Scoop Junior

Agree completely - outcome is a factor but it should not be THE factor. The AFL can say what they like about the importance of trying to prevent head injuries and concussion but if a decision like this is not appealed by the AFL then they're doing no more than paying lip service to it. What this decision is telling players is they can sling tackle without fear of suspension provided the player getting tackled manages to break his fall with his arm. And this after the rules were apparently broadened as to what constitutes a dangerous tackle due to the Burgoyne incident. What a shocking message to send.

A very good performance for four quarters - looked superior from the start, always had the answers and never really looked like being seriously challenged. The most interesting thing to me was the manner of the win. It was very different to the usual Melbourne wins - in fact, it was almost a reverse of what the opposition usually does to us. Even in many losses we've had clear wins in contested ball, clearances and inside 50s, but just either failed with the last kick inside 50 or missed chances in front of goal. The opposition on the flip side would be more efficient and take their chances and we'd lose despite dominating some of the key stats. Last night we were level in contested ball and inside 50s and the Pies shaded the clearances. Yet we won the game by 10 goals. It was a complete reversal of the roles - we were the team scoring every time we went inside 50 (20 scores from 40 inside 50s is a big return), kicking accurately (only two more scoring shots after quarter time but a score of 13.1 to 5.7), hitting targets around the ground and taking uncontested marks. I thought the Pies were at least our equal if not better in terms of getting first hands on it at stoppages but they fumbled, over-handballed, turned it over by foot through the middle of the ground and then struggled to score when inside 50. It does need to be kept in mind that this was a Pies team missing some key players and going through a poor patch off a four-day break. I thought they looked pretty woeful against the Crows and they carried that into this match. They then also lost two players by midway through the third and had Ruscoe limping around for the second half with a corkie. This is not to understate what was a great performance by us, but just backs up what I've said for a while that it's a fairly even competition and things like injuries, fitness and confidence can be the difference between a team looking a premiership contender (Collingwood earlier in the season) and one looking about a 10-12 side (Collingwood the last few weeks). Pickett was fumbly, but just as you are happy if young key forwards get to the right spots and get their hands to the ball at marking contests (even if they drop them, as you know with more strength and confidence they will start to clunk them), his performance was the small forward equivalent. He regularly got to the right spots and got hands on the ball but just couldn't be clean at the crucial moment. Tidy that up and he probably could've kicked 3 or 4 tonight. His reading of the drop of the ball from marking contests is exceptional. I think Lever is getting unfair criticism based on some glaring errors. Unfortunately these few mistakes stick in people's mind more than the brilliant work he did for the majority of the match, which often doesn't get noticed. His positioning was fantastic and on many occasions when the Pies got the ball around 80m out and looked up, there was Lever plugging the hole and causing indecision in the inside 50 kick. He was a big part of why we defended our back 50 so well and only leaked 6 goals from 41 inside 50s. Great to win a game based on being the cleaner and more efficient team. Also pleasing to see more evidence to support the view that the Port performance was an aberration, which some of us on here maintained at the time despite the many panic merchants thinking it was a true representation of who we are as a side.

I know there was a lot of discussion about the Richmond game but I didn't see that as one of the "shockers" I was referring to. I reckon the media completely overplayed the performance in that game. The stats in that game were level. We were never out of the game at any point. Yes the skill level and decision-making was appalling but there was good effort, we won enough of the ball, competed hard but let ourselves down with our use of the ball. The Tigers just ran rings around the Bulldogs, a team touted as a top-four chance, without Nankervis, Caddy, Prestia, Edwards, Houli and Vlaustin who all played against us. We were far more competitive than the Dogs were against a significantly stronger Richmond side. Last night was different. It was one of those flat, lethargic, at times soft and accepting of defeat kinds of losses. That's what I'm referring to as the mulligan as we have not seen that type of performance this year. We've seen the poor skills, the lack of inside 50 efficiency, but not that.

