Scoop Junior

Yeah of course - I'm not saying that there's evidentiary value in what Ralph has said. All I'm saying is that if GWS have promised to bid for Viney, that would be clear evidence of draft tampering in my opinion. If they haven't promised then it's a non-issue. It would just be disgraceful journalism to allege a statement of fact that is completely false.

I don't think there's too much ambiguity about the words 'GWS has promised to bid for Demons father-son candidate Jack Viney should it finish below Melbourne'. They've either promised or they haven't. If they haven't then that would be an appalling piece of journalism from John Ralph and I would be disgusted if I was GWS.

What I find interesting is the following comment: The match also has long-term ramifications given GWS has promised to bid for Demons father-son candidate Jack Viney should it finish below Melbourne. So if GWS finish bottom, they're effectively saying that they rate Jack Viney the number 1 player in the draft and would take him with pick 1. Very interesting that they can already make this decision when the draft is 5 months away and we are in the middle of the National Championships. Viney must be so far ahead of every other player in the draft that GWS can confidently say in the middle of June that they will take Viney with pick 1 in the draft. Gee, seems to me to be very early to make such an important decision. I don't know whether GWS have made such a promise. But if they have it seems to me to be just about the clearest evidence of draft tampering as you could get.

I actually didn't think the first quarter was that bad from an effort point of view. I thought we tried, as we did all game, but a combination of bad decision making and poor execution (along with Collingwood's efficient ball movement) meant that we got punished every time they went forward. Brad Green's miss was a shocker as we needed that goal to steady ourselves. Instead the steadier didn't come until midway through the second quarter. Green's been a sensational player for us but it's been fairly obvious this year that he struggles with the pace of the game. If you're not a marking forward or a quick crumber, you need to be able to run and go through the midfield and that's where Green is struggling. But overall I was pleased with the effort. At 8 goals to 0 we could have been smashed, and again in the last they could have run away with a 15 goal win. But we fought back both times and while we never really looked like winning, we at least kept them honest and forced them to lift to fight us off again. At the end of the day we're near the bottom and they're at the top for a reason. They are a classy side and I thought that the level of class was the key difference in the game. I walked away pleased that for three weeks in a row we've had a real crack and have really only been let down by simply not being talented enough. If we can inject some young talented midfielders into that side and they maintain that level of effort then I'm confident we can turn things around fairly quickly. And finally well done Jonesy, what a season he's having. Sensational.

It never ceases to amaze me how Essendon fans just stream out of the ground once they think they're gone. It's like it's a co-ordinated move, they just pack up and go as one. I thought it was funny when they left after big Maxy Gawn took that mark in the goal square last year - Gawn missed the shot and the Bombers were still in it. This year was unbelievable, they all streamed out when Garland took that mark. I've never seen supporters leave when 5 points down with 2 minutes left. And he missed! Pathetic from those fans after what their team has delivered so far this year. But they've always been terrible losers (which is why it's so much fun beating them!).

It's a fair point, but I do like that we are developing a side that can handle the wet conditions. For years and years I've dreaded rain at the footy, as we've traditionally been a side that struggles in a dour defensive scrap. Now we seem to relish such a contest.

Good analysis Hampton22, thanks for that. Obviously we have been well short of the mark this year, but definitely in the Carlton and St Kilda games you could see the players tiring in the last quarter. In those two games the effort was really good up until three quarter time. Against Carlton we were smashed in tight but our ability to defend the spread was quite good for three quarters. This is essentially what kept us in the game. Then in the last we just couldn't cover their spread and because Carlton kept winning the clearances the game started to open up and they basically ran us off our feet. I thought it was similar in the St Kilda game where we could barely move the ball forward in the last quarter. Of course our skills are not up to scratch at the moment and we probably would've lost to Carlton even if we could've run out the game. But they wouldn't have opened us up the way they did and instead of a 58-point loss it would likely to have been a much closer hard fought 3 to 4 goal loss. It will be interesting because we need to improve our fitness, speed and strength, so there's no shortage of work for the physical performance team!

