Scoop Junior

His performance yesterday showed a deficiency in our current forward structure (with Hogan missing) - a contested marking tall with pace and mobility. Dawes and Pederson are extremely hard workers and lead hard at the footy but they lack the pace to get off their men to take lead up marks in space. Watts has the pace and mobility but hasn't been a contested marking threat. Frawley was pretty important for our structure yesterday in that he used his pace and marking strength to provide that link coming out of defence. The problem is, while he is very good at getting the ball, his use of the footy is poor. Unreliable set shot for goal and lacks that ability to swing round after taking a mark and hit up a leading player inside 50. He could have had an extra two goals yeterday and one or two additional assists but for poor ball use.

I'm with you on this. Not difficult to find the footy when you are playing on your own. If he were allowed to play as a permanent loose man in defence then I would have got excited as he is a great offensive weapon with ball in hand. But the opposition will not allow it and then it comes back to your ability to win the footy against an opponent. Watts' 6 possessions in three quarters when properly manned up suggests this continues to be a problem.

A painful loss - really gutting. To lead with 3 minutes left and lose is always going to hurt, especially when it was going to be such a memorable, courageous win. I can't really fault any particular moments because the effort was sensational. Five goals down against a SA team in Adelaide just so often results in 10+ goal losses for the Dees, so to fight back and kick six goals in a row and take the lead and nearly win the game is a fantastic effort from the players. It was probably the best we've played on the outside since the last time we played Port. We moved the ball well, got some valuable uncontested ball and linked up much better than we have in the last six or seven weeks. Geelong and Fremantle in particular really smashed us on the outside and facing a quick hard-running team in Port I was concerned this would happen again. But we beat them in uncontested footy and although they ran the ball better than us I thought our ball movement and offensive spread at least matched them. We just lack that class and run/pace to capitalise on our momentum - we waste opportunities to put scoreboard pressure on the opposition and instead of piling on 5-6 goals we manage only 2-3 and it keeps the opposition in the game. This also hurts us late in game when it's close - just that lack of class and composure to make the correct decisions and see the game out. It's a little like a lower team in soccer being 1-0 up against top opposition - so many times the top team finds that late equaliser because the lower team just lacks the class and composure to see it out. For me Tyson is already a key for us - when he is up and about and winning clearances we are a far better team. I don't think it's a coincidence that his drop in form since Round 12 has seen a corresponding drop in performance from the team and that his best game since then led to our best team performance. I won't go into the umpiring as it has all been said in this thread - but the one that disgusted me the most was the free to Westhoff against Viney. Jack did so well to spoil a guy double his size, and then when Westhoff went to ground and Viney tripped over him he actually cushioned his landing to prevent him from falling on Westhoff's back and did it quite successfully in my opinion. Yet the umpire pays a push in the back. Let's just say my TV is thankful that Westhoff missed. At the end of the day there's no doubt it is absolutely gut-wrenching to lose another close one and gee it would've felt incredible to get the win. But the players really dug deep and put in a great performance on enemy territory and you can only be proud of their efforts.

Agree that he is the player you want with the ball in his hands. Completely opens the game up for us offensively. But I just cannot see him being a full time midfielder in his current guise as the most outside of outside footballers. You still need to win your own footy in the midfield and you need to be competitive one on one. I don't recall too many worse one-on-one footballers - he just doesn't win contests. The position that suits him most is a playmaker across half back. But teams are not going to let him play loose and drop off and dictate play across half back. They will man him up and then I would really worry about balls being kicked to his opponent in a one-on-one contest inside our defensive 50m. A deep forward role would also suit him as he could really expose defenders with his height and pace off the mark. But he doesn't attack the ball in the air hard enough for a leading forward. He has the attributes to play one of those positions but he just doesn't get anywhere near enough output from his natural talent due to a number of factors which we all know too well.