It was obviously a horrible performance, up there with the worst we have played in the last four years. As bad as the skill level was - and it was hardly VFL level let alone AFL level - it was not that surprising given we have seen it many times before. Perhaps not to that extent (in terms of quality and the duration of the game during which it was on show), but it didn't exactly come as a huge surprise to see us miss basic 20m kicks time and time again. I actually thought we were on top (or at worst level) in terms of winning the ball at the source and getting it inside 50 in the first quarter, but our entries made some of the stuff we did forward of centre earlier in the season look like Hawthorn of 2013-2015. Repeated kicking to the boundary, or to packs, or to one-on-ones where our player would be significantly out-sized, or even straight to Power defenders. As we have seen many times before if you turn the ball over through the middle or across half forward you are out of position and Port just did as they pleased on the rebound. While that part of the game was somewhat unsurprising, what was really un-Melbourne like (in terms of our previous 4 years) was the effort after quarter time. Say what you want about our skills and inside 50 connection, but we have consistently been a high-energy team that tackles, pressures, outnumbers at the contest, works hard and surges the ball forward. After quarter time we seemed to be totally flat, devoid of any energy whatsoever. I think at one point late in the last quarter we had only had about 10 inside 50s since quarter time. Was it a 4-day break? Was it a lack of confidence? Was it going into our shells after so many kicking errors in the first quarter and Port punishing us on the rebound? I'm not sure, but we've had periods in games before where we've turned the ball over constantly but have at least responded. In all our losses this year I don't think anyone can say effort was an issue, but last night there was just this complete absence of energy and an apparent acceptance of the loss. At times you could say there were some soft individual acts which is not a trait we've seen from this team over the years. I'm happy to put this in the mulligan column, however. Most teams have a couple of shockers a season, including the very best teams. This week we've heard about WCE being a premiership favourite and only 6 weeks ago they were absolutely crushed by Gold Coast. Richmond in 2017 were embarrassed by St Kilda mid year and won the premiership. Look at Collingwood last week - 15 goals to 1 since quarter time. In an even competition it happens - the key is whether it becomes a pattern of form or can be consigned to the mulligan column. Now is not the time to panic and throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're 3-5, the season is not over. We've had a tough draw, playing and losing to WCE, Geelong, Richmond, Brisbane and Port, who all sit comfortably near the top of the ladder. Two of those losses were by a kick and we could've won both despite not being at our best. We have only played one bottom 5 team in Hawthorn. Contrast this with Essendon who have wins against the Crows, Dockers, Swans and Roos - and all by less than two goals. If we continue to play like we did against Port then there will be some big concerns, obviously. But for mine there is no evidence to say that is our level, in fact the evidence of the season so far mostly suggests we can at least compete with the better teams.

They had Suarez, Sturridge, Gerrard and Sterling in 2013/2014 scoring for fun (in fact the first three scored more than Salah, Firmino and Sane this year) but they still lost the title to City. They conceded 50 goals in 2013/2014; this year it's 25. The big money purchase of defensive reinforcements was critical for them to take the next step and win the league.

Of course, but Liverpool spent double as much on VVD than they did on Salah who is their best attacking player. Without VVD I don't think Liverpool win the league. Now no one is saying a team should only spend money on its defence. But in relation to King's specific comment that "no other team in any other code does that" (in terms of spending large sums on defenders) is wrong. Liverpool had a desperate need for a gun centre back and a GK and they spent a huge sum (both club record transfers) to get VVD and Alisson in.

Anyone remember this from King in early 2019: “The backline of Melbourne will be a talking point during the week,” King said on Fox Footy. “Frost and McDonald — they just can’t get the job done. It’s almost premiership kryptonite with those two. “You need someone who’s a bit more trustworthy and steady across that halfback line in particular. “They don’t seem to take intercept marks, nor can they defend as you’d expect.”

Spot on. If we can just get some poise and composure in the way we move the ball forward it would not only lead to 3-4 extra goals per week but also stop the resulting turnover and the opposition then being able to rebound the ball. When you are matching or beating the opposition in most other areas of the game, this can be the difference between winning and losing.

Not sure if King has done his full research on world sport. Liverpool spent 140 million euros on Van Dijk (centre back) and Alisson (keeper) in the last two years and just won their first league title in 30 years.

You're talking about two different things. On the coaching issue, you are correct in that Garry was involved in hiring Neeld which ended up being a terrible decision. No one is suggesting otherwise. I am not the biggest fan of Garry's commentary about MFC generally. But I was using it as a comparison and to highlight the difference between throwing out cliches and actually forming a considered opinion that provides a degree of analysis into what our current problems are. It's pretty clear that our issue is efficiency forward of centre, yet Schwarz doesn't even touch on it.

