Scoop Junior

It's not easy to understand why we are where we are at the moment. I can't quite get my head around it. A team that performed well from 2004-2006, then had a horror run with injuries in 2007, to now being (at this point in time) uncompetitive with a style of football that is quite simply embarrassing. Many point their fingers at the senior players, and rightly so. But whose fault is it? The players' fault for not living up to expectation and not improving enough? A lack of development from the coaching staff? The list management staff for keeping them on too long? It's hard to know. I think a major reason for our current position has been a lack of understanding of our true position at particular points in time. Start with 2004 - top of the ladder after Rd 18. This is followed by a 12-goal loss to Port in Adelaide and is then followed by three consecutive losses and a subsequent elimination final defeat at the hands of Essendon. While it was a very disappointing end to the year, the side had made great progress since 2003. The drop-off at the end was somehwat forgotten amidst the joy at being back on track. Halfway through 2005 the side was again dominating, sitting in 2nd spot. A loss at home to WCE wad followed by smashings at the hands of Brisbane and Port. Again the side fell in a heap. There was a minor recovery at the end of the year with close wins in our last three games before bombing out against the Cats in an elimination final. What this season should've taught us was that once again our senior players failed. After a year ago falling away, this should not have been allowed to happen again. At this point in time it would've been fair to start moving on the blokes who kept letting us down. Instead we stuck with them. By Round 17 2006, the side was entrenched in the top four and looking the goods. Could we finally deliver? As in the previous two seasons, the team once again fell in a hole. A disastrous loss to Carlton (second loss to the Blues for the season) followed by one more win in the remaining four rounds. There was a good final win over the Saints (but remember, St Kilda led at three quarter time and had a bad run of injuries on the night) before losing the semi to Fremantle. Overall, reaching the semis was a good result, but from where we were at Round 17, it was disappointing. Again, for the third year in a row, the team fell in a hole. Decisions then had to be made. Do we stick with the blokes who obviously had enough ability to make us a decent side but clearly not a premiership side or do we move them on? ND and CAC chose to go for the flag. A bold move but understandable in the circumstances. ND was crippled by injuries in 2007 and this killed his flag chances. But so too did the faith he showed in his senior players. They had let him down before and in 2007, despite the injuries, the team was pathetic and they let him down again. Then we get to Bailey. New coach, new assistants, new footy manager, new everything. Another hard decision was there to be made - do we trade out the senior players who had let us down over a number of years or go with them again. We traded out one - TJ, but no one else. This was Bailey's first mistake. With all the new faces, a rebuild was on the cards. But we only did a partial rebuild, clearing only TJ. More should have gone. Again there was hope the senior players would lead the way in 2008. But it's now four years on since 2004, making them older, on the decline and even more flakier. Then some of these blokes make it into the leadership group! It's really no surprise to see the team wilt in the first few games. The senior players have done it before, so why wouldn't it happen again? How many times over the years have we seen Melbourne collapse in games, drop the unloseable game and go on big losing streaks? Teams with quality senior players don't do this. Yet we were too slow to learn and are now paying the price. Of course there are many other factors involved, like the fact we are being forced to play youngsters before they're ready in some cases and other youngsters with questionable abilities at senior level. This is inevitably going to result in some thumpings. But quite simply we've tolerated our senior players who have not been good enough for too long. This also impacts on the younger blokes as they are not getting the right leadership out on the ground. At the very least, these thrashings may have finally reuslted in the message getting through. The senior blokes are not good enough to take us where we want to go. It's painful, it's embarrassing, it's difficult to watch and it's quite simply ridiculous. But bad decisions result in bad outcomes. Let's hope we can learn from it.

If you are clearly in a rebuilding phase, then you don't just trade out one underperforming senior player at the end of the year. We should've looked to trade 3 or 4 of them and further improve our draft position. It's easy to say now we are rebuilding, but I don't think the footy department intended such a complete rebuild. If you thought the efforts were mostly there and you didn't believe we played that badly, then I must say you are very easily pleased. Our first two games have been so far below acceptable AFL standard that it's been a complete and utter embarrasment to all involved with the MFC. We have been disgraceful and the scoreboard has fairly reflected that.

