deanox

Perhaps. I like Dunn and think he is a good competitor. But he needs to produce to push out the incumbents who aren't doing a bad job.

I thought Dunn was average, especially on the one on one's, in the two quarters I watched at punt road.

Try turning it around this quarter and see if we can get a run on.

Agreed. He brings leadership, stability and a level head to a young team. But Hulett or Weid will overtake him on form next year.

I don't understand the hate on the Mac's today. They've both marked and spoiled, zoned and left their man when needed. We've rebounded well. Our best footy has been the attack from half back. Sure there has been some errors but they've played their roles in a team 2 goals up at half time...

Jayden Hunt. Your goal.

Cheap goal. I'll take it.

We're winning the contests but losing delivery. Why are we playing a spare defender this early in the match?

We seem to have been dropped away on the lay 5 mins. Casey leading 3.3. 21 v 2.2 14 .

Is it free entry for MFC members? Edit: $5 for members

Good well measured reply RN thanks. A lot is hard to argue with, especially the part about disposal. It is clear to me that Omac and Frost fit into a longer term plan with the zone style defense and the attack from the back attitude and I agree they may not be ready but I actually don't think we've lost too many games this year due to the "defending" of our back 6. The losses have been mainly due to losing the midfield or a break down in the zone across half back. In light of your comments re disloyal etc the only thing I can offer is the Dunn, Garland and Pedo just don't do the right things down back door the current game plan. I don't know this for sure but it surely seems to be the case. If they aren't doing the right thing and aren't in Goodwin's plans, why play them?

To illustrate the above, Reiwoldt and Membrey kicked 8.3 between them with both Dunn and Pederson in the side. The problem that day want the lack of competitors or man on man skills it was the collapse of the zone through the midfield and the defensive 6. It's not a surprise Dunn hasn't been seen since.

Rusty, I think you've nailed the reasons why Frost and Omac are being picked ahead of the others but either haven't realised or disagree with them. The style of football Roos and the other coaches are trying to implement does not involve any one on one defensive contests. The reason is, that a one on one contest is usually won by the attacker anyway. I'd love for Hogan, Watts, Pedo, Truck etc. to be left one or with a defender, and I don't care which defender, it could be the best in the game. We'd always have a better than 50/50 to win the contest either through a mark, a free or a crumb to advantage. As a result, they don't care if one on one is not a strength of Omac or Frost. But the ability to be mobile and agile, to read the play, to back themselves, to play as a team and play as a functional cog in the zone and provide attacking run is MUCH more important. Now I understand that if the zone falls down the man on man skill may come in handy on the last line of defense, but that is only required when the zone falls down so it is better to pick the players to execute the system than to protect against its failures.

What about mid season trades that aren't realized until after the season? That way, a player who decides he wants to leave can go early, shutting down the speculation. Draft picks can change hands, and the player plays out the season.

And I'm expecting up to 10 changes from that side. People wonder why we are inconsistent after "3 years of Paul Roos" and that amount of change in the team is the answer.

Any updates on numbers?

Typical I reckon. We always seem to come up against teams with something to play for. Although we did beat Richmond last year.

I say no changes for next week. We smashed the pies. Struggled with a6 day break in horrible conditions interstate. And now we've had a breather, ready to bounce back. No changes if we are shuffling the deck chairs, only if they decide a required/best 22 player comes in (ie Garlett) but I'm not sure that he deserves it.

I'd hate it. Theory: Can be used to help clubs top up in deficient positions die to injuries Reality: Top clubs and middle of the range clubs will poach the best players from the bottom clubs when they need them most. Players would love to go to clubs that play finals. I don't mind the idea of: - mid season draft of 2nd tier players - loaning rookie players on short term contacts (from 6 weeks up til the end of season) - loaning players who have played less than x games (3?) in the first 11 weeks, and haven't missed due to injury

Really? You don't think that if the von actually wanted to pay a different big bodied defender that Dunn or Garland wouldn't get a run? Its pretty clear those two are being selected on purpose.

I agree. We said we were aiming for a final in 2016 and we are. Do I think we'll make it from here? Probably not. But we are still in contention. If a couple of games had gone our way early (essendon and north) we'd be 8 and 5, entrenched in the top 8. When was the last time we could still say that at round 12?? This year we are competing for finals. We have not said that since 2006. Other years have been about "hoping to get better". In his third season, Roos has taken us from VFL standard, the laughing stock, to a legit chance for finals. In 2013 and 2014 we won a combined 6 games. We've already got that this year.

With who? Which young KPD was available and wanting to move to MFC for market rate?

Interestingly enough this is a comparison of points for and against for 2015 vs 2016 Points for: 71.5 vs 96.4 Points against: 92.9 v 92.9 That's right, our points against are exactly the same per game as last year but our points for are more than 4 goals per week better. And people are saying we aren't improving? We were all happy with our defence last year, why not this year? I suspect it's because of the account of "easy" goals we've conceded (I heard a commentator say we've conceded the most from inside 30m). But that doesn't concern me. Because of we are conceding the same points, but more in a certain way (uncontested player over the top) that means we must have improved the rest of our defence to account for this increase. Our new defensive structures pressure the ball carrier and the contest, making scoring hard, unless the structure falls down and they get it over the top. So when our game plan clicks and we can stop those over the top goals, we will probably cut the total points against as well. Edit: this is why I'm happy we don't change to plan B when teams score against us. Because we need to learn how to address those problems.

I'm surprised you can't see that. We want to be a club with a strong, pro active game plan, that all players instinctively follow, that holds up under pressure and in a variety of conditions. We don't want to be a club that performs well against weaker clubs in good conditions and falters whenever the blow torch is applied. To achieve this we are selecting the players who follow team (not the players who may natch up the best against particular opposition players or game plans). To achieve this, we are sticking to our guns and trying to implement our game plan and structures, even when we are being beaten. Perhaps we could have beaten St Kilda. We could have thrown out our game plan and gone to a plan B to salvage the match. But we wouldn't have learnt how to get our structures right under pressure, which is needed if we want to be a top 4 team.

From The Age mid season report card: http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-melbourne-midseason-report-20160619-gpmull.html What coach Paul Roos says: "We're trying to set our team up to when we eventually play finals that the game style that we put in place is going to be successful in that environment. That's the focus because we're seeing some teams, without mentioning them, they set up a game style that probably gets you to between eighth to 10th but struggle to get above eighth or seventh, so we don't want to do that." I think this statement puts into context sooner of the dejection and game style issues we've been discussing. It isn't about winning games, it is about developing a winning game style and winning culture. We are still in a development phase and we aren't cutting that development short for the sake of winning an extra 2 games this year, when it really doesn't count. I'll back the football club on this one. We've spent money to put a plan and program in place, and I prefer that we see it out rather than crumble to pressure for short term game.