That is a crucial point. At times in games this year (and today was another example) we have played quite well and had the upper hand and the momentum. But we just don't have the class to make it count on the scoreboard - whether it is a poor kick inside 50 or a player fumbling a ground level ball or missing a set shot at goal, we just let opportunities go begging due to a lack of overall class. Class and run/pace are the key priorities for us. For what it's worth I thought Watts was terrible today - yeah he had a big influence in the third quarter but he was playing on his own. For the other three quarters when he was manned up he hardly got near it and had no influence at all on the game in those quarters. For a guy as talented as him he is currently an enormous underachiever.

A few handy players in Geelong's best that day! Wow. Good effort to keep the loss to 43 points.

I thought for the first 55 minutes our effort was really good, in fact at times I thought we looked the better side. If Dawes had nailed the two sitters he missed we would have been level in the second quarter. Then up stepped the skipper and missed the unmissable from 10 metres out on a slight angle. Absolutely horrendous miss from the leader of the club. Instead of being deservedly level, we then dropped our heads and conceded three late goals to blow the margin out at half time and all but end the contest. In a low-scoring defensive scrap you MUST take your chances. Our third quarter was horrendous though. You could just see the effort drop away, which was really disappointing. All of a sudden they started dominating contested footy and running around on their own. Interestingly for 85 minutes of the game we conceded only five goals, but in 35 minutes (last five of the second and all of the third) we conceded 10 goals. I accept though that the last quarter they took the foot off the pedal, but for all but the last five minutes of the first half we were in it. At the end of the day we just have too many battlers - triers who just lack class and ability. It means there are patches of games where you compete and try really hard, but ultimately you just undo your hard work with turnovers and a failure to convert opportunities up forward. Also difficult when your most talented ball user and creator has less impact on the contest than some of the spectators. I think Ben Dixon may have had more touches than Watts tonight. A last mention to the selectors. Seriously, what the hell was that about. We already made the mistake of going too tall against the Pies, and we go and do it again. Two specialist ruckmen in Darwin against a hard running side? Four key defenders against a forward line containing one key forward and a resting ruckman? We already have a weak midfield and instead of supporting that with more run we go in with a plethora of talls. Playing Gawn was a massive error - while he shows great potential as a future no.1 ruckman he should not play in the same team as Jamar. And McKenzie on Daniel Pearce, who is probably their sixth or seventh best midfielder - I don't know why you would bother tagging him. A really forgettable night all round.

The effort is there and we have been as good as if not better than them for most of the first half. But the one key difference between the teams is class - one team takes its opportunities and kicks goals, the other fluffs opportunities and misses easy goals. Jack Grimes that was absolutely disgraceful. Your team needs you to kick a goal and you miss from 10 metres out. Completely took the stuffing out of the side instead of putting us a few points behind. Dawes also missed from about the same distance. And he also missed a sitter in the first term. It just absolutely kills you in low-scoring defensive games. So frustrating when you are doing a lot of things right but just cannot execute the most basic skill in footy. And I said before the game we were too tall and the same thing happened against Collingwood. Why would you select so many talls in Darwin? Most goals are coming from ground level (surprise surprise) yet we select two ruckmen and about 8 key position players.

Late changes? That team looks too tall against a Dockers line-up with only two key defenders, two ruckmen, a tall forward (Pavlich) and a medium-tall forward (Mayne). Also factor in Darwin where conditions will likely be hot, humid and slippery and not likely to favour big forwards. I would have preferred more runners in that team and less talls. We were exposed against Collingwood when we went too tall and you'd hope they would learn from that.

