Scoop Junior

Reactionary or adapting to the circumstances? And where do you draw the line of sticking to the plan? What if Fitz and Howe were out as well? Would you still play Watts midfield? I also fail to see how playing Watts forward for a couple of games is going to ruin his midfield prospects. The aim is still to play him through the midfield for the majority of the year - I don't think that one or two games as a key forward is really going to make much difference to his position in the midfield. This club needs to win games. If playing Pederson forward and Watts in midfield is viewed as more likely to win us the game, then fair enough I am happy with that. But I can't accept not doing what's viewed as the best thing for the team simply because there is a plan for him to play midfield for 22 games.

Yeah I'm in the play him forward this week camp. I think he is a better option than Pederson, and Fitzpatrick isn't yet the type of player you can build a forward line around. He needs some tall support next to him. Howe too will benefit from some more marking support in the forward line. I know he has trained for the midfield, but you have to be flexible in footy and adapt to the circumstances, and our circumstances are extreme with three key forwards out and possibly two ruckmen also out. The other benefit is that you can pick an extra midfielder. What Round 1 has shown us so far is that hard running up and down the ground is critical. Starting Watts forward enables us to select another runner in the 22 and there is always the flexibility to push Watts through the midfield at various stages of the game. So the choice is really Pederson + Watts (mid) or Watts (fwd) + extra runner. For me, I'm going for the extra run and Watts has more tricks up forward than Pederson.

I don't think anyone is carried away or has said some of the usual short-sighted comments we see on these forums after bad losses. All that has been said was that it was a really poor performance, which it clearly was. Of course as a whole the pre-season has been positive and we've made some really good gains. But this thread is about yesterday's game - anyone that went could only describe it as a pretty dismal performance and it wouldn't be accurate to describe it as anything but that. I'm sure for those that didn't go, they would want an honest appraisal of yesterday's game. The good news is that in Roos we have a coach who will remain positive and be able to get the players to move on with a positive mindset. On the whole over the pre-season we have made some significant strides forward with a new game plan. Yesterday it wasn't about the game plan being exposed by Hawthorn, it was simply a matter of us not winning enough footy and not working hard enough (and simply being overwhelmed by a far superior opposition) - no game plan can work without those two critical elements.

Anyone that tries to sugar coat that performance must not have been at the game. Yes, it was last year's premiers who are a fantastic team and yes it was a practice match. But the difference between the sides was simply enormous - it was like watching an under 16s team taking on the senior side. I thought the first quarter effort was good but it dropped away pretty quickly after that. The ease with which they moved the ball to free players was quite surprising - I know they are a highly skilled team but our defensive pressure after 1/4 time was really poor. As for game plan, well you simply cannot draw any conclusions from that. We simply had no control at all in the game and when you don't get your hands on the ball no game plan can work. Hawthorn monstered us around the stoppages and they don't very often give the ball back. When we did manage to get it off them, we were under constant pressure (it must be said that Hawthorn's pressure was tremendous) and just struggled to control the ball. As a result we really struggled to get the ball forward and, when we did manage to get it forward, we had absolutely no one there to take a grab (this is understandable though given the injured forwards). By contrast Roughead, Gunston and co. were dangerous every time Hawthorn went forward. Then in the last quarter Gibson went forward and really made a mockery of us by taking contested marks and kicking goals. To me it felt every bit a 100+ point defeat, they were absolutely fantastic and we were pitiful. Not one positive for me. I really hope that's the worst performance we will see this year because that was simply unwatchable. Hopefully we don't lose too much heart from that and can push on towards Round 1 with a positive attitude.

Yeah I agree with this - I think what we saw on Friday night was a bit of an over-correction at times, with players going for the switch or backwards kick across goal when it clearly wasn't on. The positives definitely outweigh the negatives though - it was pleasing to see a style of footy being implemented and the players trying to play to that style. Yes, there were mistakes, but there were some really good switch kicks that opened up the fat side of the ground and allowed us to transition the ball quickly and cleanly down the other end. It was also very pleasing to see that ball renention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the game plan - I have been banging on for the last two years that ball renention is critical both offensively and defensively in that players get confident from touching the ball more and the opposition cannot score when you have the ball. I think with time and practice we will start to get the balance right.

I always rated Vince highly at the Crows. Usually though you do tend to watch a player a lot closer when they play for your team as opposed to the opposition. Watching Vince play on Friday, I struggled to recall a Melbourne midfielder of recent times with that level of class, composure, skill and football smarts. He just continually made the correct decision and executed it. If a quick handball release was required, he gathered cleanly and dished off quickly and effectively. When he was able to find a bit more space, he remained composed, used his time wisely and again made the correct decision and executed it. We have been so panicky in the past that it was really encouraging to see a player who has that innate ability to almost slow the game down around him. Class footballers always seem to have more time than others. Obviously the heat will be greater once the real stuff starts but that was a very, very impressive performance from him.