Agree on Dunn, Nasher. Yeah he tries hard but I just don't see what he brings to the table other than a booming kick for goal. But no use having a nice long kick for goal when you hardly win the ball inside 50. Combine that with Seller and a lack of crumb and it's no surprise that Mitch Clark looks like the only forward capable of kicking multiple goals. But at the end of the day it's not really about the forward line, it's a midfield issue. How can we not have a group of elite midfielders after all the high picks we've had? It's just depressing. Last chance to get it right this year - absolutely critical not to stuff it up this time! As bad as we are and as hard to watch as we are I'm still confident that there is the potential to turn things around quicker than most would think.

Fan: I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the older players may have been treated poorly. As a supporter I'm too far removed from the inner sanctum to know exactly how they've been treated and how they feel. But a couple things: 1) I'm not necessarily agreeing on all of those senior players you mentioned being shadows. Green and Davey are simply coming to the end of their careers and are arguably are no longer best 22 players. Green was just as poor last year under Bailey and don't forget that Davey was also dropped last year under Bailey. In fact, I would argue that I've seen a "harder" Davey this year. He has definitely gone in harder for the ball then he did last year (and who could forget that shirk against St Kilda at Etihad). Rivers I think has played reasonable footy this year and has been around about the level he produced last year. The only two who I would say are shadows today based on their past output are Moloney and Sylvia. The effort has not been there from them this year. 2) The other point is that if the senior players are upset at how they've been treated, this in no way excuses or allows them to perform as they've performed this year. In fact, a lack of effort from any senior player says more about them than it does about how they've been treated, and it provides further support for their demotion from the leadership group. If you are so mentally weak as a footballer that you will go out and represent your football club and fail to put in the required effort because of some off-field issues then you are not the right type of person to lead the footy club. As Paul Roos said on On the Couch last night, these players have not put in the required effort under Bailey, they didn't put in the required effort under Viney and now they're not doing it under Neeld. This means that they are just refusing to do as instructed and says more about them then it does about the coaching staff or footy department. Also, I haven't seen the Collingwood players sooking after they lost their much loved coach. They have gone about their business this year in a professional way and have hit a pretty good patch of form. Lastly, it is also worth mentioning that we have been complaining about our senior players for years. This is nothing new. How many times in the last few years have we said that our leaders did not stand up in a pressure situation during a game. This is something that has been going on for a long time and has been recognised as going on for a long time.

I thought that was a disgusting performance for so many reasons. But most of all the lack of effort was just astonishing. The O'Keefe mark in the second, the Parker mark in the third, Josh Kennedy winning the ball, standing up and running away with no one touching him, the free Swans players on the move all night. The list goes on. At the end of the day all you can hope is for an honest performance from the players. Last night they were dishonest and it makes you absolutely furious with them. Then there's the schoolboy errors. Jones handballing to a Swan in the goal square. Frawley bombing it in to the forward line with no one around. Repeated bombing in high to Davey four on one. Not having a big on the goal line to touch the ball from a Swans set shot nor one to shepherd through Magner's shot at the other end. From a professional AFL team it is just disgraceful to see these types of mistakes. As for the senior players, I think Davey and Green are trying, it's just that their best footy is well behind them. They look to be on their last legs. Davey has lost his breakneck pace and without this he doesn't have much to offer the side as a small forward. Green just can't get free like he used to. I guess it is difficult to play in the forward line in a side that gets it in 35 times a game, with most of those entries being haphazard. Sylvia and Moloney, though, are a different story. Their efforts have been pathetic this season. They are playing so far below their ability and are currently giving nothing to the side. At one stage I saw Moloney pointing for Watts to go somewhere, while Moloney was trailing another Swan by about 10 metres. The Swan was running into space and looking for a handball receive. Moloney just jogged behind and the Swans player got the ball and ran away. Stop pointing Beamer and man up yourself! The good news? I thought Blease was great, Wasn't it nice to see a Demon with some speed and a willingness to take the game on. The other positive is that by virtue of being horrendous we will have some high picks in a talent-laden draft. I still believe it can turn quicker than people think but we MUST draft extremely well and pick up some elite midfielders. I'm sick of watching our current plodding midfield run around getting torn a new one each week.

It's incredible, what next? You think you've hit rock bottom already but then you plunge a further 50 metres below.