That game was so surreal to me. I just couldn't believe what I was witnessing...Essendon just fluffing shot after shot and then us going down the other end and nailing our opportunities. 30 less contested possessions, 14 less clearances and 30-odd less inside 50s are incredible stats for a winning team. Make no mistake we absolutely stole that one. And how good does it feel!! The first half was (West Coast game aside) the worst footy we've played all year. We just weren't at the races and looked flat and tired. Got killed in the middle, were second to the ball, didn't close them down, lacked numbers at the contest and had no movement or flow in our offensive play. Only tremendous defending from Dunn, McDonald, Grimes and Jetta and Essendon's wastefullness kept us in the game at half time. I did not see that turnaround coming and that's what makes it special. The boys dug deep and showed great character, not just coming back in the second half but also regaining the lead after Zaharakis kicked two in a row. For me there were three key reasons for our turnaround. One was in the middle, where Jamar lifted in the ruck and we started winning some centre clearances. Tyson was also critical in this turnaround. All of a sudden we started getting some quick entry into our forward line and putting them under pressure. Second was our tackling. Aiden Riley laid an absolute bone-cruncher, Dawes laid two fantastic tackles, Kent did a great front-on tackle on Hurley. This just sent the message to Essendon that we weren't done with yet and you could see the pressure affect the Bombers and they started to panic and make mistakes in their defensive half. Third was we finally started to generate some run and overlap from half back, something we really struggled with in the first half. At the end of the day we were very lucky to be in with a chance of winning the game, but that should not detract from what was a fantastic comeback full of character and resilience. As a final point, a special mention to Daniel Cross, who did one of the gutsiest things I've seen on a footy field. In the last quarter, Chapman was leading out and the kick was placed nicely in the air in his patch. Cross peeled off his man and headed for the intercept. To get there not only did he have to go back with the flight, but he had to reach up and out with his right hand for the spoil and in doing so completely expose the right side of his body. It was almost an open invitation for Chapman to shatter his ribs. Cross knew what was coming and knew the potential injury he could have suffered by leaving himself exposed. He got the fist in, spoiled the mark and after a few seconds gathering himself got back up and pushed on. Courage in its absolute purest form.

Agree 100%. It takes two to tango - Collingwood to me seemed to accept it was going to be a defensive low-scoring game and adjusted their game accordingly. They got numbers back all game and backed their class to be able to kick enough goals to win, which they did. You don't concede 3 goals for the game without an extreme defensive focus. I find it amazing how quickly the media forget previous games and focus so intensely on one match. The week before against Port was a cracking match when most commentators expected a blow out, the Richmond game before that was tense and tight and entertaining and before that the Bulldogs game was a fairly high scoring affair that went down to the wire. After being almost unwatchable last year we have served up some great contests this season. Yet all of a sudden, after one low-scoring contest which both teams contributed to, some people have a dig at Melbourne. Some people just have unrealistic expectations. Each game is different and that's what I find intriguing about it - you don't know exactly what you're going to get. I have seen plenty of hyped-up EPL games between top sides end in dull 0-0 draws, whereas other times it may be a memorable 4-3 win. That is sport. The more a governing body tries to promote a certain playing style though rule changes means the game becomes more artifical and contrived.

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.

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.

Yes we could've won and were in a position to win, but to me it did feel different to the Bulldogs game where we really should've won the game. With Port's fitness and last quarter exploits, there was always that lingering feeling they would come home hard. And, while we did make mistakes in the last quarter, Port played a far superior final 8 minutes of the match than we did (due to the fact that we tired). Dermie said the Melbourne players were out on their feet and you could tell we just didn't have the legs to finish off the game (understandable due to the fantastic effort we had put in). Port won all the key contests in the final 8 minutes, especially around the stoppages, and ran out the game better. On the other hand, I felt we were superior to the Bulldogs for much of the night (including the last quarter) and that at times the Dogs were holding on. I really thought we were going to run over them at the end but a combination of missed opportunities and some lucky goals really hurt. All night they just scored so many soft goals and to let a team with as poor a forward set-up as the Dogs kick 15 goals from 50 inside 50s (30% conversion rate) was a bad result (and probably the only time our defence has let us down this year). To put this into perspectice, Freo conceded 6 goals from 67 inside 50s yesterday against the Dogs (9% conversion rate). To me the game against the Dogs was one we really blew a great chance to win. Against Port I never had that same feeling that we were going to run away with it. I cannot blame anyone or anything for losing because it was a tremendous effort and we simply ran out of legs to compete in the closing stages. Disappointing of course (losing always is), but very encouraging performance.

Yeah I quite like the current one, it's just a little too busy. I'd only have one of the trident, football and southern cross (whichever element is the most important - probably the trident as it's part of our identity, although it should be a smaller trident), and I don't think the flame above the M works well given the usual size of the logo.

