Scoop Junior

What I didn't like about Strauss' game was his decision making and his lack of awareness. He gave a number of handballs to blokes under the pump and got caught a few times hesitating when he needed to make a quick decision and move the ball on. I also thought he lacked intensity. But these attributes could be said of a number of players last night. And I accept that Strauss is inexperienced and is more likely to make these errors. I'm not having a crack at him, I just can't see how he could possibly be in our top six players last night!

Votes for Strauss...is this the best six or the worst six? I thought he had a terrible game. I understand though that it's pretty hard to find six good players tonight. Amazing how one week you could squeeze about 15 players in the votes, the next you struggle to find six decent performers.

I think that's a fair point Jordie_Tackles. Lynch probably shouldn't have mentioned it, but in the end there is no real harm done and it doesn't give us an indication one way or the other.

"Speaking with GWS" in this case implies holding discussions over the possibility of Scully finding a way to get to the club and negotiating contract terms if he were to go. Disagree Artie. That is more than speaking with GWS. That is negotiating a potential deal, albeit at a preliminary stage. When Scully had his press conference he denied that GWS had approached his management or spoke with his management at that point in time. Lynch's comments (if true) show that there has since been an approach or that the management have since spoken to GWS. For what it's worth, I believe Scully. I believe what he said was true. Therefore, it appears that GWS made a brief enquiry to his management in the period after his press conference (i.e. between March and now), which means that Scully's and Lynch's comments are true. What Scully said was that there was no contact at all as at the time of his press conference (in March). What Lynch has implied is that there was at least minimal contact. So for both comments to be true, this minimal contact between Lynch and GWS must have occurred post-Scully's press conference. I am not trying to blow things out of proportion, as I know Lynch's comments are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things. It really isn't material to the whole issue but I just found Lynch's comments interesting because prior to this there was no concession from Lynch or the management group that GWS had, at the least, approached them.

Just read that Age article and I don't understand this comment from Lynch: "What we’ve said for the past 12 months now is that he’d assess the situation at the end of his term. Obviously GWS is out there and we’ve said to GWS, ‘We’re not speaking to you until the end of the season as well’…" I thought GWS had not made an approach and that his management had not spoken to GWS. If that's true, then I'm struggling to reconcile that with Lynch's comments above. Lynch's comments appear to suggest that either GWS has asked them about Scully and the response was as above or that his management approached GWS and told them that they won't speak until the end of the year. I believe that an offer has not been made, but in regards to there not being an approach from, or not having spoken to, GWS, Lynch's comments seem quite confusing.

A very good debut. What I liked most was his lateral movement. I think this is where someone like Bate has struggled. Bate's okay in a straight line but if he needs to veer off his line to win the footy or try to evade someone then it slows him right down. Howe last night showed some great mobility and was able to show some good speed when running in straight lines and when changing direction. I think this is an important attribute for a medium-sized forward. It will get harder when the opposition become aware of him and what he can do, but the signs couldn't have been much better for a debutant.

Haha yes the stance was brilliant! What I liked about him was his confidence. Here's a 19 year old 208cm ruckman playing his first game. You don't find too many players in footy as raw as a young big ruckman making their AFL debut. And he has only played a few senior VFL games! You would expect a really nervous performance. Not calling for the ball, looking to handball at every opportunity, looking to give it off instead of taking a shot at goal. Yet big Maxy was waving both arms in the air in the middle of the ground demanding the footy on a few occasions. He backed his kicking and when he took that mark near the boundary in the last term, he went back and backed himself to drill it. Can't imagine too many other young big men showing that much confidence. He was also responsible for one of the best moments of the game...his last quarter pack mark sending all the Bombers fans heading for the exits. They just piled out in their numbers, it was quite an amazing sight. They never handle defeat well that mob.

Axis I have to disagree on 'ball use' being the problem. Our bombing inside 50 to 1v2 contests was a 'decision making' error, not a 'ball use' error. The kicks were intended to be long bombs and that is what they were and therefore they weren't the result of skill errors. So why did our players repeatedly make the decision to kick long inside 50m? As I said I don't know the reason. I would've thought that given we planned to use a loose man in defence our players would have been given the instruction not to bomb away inside 50 as we would be out-numbered. To then repeatedly make this error at the start of the game shows that: 1) either the instruction was not given pre-match or 2) the players failed to execute the instruction. For what it's worth, Bailey had no chance Friday night. Against a quality opposition, 10 of our best 22 missing, we were never going to win this game. We did well to limit the damage early and the players' endeavour was there throughout the game. I just don't understand the above aspect of our game and no, it can't simply be blamed on poor ball use or the forwards pushing up too far up the ground (if they do push too far up, simply instruct them not to). It was all decision making.

