stevethemanjordan

That's disappointing then.

Tearing games apart at VFL level isn't a numbers game. As we've seen in the past with plenty of players getting insane leather poisoning. Magner, Valenti etc etc. I didn't watch the game yesterday so I can't comment on his performance. But considering those who have already made mention that he was targeted heavily by the opposition, is it not obvious that the FD would have been looking for signs other than how much ball he got? Things like the quality of his touch, his ability to work hard, compete etc etc? Seriously, I would wager possession count at VFL level is not even half of what coaches look for when considering who to bring in to an AFL side. Another thing to consider would be that due to Gus being so heavily targeted and tagged meant that Trengove was able to have a field day. Did those watching consider this? I think we need Gus on Monday night. And I'd have him ahead of Tyson for that midfield spot.

If that isn't the deciding factor as to whether or not they play against Richmond next week then I refuse to barrack for this club any longer. Oscar McDonald got 70 for a key defender. Get him in.

Big game. Going to be hard to knock off Richmond with the hoardes of supporters they'll have. Any big club that are on a role are hard to beat. I'd have three Ins: Hogan, Brayshaw and Hibberd. Outs: Weideman (corky), Tyson and ANB. I admire ANB's role playing ability. But his ball use, decision making and banging it on the boot blindly is infuriating. Tyson similarly is just a numbers gatherer who doesn't punish the opposition. He's also a liability on the outside and when it comes to defensive transition. Melksham gets one more chance and if release him up the field to a wing with hibberd coming into the side. No contested possessions last week. I'd be asking him to crack in, use his two-way running and kick long to the advantage of our forwards. I doubt Tyson and ANB will both come out, but it's the way I'd have it against a nippy, fleet-of-foot Richmond side who will be desperately trying to break this mini hoodoo.

Melbourne supporters are just scarred. We have no idea whether or not Viney's form over the first four rounds has anything at all to do with the captaincy call. The only thing that we know to be true is the following: - Viney had hip surgery pre-christmas and has therefore had an interrupted pre-season. If not for the captaincy call, this would be the next excuse in the barrel. Without a doubt. - As history suggests, many players can have a less than satisfactory season following their best and whilst that is not a great sign, it's definitely been a trend for many players at Melbourne. - We're four rounds into the year. He wouldn't be the first player within the AFL to end up having a great year after an average start.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is the most overtalked and overrated piece of play around these parts? The way posters talk about it is as if it was the making of Brayshaw. He read the flight of the ball well and made a decision to intercept mark the ball. It's no surprise he shot past several Geelong players on the way through due to the fact that they were running the opposite way right up until he marked it... And as for the kick, it was just a long kick to a 200cm giant. If you look at the replay closely you'll realise that the kick isn't actually really to the advantage of Spencer. I consider Spencer's mark the most impressive part of the play. Because it was an extremely fortunate mark. It just stuck to his mits. Anyway. Regardless of all of that, I'm confident Brayshaw will be a player in time. And believe like Roos, he is a pure ball winning mid and will be of most value when he's moved there full time.

Vince can play the HB position very well, as was evidenced both last year and round 1 this year against St Kilda. He had a superb game against St Kilda. The argument in regards to position is pointless. Like a few of his team-mates, the problem is completely to do with consistency of performance. Plain and simply, the gap between his best and worst football is far too great. Fix that and it won't matter where he plays, he'll be valuable to the side. I can cop it with some of the younger and less experienced guys. But I can't with Vince or T-Mac.

Have said it for the past three seasons and I'll keep saying it. We lack consistently smart and efficient ball users across our entire side. Both by hand and foot. That should be plainly obvious to the eye. We are nowhere near teams like the dogs or GWS in this regard. We've recruited for ultra competitive ball winners, all of whom share the same weakness: Quality ball use by foot. I reckon it's hurting us. Salem is the only player as part of our young core who can be consistently damaging by foot. We rely on smashing teams in the contest and applying significant pressure around it. But we have no other way of winning if we don't get on top in this area. Even Billy Stretch as an outsider barely provides quality line-breaking ball use. In fact, he possesses really poor metres gained. Basically, I think we have an unbalanced list profile and will need to make a correction over the next trade/FA/draft. It also doesn't help when you've got guys like Vince and T-Mac who can stink it up every second week. It's a major problem. Always has been with Tom and Bernie is now almost certainly in that camp. Generally, your more experienced guys shouldn't have such a gap between their best and worst games. Jones is an outlier. But why? How does Tom McDonald perform in such an erratic fashion at this point in his career? And Vince? It doesn't make sense to me. We still might have a decent year but geez I reckon our list is still a way off.

But it doesn't feel like Christmas to me... I just said that it's not that I think he won't make it.... I'm completely aware of his age and therefore the time he has. Garland's story is completely different given his age and experience. The only similarity is that I wanted them both dropped due to their game-day performances at the time. And it's clear I wasn't the only one who saw it that way.

Nice dig. You could alternatively have just congratulated me on my astute observations. I called it with Garland, who you defended at all costs. I'm not writing him off as a player just yet, (although I'm not confident in the same way many are on here). But obviously, he is not playing to the level required.

Not me. : )

Yes. I guess I'm talking about two important attributes that he possesses to an elite level. Ball use and class. I think our midfield sorely lack those two ingredients.

