Scoop Junior

I disagree with many here. I don't think it's tanking. I also don't think it's a try-and-see scenario. Let's be realistic. We know what Benny Holland gives us. He'll be honest and competitive. He may do a good job on Brogan/Lade forward. But will this mean suddenly he will earn his spot on the list for 2008? We know he can stop Rocca and we know he can do a good job. But we also know the limitations and we want someone better. So I think the try-and-see scenario is not right. It's definitely not tanking. If you are tanking, you'd play all your youngsters. Dropping CJ for Bell/Bruce adds strength, it doesn't equate to tanking. The way I see it is that Riley believes Holland and Ferg are the right match-ups for Port's forward structure. Westhoff is tall and thin - sounds like a Ferg match-up there. Brogan/Lade often rest forward - perfect for Holland and Miller will probably get first crack at Tredrea. Carroll/Bizzell do not have the height for Westhoff/Brogan/Lade. It's pretty simple really. But at the same time I'm a bit confused. Frawley got towelled up last week yet gets another game. That smells like development. But then playing blokes like Ferg and Holland who may not be there next year smells of a desire to win. It appears as though there an eye on wanting to win and be competitive and the other eye on development at the same time. But I think the tanking and try-and-see arguments aren't really consistent with the changes.

Agree Big Red. He's averaging 1.6 handballs a game this year. Not once yesterday did he look for a player in better positon. And gee Sylvia's getting some easy votes lately. Just a middle-of-the-road average game at best from him yeseterday. Although I do understand that not many others are deserving of votes.

I'm not worried by his current form. He'll work through it. One area he needs to improve is probably just to respect the pressure a bit more. He gets caught for holding the ball too often, either trying to take tacklers on or just taking too much time and not realising how quickly you need to dispose of the ball in AFL footy. He definitely tries to break too many tackles and there's not many AFL players who are going to let you slip through their grasp. I don't think it's an awareness issue. I believe it's about recognising your limitations and playing accordingly.

Perhaps a caretaker such as Riley fits into the club's development plans for the rest of the season. I can't imagine a coach on trial for the senior role in 08 wanting to play blokes like Buckley and Newton and risking potential heavy defeats. He would want to get wins on the board to put his name forward. This is not consistent with what's best for the club for the remainder of the year. Riley has no pressure. He can play young guys and look to the future without the consequences that a coach on trial would face.

Exactly. McDonald, Neitz, Robbo and White are the only key +28 year olds on the list. Neitz and White will be difficult to replace. But we are in a much better position than Essendon, who rely on Hird, Lucas, Lloyd and Fletcher to win them games every week. While a temporary glance over the two lists will show that Essendon's is younger, anyone with any footy knowledge who sits down and assesses the two lists will know which team relies on its older players more and which team will be in more trouble when it's older players retire.

Thanks Neale for your work over the last 10 years. You were the head of the team during some of my favourite Demons moments, with games such as the West Coast win in 1998, the Carlton qualifying final win in 2000 and the win at Geelong in 2005 being etched in my memory forever. Thanks for helping to turn our club from a laughing stock in the mid 90's to a team that's played in 6 of the last 9 finals series and was regarded as a genuine flag threat at the start of this season. Things didn't work out this year and there was a lot of bad luck, but sometimes that happens. All the best for the future.

Well said Choko. Actions speak louder than words. There's always plenty of players talking it up at the MFC but it is very rarely backed up in actions on the field.

What does Petterd expect; when you're down by 8 goals mid-way through the second term to the bottom side, you don't make too many changes

It's a player and coach thing. You can't isolate the players and excuse them for the performance they dished up on Friday night. ND is at fault and so are the players. Collingwood had four starting defenders out last night. Was it hard for their players to "play good football in the first place" being without these players and having a weak structure? If poor team selection can completely change our players attitudes, then we have got the wrong blokes on our list. If only we knew where the attitude comes from. It is clearly a combination of both players and coach. What we don't know is the degree to which the parties can be blamed. For a team to come out with the attitude it had on Friday night, given its horrendous season, sitting in15th place with 2 wins from 11 games, is an absolute disgrace. They played like millionaires instead of the hungry, committed attitude you'd expect of a team that's been down all year and wanting to win back the respect of the footy world. This team is just too easily contented and is not hungry enough. As leader of the team, ND will cop the blame and rightly so. But it comes down to more than just poor strategy and poor structure. It is a basic lack of desire to compete week-in week-out and that's what enrages fans more than anything else.

