Scoop Junior

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.

The more I see the incident the more disgraceful the decision is. He completely slows down and the contact is more a result of Georgiou forcing Lynch into Viney than Viney running into Lynch. He almost tried not to make contact by slowing down and bracing himself...if he really wanted to bump he could easily have charged into him and taken him out. This is an absolute travesty of justice. It is akin to a crucial kick going straight through the goals and it being awarded a point. Plainly, clearly incorrect. How he can get the same penalty as Douglas who intentionally picked off a player with a bump and got him in the head is an out and out joke. Completely different incidents yet the same penalty. For me it reeks of the AFL giving directions to the tribunal that any player who causes a serious facial injury must get suspended, because otherwise they fear that mums will think the game is too rough and will not let their kids play footy and instead get them to play soccer. Stand up to this blatant injustice and appeal. I am absolutely disgusted. By the way I would have liked to have seen Josh Mahoney a bit more aggressive in his interview. Very philosophical for mine - it is what it is type of stuff.

Same penalty as Daniel Merrett for intentionally sticking out an elbow and collecting a GC player. Great system we have!

I think there is an Appeals Board that hears appeals from players dissatisfied with tribunal hearings. We must appeal.

Nathan Schmook: Gleeson now proposing he could have spun out of the collision. Agree. He could also have done a Matrix style lean back, slowing down time, allowing him to sum up the situation before leaping up over Lynch with a triple somersault in the air while landing on his feet behind Georgiou.

17:50 Nathan Schmook: Gleeson sas he could have avoided contact by pushing off his left foot and getting out of the road. Well that's not a reasonable alternative at all because it is unpalatable for a footballer to 'get out of the road' when the football is there to be won.

I think the normal speed replay of the incident provides further support for Viney. Normally when watching a game it's pretty easy to see a bump. You see the player line up or 'prepare' for the bump before executing it. When watching the game I didn't for one second think that Viney bumped him - to me it was just a collision with both players going for the footy. It's only really the last few micro-seconds when Viney turns to brace himself for contact (and only if you freeze the frame or watch it in slow motion) that you notice something resembling a bump (but which is really him bracing himself for contact). The rule states that the player must make an election to bump. This requires there to be a 'bump' and, secondly, an 'election' to bump. An election means the player must have made a decision to bump. My first argument would be that it was not a 'bump' but is rather two players hunting the ball and one bracing himself for contact. This is supported by the vision in the lead up to the incident and the fact that Viney hits him with his arm down and not locked in as you would normally execute a bump. My second argument would be that Viney did not make an 'election' to bump. As I said above it's normally easy to pick up a bump when watching a game because the player prepares for it, tucks the arm in, and then hits the player with their eyes off the ball. That shows an election. Viney however was watching the footy, hunting the footy and at the last second noticed the oncoming 6"4 Lynch and turned to protect himself from getting flattened. To me it is impossible to say that he made an election to bump Lynch - the build up to the incident clearly supports it. Gerard Whately on AFL360 gave a good analysis of why he should be cleared. He looked at the vision, analysed it and gave his view. Compare this to our mate Damo Barrett who just said Viney should be rubbed out without any reasoning or analysis for his view. That's why one of these guys is a respected footy journo and the other relies on scraps of garbage and sensationalism. Interesting also that KB, a renowned advocate for protection of the head, believes Viney should be cleared.

Spencer's was different. He deserved to go because a player had his head down over the ball and he made a decision to go at him. It was clumsy but he had time to pull out. 3 weeks was harsh but he did deserve a penalty. Viney couldn't really have done much different other than run away from the ball which for obvious reasons isn't a realistic choice.

Having had a look at the vision again, I think the following points are in his favour: 1) He was initially looking to win the ball and only at the last second did he change his action and bump Lynch. It was more of a 'brace' position then a clear election to bump. 2) He had little choice, if he didn't brace for the bump he would have been steamrolled by Lynch who was coming at a fast pace. 3) Lynch had the footy so it was in-play, not off the ball like Douglas' bump on Ward. 4) He didn't leave the ground. 5) He is significantly shorter than Lynch so it's impossible for him to bump Lynch in the head (while not leaving the ground) without Lynch going low. The reason why Lynch went low was because he got nudged forward by Georgiou. It is impossible in that micro-second to see Lynch get pushed forward and then change your action. 6) Was the broken jaw caused by the head clash or Viney's shoulder? If the former then he shouldn't be made to pay. However I have no faith in the tribunal system and their arbitrary decisions. It is decided on the basis of injury, which is an absolute disgrace because you should be punished for what you can control (i.e. conduct) not what you can't (i.e. an unfortunate and unforseeable set of circumstances that results in an injury). I'm expecting no other result than being shafted by the tribunal in much the same way as the umpires did to us on the weekend. I really am sick of seeing players banned for legitimate tough footy and snipers being given far less significant penalties for blatant and intentional dog acts.

It is very early days but the player JKH reminds me of is Allen Christensen, a little bloke who can win the footy inside, goes hard, has clean hands and is able to rack up good numbers. He will be tested though in coming weeks as opponents pay him more attention. Cross may have made a few errors but you can excuse him because he is generally a good decision maker and his hardness and courage sets a fantastic example to the team. A mate of mine is a passionate bulldogs fan and he absolutely loves him. It's pretty easy to see why. One thing I would like to see though is him keeping his feet more, I think at times he tries to dive on it a bit too often. But he is just an out and out on-field leader. Terlich I find hard to judge. I love his commitment and attack on the footy and ability to find it, but he can then make you tear your hair out with at times appalling lack of awareness, disposal and fumbling. I think in an ideal world you would want a half back flanker with more awareness and composure and reliability coming out of defence. Some of his errors are just so costly. Two things from Salem that I actually enjoyed as much as his goal were a half volley pick up at full speed which just showed raw talent and clean hands and a really clever aggressive bump on an Adelaide player in the last quarter to clear the space for I think Dawes to kick it forward. In those two instances I saw a lovely combination of aggression and pure talent.

What an absolutely outstanding win! I still cannot believe it, not just winning away from home but in Adelaide where we have hardly looked like winning in 13 years, with the umpires doing everything they could to get the home team over the line and 45,000 fans roaring their side home. To stand up to all of that and hang on for the win must do wonders for the belief of the group. Obviously the first half was tremendous, but the key to the win in the second half (when Adelaide were the superior side) was not letting them kick multiple goals in quick succession. So many times in the past you'd see Melbourne concede 5 or 6 goals in 10 minutes and we would be blown away in that short period. Yes the crows dominated the second half but we kept fighting and scrapping and made it hard for them and while they ate away at the lead they could only do so slowly. I said it after the GC game but the thing I admired about the swans under Roos was the way they'd not concede too many goals and just hang in there while the other team had momentum. It's early days but we are showing some preliminary signs of that. I was convinced they were going to steal it late but we just held on with so much spirit and effort. Even with 20 seconds left I thought they would get a free kick and nick it but Bernie won the clearance and that was it. Still cannot believe it, the Demons have beaten the Crows in SA, all I can say is wow! Fantastic effort