Yeah, you're right, it's a much harder skill than winning a contested possession, taking a contested mark, kicking to a teammate under pressure, winning a ruck contest, handballing to a player in space, kicking a goal under pressure, spoiling an opposition, reading the ball off a pack, picking up the ball cleanly off the deck, tackling a player, etc. I am so surprised that, given how complex it is to run away from the ball, junior footballers are taught the easy things like marking, kicking, handballing, tackling, spoiling, but are not taught how to run away from the footy. There were a few players in my junior teams and at school footy that ran away from the ball. I'm really surprised they didn't make it to AFL level given how well they had mastered this complex skill.

Who's looking at past history? I am just commenting on Friday night. As I said he did lead away from the goal square to free up space, so he did that well, and it was great coaching to create that space. But really, how hard is it to lead away from an area? It's not sufficient for an AFL forward - they need to be able to positively influence contests when the ball comes their way. Very rarely did I see Pederson do that on Friday night.

This whole seven coaches in seven years thing really annoys me. 'Technically' true, but does it really represent the true state of affairs? No, it's just an easy way for the media to over-dramatise the situation. Included in the seven coaches are Mark Riley, Todd Viney and Neil Craig, who were never appointed as full-time senior coaches. Riley coached less than half a year, Viney about five games and Craig half a season. Then they include Daniher and Roos. Daniher coached Frawley for half a season in his first year and Roos is yet to coach Frawley in a home-and-away match. So as much as the '7 in 7' years sounds nice and fluffy for the media, the reality is he has essentially played primarily under two coaches...Bailey and Neeld. I know they are trying to paint Melbourne as a club that regularly sacks its coaches, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I am 31 and have only seen one coach sacked early in his tenure...Neeld. Compare this to many other clubs and it is quite favourable.

Yes he may have played his role in leading away from the danger area and clearing up space, so I will give him credit for his work rate, but really you need more than that at AFL level. You still need to have an impact on the contest when the ball is in your area and in this regard I thought he was really poor on Friday night. He dropped marks and failed to get effective touches. Even little things like knocking the ball out to a teammate or dishing off little handballs would have been handy, but I really didn't notice any effective play other than clearing up space. I've seen him play some really good games in defence for Casey but I'm yet to see him really offer much as a forward.

In one sense Col has some great natural footballing talents - lovely long kick of the ball, great leap, excellent hands above his head, strong tackler, etc. But I don't know if I'd call him a natural footballer as he just lacks the subtleties that the best players have, such as the ability to consistently get to the right spots, being able to spot a free player in tight congested situations and thread a handball to the advantage of that player, having the poise and peripheral vision in close to sum up a situation and navigate his way out of traffic. Don't get me wrong, Col's attributes can still make him a very good player. But I think his natural footballing talents lie solely in the power side of the game.

I think Sylvia will be a great case study of the recruiting vs development argument. There will be no excuses for him not to perform at Freo, given he will be playing in a very strong team and under a fantastic coach, two factors not present at Melbourne over the last seven years. If he tears it up for them, it will show us that we have failed to extract the best out of him and not developed him well. If however his career just ambles along with mostly mediocre performances highlighted by a few standout games, this will help to demonstrate that his time at Melbourne was not severly impacted by poor development.

Agree with this. It didn't appear to be fitness that caused us to get battered most weeks. It wasn't like we were in games for 3 or 3.5 quarters and then ran out of legs. We were often defeated by half time. Roos has intimated that he is happy with our running but not our "in game" running. I agree with this 100%. And I think the two main factors for our poor in game running were: 1) running to the wrong spots to defend and filling holes that didn't need filling - this was game plan related and the players appeared confused about where they should be and appeared to have a lack of faith in the game plan because clearly it wasn't working; and 2) as Hannibal says the defeated mindset would have kicked in pretty early in games last year and it's only natural for footballers to drop their work rate when they know they have absolutely no chance of winning.

It still looks like there is a pre-season update and introduction of new players so there may still be some footy content, but obviously it appears to be greatly reduced from previous years. I don't think reducing the footy content is a great idea. Other than the fact that it is a good opportunity to hear directly from the club after the off-season period and to catch up with other loyal supporters - and given what this club has served up to its fans over the last seven years it is really the least that can be done - at the very heart of the business of the club is football. It's why the club exists and why there are 30 odd thousand members. It is not something that should be ignored. That being said, I have felt that the last couple of years the 'footy content' part of the night has been a massive disappointment. Mark Neeld in his addresses gave no insight into what had been happening at the club during the off-season or plans for the season ahead, while the introduction of new recruits and interviews with the players (can't remember exactly who conducted this part) were nothing more than a bunch of inane questions that a primary school student could have thought up. It was a far cry from the members information nights of the 2000s when Neale Daniher went into great detail about the list and his plans and where he saw the side currently and where he wanted it to go. I found those sessions particularly interesting but recently it has been much more underwhelming.