I really liked Bernie Vince's comment after the game when Burgo asked him about his own game and form. Vince pretty much shrugged it off and said it's all about the team and how the team performs. He then highlighted the low-ish tackle count of 41 as something that the team needed to do better. I think this focus on the team has really been evident on the ground, particularly the last 4-5 weeks. We are really playing as a team, which in turn makes individuals play better. Roos is obviously well known for his ability to produce a team synergy in Sydney which resulted in team performances that were greater than the sum of the individual players. I always marvelled at how ordinary players at Sydney just looked so much better in the red and white jumper because of the way they played as a team. Already we are starting to see signs of that type of teamwork at Melbourne.

I think the old saying 'things are never as good or as bad as they seem' applies to Richmond. I don't think they're as bad as they are currently playing and at the same time I think they probably overachieved last year in finishing 5th. BB has highlighted the midfield problem well. However I think their lack of quality KPPs is really costing them as well. Riewoldt is a very good key forward, but not a great one. Vickery and Griffiths haven't yet come on. So basically you shut down Riewoldt (which is not as hard a task as some think) and they don't really have any other key forward capable of impacting a game. So there's the forward line done. Down back, Chaplain is looking close to the end, Rance is a decent key back (but a bit overrated IMO) and Astbury who has played well this year is now out for a while. So down back they are fragile as well. Last year their ball movement was spectacular at times but I watched last night's game and I couldn't believe the number of errors they make in their ball movement - whether it's a skill error or a decisional error. It was the same when we played them. Confidence is obviously a big thing in footy but I find it difficult to understand how their ball use can completely drop off the cliff in the space of one pre-season.

Agree we could have been 5-4 - I thought we were the better team for large parts of the game vs St Kilda and the Dogs, but due to a lack of forward options vs St Kilda and coughing up too many easy goals to the Dogs (and a bit of bad luck in both games) we went down. The GWS game, I thought they were the better side and we were hanging in there as long as possible. Though Mumford was probably the difference and he hasn't played a game since then. Gold Coast could have been 8 goals up against us at half time (we were really poor in that first half) and although we played much better after that (and probably outplayed them in the second half) I thought they were well-deserved winners. Even though we've had a soft-ish draw, the fact we've been in every game at 3/4 time (except the West Coast loss) is really pleasing.

A fantastic win and a great game to go to. Saturday arvo, traditional Victorian teams, big crowd and a tough, hard contest. Oh yeah, and a win! That's what footy is about. At times it was almost hard to believe what I was seeing - a Melbourne team playing hard, tough, combative footy for four quarters, ferocious tackling, being hard to score against, structured and well organised, dangerous on the break...this is the kind of stuff we've all longed to see over the last 7 years. Great credit to the players for playing with that level of intensity and desire and to Roosy and the coaching group for getting it out of them. We did have our fair share of luck. This does not take away from a great performance and I still believe we deserved to win, but you do need a bit of luck to win the close ones. Richmond missed some really gettable chances, we had a few bounce through that could easily have missed and they only had two rotations in the last quarter to our three. But by the same token the Dogs had this luck the previous week. If it wasn't for some missed chances in the last quarter (including two posters), a couple dodgy frees and some freak goals, we would have beaten the Dogs by 4 or so goals. So we had no luck last week, but had a bit this week. For me though the most impressive thing in recent weeks has been our midfield clearance work. We all know we have had the worst midfield in the comp over the last couple years, and week after week we'd get smashed in the stoppages. The last two weeks we have played two teams whose strength is their midfield. Both the Dogs and Tigers have good depth and some star talent in their midfield and really it is the midfield that drives these teams. The fact that we beat the Dogs (slightly) and Tigers (comprehensively) in the clearances the last two weeks is quite incredible considering where we've come from. I am not sure what the key factor is, but obviously having Tyson, Cross and Vince makes a huge difference, as does the scintillating form of Nathan Jones and the rise of Viney. It's a new midfield indeed. It's hard to know the impact of the midfield coaches from an outsider perspective but we just look a lot more structured and confident at the clearances and have shown an ability to flip a few handballs out to release a free player (something we have not been able to do in the past). The coaches should get credit for this. However, one more factor that should not be ignored is the Russian. I haven't seem him ruck like this since 2010. We were still struggling in the clearances earlier in the year, but since he has returned against Sydney we have just gone to another level. His ability to get first hands and more importantly direct his hit outs to our advantage has been critical. Well done Russian.