It's just completely and utterly off the mark. Full of cliches that don't even apply to our situation. Not being "hard enough" and "not playing for the jumper"? This is not an issue at all - we have plenty of hard nuts who put their body on the line week in week out for this team. He says "players only come for the coin" - does he have evidence of this or is just another inaccurate cliched emotive call? He also says people go to Hawthorn because they want to go there but they go to Melbourne because they have nowhere else. What absolute trash. Did Jake Lever have nowhere else? Steven May? Michael Hibberd? Why have a number of young players re-signed if the MFC is as bad as he says it is when they could easily go somewhere else. There is no analysis whatsoever about what is really the issue at the moment which is our inside 50 efficiency through a combination of our decision making / execution forward of centre and our struggling forward line. It has nothing to do with anything Schwarz has claimed in his scorched earth policy. After reading it you'd think we had just lost to Geelong by 186 points. I love the Ox but that article has about as much sense as the inane ramblings of a disgruntled fan 5 minutes after the game after he has had one too many. At least Lyon provided a considered opinion as to what he thinks the problems are.

When we lost to them at Geelong in 2018 by a kick after the siren Dangerfield milked that ruck infringement free against Brayshaw which cost us a goal. Again yesterday he milked a 50m penalty by diving to the ground, which led to a Duncal goal. And again we lost by less than a kick. I have huge respect for the football ability of Danger - he is a joy to watch with his speed and power and ball winning and marking ability. But he is a repeat offender in staging and that takes away from people's respect for him as a sportsman. He won't care as he has the 4 points, but you look at a bloke like Lenny Hayes and understand why he is so universally admired and it's little wonder why there is a bit of a dislike of Danger in the footy public.

It was a strange old game. You walk away from that thinking we didn't really deserve to win given we trailed for most of the second half and nor could you say we played well enough to win a game of footy. But in reality we so easily could have (and should have) won that. It was a hard game to watch but I wouldn't say it was an awful performance - certainly there were aspects that were poor but also some things that we did well. I thought we defended our back 50 really well. This was an area that we were really poor in last year but we have defended our back 50 well the last two games. Geelong only scored 12 times from 38 entries - normally they are far more efficient that that against us. We kept them to a score that was clearly a beatable score - if you keep a team to 47 points you really should be winning that game. It was really only a few poor individual errors that gifted them goals that enabled them to kick 7 goals. Without those errors it may have been 4 or 5. So those whacking the coaching staff for "doing nothing" in the off season clearly aren't taking into account our two improved defensive performances since the break. That being said, there is obviously some more work needed in defensive transition. Carlton in the second half found too much space and the Cats and Eagles took far too many uncontested marks. Although I must admit today I didn't think it was as costly as some are suggesting - yes the Cats retained possession with little chips but in the main I don't think it particularly hurt us and perhaps even stifled their own offensive play at times. Effort and intensity and ability to win the ball was good as usual. Having said all that, there were two areas that were really poor today. Firstly, our attacking play was, quite simply, a mess. There was nothing identifiable about the way we went about our attacking play. It was random and haphazard and not helped by the usual poor delivery going forward. The forward structure looked unbalanced on paper and played out that way on the field. The lack of a contested marking key forward is just so obvious and is really affecting our ability to score. TMac was better and jumped at the ball and halved contests well, but as stated before he needs help and not selecting another KPF was baffling. Our lack of scoring is a big concern as even when we do dominate games, it's questionable whether we will be able to score enough to maximise the dominance and put other teams to the sword. If we take out the Carlton first quarter when they didn't show up, we've kicked 16 goals in 11 quarters in 2020. Even with shorter quarters that's horrible. The second aspect is our footy IQ. I've banged on about this for a while but we are a low footy IQ team. The dumb decisions and the mistakes individual players make game after game are just infuriating. Geelong were extremely ordinary today and were asking to be put away but they were able to just sneak through on their smarter play. Langdon not walking over the boundary line deep in defence cost us a goal. Not being able to touch the ball on the goal line cost us another. There were countless more mistakes. And we've seen it time and time again in recent matches. In a tight game some smarter and more composed footy gets you over the line. I think what sums it up perfectly is that Salem play at the end. A team that is regularly guilty of bombing it in actually needed to do precisely that given we had two players out the back in the goal square. What do we do? No, let's not bomb it long the one time we need to, let's wait and try and spot up an impossible pass to a player who is 4 on 1 by the time the ball gets there. And this was from one of our most composed players and better decision makers. That's three times in the last five matches against Geelong there has been a shot for goal within the last minute to win the game. We've lost all three.