There has been a lot of discussion on whether the tactic of employing a loose man behind the ball from the start of the game was a good or bad tactic. Whether the tactic was right or wrong doesn't really bother me. What did frustrate me on the night though was our inside 50 entries in the first quarter, especially early in the game. So we've prepared for this game with the loose man behind the ball tactic. This means that should Carlton not man this loose player up, they will also have a loose man behind the ball. So both sides will have an extra man in defence. This should radically change the way you structure your forward 50 entries. You can't bomb long to a pack because you'll be outnumbered and they'll take the ball away most times. What you have to do is spot up leading targets. If there are no leading targets, then you need to slow your ball movement when going inside 50 and look laterally through the midfield for loose players and kick it to them. The worst thing to do when employing a loose man tactic is just to bomb it long inside 50 to a 1v2 option. The key is to hit up leading targets, but even if you can't then just maintain possession through the midfield until a better option presents up forward. Even though this slows the game down, it will mean that the opposition have the ball in their hands less and will score less, which is ultimately the purpose of the loose man tactic (i.e. a defensive tactic to keep the opposition's scoring down). So hopefully this explains my shock and horror at the way we just blindly and stupidly bombed the ball inside our forward 50 in the first quarter. Surely if you have planned and prepared for the loose man tactic pre-game you would also have expressed the critical aspect of not bombing in to a 1v2 contest in our forward 50. I don't know the cause for our failure to avoid doing this - was it drummed in pre-match, did the players fail to heed instructions, did they just panic under Carlton's pressure? Whatever it was, it was extremely frustrating. In the future I would hope that if we decide to play with a man behind the ball we will adjust our attacking tactics accordingly to match the defensive style we are adopting.

My point earlier about the conduct not being negligent is backed up by the following. Firstly, the comments made by Mitchell and many media experts comprising ex-footballers. Mitchell has basically implied, in saying that every player would hope JT is cleared, that JT's tackle was the way that all players would tackle in the same situation. Ex-footballers have also described it as a perfect tackle, again showing that that is how the ordinary footballer would tackle in the circumstances. I just cannot see how JT's tackle can be classified as negligent conduct. While negligence is viewed objectively, surely the comments of other footballers can help determine what would have been reasonable in the circumstances (and therefore whether JT's conduct fell short of this standard or met the standard). Secondly, in the Maxwell case, the Appeals Board said that 'the contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact'. Tackling someone to the ground is permitted under the laws of the game. The question then is whether it was reasonable, and for the reasons mentioned above and in my earlier post I would find it extremely difficult to consider it unreasonable. I watched the incident again multiple times last night and the finding by the MRP and Tribunal is absolutely disgraceful.

Great post Redleg. I also agree with Robbie's comments, particularly in relation to the 'negligence' aspect. I would have thought that 'negligent' conduct would be conduct that falls short of what a reasonable footballer in Trengove's position would consider the reasonable standard of care. The aim of a good tackle is to stop the player from disposing of the ball and to bring him to the ground. Bringing the player to the ground makes it less likely that he will be able to get an effective disposal away or be able to break free from the tackle and run away. A reasonable footballer in Trengove's position would attempt to tackle the player and take him to ground, which is what Trengove did. The only difference was Dangerfield had disposed of the ball but Trengove did not know that and IMO the reasonable player in his position would have attempted something similar (and we see this every game, every week). So I don't think that he acted negligently and if this can be proven then there is no offence. The other issue I have is the 'rough conduct' charge. Is there a definition of 'rough conduct'? I would like to see what it says. I struggle to grasp the concept of a legitimate tackle being classified as 'rough conduct'. If it is, then there is an endless amount of incidents which can be deemed 'rough conduct' and the rule would be so uncertain and so vague that it would be inoperable. It would just be a matter of the MRP picking and chosing when to charge someone with 'rough conduct' as there would potentially be 50 incidents a game which could be viewed as 'rough conduct'. I am not sure whether attacking the rule is a viable option on appeal, but to me the rule on high contact (i.e. that contact can be deemed to be high contact where a player's head makes contact with an object as a result of another player's conduct) is unworkable. Again there is the potential for an endless amount of incidents to fall within this definition. As someone has said, a smother that results in the smothering player getting the football kicked in their head would fall within the definition of high contact. This should be challenged (though I am unsure whether it is something the appeals board can decide or whether it is only the law makers who can decide this). The AFL don't want head injuries and they are ruthlessly punishing any incidents that lead to head injuries such as concussion. They are solely concerned with consequences rather than conduct and that's the reason why he is being rubbed out. It's an absolute disgrace.

