stevethemanjordan

Yes, most of the other stats were even, except for inside 50's which they dominated. The only way that the 'possession count' stat is a positive, is if we're dominating a team in every other stat including inside 50's!

Well, I'd argue that we could have managed those chains of possessions in years previous had our coach at the time shared a similar philosophy in game style/plan. Perhaps not as well, (due to some of the inclusions to our list), but still.

Also another thing to add to this 'higher possession count' talk. If you watch the game against Geelong, have a look at how much pressure they put us under when we have the ball. There are constant quick handballs, little chips, fumbles, more handballs, chips backwards etc etc by our players. This is bound to happen to a team who is not as skilled or solid in their game plan and don't share the same trust in one another. So in this particular context, it's not a 'positive' that we've got high possession numbers. When Geelong won the contested ball, they were clean and direct with their disposal and so their inside 50 count was much higher than ours. The 'holding of possession' in this context is more ambiguous and in that particular game, was due to a number of reasons. Not all being positive.

It's a highly misleading stat. Granted, we won our fair share of the ball but as Dunstall continued saying, we were making two or three kicks to reach a particular target when all we needed was one at times. There was also a lot of pointless sharing of the ball in the back half which clearly contributes to this stat. I am well aware we are still getting used to playing this way so these two practice games have been the first two where we've been testing it out. Not as much risk taking. Etc etc. It can be positive, and it has been a positive. But in isolation, that stat can be very misleading. Sure. But if you're chipping pointlessly back and fourth, you're not necessarily progressing anywhere and you'll rack up plenty of possessions.... I'm not saying that's how we are playing, because clearly we've been competitive in both games, however there have been passages where there have been too many disposals and possessions needed which as I've said, contributes to the high possession number.

We lost to Geelong, matched them in most areas of the game and outnumbered them by quite a margin with number of possessions, but did you see the inside 50 count?Stats stats stats. Champion data blah blah. While it's a positive thing that we're holding onto the ball and playing a holding of possession style game when it's needed, we still over-possessed the ball against Geelong. It'll take time, but we need to become a lot more efficient and direct with our kicks. I hope you realise this, and you that you don't actually believe that the outcome of round 1 will be based on whether or not we win the possession count overall...

Would have said the same last year... However with Tyson and Cross now in the midfield, Viney is not an auto lock for round 1 based on fitness. His form will dictate whether or not he plays round 1. Michie has impressed me enough already to earn a spot in round 1. Great pickup.

Positives - the four midfield inclusions. Vince, Cross, Tyson and Michie. - a more effective gameplan. - players starting to trust and back themselves and each other. - did well stopping what could have been a flood of goals a couple of times. No Frawley or Garland. Negatives - still far far far too many ridiculous skill errors that Melbourne players seem to make. Seriously. - The new mids MUST push these guys out for round 1. It's inexcusable at this level. I know there were a number of errors from different players. But the same guys too often turn the ball over. - not enough quality ball uses on the list, and that needs to improve over the next couple of years.

All thanks to a quality AFL coach. Looking forward to tonight.

You're stating the bleeding obvious as well as missing the point. A win in round 1 will do wonders for us, no matter who the team, no matter who the personnel. You can't underestimate the significance a win will have on the psyche of our players and it's especially important for us going into round two against west coast at the G. It will bring more supporters, we'll be on a high as a side and we all know how riding high on confidence can completely change how a sporting team plays. Look at the Aussies during the Ashes and even the first test against South Africa. Mitchell Johnson... He's invincible now. Obviously we'll have a better indication of where we're at when we come up against full strength top four sides, but if you think that winning in general isn't going to have some influence in being 'competitive' against full strength top 8/4 sides, then you need to have a look at the history of sport pal.

I'd rather a round 1 win from where we're coming from, regardless of the opposition and who they have in or out. We need to remember what it feels like to play well and win. It's a non-negotiable.

Of course I'm not celebrating this news, but it looks as if the stars are aligning for our first round 1 win in some time. Steven out for 6 or more weeks with a foot injury so that's another one down in their midfield. Steven Montagna Dal Santo - (north) Gilbert (backman) And an under-done Hayes and Riewoldt for the moment. Meanwhile, our injury list is as healthy as it's ever been. bitter/sweet news?

You do understand why he battled in a one on one dual in the ruck vs Richmond though don't you... ? He is a skinny kid who was rucking and body-ing against hardened senior men. What on earth did you expect? I don't know what you're seeing Master, he showed plenty of encouraging signs. He's skill set for a man of his height puts Spencer's to shame. Spencer has been on our list for how many years? And he still makes the most simple of errors which are detrimental at times. Max showed some fantastic signs. His hands below his feet, field kicking, and awareness for a ruckman were really promising. He needs at least 4 years in the gym before we see him being able to match it physically with the big boys..

All those ruckmen J-Viney mentioned have Spencer covered in most facets of the game. I think you're simplifyingthe role a 2014 ruckman needs to play.. Spencer is next to useless wen he goes forward, he can't mark for a giant, can't kick, can't handball, is still not aggressive enough. He competes in rucking contest and tries hard to apply pressure when in the vicinity of an opposition player with the ball. It's the bare minimum RP. Having two rotating ruckmen that have the ability to play a forward role is what most teams have. Spencer is filling in time while the other tall timber are injured.

