stevethemanjordan

This and also that they've clearly done very well at the draft. They've nailed some quality picks. It's a combination though. The issues at our club are so deeply-rooted it's hard to spit them all out in a paragraph or two but ever since 07, different facets of the club have failed. When those failings, (list management and many off-field problems) were addressed, it was a failure again. Enter mark Neeld era, another failure. What we see are, (for lack of a better word) intergenerational list issues. And there is not one or two or three. There are many. This is the reason we as supporters are subject to this chaotic mess on the weekends. Whether it be full games, quarters, halves or passages of play. The effects of the past are still there to see on game day. The only way I see us overcoming these problems is by continuing to recruit the right personalities to the club and to move on problematic players who are for the most part the perpetrators. The players who have been 'Melbourne-ised'. Once we have a core group of players who share a similar playing philosophy and professional attitude, only then will we start to see more sustained success. Brayshaw and Viney. Players who's instincts are to tackle, chase, block and do anything in their power to win the ball. Let's call it the 'Brayshaw instinct'. A non-negotiable quality that we need to see more of. When you don't have senior figures who display these non-negotiables every time they play, your list is already in trouble. That is one of so many problems that young players who do not possess that 'Brayshaw instinct' at our club have been subject to over the years which means it doesn't become a club standard or it doesn't become a theme. St Kilda yesterday exemplified what I am saying. The influence Lenny Hayes and Nick Riewoldt alone would have on any young player who walks through that door at that club would so far surpass any young player at our club it's not funny. Especially if that player doesn't posses the 'Brayshaw instinct'. Players who need to know what the standard is. What is required before they get a game. When I look at Garland, Jamar, Dunn, Watts, Howe, Frawley, Sylvia and so many other players who were part of that senior and more experienced group that were at our club not long ago, absolutely none of them display that 'Brayshaw instinct' consistently. None of them. And none of them had the right people to hold them accountable. So we see the effects now. It means we've had to bring in players like Cross and Dawes. Players who do display those instincts but are less-skilled and have been let go of their previous clubs because their previous clubs have had a plethora of senior figures who display those instincts and they can afford to release those players as part of list management. Whilst our younger players have without doubt benefitted from having players like Cross and Dawes over players like Sylvia and Frawley to look up to, our game has suffered because of the skill level of these players. Again, another one of many problems our club is facing. I won't continue to go on about other examples but to me it's pretty simple. There has to be an overhaul and another two seasons of list culling of current senior players, fringe players and NQR's until we begin to see a young and committed core group of players emerge who possess that 'Brayshaw instinct' in spades and who hopefully have the fundamental football skills to match. Trading for positional players and hitting FA will obviously help but it's recruiting those kids who will be the leaders of our club that we need to nail. When those players become the core group at our club and eventually the next leaders, that's when we'll see a period of sustained success on-field. (Providing everything off-field continues to hold up).

If supporters don't believe that underperforming senior players with questionable skill-level, fitness and general intent when playing isn't a significant contributing factor in performances like today, last week and many other weeks this year, you need to wake up a bit. Seriously. Club's don't continue to display these kinds of insipid and skill-less games for years upon years without there being some seriously deeply rooted problems with some senior figures at that club.

I just had a look, you're right. Out of interest, what did you think of Garland's performance today?

It's this kind lack of foresight and understanding that the club will only improve when we rid it of underperforming senior players who have been and still are at our club. Garland and Howe are the next and if you guys cannot see that tough decisions like these need to continue to be made after performances like today, last week's second half and several other games this year, you are genuinely deluded. I'm sure neither of you think we're missing Frawley this year.

No, Garland is on him. Garland has already shown immaturity in flying for a contest when two Melbourne players were already in the air leaving Roo out the back and it eventually resulted in a goal thanks to Roo. A minute later he kicked a nothing kick which went 40 metres in the air, eventually fell in arms of a St Kilda player and eventually got to Roo who is Garland's player. It's honestly laughable that supporters think he is so important when his FA value would offer us so much more. Our backline is horribly one-dimensional. He doesn't 'add' anything. He is a decent one on one player and that is it.