Artie I too tipped West Coast and expected them to win on Thursday night. What I didn't tip and what I didn't expect was that performance. Make no mistake, in the first quarter we had absolutely no idea how to get the ball out of defence. We froze like deer caught in the headlights. We were aimless and structureless. Our intensity and defensive work rate were at disgracefully low levels. I could go on and on and it has all been said in the last few days, but it was without doubt as embarrassing a quarter as you would see at this level (GC excluded). The rest of the game wasn't much better. How you can justify this performance as simply one which was expected is baffling. Neither the coaches or the players would be so accomodating towards that performance. Having said that, I'm not in the "sack Bailey" camp. His initial job was to prune the list and inject talented youth into the side. Let's not forget the lengths he went to to help us get the priority pick in 2009 - his toughness in refusing to buckle from reaching that goal was admirable. In 2010 it became about developing the new list of youngsters and on the whole we achieved that last year. We won 8.5 games, played some really exciting footy, got game time and development into young players and importantly improved in key areas (such as points conceded and other defensive aspects). 2011 for me was always another development year, but given a good run with injury (which we currently have) the expectation was that we should improve on last year's win tally (especially given our easy draw) and show further improvement, further develop the young players and improve further in the key areas. I'm actually less concerned with the win tally than the other aspects (development and individual / team improvement). It is clear that after 1/4 of the season, we have not had the individual / team improvement that we were expecting. But to go from "we are on par in our development" at the end of 2010 to "sack Bailey" only five games into the new season is just reacting far too quickly in my opinion. The goal was to improve and develop further in 2011 and this should be judged in the context of a season, rather than five games. So while I'm deeply disappointed by what we've shown, it is too soon to react as things can change very quickly in footy (just see Rounds 1 and 2 last year as a perfect example of how the outlook can change so quickly). Bailey knows he is under pressure and rightly so, our performances so far have been very poor and he and the players will need to improve markedly in the remainder of the season to reach our goal for the year. Tactically and structurally we look all over the place at the moment, but things can change quickly and let's hope they do (in Bailey's case, they need to otherwise he'll be in trouble). As a side matter (but related), our starts have been clear proof of our structure and ball movement issues at the moment. People have said that our bad starts are due to not bringing the right intensity or Bailey not 'firing up' the players pre game. Yes we have lacked intensity at the start for some reason but I don't think that's the main cause. In the first 10 minutes of games, the pressure and intensity from the opposition is typically at its greatest. Teams are fresh and hungry to apply fierce defensive pressure. And that's where our game plan falls down. We cannot get the ball out of defence. We don't know whether to handball it through the press or kick over it. When we handball it we turn it over, and when we kick it it goes to a 4 on 1 contest as our forwards have all pushed up the ground. The only way we look capable of getting it forward in such high pressure is through a centre clearance win, but we are ranking low in clearances as well at the moment. What this shows is that there's currently a flaw in either our plan or our execution of the plan. The Hawthorn game we couldn't get it out of our back 50 in the first 10 minutes. Same for the West Coast game. Even against the Suns, a team whose pressure was not even half the level exerted by the likes of the Hawks and Eagles, we turned the ball over four or five times in the first 10 minutes, struggled to get it out of defence and the Suns were leading the match at that stage. It is critical for Bailey for us to improve in this area. We need to start well and to get our structures right. He has the time to achieve this and hopefully we see improvement in this area in the coming weeks.

Not having an after-match function is very poor form from the club. I will be going up to the game. Personally it's not a huge concern for me if the players don't show up as we can see them every week on the field in Melbourne. But for the QLD members who do their bit for the club, it's a shame that they won't be able to see them given they only get one chance a year. For anyone that was at the Pineapple Hotel after-match function last year, I'm sure they will agree that the atmosphere was amazing. There was a huge crowd of Melbourne fans, we had just won interstate for the first time in four years and there was a lot of noise and some great renditions of It's a Grand Old Flag. That's what going interstate is all about. An interstate trip is costly and you spend time and effort in planning it and getting there. To then see a thrashing is extremely disappointing, but we supporters know that such results are possible and make the effort to get to the game anyway. It's unequivocal support. I think to not reward the supporters who have travelled for the game and the interstate members is pretty ordinary. I've been to a number of interstate post-match functions and haven't seen any problems before, so for a one-off incident to result in a cancellation of the post-match function (if that's the case) is not right in my opinion. Even if the players can't make it, it's always nice to hear from coaching staff / footy department after the game and I can't see why something like that can't be organised for this game. Even something as simple as a 10 minute game wrap up from an assistant coach can still generate a feeling of togetherness and promote the 'one club' notion that we hear about.