Would be a waste of money, to say the least. Definitely don't need another pure ruckman as others have suggested. I'm more interested in Dusty. I mean, I can't imagine him at the dees for a number of reasons. But he's exactly the type of mid that'd compliment our group. #dustytodees

I also like that he's a perfectionist. Against Geelong he was visibly angry about missing some of those marks he flew for. It was pleasing. I think he is much more aware of the short option this year compared to last and in that sense his decision making has improved. Maybe I'm asking for too much. I know it's a list problem. We are short on quality users big time. I love Hunt and I think he'll be a quality player in time, but his kicking will always be his weakness in my view. Against Geelong, he had the ball at half-back with 40-odd seconds to go in the third quarter and for whatever reason he decided to play on and kick long down the line. The ball went straight to Selwood (I think), and eventually landed in the lap of Menzel who kicked a goal after the siren. It was a massive momentum killer because we were around 8-9 points up at that stage. These things will happen to young players. But I still wish at that point in the game, he'd try and maintain possession or at the very least kick to a contest rather than a one on three/four. I love him because he now knows he can play at the level and is hellbent on improving.

If he possessed better foot-skills, I'd back him as a future multiple AA half-back. I hope he improves his kicking, but I'm not sure he will.

* I want to preface this by thanking whoever the legend was that changed all demonland txt to 'bold'... Now I can't use my signature highlighting tool. A couple of points to your post. Firstly, the fact we conceded nine points more again doesn't tell the full story. What was the opposition inside 50 count average from 2014 onwards for example? That is a much better stat if you're choosing to continue to use them. It's about how much ball they were both exposed to and I don't need to tell you not every forward entry results in any score. There are useful stats as you've mentioned that coaches use and there are pointless stats used completely out of context by a football supporter. The numbers comparison game that posters are playing to determine 'who is the better player' being the latter. I don't buy it. It's the same as when posters were thinking we'd struck gold when Gysberts got close to the thirty possession mark in his first three games. Some supporters get way too sucked in by numbers and that's what has happened here. And as for the draft number, the following is exactly the type of context that is relevant for the stat (that you think is useless). - Both drafted in the 2014 draft as key position defenders. - Lever missed the entire 2014 year due to an ACL injury but still went inside the top 15 of that year. He was an underage Vic Metro player and the captain of his TAC cup side and had an incredibly strong 2013 year. Oscar started his 2014 year as key forward, was overlooked for the national carnival and played as a key defender for the second half of the year to come into contention as high as the second-round but ended up going in the third round. - Generally, a pick number will give a fairly good indication of the quality of one key defender who goes in the first-round compared to one who goes in the third-round, unless of course there has been a significant injury/special circumstance that has meant one player has had less exposure than another. Lever in this case was the one who spent his entire draft year having not played a single game. Yet he still went at pick 14. Oscar had no injury and only switched to defence in the second half of the year. This is a fairly strong indication of who the better player is. Without having played a game of league football. Single attributes alone, Lever has him covered in almost every aspect of the game and only Melbourne supporters would tell you otherwise.

^ For all of those who look at the above and and conclude that Oscar is at the same level as Lever as a player, do you consider the following: In which teams defensive 50 has the ball spent most time in over Lever and O-Mac's career? I would almost certainly say ours. Which most obviously means Oscar will see more opportunity of gaining kicks, handballs, disposals, tackles etc ect. I never really understand why posters provide stats like that, given they're playing in two different teams that have been at opposite ends of the ladder for the past three years. Anyone that has a decent eye for the game with a balanced view would agree that Lever, (after an ACL comeback pre-draft) is a significantly better and more talented player than Oscar, even if his numbers don't show it yet to the stat obsessers. That's not even considering where they went in their drafts. Again, Lever was touted as a top 10 pick pre-injury. Oscar had no injury problems and went at 50-odd.

Outs: Gawn and Tyson Ins: Spencer and Brayshaw

If the thread/discussion re: Lever is of no interest to you, why do you feel the need to comment? This is a [censored] supporters forum. What part of that doesn't compute for you?

He's always had the hands. He is one of the most naturally gifted players and his touch is sublime. The fact that he doesn't clunk marks in packs is a between the ears issue. Nothing more, nothing less. To put it bluntly, he doesn't embrace contact. Thought he battled manfully yesterday after Gawn went down though.

Not sure why Viney is being criticised when there's a bloke named Tyson who this week may as well not have played. Last week people got sucked in to his possession count but this week against quality opposition he was just irrelevant. Viney was simply out-played and positioned by two bonafide stars of the game. Both definitely need to lift though. I still wouldn't be playing Tyson right now if I was coach. Makes us slower and just doesn't have enough polish to add to what is an already predictable, one-paced group of mids.

An 'autocorrect owning' if I've ever seen one.

Depends how O-Mac goe-...... jokesss everyone, relax.. Carn Osc. Carn the Dees.

I'm happy to be the weekly caller regarding anything Oscar-related.

@McQueen - Because I saw the article floating around and thought I'd share it as a point of discussion. I too think offering up Brayshaw is going a bit far. There's a whole lot of untapped potential there, although I do think many demonanders believe him to be something that he's not; that being a classy and skilled user of the footy. Gussy will be part of a top five most important players in a couple of years, I'm sure of it. His attack on the ball, man and ability to mark above his head are his strengths. He is dual sided, but definitely not in the Mitchell league. It's an area he needs to clean up though, for sure. I'm sure most are aware of the fact that we'll need to keep as much of our core together as possible to have a shot at the flag. Our core being Hogan, Weeds, Viney, Salem, Petracca, Oliver, Brayshaw, Hunt, Stretch etc. So if we were going to go after Lever, we'd be offering a fringe player and some future picks including a first rounder. Anyway, too early to speculate but he's definitely a player I'd love at the club. I heard Mahoney saying not long ago that we have saved coin to lure someone at the right time and when I look at our list, I believe we're another quality tall defender short and perhaps a classy and skilled power running mid short.