It's the sign of a true one-eyed Melbourne supporter. Love all senior players and back them in even to the detriment of their own club. Frawley, Sylvia, Moloney.... The same supporters throwing out the same lines.

Yes, and I'll be the first to raise my hand and say that the club clearly think he's an important player moving forward. But we're not there yet and I'm confident he'll be gone. I'm asking Ron why he believes Garland is untouchable and why he thought the same of Frawley even though he knew we'd receive such good compo.

As I've said, the attraction to me of moving Garland on is not about what draft pick we are given. It's how we use it. You are assuming we'll go to the draft and I have never said we will only go to the draft with that pick and hopefully pick up a great player, (even though I believe we could.) But we have options. I said that Roos and co have been able to use the picks we've received from losing players very wisely and I have no doubt we'd be able to do that again. Whether it be packaged with something else for a trade or going to the draft or allowing us to bring another FA in who would cover the loss of a 'senior' player etc. All bases would be covered. We have already covered the loss of 'experienced players' in Frawley and Sylvia in Vince and Cross so I can't understand the 'losing another senior player' argument. It's invalid. As for the draft. If you want to play games like the 'look at the recent pick 26's' then I'll challenge you to dig a bit deeper and perhaps look at some of the quality players selected around that pick. Both before and after. Also look at how many high draft picks we [censored] up during the BP years and compare those with the ones we've been getting right since Jason Taylor and the beefed up recruiting department walked through the door. The point is we're in much better hands to both get a pick right and develop the talent. One more rebuttal. Remind me what pick Garland was? It's a silly argument.

My 'obsession' with Garland isn't any different to Ron's except that we have differing views about his value to the side. He posts about it just as much as me and yet I don't hear you calling it an 'unhealthy obsession'... I know why that's so. It's simply the emotional attachment one holds to a player who has played many years at the club that we're in love with. My obsession is with desperately wanting us to continuously transform as a club and as list until there comes a time where we stop having periods of play and games where we play the most embarrassing bad football the AFL world is witnessed to. I want to know why Ron thinks Garland is such an important signing? I want to know because he said the same thing about Frawley and it makes me think that he and the others who 'like' those statements have no idea that changes like these are just as important as recruiting well or trading well. It's not so much about the pick we'll be receiving for Garland. You all seem to bang on about it. It's more to do with the fact that we have too many one-dimensional footballers all over our list but especially in the backline with a consistent theme being 'not skilled enough'. Just take an objective stance for a minute and look at what we need to continue to improve and you will all realise this individualised player shmoosing just doesn't make sense. Not when we are a club who is still so short of real leaders, skilled and smart footballers and smart decision makers. Don't be afraid of change. You might lose something good but you may gain something better. All of the players we have moved on or who have left since Roos has been in charge we have without a doubt benefited from. Look at what Vince, Cross and Garlett have done in the short time they've been here and compare that with what Garland has achieved? Feel the mother [censored] change ya'll. It's coming.

You and many others said the exact same thing about Frawley. Look how that turned out? I cannot for the life of me understand this way of thinking. What makes him a quality player in your eyes? What is his value to our side presently?

What? Whether he comes in or not this week doesn't bother me. It's the fact that we have so many similar players who are terrible decision makers. Even though Jack got a lot of ball on the weekend, some of his hospital handballs and just general 'slowness' when it comes to releasing the ball is genuinely concerning.

