mo64

We'll agree to disagree. The difference between Beveridge/Bolton and Roos is that Beveridge and Bolton walked into the door and gave the players belief in themselves. They also gave their players a gameplan that was workable from day 1. No talk of taking 2 years to learn this or that. That's the crutch that Roos has always leant on, and will continue to until he sails into the sunset with his retirement paid for by the MFC. BTW, the core of the Blues finals teams included Waite, Garlett, Betts and Judd, and even then they made the finals by default (Bombers kicked out).

What a ridiculous analysis? You're comparing our best players from our win against an undermanned basket case in Brisbane to Carlton's best players in a win against flag favourite's Geelong. Nothing can be garnered from such a comparison. You're really clutching at straws.

What you stated is basic Football 101. Every team tries to adopt that. Our defensive gameplan starts when the opposition win the ball, and that's wehere we are falling down. How a team structure itself and the personnel it uses in that structure is what the gameplan is all about. Simple facts are that a team is not going to win a vast majority of contested ball. Do you really think that O. Mac and Garland are quick in mind and body to react when the opposition win the ball? Do you think that either are strong enough at the contest?

Hang on, Carlton still have to build their talent base before you can expect them to be a dominant finals team. Also, their top 5 recruits this year have had injury setbacks. Even when they lost their first 4 games this year, you could see the difference that Bolton had made. At least they turn up to play every week, which is a good sign of cultural change. Roos makes excuses every fortnight. Where's the cultural change? You're giving Bolton only 2 years, so how long does an experienced coach on $1m a year get?

I've heard former coaches say that if a new gameplan takes longer than a preseason to "learn", then there's something wrong with it. The logic being that you devise a gameplan around structures, not personnel. Personnel can change rapidly depending on injuries, suspensions, player turnover. If the new gameplan is that complex, every new arrival at the club would find it difficult to adapt. The team would become a never ending circle of mediocrity. Roos statement that it took him 2 years to teach the players the defensive side of AFL, is just BS. With the player turnover under Roos' reign, does that mean that all the players acquired in the past 12/24 months are stilling learning the defensive side in addition to the new gameplan? Beveridge and Bolton are testimony that a new gameplan can be taught in 1 preseason.

I like Heath Shaw as a player, but his stats are misleading. Whenever the opposition kicks a behind, Shaw takes the kick-ins and always kicks it to himself before playing on. That counts as a possession. Also in the Dogs game, once the result was beyound doubt, Shaw played kick to kick with his fellow GWS teammates. He's a Dreamteam pin-up boy.

No. It's time for either Vince or Jones to play as a permanent half back, with the odd spell onball. If he was fit, I'd play Brayshaw in this role.

He must be making the mistake of trying to man up on the opposition.

Because some of us don't accept mediocrity.

Plan "A" has been a bust all year, including the NAB Challenge. Sure we've beaten some sides that were either undermanned or playing poorly at the time, but it doesn't take a genius to work that our backmen don't have the ability to play a zone defence. Even Beveridge took a veiled swipe at our "Diamond Defence", when he basically said we were playing Russian Roulette. But he was also smart enough to react. In all the games we've lost, the oppositions most dangerous forwards have carved us up. Surely as a coaching group you understand that better teams will win their share of contested ball, and you're susceptible to leaking easy goals with a zone defence? Not Roos and Co.

Those stats mean nothing if the players in question turn out to be C or D graders. You would have been equally bullish 7 years ago when the likes of Garland, Grimes, Scully, Trengove, Tapscott, Blease and Gysberts were running around. Things transpire in football, and rarely is it a case of a group of players improving with experience, and the team collectively getting better over several years. Even after 15-20 games, you can tell whether a player has the qualities to become an A-grader, B-grader or an average footballer. Of the 10 players who have played under 50 games, the only ones who'd I'd guarantee to be A or B graders are Hogan, Petracca and Gawn. What is scary is that all 3 have suffered major injuries at a young age. That's where things transpire in football.

Like one of the other posters said, we haven't played well since the Richmond game. Whilst most on here were doing cartwheels, I got no pleasure from our wins against GC or Brisbane. This result was expected, as were the losses to the Saints and the Dogs. I don't eulogise Roos like most. I'll stop being negative when we have a coaching panel and team that can consistently play finals. Sadly, we are lacking on both fronts.

