Scoop Junior

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.

What about a comment of "I'll belt you if you go near the footy"? A player sensitive to violence may find this type of threat very intimidating, despite a player of normal sensitivity not reacting. If the player to whom the comment was made then belts his opponent, why can't he argue that he was scared of being assaulted and therefore took action to prevent that from happening. Spot on Jaded. It is an absolute disgrace. What Headland did was completely disproportionate to the provocation (which wasn't even proven).

If we are playing in a Grand Final and are 5 points down, and a Melbourne player makes the same type of sledge to Headland, and Headland reacts and gives away a free kick in our forward 50, and we kick the goal and win the flag by a point, would anyone here argue that our premiership is tainted or would anyone believe that the club should offer the premiership to the Dockers?

He'll only cop something because the AFL are very public conscious and don't want to be seen as not doing anything about it. I don't think I'm trivialising it. How about this line, "if you get another touch, I'll kill you"? Players say this kind of stuff all the time. So where does a threat to kill rank on your scale? The fact of the matter is such comments are taken for what they are, stupid remarks to put you off your game. They don't mean anything. It doesn't mean the player will actually kill you if you get another touch. And just the same, it doesn't mean Headland's daughter is a s---. How can she be, she's only 6!!

So would your reaction be the same if a player said to his opponent, "if you get another touch I'll knock your head off"? Assault is a criminal act too. These types of comments are said all the time.

Spot on IMO. Without knowing more about any possible health issues with Headland's daughter, the comments just seem like a throw-away line that could be said to anyone. There's no truth to them whatsoever and Headland's reaction was completely disproportionate.

Absolute storm in a teacup. Jaded I don't blame you for feeling that way, but having never played footy you probably don't know what's said out there each week. Stupid comments are said all the time. They are just an immature way to test a player and put him off. The good, mentally strong players wouldn't react and wouldn't care about such a stupid comment by Selwood. There are comments that cross the line. Racial abuse, for example, cannot be tolerated. But this is a stock-standard occurrence in footy. Headland shouldn't have taken the comments personally, because Selwood was just talking rubbish to try to distract him. IMO it wasn't malicious and Headland shouldn't have been sucked in.

Don't agree with that Choko. I didn't expect to beat Geelong. But I expected a performance of AFL standard. We were sub-standard. WCE beat the Swans in Sydney - always a tough assignment. Adelaide beat the Dogs at the G. Two very good wins. We played an under-strength St Kilda side and were crunched. Then we played Hawthorn who are as ordinary as they come. Geelong are a good side, but red-hot? Can you be red-hot after one win? It's not like we played WCE in Subi or Adelaide at AAMI. Even with our injuries, we should have done far better yesterday.

Eagles won in Rd 1 without Cox, Embley, Cousins, Hansen and Fletcher. Adelaide won in Rd 2 without Burton, Ricciuto, Hentschell and McGregor.

ND's post-game comments don't sit too well with me. On The Footy Show, he said the main obligation of a coach is to win games of footy. Coaches do have some responsibility to make the game a spectacle, but he said it all comes down to winning. We take on a good team in Geelong with heaps of firepower. We are down on our firepower with Neitz and Robbo out, Pickett at Sandy and Davey in horrendous form. It didn't take Einstein to work out that if we were a chance to win, we'd have to reduce Geelong to about 10-11 goals. We'd have to make the game an ugly scrap, slow it down, get numbers back and try to score goals on the break. There was no way in the world we'd win going head-to-head in a shootout. So why, then, does ND go with an attacking game plan and try to "match" Geelong? On what basis were we going to match them? We didn't have the manpower nor the form to go against them in an attacking game plan. After half-time we tried to bottle it up. We were still pathetic and while ND was pleased with the effort, IMO we were just as bad in the 2nd half and had Geelong kicked accurately it would have been a 15-goal loss. ND then says that we now know that we can't go in so attacking in our current state. We need to restrict teams and keep them to low scores. We have to make it ugly. Well what on earth was the coaching staff thinking prior to the Geelong game? Why wasn't this discovery made during the week? It was painfully obvious. ND also commented that he didn't want to raise the white flag and tell his players they couldn't win. Well, a defensive game plan does not mean you are conceding the game! It's merely finding a different way to win. Richmond beat Adelaide with a unique game plan last year. Teams can win playing a defensive game style, as it can throw the other side. I wouldn't write ND off just yet. He has proven his ability to turn things around quickly. But I just cannot understand how our coaching staff could not engineer a defensive game plan when it was so obvious that we needed to play a lock-down style of game to have any chance of prevailing.

I agree with that. I couldn't believe how an AFL team could make so many elementary mistakes. I didn't expect us to win today. But I expected us to play AFL-standard footy with a decent system of ball movement and flow. Having players out should not affect basic skills. Today we were a rabble of the highest order.

I'm with Ash. I'd rather have quality small forwards down there who could provide something a bit different than just putting a big bloke there because he is big rather than having the ability. I wouldn't mind seeing guys like Green, Yze and even CJ rotate through FF.

Gee lighten up, get a sense of humour! We will all be there on Sunday supporting the team because we are passionate supporters. But surely we can poke a little fun at the team on paper. No game is impossible to win.

I've seen better spines on invertebrates. The only team that could lose to a line-up like that (missing 3 absolutely critical players - Rivers, McLean and Neitz) is...well...Melbourne. Geelong would be a close second though; they are also masters of losing the unloseable. To be any chance, we need to reduce it to a hard-fought, scrappy contest and I agree with Jaded's forward structure. Open it up and play someone like Green or Yze from the goalsquare. Delivery inside 50 will be critical to small leading forwards.

Nothing like scapegoating the less popular players. Godfrey delivered on his talent. It's not his fault that he doesn't have the talent of others. But at least he performed to his capabilities. TJ and Davey did not deliver anywhere near their talent levels. They are players who should be blamed in this loss. If you are blaming someone like Godfrey, then blame the coaching staff instead. They select Godfrey. All Godfrey can be asked to do is to perform to his level of ability and he did. TJ and Davey dudded their coach for the second week in a row. How they respond and how the coaching staff responds will be interesting.

I actually think his offensive running is the problem when he is heavily tagged. He gets into these silly mind games with his tagger. When a Melbourne player marks it, he tries to fake run through the mark in the hope that his opponent will follow and cross the mark and give away a 50m penalty. He also gets into little pushes and shoves that do nothing and stands there whinging about the umpiring. Instead of worrying about crap like that, he needs to work his butt off to make space when we have the ball. Taggers don't like playing on blokes who continually run to space and keep moving and work hard. They want to play on a bloke who gives in to close attention and loses it mentally and refuses to make the tagger work hard to keep up. That's TJ at the moment. Very immatures performance from a 10-year player.