I think this is a brilliant and interesting thread and have enjoyed reading the posts. I think we definitely need to get better at keeping the ball in our forward line, but I don't think we have to play the 'press' just because everyone else is doing it. A good zone on kick outs, together with some increased numbers in our forward line (we are often out-numbered 3 v 1, which makes it hard to keep the ball in) and a greater commitment to forward pressure should do the trick. Even an attenuated version of the press can help increase forward pressure and keep the ball in our forward line. Just because St Kilda and Collingwood have done it recently and teams are copying does not mean the full-on forward press is the only way to go. I think the big thing for us to improve is clearances, as when we lose we often get well beaten in this area. An effective clearance for us is so critical as it gets the ball into our forward line quickly so that our forwards are one-out. Our forwards rely more on talent than size (and there is talent in there) to win the ball and giving them the chance one-out against their opponents with the ball coming in quickly is going to worry opposition defenders. The last quarter of the Sydney game was the best evidence of this, as Moloney started dominating out of the middle and we looked like scoring every time we went forward from the clearance. The good news is that there are three young players not currently in the side who have shown great talent in winning the ball at the stoppages (Scully, Gysberts and McKenzie). I think their return into the side will give us a big lift in ball winning ability. While they are still light and having a big body helps in close, I don't think a big body is as critical as people make out and rather it's the player's talent to position themselves in the right spot and get an effective first possession that makes a great clearance player. Judd and Ablett win their clearances more on their ability to read the play and get an effective possession out rather than just relying on their bodies to push people around. That is why someone like Jones is not a great clearance player, he has the body but not the ability to get that damaging first possession.

It's not chicken and egg at all Dappa, it's making the right decision in the circumstances. Of course we want quick ball movement and to get and give the ball quickly to enable this to happen. What bonkers is saying is that when being tackled, that is the time when it may be better to hang on to the ball rather than just flip it out to no one. I agree with this. Quite often on Sunday we got caught and just got rid of the ball, which often resulted in the Swans getting possession and having an open forward line to kick to and hurt us on the counter attack. If we instead had locked the ball in and caused a ball up, it would have prevented this. Even if the umpire called holding the ball, it at least forces the Swans player to go back and kick over the mark and gives our players time to push back and crowd the Swans forward line. What it does is effectively prevent the "quick break" that can be so dangerous. Obviously if there is a player open to receive the ball when you are being tackled, you try to give it. And if you can clear the area with a long kick or handball that is also preferred. But the situation I am referring to is when there are no options available and you are surrounded by the opposition. In that situation it may be better to try to force a ball up. Obviously I understand the difficulties of making such decisions under immense pressure and know that you can't always get it right.

Agree with Hannabal - Garland for me is the man to take Goodes. I am against starting Martin as a sub for two reasons: 1) Jamar will need time to rest and I think it's important for Martin to give him some help in the ruck for at least 5-7 minutes a quarter. This will help make Jamar more effective over the entire game. 2) Our backline is short and not physically big. If someone like Jesse White (who I know is only a mediocre footballer) proves too big and strong for Rivers (his likely opponent) or Goodes is out-muscling Garland, then I think it's important to have someone like Martin who at least is a suitable physical match for these strong forwards (even if he is not the ideal option) and is probably the best back-up option should Rivers/Garland/Macdonald struggle.

Stuff the Crows. They had no problems taking Scott Thompson from us. So we'll take their assistant coach from them. Don't feel for them at all. Great news for the Dees!

What I like most about McKenzie is how different he is to a lot of players we have had over the years. We have had a lot of silky midfielders with loads of class who have struggled to impose themselves when heavily tagged and we've also had a bunch of hard workers with limited pace / poor skills. Jordie is that type of player that just burrows in all day regardless of the score. And while he is not the quickest nor the most skilful in the team, his foot skills and pace are more than adequate for an inside midfielder and his hands in close and handball are very good. A nicely balanced all round inside midfielder who is proving to be an absolutely inspired selection in the rookie draft. He complements our other midfielders and is just the type of player we need.

Cannot understand how Davey can get in the top six players against the Saints. I thought he was poor - 14 touches and limited impact with them...for a player of his ability we need much more than that from him.