Bruce did well on Brad Johnson, but it has got to the stage where I don't want him getting the ball. He coughs is up far too regularly for a senior player. There is a spot for him in the side in a defensive role.

Perhaps a good sponsorship opportunity as well...

Probably wouldn't get a game for a B-grade amateurs side either!

Agree Rhino. Watching Carroll is like groundhog day. The standard rough-up before the bounce. Sideways kicks. Marking and handballing to a player so close to him that the bloke on the mark can lay the tackle. Comical errors. Brain fades. Then throw in a few good marks and pieces of play. Will we ever have a good full back?

Yeah I bought tickets today too. I reckon it could cost about a dollar for each point we score (tickets were $25)!

It may take time to adjust to a new game plan, but that doesn't explain the woeful skills on display, the poor application, the missed tackles and the failure to work hard both ways. It's just a cop-out to use excuses like a new game plan. We were utterly pathetic in all aspects of footy. Even without a game plan you should still be able to execute basic football skills. Warren Dean while we did achieve those results last year, it doesn't mean much. The most annoying comment I hear Melbourne players make is "On our day, we're capable of beating anyone". Well so what. Anyone can beat anyone on their day, that's the nature of the competition. Good teams are those that perform consistently over the course of the season. Crap teams are those that perform every now and then. For the last 23 H&A matches we've simply been that - a crap team.

Don't worry mate. All that those underperforming Demons could do is make Sandy a less formidable side.

No need to tank mate. All we have to do is turn up and the rest will take care of itself! While I'm surprised at the magnitude of the defeat, I'm not entirely surprised by the manner in which we played. I watched the practice match against North. We were woeful. You can't just turn that around in a few weeks. At least when a team loses you can normally point to some positives, like they ran the ball well, they tackled well, they passed well to the forwards, etc. We were pathetic in all aspects of the game. It really is disgraceful to put on that performance after 6 months of hard training. They've embarrassed the club. While it couldn't possibly get worse, I really can't see it getting a whole lot better with this lot.

I've got a feeling Bell will play on Franklin when he is up the ground. He may not have the height, but he does have the pace and mobility to go with Franklin on the lead and on the ground (where Franklin is most dangerous) and he also has the strength to move him under the ball. When Franklin pushes closer to goal, perhaps a bigger opponent will switch onto him.

It may well be a marathon, but as they say, you can't win a marathon in the first few kilometres but you sure can lose it in that period. A slow start to the season can be overcome, but a disastrous start just about puts you out of calculations. We aren't exactly in the luxurious position of being able to pace ourselves. Having said that, Rivers is too important to risk. Hopefully though his return isn't too far away.

No matter what the game plan is, if you can't execute basic skills and make good decisions with the footy, you are going to look like a very ordinary side. Then throw in the fact that you struggle to take the ball away from the centre with any conviction, look extremely one-paced through the middle of the ground and tackle poorly, you are going to look like an inept football side. And that's precisely what we were yesterday. Having said all that, the game plan on show yesterday was somewhat of a shambles. The big concern is we have only two players that you can count on for a solid, consistent, know what you're going to get performance from week to week. One is a third year player (Jones) and the other a 30-year-old veteran (McDonald, who wasn't a standout yesterday but has proved himself a consistent performer over the past couple years). Then there was only one player yesterday who looked capable of taking the game on and turning it in our favour and that was Davey. The only one that could escape the clutches of the North players and the only one that would use the ball intelligently everytime he got it. Too many of our players fail to produce the goods from week to week. It is only pre-season and I'll reserve judgment until the real stuff starts, but if guys like McLean, Sylvia, Green, Moloney, Bate, Bell, who we need to become consistently good players week-in week-out, can't produce then we are in for a long year.

Dont forget to tape the game for me Redleg! Somehow I dont think any bars in Rio de Janeiro will be showing the classic first round NAB Cup showdown between the Dees and Cats!