Yep there was a definite technique to throw the ball in towards the centre. Absolutely ridiculous if you ask me. You work hard on a wet night to get the ball forward and cause a throw in, and then the boundary umpire throws it back the other team's way. And I'm not talking 1 or 2 metres, some of the throw ins went about 10-15 metres away from our goals.

The Crameri free was a disgrace (why is it the Dogs always seem to get some absolutely ridiculous frees when we play them?) and Matt Jones' miss really hurt (I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was 95% sure he'd miss), but in the end I thought two things prevented us from being 4-5 goal winners: First was the bulldogs' tackling. Was absolutely superb. We really struggled to break out into the open - they worked hard all game to tackle and their tackles. Second was our backline. They have been tremendous all year in restricting sides, but I thought they were really poor tonight. To let the Dogs, a team with one of the worst forward lines in the league, kick 15 goals from only 40 entries is terrible. I thought we just weren't structured up well in defence all night - they seemed to be able to get it inside 50 into space and at times I thought we could've used a soccer sweeper style player who probably would have been able to mop up a lot of the entries. They did kick some fluke goals but really we needed to close the space and make it more difficult for them. Really frustrating to lose as I thought we were the better team and although we looked capable of breaking free of them, we just never did. Though to win the contested ball and clearances against a pretty solid Doggies midfield who are really strong in those areas is a good sign. Some more class in the side and a tightening of the defence would have made the difference. Positive steps forward again which is good, but still frustrating to let that one slip.

Fantastic post. It's not the rule itself. It is the ludicrous extension and application of the rule by the tribunal to Viney's circumstances. The rule was not intended to apply to genuine collisions where players did not make an election to bump. It is clearly contrary to the policy reasons supporting the rule. The tribunal's decision is equivalent to finding a player guilty of kneeing if he took a screamer and as he jumped up to take the mark his knee made contact with the opposition player's head. The tribunal have failed dismally in their application of the rule and their decision should not be allowed to stand.

I think the burden of proof is now higher, as previously we just had to prove that it was not a bump, whereas now not only do we need to prove our case but also that the tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision. That is a higher threshold than just proving your case. The Appeals Board could well say "we agree with you and don't think it is a bump, but it wasn't unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that it was a bump". Then it's game over for us. So it's a tougher gig. Having said that, I think there are strong grounds to support the unreasonableness of the tribunal's decision.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome. I think the AFL are scared of increased junior involvement in soccer and don't want parents pushing their young kids to play soccer as it's a safer game. As part of this they would be extremely keen for any indicent that results in a serious facial injury to be punished. They wouldn't want an incident that results in a broken jaw to be deemed to be part of the game as this sends the message to the parents that their kids could suffer the same fate as part of the game. This is the only way I can justify the decision - otherwise how can three members of the jury have views so divergent from the wider footy public, including coaches, players, past players, supporters and journalists? It's astonishing and beggars belief. The only people I have head support this decision is Damo 'I judge players without having seen them play' Barrett and our good mate and commentary icon "The Firestarter". The fact that this decision has caused so much outrage clearly shows the view of the wider footy public. We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

I doubt Evans will appeal. I think the AFL wants players suspended when serious facial injuries are suffered. They want to send a message to parents that footy is a safe game to play. They are worried about increased participation by young kids in soccer. They probably think that parents may prefer their kids to play soccer as they are less likely to get hurt. There is no other way I can justify the decision of the tribunal last night. How can three panel members have views so different to the vast majority of the footy public? My view is entirely consistent with the approach of the tribunal when it comes to head injuries, which is basing the verdict on the injury suffered and not on the conduct of the player charged. We must appeal.