I would like to see Bruce playing one of two roles this year. Either: 1) Medium sized defender to play on a dangerous mid-sized opposition forward (eg. Brett Burton) - Bruce is quite a good one-on-one shut down player and has the experience, mobility and height to play on such forwards. 2) Defensive half forward to play on a dangerous attacking half back - I think this role is very important in modern footy. Teams get a lot of drive from their half back line and the ability to restrict the run from defence is important. Bruce also has the ability to be a dangerous forward and this will make sure his opponent has to be accountable and can't just run off him all day. Bruce is a very poor handballer IMO and I don't think he's the best field kick either. He does make a lot of mistakes with his ball use and this has cost us goals in both games. I think the role of major ballwinner / rebounding half back is better occupied by others these days who use the ball better and make better decisions. But this doesn't mean Bruce doesn't have a role in the team, as I think he'd be particularly useful as either a defensive half forward or a shut down defender. My only concern with him forward would be pace issues but otherwise he could perform the role well.

Of course I wanted McMahon to kick it. As I would expect 95% of supporters would. I don't understand the comments about how supporters that wanted us to lose are pathetic or aren't doing the right thing. What these supporters want is to lose so that the club will be stronger in the future. It's common sense - the "cost" of losing to Richmond (negligible IMO) is far outweighed by the "benefit" of losing (potential acquisition of two key players for the next 12 years). On such a basic analysis the club was far better off losing yesterday. So my point is this - if the club is better off losing yesterday, and we are all supporters of the MFC, why would we want our team to win? Why wouldn't we want what's better for the club? I understand the feeling of wanting Melbourne to lose isn't a good one. But supporters wanting us to lose are actually supporting the best interests of the club and are wanting to see it succeed in the future. Supporting your side for a win is not unconditional. If you were offered a premiership in 2011 but in 2010 we had to lose every game, who here would not accept that? People that wanted us to lose yesterday had the best interests of the club at heart. I don't begrudge supporters who wanted us to win yesterday...it's up to the individual supporter to decide what they want. But I'm sick of hearing them complain about the others that wanted us to lose. We want to lose because we want MFC to win, it's that simple.

I think that a team containing McLean, McDonald, Moloney and Jones is too slow and one-dimensional. I wouldn't have more than three of these players in my side at the same time. All of them are good players but having them all in the one side is not good for team balance IMO. Add Green and Bruce as possible wingers and you're looking at a very one-paced midfield. I also think that we lack adequate match-ups for Thomas and Campbell (and Harvey if he goes forward). Bartram is one, but I don't know if Cheney (if he plays) has the pace for one of these guys. Garland will probably be used on one of them, but it does open up the possibility of Bennell playing. I would have thought that Bennell wasn't yet ready physically but he may well be better suited to a particular match-up than other players. I would definitely play Jetta in Aussie's absence.

So CJ saw more opportunities at an improving team like Carlton than at the bottom club who managed only 3 wins for the season? If you couldn't see yourself getting a game at Melbourne next year, then you may as well take yourself out of the AFL altogether. Hannabal, it's not so much that we lost CJ. It's that another player doesn't want to play for us. We get shunned by the AFL in the draw, shunned by the tv stations, media personalities and now players. We are just a leftover at the moment. I didn't want to swap pick 19 for Warnock, but for a guy to emphatically state that he did not want to go to a club that has been working on him for a year and is where his brother plays is not a great result. As I said in my previous post, drafting is the only way out of this mess. If we can draft well and create a strong team, then our perception in the football world will improve. I don't want to think what could happen if we don't draft well.

Well I am concerned. We chase players and interview them and they don't want a bar of us (eg Prismall, Warnock). Now, we can't even retain a mid-range player at our club despite sitting down with him and trying to get him to say. So not only are guys we are chasing refusing to play for us, but even our own are refusing to re-sign with us. Despite people's opinions on the ability of guys like Prismall, Warnock and CJ, the trend of players not wanting to play for MFC is a bad one and it indicates that there is something NQR at the moment. And to make matters worse, we can't even delist a player that we don't want any more (Carroll). What is going on at this club!? It can't simply be dismissed as not wanting to play for the bottom club. We have only one hope - drafting well. Maybe pick 1 will be the first good news story on the Demons since our elimination final win back in 2006.

Not necessarily. If our recruiting staff deemed the KPP as a much better prospect than the midfielder, then I would be happy to go for the KPP. But if there are a bunch of players that we rate around the same mark, and that bunch includes KPPs and midfielders, then I'd like us to err towards midfielders. I don't think it's absolutely critical to have two gun tall KP forwards (assuming Watts will develop into our gun tall KP forward). It is critical though to have a few gun midfielders.