deanox

but tactically how can we combat the situation of the opposition playing one or two men loose in defence? i think the only real answer is make our loose men attack and be damaging, making their players accountable...

45 views. did everyone find this boring or did i sum it up too well? lol

you make a good point here. but i think it must be mentioned that gardners job is run a business (the football club) and make it profitable. while he is responsible for on field performances eventually, it is not his role to be tackling that during the season. i am sure post season he will review the footy dept but at the mome i think it is best that the footy dept runs the footy dept. otherwise you get instability ala st kilda. i havnt read his comments regarding fickle supporters, but i believed that fickle meant inconstant or changeable loyalties. he hasnt shown that at all. he has been behind daniher for this season the whole way. the 'fickle' supporters are the supporters who when we win want to keep him, when we lose want to sack him. who when we win praise godfrey, when we lose blame his poor disposal. that 'bandwagon' sort of behaviour is what i would assume he is talking about. it is not necessarily about whether you go to games or not, but about being consistent in your beliefs. i believe he was probably saying that we cant response to the irrational outcry of a vocal 'fickle' group after an emotional game like last night, where we get smashed.

no worries. but this poster hasnt attacked the footy dept, he has attacked gardner. and from what i can tell gardner and his board seem to be doing well. we have a new home lined up and we are going to finish the season in the black. the discrepency mention is easily explained, as i did. do you think garnder hasn't been accountable? sickto didnt suggest that he just used a vague post to discredit gardner. i would like to know WHY he doesnt rate gardner and what gardner needs to do to improve. and i would be interested to know if he has any ideas to make us as profitable as the big clubs so that we dont have to rely on the CBF.

very strange post for a first post up. the financial year ends next weekend so its fair to say that the profit margin for the season would be now pretty much settled. we had budgeted for a 1 mil profit, but i now looks like 700G for a number of reason. the poor crowds to our first 6 home games were well under budget and cost us over 100G. the injuries to senior players who are on a straight per year contract has forced us to play players on performance based contracts. this has resulted in our football spending being over 100G more in the first 11 rounds of the season than we budgeted for. i dont think they are unreasonable explanations for the change in predicted profit. yes the profit we are predicting includes the adl CBF. but what you need to remember is that we didnt get money to splash around at optus oval for redevelopments. we dont get revenue from reserved seats at kadinia park, aami stadium, or subiaco. we dont get millions to play a couple of games in tasmania, we are not the only team in the state looking for sponsors like brisbane and sydney. teams have their only little niche advantage. we dont seem to have one atm, and this is why the afl give us the CBF. we have nearly payed off our debts and are about to move into a new home. why do you have a problem with gardner and his board?

bizz might be doing well but he has nothing to offer us in the future. let him play now but dont resign him. holland is 5050, he will be a good mentor for frawley and other young backs, and he will offer a bit as a reserve. but i think it is the end for bizz.

of those players if i could get a pick 5-10 for bruce i'd take it straight away. same for green. i'd even consider taking 5-14 for either of those two. perhaps a pick and a top up player who prob wont play but is gonna be better than pick 80 anyway... for jamar i reckon we could get a late 2nd round or early 3rd. he is a ruck who can tap, if a team has a hole he is worth it if they cant afford to wait 5 years for a rookie development. id trade TJ for the same as bruce and green. CJ and miller i see as trade bait, not as the main attraction but as added bonus. ie bruce plus miller to brisbane for pick 4. green and CJ to west coast from picks 16 and another player, or perhaps for picks 16 and 48. they wont get much themselves but might drag out more in a trade. fwiw we are going to have a high first rounder. i would be ecstatic if we could secure 2 more first round picks, even if its at the expense of bruce and TJ. i dont think we'll win the flag next year, and its a great way to rebuild. but only if we can get top 15 or 20 picks, and preferably higher picks. fwiw i have tj's no. on my jumper, but if he's gotta go, he's gotta go.

i cant believe he got towled up by the nerd from star gate...pft.

owch lol

I for one advocate that no votes be awarded for this round, or at least that the 6-1 doesn't have to be followed and that we can give only a few votes to one or two players. If I had to vote 6-1 it would be: 6 Jeff White - won the hit outs and the ruck. got quite a few touches. took a nice mark. if we had of performed around the ground he wouldve looked good. 27 hit outs 19 disposals. 5 Simon Godfrey - got 18 touches. worked hard all day. got lots of it was stiff at times. his kicking isnt great, but its not his job to be skillful. 4 Nathan Jones (endeavour) - didn't have heaps of it, but was at the bottom of packs trying to force his way through and was trying his hardest. i thought he could hold his head up high given his limited experience and the way those around him played. 3 Ben Holland - terrible first half, not the man for richo (wheres big al when you need him ) looked alright in the second half. he kicked three goals one, got 10 touches, 5 marks. davey was the only other to kick more than one. 2 Daniel Bell - got 21 touches, our leading possie getter and 11 marks. again worked tirelessly. how many goals did he have kicked on him? 5 tackles. wasnt his best day but 21 touches is a good day for a defender, and they werent loose touches like bowdens. 1 Brad Green 20 touches. thats all. he just went. did nothing special but he got a bit of it. i spose you could give it to bate or wheatley or bruce. none of them really deserve it, but i picked green. If I could award what I wanted to award: 4: White 2: Godfrey 1: Jones and i would ignore the others.