OP is spot on. I'm sick of posters saying we're young, like it's a foregone conclusion that we'll make big strides in years to come. Some of the young players are just not good enough at the moment, and may never make it. Posters over hype our youngsters, just as they did with Gysberts, Morton, Blease and Tapscott after their early appearances. The same posters say that playing O.Mac in the seniors is good for his development. You know what, I'd rather have the best team capable of winning the game. And that doesn't include O. Mac, Garland or Hunt. Message to coaching panel, at least pick a team capable of implementing your ridiculous zone defence. Opposition coaches with half a brain must lick their lips. Win the contested ball, and we'll smash Melbourne on the way back.

GNF, I really appreciate your contributions, but I'm getting the impression that your source is merely relaying things from the club's perspective, and their beliefs may not be shared by all parties involved. Just as GWS thought they had Franklin and Richmond thought they had Treloar, we may think we have Prestia, and we also may think that Hogan will re-sign. I hope you are right will all your info, but I wouldn't be putting the champagne on ice just yet.

Judd's grandmother?

T Mac should be the general of the backline, telling his teammates where to position themselves. He either isn't doing it, or is doing it poorly. I'm not sure why Dunn is on the outer because he seems the most suitable to assume such a role.

Did he say whether that was likely to be at the end of this year or next? IMO, if Hogan doesn't sign up by the end of this season, he's leaving. He'd understand that his early signature/contract is important for the club's list management and potential success, in addition to membership and sponsorship. If he wants success at Melbourne, he'll sign early.

Do people on here not see the importance of a settled backline, especially when we're implementing a new defensive structure? We've had a revolving door of KPDs this year. The FD should be playing whoever they think is the best KPD who'll help us win now. If that's O. Mac, fine, then stick with him. If it's Garland, ditto. IMO it's Dunn. The idea of playing O.Mac in "softer games" is ludicrous. We're not that good. Remember we lost to Essendon. Our backline has looked disjointed all year. I don't want to be giving games to players in the name of "development". IMO it's actually hurting our chances of winning games for the remainder of the year.

We've played zone defence all year, but in different guises. I'm saying that at times you need to lock down on certain opposition players, but that doesn't necessarily mean man on man across the ground.

I said O. Mac's height isn't relevant for a key backman. The best key backman of the past 20 years was Matty Scarlett, who was 192cm. Height doesn't stop a good key backman from winning a contest. A footy brain goes along way in the AFL. Someone else pointed out that the only difference in our wins and losses compared to last year was the away win against GC (a basket case). We beat Richmond, Collingwood, GWS and Brisbane in Melbourne last year and this year. We beat the Dogs at the G last year, but lost to them this year. Let's see how we go from now on. We still have to play top 8 teams like Hawthorn x 2, Swans, Geelong, Adelaide and WCE. If we don't win at least 11 games this year with the good injury run we've had, I fail to see how we all of a sudden become a 70% chance of making the finals next year.

You just stated that we're a 70-30 chance to make the finals next year. That's overrating us IMO. Of course I think our list has improved, but it's only relevant if you're measuring it against the opposition. And you're also measuring players careers that have finished (2012 list) against players careers that are essentially just starting. At the time, did you think that Morton, Moloney, Bleaes, Clark, Tapscott, Howe, Sylvia and garland would turn out how they did? Of course not.

Blind Freddy could see that in the games against Essendon, North, Saints and Dogs, we needed to shut down their most dangerous forwards in Daniher, Harvey, Reiwoldt and Stringer. In each case, the opposition mids got on top, but there was no plan B to lock down on their most dangerous forward, and limit the damage.

You are overrating our list. And your last paragraph is the same s##t I was reading back in the Bailey days, when everyone thought it was a good idea to dump all our senior players because they "wouldn't be in our next premiership team". It was a cr#p argument then and it's a cr#p argument now.

You. This whole debate is about whether O. Mac should be given development time in the seniors. My argument is that he's not ready for AFL football and looks out of his depth, and his selection ahead of Dunn is all about the future, not the next game.

When someone says that winning isn't important now, they must think that everything will just click into gear over time. History in sport has told me that that's a phallacy.