It's not about imposing a requirement, it's about common sense. As I said I'm not talking about the Hawthorn incident, as I haven't seen it. I'm talking about the one with Watts at Geelong. Did you see that? If so, did you think it was a good look? That's rubbish that if they're not playing they can do what they like. This is not a country footy match where you rock up to watch your mates play and have a beer on the boundary. These guys are representing the Melbourne FC on and off the field, a professional elite sporting club the core business of which is winning games of footy. I would expect a player to naturally be upset when their team is getting pumped or at least to behave as if they are. Now that's not saying "don't tell jokes" or "don't laugh". You're taking it to the extreme. What I'm saying is that players should be aware of their behaviours and to show a bit of common sense in such situations. Nothing wrong with a little comment / joke or a smile or whatever, but I thought the way Watts was laughing his head off for 20 seconds while watching the Geelong game was taking it too far.

I think you've missed the point. We are members and supporters of the club, we are not employed by the club. The players are employed by the club and paid very well and they represent the club whether they are out on the field playing or sitting in the stands watching. There is plenty of time to joke around and have a laugh with the boys, but I would have thought that when your team is getting belted and you are sitting in the stands watching, that is definitely not the time to be having a laugh. It looks bad and it's a bad image. I have not seen the one from the Hawthorn game on the replay yet, but I was at Geelong and saw the players on the big screen and it was not a good look.

I'm heading down and will be in the standing room area. Happy to meet up with any other Demonlanders that are heading down. I think it's good not to talk about and worry about our record down there. It used to annoy me when the players would bang on about how bad our record at a particular ground is before the game. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A great effort from the boys tonight. Our intensity was superb for four quarters, we just seemed to run out of legs in the last. Finally we tackled like an AFL club should. There have been so many missed tackles in the first four weeks but tonight I thought we 'stuck' most of our tackles and our actual intent to tackle was much better. There's no doubt the rain helped us - made it more of a scrap and made it more difficult for the Saints to dominate us in uncontested possessions like the other teams who have played us so far. We still have concerns in this area. Really enjoyed the game, although Saints fans probably thought it was a shocker and would be relieved to have ground out the win. Loved Jordie's game. Was great to see a Melbourne player niggling and antagonising and getting right in an opposition star's face. Really aggressive tagging performance and absolutely towelled up Goddard. Jones and Grimes were also excellent and I thought the backline was pretty solid for most of the night. First time in a long time I've walked away from a game proud of the team. Unfortunately we've all seen us over the last four or five years occasionally put in a performance like tonight and then revert back to the rubbish we've dished up so often. So the big question is - was that a one off or can we make that the standard and bring that intensity and aggression on a weekly basis?

I find it strange to say that we were heading towards the Geelong style of play and recruited accordingly by picking more outside skinnier players. In big games (including finals) Geelong don't play a game style suited to skinny outside players. They play a contested brand of footy with big bodies and aggression. The conception of Geelong as a fast outside team was probably born in 2007, when they went against the Sydney and West Coast style of one-on-one accountable footy (which produced low scores) which was the pre-eminent game plan of the mid 2000s, and produced a high possession, play on at all costs style to break up the one-on-one nature of the contest. But this does not mean they were a fast outside team. They were as good in the contested ball and when it came to finals footy and big games against top opposition it was their ability to win the contests and use the ball well that made them so great. Their midfield was not fast and their backline was not fast, other than Wojcinski. Cam Mooney said the other night that Geelong's number one focus over their successful period has always been contested footy. So if we wanted to adopt the Geelong game plan, we would need to recruit players that could win their own footy and could make quick decisions and use the ball well. Yet the argument here is that we were going down the Geelong path and that's why we've recruited blokes who are now struggling under Neeld as they can't win contested ball? As Old said, a good player is a good player. Elite midfielders can win the ball inside and outside and use it well. They can adapt to a contested or uncontested game plan. If some of our players aren't able to get a game in the best 22 of Neeld's team, it will be because they are not good enough, not just because they were recruited for a different game plan. And I would also argue that to continually recruit a type of player based on a certain game plan isn't a great strategy, as game plans can and do evolve rapidly. Any game plan and team requires a balance of players with a combination of skill sets.