Part of Hawthorn's recruiting strategy during the mid 00's was to target left footers who could win contested ball. Not just any left footers. One's who could use the ball really well. I think the stat was/is that left footers on average have a higher disposal efficiency than right footers. Hawthorn drafted with that in mind and nailed so many picks and they also happened to draft a once in a generation forward in Franklin and his mate Roughy (in the same draft). A warrior of a captain in Luke Hodge and a revolutionary coach in Al Clarkson and you can see the pieces of the puzzle started to fall nicely. Now they're a juggernaut of a side with still so many of those left footed hard nosed footballers now experienced players and they've added nicely through FA. So much of their list comprise of players who have elite kicking and decision making skills. Something that no other club has. When their skills are up and they're fist to the footy, they're impossible to stop as we've seen in the last two matches against challenging sides. We are so far behind in terms of 'skill and decision making' and I still can't quite understand why we haven't addressed this. This offseason, we need to add two elite kickers to our side and one of them must be a backman. Watching Garland, Dunn and Tommy McDonald back there trying to move the ball out is like watching the circus sometimes.

You know nothing John Snow.

Yes I did. It was like watching Melbourne at their worst going up against Melbourne at their second worst.

Haha. Or generally there are a few of us who are expecting more after 8 years of the most embarrassingly bad footy the AFL has ever seen. By all means, feel free to be content with ordinary football and ordinary wins and following an ordinary side. I'm searching for a bit more from this club atm. We still have a bunch of blokes who consistently turn the ball over and make shocking decisions. We're the worst skilled side in the league by a mile.

They are poo everywhere except their midfield. And their midfield is stronger than ours. if we're going to win we're going to have to limit the influence of Beams, Hanley and Rockliff.

Was about to say the same thing. Dead giveaway!

I think we should be looking at our list needs. Aish is not that player. He is almost identical to Toumpas in style of play, height and weight.

Not sure why so many have Fitzy coming in. Considering he is playing for his career in a new position at FB and we are playing against a side who literally have no dangerous key forwards, I don't understand the inclusion. Tom McDonald needs to continue to try and find form in the backline and this week you'd think he could get his touch back. That's where he's played his best football and it's where he needs to stay. A quarter of football in the forward-line shouldn't mean he plays there the following week.. Ins for me: Jamar and Newton Outs: ANB and Stretch Sub: Harmes Jamar has now had some solid form in the VFL and I think he deserves a game because of it. He also provides a strong target deep forward rotating with Gawn in the ruck. I can't see him being offered another contract next year so you'd think if he gets his chance he'll be wanting to prove a point. I'd be playing Hogan as the roaming CHF in this game and Dawes as the third tall who can hopefully provide us with some marks and goals this week. I think Hogans aerial ability, running ability and field kicking ability is needed up the ground for this game. Especially considering we are so slow and stagnant coming out of defence and when in possession of the ball. I think he should be used as that kind of a player in this game. Newton provides some class and kicking skills which we're in desperate need of. I think ANB and Stretch have been okay but they're not providing enough for the team atm. They've had a taste. Now they need to go back and perform consistently well at the level below. JKH and Garlett need to have time in the midfield to provide some spark, run and creativity. We're very one-dimensional in there atm. Vince needs to get back to being a smart user of the ball and should be hitting forwards more often than not. Tyson must be playing injured because his lack of gut running and defensive accountability is killing us. This is a danger game. Brisbane have a really solid midfield and we absolutely have to play with the right attitude from the start.

You're calling it because it was speculated on the news? Or you know something we don't?

I honestly think looking solely at stats and even 'wins' this season as a means of determining whether or not we've improved as a team based on what we've seen of our side this year is pretty silly. Every season is different. Draws are different. Lineups are different. Form. Etc. I think it's safe to say that we've improved in some areas. And we haven't in others. But overall, the most worrying sign for me is the fact that we haven't improved those periods of play in which we completely drop off in both effort and skill. No side within the AFL does that so often and it's what makes the incremental improvement in other areas look less significant. RPFC may argue until the cows come home that it's our midfield that is the problem when it comes to UP differentials etc and I'm sure he'd say that it's our weakest link. I think it's a good combination of lack of skill level across the board, midfield, backline, attitude, leadership and depth of list. It has to be a number of factors that contribute to the undeniably embarrassing drop offs the AFL world see in all areas of our game during quarters/halves and even full matches.