I didn't exonerate ND from this aspect of our performance. In such circumstances, both players and coach are at fault.

There's no use having any plans when you disregard the fundamentals of footy. No tactical masterstroke is going to improve a team that refuses to work hard and apply itself in a game of footy.

The thing with Miller is I just don't see what value he offers us. I like mobile, flexible players. The modern game requires good decision-making and execution. Turnovers are critical. Miller just does not have natural footy smarts and in his time at the club has not developed his kicking to a sufficient AFL standard. I don't see what he offers us on top of Bate and Sylvia. He only takes marks on the lead, which Bate and Sylvia can both do. They are better kicks and smarter footballers. If Miller could pull down pack marks and kick multiple goals, he would offer something. But what he gives is adequately compensated by Bate and Sylvia, plus they provide added flexibility in their ability to pinch hit through the midfield if needed. I don't think Miller should get back into the side unless he can develop different strings to his bow. He needs to be able to take contested marks, kick goals and use the ball better. If he can't develop these attributes, then there isn't much point playing him IMO.

Considering we all hear about the evenness of the competition, which can be expected to produce close games, I'm surprised at how poor we have been in our losses to the Dogs and Roos at hanging onto a lead. It's almost as if the players don't know what to do late in a close game and freeze up. Do we have structures and strategies in place to deal with close games? In the Bulldogs game, we failed to drop numbers back after hitting the lead with 2 minutes to go. Do we learn from it? Hell no. Instead, we make three critical errors against the Roos. 1) We hit the lead with about 4 minutes to go yesterday. I don't think you can throw everyone back then, but surely when it got to about 2 minutes to go you do it. Every single player bar one forward should have been flooding the defensive half of the ground. Instead, we had about 4 forwards or so just standing close to goal. 2) The next problem was TJ's kick-in. I didn't think of it at the time but someone pointed it out to me today - why didn't he just rush the ball a few times until we had a player to kick to? ND said we didn't have our organisation right, as the players were tired. Well, we led by 5 points. So why didn't TJ play on, rush it, play on, rush it, to get it to 3 points the difference and give the players down the field the time to run to space and keep possession? 3) Then, the third stupid thing we did was not man up the Roos' flooders once they hit the lead. If we won the centre break, which we did, it was always going to be a rushed kick. North had like 5 players roaming loose at our 50 and they simply cleared the ball and held on to the win. The players should be taught that when a side floods with like 1 minute to go, you have to man them up and at least force a 50-50. It's basic footy strategy. It's just infuriating to lose playing such dumb footy late in the game.

Can't agree there Graz. Changing the mix of a side is a long process. It probably took us from 2000 until last year to develop a strong-bodied midfield. When you focus all your efforts on building this type of team, invest heavily in these players in early draft selections (Thompson, Sylvia, McLean, Bate, Jones, Bell) and then develop a style based around the talents your players possess, you don't just go an change it because we lost a game to a more in-form opponent at their home ground (Freo final). So what if Freo out-ran us in that final? They were in red-hot form and a few weeks before that game smashed the Eagles. I believe too big an emphasis was placed on this game. Why you'd sacrifice the strengths of your side and try to develop a style of football that does not suit the players drafted into the club is beyond me.

What Miller does well can be performed by a number of other players. Leading, marking out in front, dishing off, etc. Someone like Bate can do that as can Sylvia. Miller might be 6"4 but he plays CHF like a tall flanker. The term these days seems to be power forward. Every side needs them. Neitz is a true power forward. I don't know whether Miller will ever be one. A power forward needs to be able to take contested marks, be strong one-on-one and importantly bang the ball through the sticks when given the chance. Miller is lacking in these areas. So if he assumes the role of lead-up presenting forward, then he's effectively competing with guys like Bate and Sylvia. They both mark as well as Miller, but importantly they have more footy nous as forwards and are much better kicks so that when they get the ball they hurt the opposition. What's the use in Miller taking marks 50m out when he can't make the distance? At least the other two can thump it home from there. The only area I see Miller as being superior is in work rate. He does work bloody hard (often unrewarded) and never stops presenting. Given Sylvia and Bate have more flexibility and versatility, I can't help but feel that we would be better served with another runner or trying to find another power forward than having Miller in the side. I like the bloke but he has significant limitations that restrict his effectiveness as a forward.