The thing that gets me at the moment is the lack of tackling. Our players just don't tackle. Tackling is something everyone can do - it doesn't require any natural gifts like pace or footy smarts and it doesn't require any special skills or experience. Our tackle count is extremely low every game and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the lowest in the league. I don't know the cause - it is a lack of application by the players? Are they not chasing? Are they too slow to catch the opposition? Are they focusing too much on filling their spots in the zone / structure rather than on applying direct defensive pressure? Possibly a combination of all the above but it's just disheartening to continually see your team fail to tackle. We have been diabolical in so many aspects of the game so far this year, but you would have thought that at least the players would go out there, lay some tackles and put some proper pressure on the opposition. No wonder the opposition get 100 more uncontested possessions every week. It's pretty easy to string together chains of uncontested possessions when you don't tackle or put sufficient pressure on. The third quarter today - wow. Circle work. 9 goals to 1 - that's 186 pace. Against Richmond too. Shameful.

Yeah I think that's an excellent point. I think it was Hutchy last night who had a go at the Suns' youngsters, but they are simply being overwhelmed playing in a very inexperienced team that is getting belted each week. Put some of their youngsters in the Geelong or Hawthorn side at the moment and they are going to look like far better footballers. There's no doubt that young kids look better in better teams with experienced gun senior players around them. I have been very impressed with some of Geelong's younger blokes but they would find it much harder playing for GC or GWS at the moment. We are not as inexperienced as those two but in terms of experienced gun senior players we are probably as far off as anyone at the moment.

Well said Big Red - I heard that comment from Gerard too and thought it was spot on. People bang on about effort and heart etc. and it does play a part but at the end of the day if you don't have the cattle you are going to get exposed no matter how good your effort is. Midfield quality is an obvious one - at the moment Jones is looking like the only player with the ability to get the ball often enough and use it well. And he's a good solid player rather than an A grade midfielder. Magner has been great as a grunt player. It's just devastating that with all the high picks we've had we haven't built a dominant midfield. We haven't even produced an A grade midfielder yet. Trengove and Gysberts offer hope to become A graders, but it's just hope at the moment based more on potential than evidence. There are too many similar types, too many blokes with poor disposal. Too many who lack pace and who struggle to run and spread. That's why I liked $cully so much for what he added to the mix in terms of his pace and ability to gut run. The few players in the team who can regularly hit targets don't get the footy enough and the few players with pace don't go in hard enough. At the moment it's just a mishmash of players with each possessing some strengths but ultimately having glaring weaknesses. And the midfield depth is a good point too. Most teams have specialist talls and smalls, with the rest of the team made up of midfielders. We seem to have an obsession with 6''1 flankers who can't play midfield. The modern game requires 9 or 10 of the 22 blokes that can go through the midfield, I'd say we had about 7 today. If we do finish in the bottom three or four then we will potentially have the chance to pick up two top 5 players, a pick 12 and then Jack Viney as an early second rounder (assuming you can't use compensation picks on father-son(?) and that the bottom two or three don't bid for Viney). If we do have these picks then it'll be absolutely critical that we pick up some outstanding midfield talent along with Viney. No more mistakes. Things can turn really quickly when you start to build a good midfield. At the moment we are simply uncompetitive in there, arguably the worst midfield in the comp. Embarrassing and gut-wrenching to watch. I also thought it was disgusting that no one even went up to Waters after he ran through Grimes. We let our captain get flattened and do nothing about it. I don't even care if someone gets reported - you don't let your captain go down and not react. [censored] weak.

That still remains one of my most memorable games. Not only did we come off those beltings, but we were also missing most of our best players that day. The team was given absolutely no chance of winning, but we managed to pull it off. I think it may have been Stinga's comeback game. It would be fair to say we were even bigger outsiders that day than we will be this weekend.

Grant Thomas said it shows something that Moloney referred to the coach as 'coach' and not to his name. What an absolutely stupid comment. Talk about reading way too much into a comment. What's wrong with saying 'the coach'? What difference does it make if he says his name or 'the coach'? You cannot read anything into that. Thomas is just looking for a way to back up his opinion, because at the moment he has nothing to support his criticism of Neeld. Anyway, I've heard Brad Green repeatedly say "Neeldy" in a number of interviews, so there's Grant Thomas' theory down the toilet. There is nothing that can be read into saying "Mark", "Neeld", "Neeldy", "coach", etc., especially in a one-off comment.