Good post Bob. I completely disagree with the notion that because he is too slow for the midfield he should therefore play half forward. A small half forward will be completely exposed if they lack pace. Not only will they struggle to beat their opponent to the fall of the ball but they will be completely exposed the other way when the opposition launch their attack out of defence. I think his lack of pace can be disguised more as an inside midfielder and will not be exploited as much by the opposition. That being said, I hope something has been affecting his pace the last few years, as at times he made slow players look quick. If he needs to rest, I would play him deep forward, where his lack of pace would hopefully not be as exposed as it would playing high half forward. Also he has absolutely fantastic hands in the air, really clean and one grabs everything, and this attribute would be better utilised close to goal than further up on the flanks.

Agree with much of your post, Jack, and a lot of what you said comes down to my first reason as to why we have been so bad in the last seven years - recruiting. I think though that is has more to do with poor recruiting over a period of time than decisions made around the 2006/2007 period when we were coming to the end of the Daniher days. Yes there were mistakes but I don't think they were as significant as the recruiting failures, particularly around the 2000-2004 period (players who would have been 22-26 years old at the start of the 2008 season. Obviously my post was just a summary, but if we have a closer look at that drafting period, we selected Scott Thompson as a first rounder in 2000 (star player but left us), then picked up Molan, Armstrong and Rogers with earlyish picks in 2001, Daniel Bell and Nick Smith as first rounders in 2002, McLean and Sylvia as top 5 picks in 2003 and Bate and Dunn as first rounders in 2004. Other than Sylvia (who really only showed glimpses of his talent to be honest) the others have not even come close to producing what would have been expected from early draft picks. This terrible recruiting period left us with an enormous hole in our list at the start of the Bailey era in 2008. I think that this, more so than decisions made towards the end of the Daniher era, was the main contributing factor to our initial rapid decline. As to my second reason, being what happened in 2011, that is obviously a factor relevant to the 'double dip' bottoming out that we experienced in 2012 and 2013 (as were further recruiting blunders in the post-Daniher era). It is very unusual for a club to bottom out, start to rise and then completely bottom out again all within the space of 5 years. I don't think recruiting alone explains why we have regressed so far from where we were at the end of the 2010 season to 2013. To me the infighting of 2011, the shambolic handling of the fallout from 186, the hiring of Neeld and some of his decisions also helped contribute to this second bottoming out. The good news is I think we are better placed to get off rock bottom this time around.

I doubt there's a public available schedule, but I do recall Roos saying that the first week of training in the new year would be about continuing the running they have been doing pre-Christmas and during the Christmas break and that on Friday the 10th there would be a time trial. If they performed well in that they could then tick off the running / fitness side of things and start to focus more on the game plan. So perhaps from next week onwards there will be more ball work.

I'm not sure it rivalled winning the footy. As for maintaining possession though, it did appear as if the players were instructed to, when in doubt, take the low risk option of going down the line to gain territory and force a stoppage. It was as if they were too scared to make a possession error by taking the high risk option. I understand there are times that require the low risk option but the balance was completely out of whack. Thanks for the report Yokozuna. Unfortunately for me Tapscott is the type of player who will always look great at training - big and strong and a lovely long kick of the ball. The question is can he find the ball regularly enough in games and can he beat AFL level defenders who will be taller and quicker than him and just as strong. I don't think we will find out anything we don't know about him until competitive matches begin.

Love this comment. I know it's only training but at least it shows where the focus is. No co-incidence that our possession differentials were absolutely abysmal under Neeld's territory-based game plan.