I'm with you. Can't stand the guy. But it's the things we hate about him that get him the gig. He is colourful in an industry where so many spit the same line. Still a first class [censored]-jockey though.

I'm always happy to defend my view so I'll move past what 'annoys' you about my posting and get to the point. Pleasant opening line though, thanks. You and others who consistently 'defend' Garland seem to almost entirely miss the much broader and more relevant picture. The rebuilding and reshaping of our list. I'll repeat that. The rebuilding and the reshaping of our list. Is there a complete lack of awareness of how [censored] putrid our club has been over this period of time? It sure feels like it when talking about things like this. You all write the same response. 'It's hardly Garland's fault', 'He plays his role', 'Who do we have to fill his role'. etc etc. The same [censored]. When you are faced with reshaping one of the worst lists seen in AFL football, some difficult decisions are going to need pondering. Read some of these stats from only last year: * Lowest average score since 1920 * 20 straight losses at Etihad * 15 straight losses at Subiaco * Second worst total score ever in a 22 game season There are plenty more. I'll also mention our consistent drop-offs in effort and skill during games. Brisbane game last year at etihad. The last half against GWS at the G when they had blokes dropping like flies from injuries. This year against GWS after half time. Our non effort until the last quarter of last weeks game. These are a few examples of SO MANY. How about other stats like goals scored to opposition teams from our turnovers this year? Inside 50 deferential averages. The lists are endless and these astonishing records that we've tallied up point directly to the deeply rooted problems that have surrounded our club and list for so long now. We've had a leadership void. We've had a shocking recruiting strike rate with high picks meaning many less talented players have been playing many more games at AFL level than they should have. We've had terrible trade ins and FA bring ins through the Neeld days. We still have so much work to do with the list. That can't be stressed enough. With all that in mind I'll now talk about Garland and my view is as follows. He is unique in that he's yet to sign a contract and he is a restricted FA meaning there is some value there for us. We wouldn't talking about the guy if I wasn't out of contract and wasn't a FA. He has been with us since 07 and he offers no inspired change on the field which is one of the things we so desperately need and can get through moving someone like him on if there is potential for a player upgrade. He is part of a back six who have some of the most questionable footskills and decision making skills in the AFL and as a backline we are desperate for attacking run and footskills. He plays a role and position that can be easily covered and we've seen that in the games that he hasn't played this year. Garland is not 'the' problem. But he is part of the 'problem'. Tough decisions need to be made with guys like him who are coming out of contract and who are not inspiring change at the club. The very thing we need most.

Nice to hear there are some supporters who see it too.

The negatives and worries from the game are as follows: Tyson - Doesn't know what defensive running is and his disposal/decision making at times is awful. Seems as if he's happy with his year last year and is going through the motions. Unless the knee is troubling him still? WTF is going on? Midfield in general - Banging the ball on the boot far too often when they don't need to. Handball to a free player is almost always there. Vince a major culprit which is majorly concerning given he's one of our smartest and best users. Is this instruction from Roos and the midfield coaches for us to just kick forward blindly? For as long as I can remember, Vince has been a beautiful user of the footy and more often than not makes the right decisions. I don't know why it's changed this year. Backline - The amount of times we have a combination of McDonald, Garland, Lumumba and Dunn all going up to spoil is comical. There is no structure to what they're doing. They don't play as a unit. Kicking skills from McDonald, Dunn and Garland. When will we ever be bold and run with the ball and create movement? Effort and intensity - From the start of the game we were being out-worked and out-tackled by a team who had more desire. We were giving them the ball with turn-overs and they were more accurate in front of goal. Why did they decide to play with intensity in the last quarter? How does it go missing so often at this level? Vandenberg again showed many of his team mates up with his effort, decision making and goal kicking. How hard is it to find blokes like this?