I'm very surprised May isn't getting any votes. I thought he was excellent. Good spoiling and positioning and hardly beaten in a contest. Was part of a defence that kept Geelong to 12 scoring shots from 38 entries. Usually when we play Geelong they have a high inside 50 efficiency but we kept them to a score we really should have been able to beat. We made some defensive mistakes that led to goals which were very costly but in the main we defended our back 50 pretty well.

No worries mate - we are all Dees fans here. Let's hope we all can have a win to discuss this weekend!

Yep Hunt had some important moments late both with some run and with pressure/tackles. Fritsch too laid a tackle and applied pressure at a critical time and also took a good mark (just missed the sitter set shot!). But there were still some bizarre moments. Jetta had a free kick in the back pocket with a minute left. Either needs to be a chip to a free teammate or long down the boundary line to a pack. His kick did look like it went off the instep (so perhaps a skill error rather than a decisional one) but it went inboard to a contest and opened it right up, giving Carlton another chance. Shades of Jones versus North last year. Then Lever marks deep in defence with less than a minute left. Surely everyone knows the kick is going to be long down the boundary (as there were no short options) and had to run to that spot as soon as he took the mark. I don't blame him for the kick as he only has 5 seconds after the mark to find an option. He kicks it to the right area but it's a 2 on 1 - Fritsch is the only Melbourne player in the area. Again very strange to leave it that open given the state of the game. There were some good individual efforts to get us across the line but it's hard not to feel if a better side was in Carlton's position they would have created another chance to win and would've won. We need to be smarter in these situations.

Vitriol? Maybe look up this word in the dictionary because clearly you have no idea what it means. Mine was a discussion of some areas where we did well and things we were poor at and, given the performance wasn't a great one, there were probably a few more things to discuss on what we did poorly. It was not in any way shape or form vitriolic and compared to what we see on Demonland it was fairly tame! Thanks also for letting me know the next game. I've only been going to the footy since I was 3 and in those 34 years since have hardly missed a game in Victoria (and then only if I was away overseas). I was there till the end at Kardinia Park when we lost by 186 and the same at the G when the Dons beat us by 146. I went down to Geelong by myself in one of our worst years ever in 2013 and stood in the rain all game to watch us kick 4 goals and lose by 11 goals. And I was there as a 5-year-old at the prelim in 87. So yeah I know where the next game is. Unlike you I know it's on SUNDAY not Saturday. I also know where we played in Round 3 20 years ago because when you care about something so much you tend to remember it. I hope we beat Essendon too. And I also hope your contribution on the post-game thread is a step up from your embarrassing effort above.

As many have said it was horrible from halfway through the second quarter until the end. It's a rare game where you lead all day and are never headed but arguably deserved to lose. Really disappointing after such a great start to drop away like that and not be able to recover. The backline seems to be copping it - I actually thought as a whole they probably won us the game (along with some Carlton misses). We went 11-0 in inside 50s at the start of the game; from that point on it was 48 to 29 against us but we managed to keep them at bay really until the last quarter. There were some mistakes from individuals and the defence started to creak quite badly in the last quarter but Carlton were basically walking it in with no pressure on the ball carrier. No defence can sustain a constant barrage of inside 50s when there is so little pressure applied up the ground. To me it was more the midfield and forward line who were the culprits, despite being so good early in the game. What happened to the pressure? It was sensational early - Carlton were nervous and fumbly and they barely got any clean ball. Then in the second half we could hardly lay a glove on them and they got out in space time and time again. I just don't understand how it can go from such a high level to such a low level in such a short space of time. And same with the clearances. We went from a position of absolute dominance to then getting pummelled in the clearances in the second half. This is meant to be a strength of ours with our big-bodied midfield and even more so when it's Gawn against an inexperienced ruckman. Like the pressure it was just so disappointing to completely drop off in an area we should be dominant in. There's been a lot of talk about TMac - confidence, form, injury, etc. - I think he's just not as good as people think he is/expect him to be. Don't get me wrong, he can be a very handy second tall forward - a really effective foil for a gun KF the way he was for Hogan in 2018. But he's not the main man - it's not his fault, being your side's no.1 KF is the hardest role in footy and not many have the ability to do it. He has a lot of good attributes and is still clearly a best 22 player but he needs help. We are hugely reliant on Weid making it and being that dominant KF. I still have time for him and he needs a good run at it and to get some form and confidence and go from there. But if he doesn't make it, we are desperately lacking in this area. It was so obvious in the second half when we just needed a KF to clunk a few to get us out of trouble. Every time it went in Carlton either marked it or ran it out and it meant we could never reset and press up. Carlton just recycled the ball and attacked again and we were constantly on the back foot. Having that big man take a few enables you to structure up again, a bit like a striker in soccer holding the ball up and allowing his defenders to push up and his midfielders to make runs in behind. It's so important when you need to arrest the momentum in a match.