I think there are two primary reasons for what we have seen over the last seven years. The first is recruiting. I agree with others that 2007 represented the end of the era of our star players in White, Neitz, Yze, etc. While there may have been some signs of demise during 2006, the fact is we made it to a semi final that year and I do not blame Daniher for 'having a go' at a flag in 2007 rather than start a rebuilding process. Of course 2007 didn't work out due to the drop in form of our stars, injuries and other reasons, but after three years in the finals I think it was fair to try to extract one more good year out of that group. So we then come to the end of 2007 and we embark on a full rebuild of the list, one that is needed and which most supporters agree with. The same position other sides (St Kilda in the early 2000s, Hawthorn and Carlton in the mid 2000s, Collingwood in the late 90s) have been in. The difference between their successes and our failure must to a large extent come down to recruiting. Hodge, Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, Lewis, Franklin, Roughead, Pendelbury, Murphy - who have we drafted that has between 2008 and 2013 performed to the levels of those players? This has severely affected us in both the Bailey and Neeld regimes – clearly our talent levels have been well below most other clubs during this period. The second reason I think is what happened to the club during 2011, which has then been exacerbated by the dismal failure of the Neeld era. Under Bailey, while we won only 7 games in his first two seasons, you could see the improvement from 2008 to 2010. 2009 was a far more competitive season than 2008 and then 2010 was an enormous improvement on the previous two seasons. We were tracking at what I would consider normal development rates for rebuilding clubs – struggle for a couple of years, show signs of improvement and then start to win some games and push stronger teams in subsequent years. This is where we were at after the 2010 season. Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that Bailey was the man to take us to the next level or that we would continue the upward trend to get in the top 4. Clearly 2011 did show that there were severe deficiencies and certain issues needed to be addressed. 2010 was slightly illusory – I think we were made to look closer than we really were and our free spirited attack only game plan was not sustainable. Nevertheless, what appeared to happen inside the club, with the reported in-fighting and divisions which were allowed to fester by senior management instead of being dealt with at the time, must have had a devastating effect on the players and this (together with our poor form) culminated in 186, a devastating loss for the footy club. I think that the in-fighting and divisions, along with the performance that day, helped to crush the spirit of the senior players (who are so imperative to the performance of the team). Then, instead of rebuilding the spirit and trust and confidence of the playing group, a series of poor decisions – the timing and handling of Bailey's sacking, the extension of Schwab's contract, the appointment of Neeld and his disastrous 18 month tenure – only served to make matters worse. So not only did we not have the cattle due to poor recruiting, but we 'lost' the senior players due to a failure to manage the divisions within the club and then, while seeking to start afresh at the end of 2011, we appointed the wrong man who made a number of terrible decisions and failed to unite and inspire confidence in the playing group which contributed to our 'double dip' bottoming out in 2012 and 2013. At the end of the day success is achieved by having great talent and extracting the most out of that talent. As we have not had the required level of talent (particularly in midfield) and have failed to extract the most out of the talent we do have, it's little wonder why we've been so horrible for much of the past seven years.

Well then send the message to him against any one of the other 15 clubs.

I was at that game and couldn't believe my eyes when I saw him wearing the sub's vest. It was the perfect opportunity to play him against kids his size and in a game in which the ball would be in our forward line for the majority of the game. There have been some very surprising decisions made with regards to Watts but this was one of the worst IMO.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sylvia's effort in the second quarter. He waited for the ball in the air as it was kicked to him instead of moving towards it, completely oblivious that a Dogs player was closing in. That was poor, but it got much worse. The Dogs player spoiled the ball and as it dropped to the ground, Sylvia just stood there and made no effort whatsoever to pick the ball up. Then, when the Dogs player picked it up off the deck and started running away, Sylvia just took a few steps and slowly half-jogged after him in what can't even be described as an attempted chase. It was a disgusting effort, especially so for a senior player who is meant to lead by example. The problem with Colin is his effort is not a non-negotiable, sometimes he brings it, other times he doesn't. I'm torn between two possibilities - one is that perhaps a great coach can get the best out of him, the second is that he will always be a player that picks when he wants to try hard and when he will just coast along. As for the game, was happy with the effort, apart from that 20-minute patch in the second quarter. We matched them for the rest of the game. Clean, crisp hands at the clearances was the main difference between the sides. Their ability to extract cleanly from the stoppages compared to our fumbling and miscued handballs was obvious for all to see.

What a muppet. Anyone who says Melbourne doesn't deserve a priority pick because its terrible recent history is its own fault, just shows themself to be an absolute fool. For what other reason, other then your own mistakes, would you be consistently down the bottom of the ladder? I can't comprehend how these journos just can't grasp the concept that the priority pick is not about fairness or justice or what's deserved. How do these guys get jobs?

I thought it was a deliberate act as it was pretty clear that there were two movements of the foot, the first was from falling over (which, if he had struck Strauss then, would have been accidental) and the second was when, whilst on the ground, he moved his foot towards Strauss' face. I don't think he intended to break his nose but throwing your studded boot into the face of another player is just about as reckless as it can get on the footy field. Strauss is lucky he only has a broken nose and he didn't cop a stud in the eye. He deserves a severe ban for this incident - I would have thought 6-8 weeks before his bad record / carry over points are taken into account.