i thought we struggled early, on the back of a number of issues but one that stood out to me was the loose man in the backline. richmond did a great job of ensuring they always had a loose man. he normally started in the back line, but when they were attacking on the wing, the loose man often appeared on the opposite wing allowing a spare man to run into (or towards) the forward 50. yes i know that we had a loose man in the back line as a result but there is a fundamental difference. they had a 5 man forward line, which meant 11 players in their forward 50. we had 6 on 6, plus the loose man, making it 13 players in our forward 50. given that we had no one who could be relied on to mark in packs, these extra two men meant that a) leading space was reduced and B) our crumbers were cramped for space. this loose man was obviously richmonds plan not ours because they used their loose man as part of their offence, while our loose man purely was a third man up in the D50. eventually, after a quarter and a bit of being killed by the loose man, we sent our loose man back with richmonds leaving 10 men in their forward line, and 14 in ours. once again richmonds forward line is much more open. this man on man contest worked for a bit, and cut the richmond drive, but before too long richmond had put another loose man back. men in the respective forward lines now: 9 to 15. again they used this spare man for drive and were successful. they smashed us running thru the centre didnt they? eventually we manned up again making it 8 players in theirs and 16 in ours. double the amount of players means half the amount of space. richmond killed us when they went forward because they could lead where they wanted too. by only having 4 players in the forward 50, they had spare players who could set up around the 50 and just beyond as a 'wall' to keep the ball in their. when we attacked, their 8 players all went back, ours followed leaving us no space. personally i think this was a key reason why we got beaten, we were out coached severly in this dept. what do you guys think are appropriate solutions? and did you notice anything ive missed? imo we needed to man up their players because they were providing too much run for richmond. perhaps we couldve manned up their runners with our defenders and had our small forwards push up the ground more to drag their defenders out of the 50? this miht or might not have worked, depends if ther defenders wanted to follow them or not. we could have tried marking the ball around the 50 mark instead of the 30-40 range because there is more space there (less players). we good of tried yo use our better lnoger kicks to take shots from here. could we have put our spare players on the wings as extra midfielders giving us more runners and numbers around the ball, thus making the loose men accountable? thoughts?

http://melbournefc.com.au/Season2007/News/...px?newsId=17245 a quick search of our heritage number list from the website prove there was no friskin...well spotted

no worries. i couldnt find a list on the mfc site so found one on wikipedia. if you know the dates go and change it on wikipedia, thats what its there for...

i concour. davey needs to be up forward and his run on the ball needs to be a change up.

i think we expect more from robertson than we should. the guy is a mid sized forward who has shown he can do the spectacular. he can kick bags. he is a natural goal kicker. but he should never be the no. 1 forward in a team. he is not big or strong enough for that role. and has always struggled when he has had to play at FF or CHF imo. he plays better as a flank or a pocket. that being said, you are right. he doesnt put the hard yards in does he?

ok i spose i have no proof regarding OP, but remember a couple of weeks ago when it was rumoured rivers had OP? fagan came out and said no its not rivers, it was yze having the scans and he has a mild case nothing to worry about, milder than we thought. he hasnt played since, except for last night, when he came of with a groin injury. make of it what you will, to me he is prob suffering OP. regarding the impacet thing, yes i agree with you that he has something to offer, but does he offer it at the expense of newton getting a game? at the expense of petterd getting on the ground? at the expense of an extra runner for rotations? at the expense of risking an injury if he is not 100% fit? i think he is either fit enough to pay or not. but seriously, a 29 y.o. with OP? how much could he offer next year?

do you mean that occo ever had it?

newton wouldnt have won us the game but h owuldve changed our structure. we had no tall forwards at all. robbo isnt tall, he is mid sized and can jump. bate played outside the 50 most of the day. PJ is a ruckman. yes he can rest forward. i reckon he could even average a goal a game over his career but he wont be a key forward. holland is not a key forward, but a hole filler. all of these players are great as a 2nd or 3rd tall. holland will perform well when neitz and robbo get the best defenders. same with PJ. Not when these guys are taking the best defender and are the focus of the attack. i think juice would have allowed us to have a true forward and let the other players rotate around him. yes its a big ask but we needed someone who could mark and kick goals as the focal point. im not he wouldve, but he wouldve done better than the other guys.

i doubt he even had a fitness test. he has OP. of course he can run and kick but it causes a lot of pain. when uoi havnt used it all day and they say run here jump high, kick this it would feel a bit sore but manageable. when you start running at full intensity in a footy match it wuld degenerate pretty quickly. if hedidnt play for melb last night he wouldnt of played for sandy, he wouldve rested. he shouldnt have played, and if he isnt over the groin problem by the end of the year he should do the right thing and retire.

besides the obvious no player inside 50 who was a key tall forward (we lost at the selection table), the obvious one was our refusal to follow their loose men in defence...

just made me cringe with the thought of the pain...

only if he is standing in the front row right behind the goals lol

well said WJ but an interesting point here is that in general it is always going to be just a small fringe group that give a larger majority their traits. take a random cross section of melbourne according to football team they support. ok there might be some trends but in general people are people. it just so happens that mfc get the upper class tag while richmond get the scum. in all honesty i love the upper class tag. since when has it ever been an insult to call someone wealthy and cultured? pfft. collingwood however are a bunch of no brainers, and the perfect example of this was their supporters behaviour in relation to the umpiring last week. they clearly had no idea of the rules.

stole my thunder. how good would that be?

i dont think its official, there are quite a few who traipse the boarders...however it seems the 'ology was originally more serious while demonland was more 'fun'. i wasnt around at the beginning and didnt find ology til much later and prefer it here. maybe im easily swayed by the easy to use interface. whatev. i dont think they would tolerate yze magic for example...lol