I think there is a fair amount of overreacting here. This was only the second serious game the sides have played in 9 months. That's like one and a half full pre-seasons and without the usual build up that teams get with a number of pre-season practice matches. Little wonder the skills and ball handling were down and that players were probably quite fatigued in the second half. Both sides set up extremely well behind the ball and made scoring difficult and it looked like the teams didn't have their usual skill level and energy to break those defensive structures down. Quite understandable given the above. There were some really good performances in Round 1 - Tigers' first half against the Blues, Pies against the Dogs, Giants against the Cats, etc. - that suggest that there is still going to be plenty of quality football. Just because one game is a defensive slog doesn't mean the whole season is going to be the same. It was scappy but I enjoyed the contest and intensity, the closeness of the game and the brilliant defending. I've seen better games and I've seen worse games. Part of the beauty of sport is that games are going to look different. The last thing we want to see is 9 homogeneous games per week.

I'm not sure that's correct. It's just that those clubs have more fans so the crowd figures still look good even with the drop off. As a %, which is the key stat, I reckon it's about the same if not worse for those clubs. For instance, our 20,000 vs an interstate team when we are struggling might look poor as an absolute number, but it would be similar to the % decrease in a Carlton-Collingwood crowd when they are struggling. It's just that they'd still get 45,000 which appears better (however they would've normally got 80,000).

The two most disappointing aspects for me were: 1) The "sameness" of the loss - has been well covered in this thread. Winning contested ball and inside 50s but poor inside 50 efficiency and kicking for goal has been a regular occurrence in our losses for a number of years. 2) Playing on the Eagles' terms - we know the Eagles win when they take 100+ uncontested marks. Their tall backs chop off opposition entries and then they use the ball by foot to progress up the ground with uncontested marks. The way to beat them is to make it more of a street fight with lots of pressure and accountability and to make it a ground ball game. Yet at no stage did the game look anything like what we needed it to look like. They took 120 marks in a shortened game. We kept kicking sky balls to Barrass, McGovern and Hurn inside 50. We gave them exactly what they wanted. It was a strange old game given the circumstances and maybe that explains a bit. There were some positives (Viney's attack on the footy, Pickett just looks a class footballer, OMac and May kept Darling and JK quiet, Trac was fairly solid) but it was a pretty poor display overall. Once again the effort was decent for most of the game but the execution was sadly lacking.

He might have something separate with his knee but it was definitely an ankle/foot issue on Wednesday. That is, unless T Mac's knee ends at his heel.

He has gone back out on to the ground but just standing in the middle with Hannan who isn’t training. ? GEORGE'S TRAINING REPORT ⚕️ SATYRICONHOME'S INJURY UPDATE ? BAGHDAD BOB'S TRAINING REPORT

TMac now standing on the side of the boundary. Boots still on so maybe will head back out. SCOOP JUNIOR TRAINING REPORT (TMac Further Update) | ? GEORGE'S TRAINING REPORT ⚕️ SATYRICONHOME'S INJURY UPDATE ? BAGHDAD BOB'S TRAINING REPORT

TMac just led out to mark. Only a little jump at the ball but on landing put his hand straight up and limped off. Looked more foot or ankle than higher up. Getting assessed now. SCOOP JUNIOR TRAINING REPORT (TMac Update) | SCOOP JUNIOR TRAINING REPORT (TMac Further Update) | ? GEORGE'S TRAINING REPORT ⚕️ SATYRICONHOME'S INJURY UPDATE ? BAGHDAD BOB'S TRAINING REPORT