I'm one of the people that will have a go at him because of his skills. It wasn't just kicks he missed. His marking for a bloke of his size is quite poor as is his positional work in marking contests. He tries his guts out and competes hard, there's no knock there. However, we will struggle against other teams if Spencer is our number 1 ruckman. Too many brain fades for me.

How he got that far up his own arse, I will never know.

I gave examples of mistakes they continue to make and eventually we will need to eradicate these if we are to get to continue to improve. Their form for now is indeed what will decipher their presence in the team, however over time I hope that it will not be form alone as these players are not well rounded enough and are too limited as players. I am aware that we are still making baby steps as a side, consolidating a best 22 for now and still learning and fine tuning the way in which Paul Roos wants us to play. However, I'm also aware that with recruiting and development of other young players on our list, we will need player upgrades. Those who display a greater number of attributes will obviously fill positions available from players who are more limited in ability. I don't know why I'm bringing this up because I know you're more than aware, but your response confused me. We will continue to add quality to our list now that the recruiting department looks to be in 'working order' as well as our development program and standard of coaching. Viney, Toumpas, Salem, Barry will hopefully, after enough development and natural maturity take the positions currently held by McKenzie, Bail, Nicholson, Evans.

Would be handy having them, however, I maintain that it's far more important having a fit and firing midfield. And by that, I mean about 15 or 16 potential mids fighting nail and tooth for limited spots in our best 22. Hogan/Dawes and Frawley/Dunn/McDonald are fine for now. Garland will be back hopefully round 2 and Clark can wait for now. We're not playing for finals just yet..

Dknow about Bail getting me overly excited... He definitely got himself in the game, provided great run and support and hit some targets. However, his two set shots and a few targets he missed are still very damaging to the team, especially when we have a couple of others in the team in the same boat. Nicholson, McKenzie perhaps Evans. Some of the targets Vince was hitting were just really smart kicks that were opening up play. Toumpas has the same ability as does Trengove and even Jones has fantastic vision and really splits the defence open with his kicks. Over-time we're going to need players who can commit to and execute these kinds of kicks if we're going to match it with the best. I still see McKenzie handballing to players right next to him because he doesn't have the vision or smarts to go for those kicks. I'm probably nitpicking, but it's important for the team that we get the balance right. Hawthorn are the absolute pinnacle of what I'm talking about. Players who split teams apart with their foot skills and many of those players still possess fantastic endurance, contested ball winning ability etc. They're an unbelievable side to watch.

Well spotted. After seeing him move so fluently last week, I have no concerns for him going forward this year. I'm still in disbelief as to how much of a difference both Vince and Cross made to the team and especially to the performance and output levels of players like Trengove and some of our bottom-tier players like Bail. Tyson and Viv helped a bit with this as well. This holding of possession game-style we've seemed to have adopted will bode well for Trengove as well as he can use his strong endurance to keep providing options. When the opportunity presents itself to really break through defence on the counter, players like Toumpas, Blease and Watts will be valuable for that kind of an attack. Really looking forward to seeing how we standup against Geelong and Hawthorn in these praccie games.

There would be nothing more in the world that would make me happier than hearing Frawley and Roos extending their contracts with the MFC by seasons end. And by extending, I mean Roos realising that it is he who wants to take us all the way to a premiership. Succession mcmession. Let me dream..

For me he is nothing but a backup to someone like Dawes/Hogan or perhaps a a tall defender if they go down. If we had an injury free forwardline to choose from, he wouldn't be getting a gig. Nothing against him, but we certainly have players who can contribute a lot more and don't make as many errors on game day. We need to squeeze him out of the best 22 eventually. Nothing wrong with him trying his guys out to earn a cemented spot, will only help our performances while the quality talls are down.

Howe's an extremely versatile player so I wouldn't worry about it being overcrowded. He is deceptively quick and agile and has beautiful hands so once the ball hits the deck, he still very dangerous and can absolutely be another crumbing option if not in the marking contest. We saw the forward pressure he applied on Friday night. He's a ripper, Howe.As far as the forward line itself, I agree with WYL. Hogan, Clark and Dawes are only going to provide more chances of scoring. It's all about our midfield. We need to be able to win enough of the ball, keep hold of it and defend fantastically when we don't have it to remain competitive during games this year. We saw some really positive early signs on Friday, however Geelong and Hawthorn will be great tests for those three key midfield indicators as to whether or not we can stay with the best. If Geelong and Hawthorn play strong sides against us, we'll be up against stronger bodies at the contest, we'll be under greater pressure when we try and play our possession game, and they'll be smoother on the fly when attacking. I can't wait to see how we standup. It's just a bonus that we have such a dangerous forward line on paper, but as many have pointed out on this thread already, it's the midfield that will decide whether or not we're competitive throughout games. Positive signs though.. Go Dees

Doesn't need to. What is an ocean but a multitude of droplets. It's the start that we needed and that in itself is significant enough.

So it was, however none of our wins were convincing under him. Even in the nab cup. Last night was the first time there were passages of slick, smart and structured football in a long time..

Well, for anyone that had low expectations, I'm sure that's changed. I thought he showed a lot, and I've always thought he was a great get. Good skills, solid tackler, smart player, knows where to run. Regardless of the fact he's played half a 'real game', he's a definite upgrade from players like Bail and Nicho. We've taken pressure off those lesser players now with our depth through the midfield. Makes a helluva lot of difference. Whoever the poster was that said he heard a player say, "Viv will start at Casey" must have certainly made it up.