You obviously do

The picks went Dogs (priority), Blues (priority), Dees (priority), Dogs (rd 1), Dees (rd 1) If we didn't have the priority, it would have gone Dogs (priority), Blues (priority), Dogs (rd 1), Dees (rd 1) So the Dogs could have taken Sylvia at 3, depending on whether they rated him ahead of Ray. We then could have taken McLean at 4. So I think that game delivered us Sylvia rather than McLean.

You hit the nail on the head. A club with record membership is not a candidate for relocation, as the membership would have to start from nothing. That is of course leaving out other little factors like for example, we were the first football club in the world and a founder of the league, we are one of the most successful, our name is Melbourne and the G is our home ground, we have played in 6 finals series in the last few years etc.

Just on the Brown/CJ selection - many are quick to criticise Brown for that error (and it was horrific) but CJ was at best very ordinary last week and also made a bad error when he took too long and was pinged for holding the ball deep in defence. For development purposes I prefer to see CJ over Brown, but sometimes with older players people are very quick to point out their mistakes whereas young players get let off the hook far too easily. They shouldn't be held to the same standard and as an experienced player more is expected of Brown than CJ. But just don't overlook the fact that CJ has been very disappointing so far in his 3 games this year. Confidence is no doubt playing a role.

Yep, it's the fans. Keane said that during the period United won the league three times in a row. So obviously the fans were affecting United's performance Our home form from 2004-2006 has been very good. We hardly have lost at the MCG. So, yeah, it's the fans.

I don't necessarily agree. We did adopt a more Sydney style last year and we have adopted a more WCE style this year. But I think the Sydney style (2006) suited us. We have recruited hard-bodied midfielders of late with our early picks - Sylvia, Bell, Moloney, McLean, Jones, Bate. It all stems back to the 2000 GF when Essendon's bigger bodies mauled us. We needed to get harder. We played a pretty attacking style of footy in 2004 and 2005. But our defensive structures weren't good enough. We conceded too many points a game. In order to take another step, we needed to improve defensively all over the ground and find a style that suited our new hard-bodied midfield. In 2006, we became much better defensively. We conceded lower scores each game. We were the number one tackling side. Our defensive work rate was generally good. We played a style of footy that suited the midfielders we targeted. We made games a tough scrap and closed down the space. Quicker teams were strangled and the games were arm wrestles which suited our slower but bigger-bodied midfield. But the coaching staff may have read too much into the Freo final. Yes, Freo out-ran us. But, we did not lose the game because of lack of run and carry or speed. We lost because Freo were a more mature side, in better form, were at home and were arguably just too good on the day. The wash up was all about endurance and having the legs to run. This was the pre-season focus. We dropped weight and increased our speed. But did we overlook the fact that we had recruited and assembled a team of hard-bodied players that needed to play a more intense, workmanlike style of game than a free-flowing running game? Premierships can be won in many ways. From the muscly and intimidating Brissy Lions to the high-possession and run game of Port to the grinding style of the Swans to the speed and carry of the Eagles. In the meantime, our team was being built along the lines of Brisbane and Sydney rather than the fleet-footed Power and Eagles. As a result, we need to play a game style that suits OUR team. It's still early to make the call. But perhaps the whole focus should have been on getting better at our 2006 style rather than adapting a foreign style that didn't suit our players.

What annoys me is how people are happy with our effort and application today. It's not that I'm upset that people say it, because it's true that our application was better than the other matches, it's just that it really shows where we are at. A good side should always have that effort and application. Every side has their down games, but over the years it just happens too frequently for Melbourne. Effort and application are the non-negotiables of a good football team. WCE, Adelaide and Sydney won't put in more than 2 or 3 shockers for the year. We always seem to have 6 or 7 games where we "don't turn up". It's not good enough for where we should be at.

Were you at the game? Stats mean nothing. He couldn't kick a drop punt, missed targets by hand and foot, doesn't go in hard enough and doesn't work hard enough defensively. He's struggling big time at the moment.

Exactly Jaded. Our skill level and preparedness to run hard defensively are so far below AFL standard at the moment that it's actually quite funny at times.

No wonder we ran the game out. No AFL team has as pathetic a defensive work rate as we do. Yes the players had a dip but I expect that every week. It's non-negotiable. We were never going to win with our injuries. But our skill level, style of play and defensive work rate are absolutely deplorable at the moment.