Surely a premiership with the club whose list you have selected yourself is the biggest and most rewarding challenge. I too would like to know some reasons for the decision in the future. It's a big loss. CAC has been very, very good.

We need a third colour because it's a clash strip. It's not the V design on our home jumper that clashes, it's the colours. While a red jumper can avoid some clashes, it doesn't avoid all clashes. A true clash strip needs a colour that is not prominent on the home jumper. It appears as though they've tried to keep the red V and blue, as this is the basis of the new logo. Even though the red V is thin and off-centre, it still has that Melbourne feel to it with the red V and blue underneath. If anything, it has more in common with our home jumper than our previous away strip. I like the silver. Most other clubs have white in their clash jumper, and red, white and blue is a Doggies jumper. We had a pre-season jumper with silver in it a while ago and I don't mind silver being the focus of the clash jumper.

I don't mind it. The key to a good clash jumper is that the primary colour must be different from the main home jumper colours. The red one clashed with Essendon still and also was not a great contrast against Adelaide. By having silver as the primary colour, it will now stand out clearly from these two clubs, as well as other clashes with Freo, Carlton and the Bulldogs. I also like how there's still some red and blue in it to keep it Melbourne-specific. The design is a little odd and the red line/sash reminds me a bit of Essendon which I don't really like (sorry Ash). But on the whole I think it does the job well.

I'm with ya, Redfin. I had to hand in a few things at Monash Uni, so I thought I'd go down Wednesday morning as the website had the Dees training at Monash at 10am. No one was there at 10:30 and after I did my few things, I checked again at 11:30 and there was nothing. Yours would make it the third time the website has got it wrong this pre-season. It's not good enough. We are a club with a low membership base; we can't afford to frustrate passionate fans who make the time to watch a pre-season training session. I don't know whose fault it is. But it should be rectified ASAP. It's unprofessional and simply not good enough for a club trying to grow its supporter and member base.

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL. I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

Bloody Arsenal!

The EPL is a different system. There are other incentives than premiership success. A premiership for Sunderland is staying up and avoiding relegation this year. A premiership for Blackburn will be finishing in the top five. A premiership for Newcastle will be stabilising itself as a top 6 side. In footy, there's only one aim. A flag. Nothing much else matters - true, it may be a good year for a developing team to make the finals, but ultimately it all comes down to a flag. Sunderland and Fulham aren't interested in winning the EPL. It's not on their radar. But every team from 1-16 aims to win the flag in the AFL. Anyway, the danger of the current system is that the AFL continue their stranglehold over financially weaker clubs. This is dangerous as it can lead to a reliance-type situation like with North. The one saving grace is success. If you have success, you will get better fixturing in terms of time slots. We had four friday night games this year. Next year, we have one. If we pick up our game, we will get some reward off the field.

Maybe I'm on my own here, but if we are serious about an alternative jumper, then we need to go with different colours. It's not the design that makes us clash with Essendon, it's the darkness of the blue and red colours and the black and red colours. A proper alternative strip has to be radically different in colour from the home jumper. Freo's is good. Essendon's is rubbish. I don't see the point in reversing the colours as I don't think this helps in a clash with Essendon. If we are already varying the sacred home jumper, then to me I don't mind if they go a step further and play in colours that aren't primarily red and blue.

I'm pretty happy with it. I've been going on for a few years about our usual draw front-loaded with MCG games and back-ended with difficult away trips and games away from the MCG. I prefer playing interstate early. You can catch teams out early in the year when you're up and going. Home games at the end of the year give you the chance to build momentum into the finals (if you are good enough to be in finals contention). The other bonus is we are never more than two weeks away from the G. Other years we've had to play four or five away from the G and have typically performed poorly in those stretches. The draw is good enough if we are good enough.

Bob: If your team made the GF, then you wouldn't get preferential access, unless of course you were playing Port Adelaide.

We had a wellness manager this year as well, whatever the hell that is! You gotta love the names given to FD staff these days. No more "recruiting bloke" but a "list management and player personnel manager". No more "fitness guy" but a "strength, energy and welfare manager". Next the janitor will be called the "player hygeine manager".