Scoop Junior

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.

I don't regard Betts as the type of small forward we need. He is more a lead-up player and would get a fair share of his goals from marks. He can crumb, and he has pace, but I don't think he is at the same level in these two attributes as the better small forwards in the competition. I also think he lacks that element of magic and X factor that the better small forwards have. We have marking power in our forward line but a genuine lack of pace and X factor at ground level. Betts, for me, would not fulfil this role.

In the lead up to this week's game against GWS, yet another fabulous Melbourne memory worked its way to the front of my head. It may have been 20 years ago but I can still remember the feelings of complete indignity and embarrassment as the Dees were rolled by the winless Swans at the SCG, with Richard Osborne kicking 10. That would be Sydney's only win for the year. Now, 20 years later, we head up to Sydney again to take on a winless team, with a full forward who is capable of doing the same (especially so given the possible absence of Frawley and Garland). A win for the Giants would likely be their only win for the year as well. Maybe it's just that we are naturally pessimistic as Melbourne supporters, but I'm really dreading this match. Please, Melbourne, don't let us suffer the same pain we felt that day.

Team full of talls, allowing Johnson (I presume) to get 30+ possessions (who is not a Brownlow medallist)...you're nitpicking here. Under Neeld we played what I would regard as the worst football I've ever seen Melbourne play. We could not sustain our effort. We regularly got thumped...including by ordinary teams. We were completely and utterly uncompetitive in all games bar one or two. We trailed GWS by three goals at the MCG. Players weren't happy. The team played with no spirit, no belief in what they were doing and who they were doing it for. The players had no confidence. Going to the footy was absolutely agonising. Under Craig, we've been competitive for longer, we've sustained our efforts for most of the game, we're starting to play with some confidence, belief and spirit. We're scoring more, keeping possession more and transitioning the ball better. Let's not forget we have the worst midfield in the competition - no matter who is coaching us it's an uphill battle each week given our midfield stocks. I reckon Craig has the team performing at an expected level. Under Neeld we were miles off our expected level. You mention the Geelong game and I agree it was terrible, but we maintained our effort and fight for four quarters. It was a long, long way away from games against Port, Essendon, Fremantle, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, etc. earlier in the year when our effort just completely dropped away. To ignore all the improvements and focus on such trivial matters as picking too many talls (note Geelong also had Lonergan, Taylor, Blicavs, Simpson, Hawkins and Podsiadly in the team - one less "tall" than us) and letting Steve Johnson get 38 touches (he torches most teams and has done so against us in the past) is ridiculous.

I went yesterday (yes I recognise the madness in doing so). What an utterly miserable day at the football. When we are a good side and playing good footy regularly and the footy becomes enjoyable once again, I will cast my mind back to games such as these, which will help me realise just how much we should enjoy and appreciate the good times. The rain started teaming down from about halfway down the highway to Geelong and did not stop until Sunday. Even better I had a seat in the open and didn't take my poncho. The beauty of going down to Geelong is that if you're sitting in the open or standing and it starts raining you have absolutely nowhere to go. So it was just a case of sit in the open, put the hood on and suck it up while my jeans became so saturated with water that you could have filled a 2 litre bottle if you wrung them dry. Worst of all not only were we playing one of the best teams of all time at their fortress of all fortresses of a home ground, but probably the best wet weather team I've seen. The rain also meant that the only area we could possibly exploit them in (tall forwards) was completely neutralised. Now I know some will say that in dry weather they would have won by 100 points, but I disagree completely with this. We would have been more competitive on a dry day and the rain only served to exacerbate the skill and midfield differential between the sides. A wet game is all about your midfield and any deficiencies in this area are further exposed in such games. I thought we had a dip but we just could not compete with a far, far, far superior side at their home ground and on their favoured track. Perhaps in better conditions we could have moved the ball out of defence with some fluency and attacked off half back with more success, but Geelong basically smashed us out of the middle, drove the ball forward and in the conditions we just could not get it out and into our forward line. This was due to a combination of not being good enough, failing to adjust to the conditions and playing a side that just set up so well behind the ball that any pressured or bombed kicks forward (which is the norm on wet days) just get picked off at will. In general I thought the effort was there but the one thing that annoyed me was the number of times our players stood 5m behind their opponents which resulted in easy marks to Geelong. For those having a go at our tall forwards, I really question your understanding of football. I can't remember a game we've played with rain falling as steadily and as constantly as that (perhaps there have been but I've been under cover and not out in the elements!). 19 inside 50s on a wet day is a recipe for disaster for a tall forward - it gives them absolutely no hope. I get that four goals is unacceptable, but let's not forget these Cats had conceded only 4 goals against the best attacking side in the competition (Hawthorn) last week up until midway through the last term in pretty good conditions at the MCG. These were diabolical conditions at Kardinia Park against third rate opposition. This does not excuse the performance, which was far from good enough, but it does put some context around our opponent and just how damn good they are. It also does not take anything away from what was just a miserable, depressing day at the footy. You get a fair indication of the game when you see Geelong supporters leaving at half time just to get out of the unrelenting rain. The result was always inevitable, the game was a slog, we hardly went forward and I sat there getting wetter and colder by the minute. The only positive is that I didn't catch pneumonia.

Take out the second quarter and it was 12.10 to 11.6. 22 shots to 17 for a 10 point margin. It was far, far from the absolute disasters we saw earlier in the year against top sides in the Hawks, Pies, Freo and Dons. IIRC we played probably one reasonable quarter in each of those games. Against Sydney yesterday we played three competitive quarters. Yes the scoreboard flattered us - but I think it was probably about a 9 goal loss if they kicked straight, definitely nowhere near 15 goals. Yesterday was an absolute mile away from the utter garbage we saw earlier this year.

Three things I liked about today 1) Sydney put us under immense heat early, especially in our defensive 50 and we coughed it up a few times which cost us goals. Instead of going into our shells and playing slow, risk-free football, we continued to run, share the ball, take risks and take the game on. It was great to see the players really back themselves to play that way against a strong defensive side. A huge contrast to how we played in the first 11 rounds. 2) Despite there being times in the game when Sydney looked on the verge of streaking away, we held on, gritted our teeth and came back at them. We never looked like winning but we also made sure they never got it all their own way. The second quarter they were well on top of us but we came out after half time and hung in there and then won the last quarter. 3) Scoring 85 points against one of the best defensive teams in the competition was a good effort. When considering how badly we got beaten up out of the centre this makes it an even better effort. There's no doubt Sydney monstered us out of the centre and were just too good around the ball for us. This is an area we obviously need to get a lot better in and of course had they kicked straight they would have won by a fair bit more. However, the way we ran hard forward, spread, switched the play, retained possession and looked to use each other was an enormous contrast to the side I watched in the first 11 rounds. It was enjoyable to go to the footy and see some really positive play. Under Neeld we attacked with almost a defensive focus (that is, our attacking play seemed to be about minimising the chance of a dangerous turnover). But we didn't retain the ball and we didn't make the opposition defend us. At least at the moment we are making the opposition defend when we attack.

I have been saying that all year - our huge disposal differentials were hurting us offensively and defensively - offensive in that we couldn't retain possession and defensively in the sense that the less you have of the ball, the more the opposition has it. Disposal stats are not the be all and end all but the differentials we were producing were extraordinarily large and were not sustainable. Will be interesting to see how we go in trying to retain possession more against two top sides in the next two weeks.

Astonishing call from Caroline. Pity no one on the panel pointed out to her that over the last seven years Melbourne has not finished higher than 12th, while the Dogs have made three preliminary finals.