It does take time to learn and adjust to a new game plan and I'm willing to accept that early in the season there will be times when we get caught out of position or players run to the wrong spot etc. But the basics of footy are the same no matter what your game plan. Winning the footy at the stoppages is a basic - every game plan relies on that. And keeping possession when you have the footy is another. Those two areas we were absolutely horrible at today. And to be honest I expected more in these areas, as winning the footy and keeping possession are not concepts that purely rely on learning a new game plan - it is something that footballers have known about their whole careers. I lost count of the number of times we'd get first hands on the footy but get caught, while the Lions would then pick it up and run away. And those were the few times we actually got first hands on the ball at a stoppage, as most of the time Black and Rich just did what they liked. They were just so much better at getting a quick possession out to a running player, while we seemed quite stationary at the stoppages. Then when we did get the ball, we couldn't string together any chains or passages of play. The Lions on the other hand were able to move the ball with speed and generally used it pretty well. If you can't get the basics of footy right then you have no chance. Absolutely shocking display of footy from the players today.

Courtney_Fish: You are entitled to your opinion. But I wouldn't be too quick to write off Dermie's view. Not only has he won 5 flags but he is very insightful and astute. I'll back his view on this. Longsuffering: The game has changed, but the basics of footy still remain the same. It always has been and still is a tough and brutal game and it needs to be played that way. Old: It's not about beating someone up. I'm not calling for that at all. As I said previously, "I'm not calling for thuggery and behind the play stuff, but rather an uncompromising attack on the ball and a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it. And not to let the opposition dominate us." I agree that Geelong are different to Hawthorn – Hawthorn niggle more and do more off the ball stuff. But Geelong hit hard, make no mistake. They are a ruthless team. They clearly meet the above criteria - an uncompromising attack on the ball, a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it, and not to be dominated by the opposition.

We all know toughness in footy is critical, but two comments I've heard recently have really reinforced this and brought it back to the surface. First, in the NAB Cup match between the Dogs and Pies, Heath Shaw and Jarrad Grant were chasing after the ball as it trickled over the boundary. As it went out, Shaw gave Grant a hard shove off the ball. Grant got up and just ran back to position without retaliating. Dermie saw this incident, was clearly unimpressed with Grant's lack of reaction and said something like "see that, Grant has done nothing back to Shaw, Shaw would be thinking, 'I've got him now'". Dwayne Russell responded by saying that maybe Grant just wanted to get on with his own game and not get distracted by stuff like that, to which Dermie responded "well, that may be the case, but I'm yet to see a premiership side that doesn't antagonise the opposition". Second, Kevin Sheedy in his pre-match address to the GWS players emphatically said the line "do not let your opponent dominate you". Sheedy also said the following in relation to the McDonald incident "All the best teams over the decades play hard, tough football." "Geelong do it, Brisbane's premiership teams did it. It's the only way to win finals." There wouldn't be too many who have a better knowledge of what it takes to win finals and Grand Finals than a bloke who has won five of them as a player and a coach who has won four. In my years of watching the Demons, the only time I can recall us being a tough and brutal team was in the Northey years. Sure we've had some very good teams since and plenty of tough and brutal players, but as a team I don't think anyone in the AFL would have regarded us as a tough and brutal team in the last 20 years. You can have all the talent in the world, but a purely talented team without the necessary toughness won't get the job done when it counts. Sheedy and Brereton know this and that's why they made the comments above. For the record I am not just referring to going in hard - footballers are brave and courageous and put their bodies on the line (our players included). And I am not saying we are soft. My reference to 'tough and brutal' is about taking it to the next level - it's about wanting to hurt, to antagonise, to dominate the opposition. There is nothing new in this, but because we have been so bad recently all the focus has been on getting the skill and the talent of the side in order. And make no mistake, this should be a key focus area because it's critically important. A tough side without the talent is going nowhere fast. But what I'd really like to see this year, other than the obvious improvement in the team as it adjusts to a new style of footy, is the MFC starting to become a tough and brutal side again. I'm not calling for thuggery and behind the play stuff, but rather an uncompromising attack on the ball and a willingness and desire to hit hard and hurt the opposition when they have it. And not to let the opposition dominate us.

Can someone please paste the updates in here - I can't get the link working.