't be bothered. As I said to one of Goodwins friends not long after he took the job...he doesn't know what he's getting himself into. At MFC, a coach can't even rely on the players showing personal pride in their intensity and effort levels consistently. F#$ked if i know how you can develop and implement a gameplan when blokes squib it as regularly as ours do.
    2 points
  46. This team has a history of coming out in key games and not performing. 2016 - Carlton with 2 rounds to go and with 2 wins a fair chance of finals. Absolutely flat. 2017 - last round vs Pies. A win and we’re playing finals. Didn’t turn up. 2018 - prelim. 2019 - 2020 - a chance to atone. We’ve only really performed for 1 qtr vs Blues, played ok vs Suns and well against a rabble which is the Hawks. Goody pointing to us being just about there, or just off, vs Brisbane is a joke because we were deplorable for 2 qtrs of footy. And didn’t turn up at all on Thursday. We’re barely flat track bullies. This is not a new problem. What has the club done in the last 4 yrs under Goody to embed a ruthless mindset? I can’t see it.
    2 points
  47. Why didnt you post this after the hawks game? I disagree with about 80% of your commentary
    2 points
  48. Here are a few more that I missed: "I have defended our footy department, our coaches and players my whole tenure but I can't defend that. How can you defend that? "I said at the start of the year we are absolutely going to be a club of no excuses. I don't want any excuses. I started to hear about a four day turnaround... Well we have been talking about how ready and fit we are. Don't talk about that, even as supporters." "The players understand what it means when you wear the Melbourne jumper and we have done a lot, even over the last few weeks on that. They completely trashed it last night and they need to address it and they need to take ownership of if. I can't play full forward. Perty can't play at centre half back. There is no excuse for anything but results."
    2 points
  49. Last night was appalling but if you're writing the rest of the season off now, aren't you just "accepting mediocrity"? We're 3-5. It's not exactly a launching pad for finals, but the 5 losses are to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th. In a season where we play everyone once, we have plenty of games to come against sides not currently in the 8 with few to come against sides that are consistently good (indeed, St Kilda is the highest-ranked side left on our fixture). That doesn't mean wins will come automatically and if we play like we did last night, we'll be 3-7. But if we get back the run and aggression we showed in Rounds 6-8, we can and should beat both Adelaide and North and level out at 5-5. From there, a 4-3 record may be enough to make finals.
    2 points
  50. Where is the coaching and development? Oliver came in with heaps of promise but hasn't improved and had gone backwards if anything. Brayshaw has not improved since coming to the club. Weideman hasn't improved other than natural development that comes with a more mature body. TMac never developed beyond the raw athleticism he had before his foot injury. Salem showed promise early and has not improved, no development since his first game against the Swans. Petracca and Gawn are the only two players on our list who can honestly say they've taken their game to another level in the last 5 years. Maybe Viney as well. Jones developed earlier on in his career. The evidence suggests that unless the players have the inner drive or footy IQ to develop off their own bat the club will not help them get there. It's an utter indictment on the culture of the club.
    2 points
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+10:00
×
×
  • Create New...