stevethemanjordan

I'm not sure how to respond to you sometimes. You seem to be pretty calm generally and then at the drop of a hat you pipe up as if someone has attacked your identity. I'm assuming I've upset you again, (as I have with others it seems) because of my words on Garland. I'll get to that later though. I completely disagree that it was solely our midfield to blame and there are a plethora of reasons backing that view. Tom McDonald got us off to a flyer by gifting Essendon their first goal. He is a backman, a repeat offender of horrendous turnovers in our back-half and it allowed them to get their tails up early and it clearly knocked us about. The way our backline setup and executed on the weekend without a doubt worked to Essendon's favour. This 'rotating' on opponents nonsense was an enormous fail as I've said. Daniher was taking marks against several individuals, some of whom were 10+ cm shorter than him. Believing the midfield was the perpetrator of something like that simply doesn't make sense. Sure, some turnovers in the middle of the ground at times would've contributed to certain backmen being out of position but you are painting it far too black and white when everybody knows we're playing a 'Hawthorn style' of defence which simply isn't working. Your comments about the ball coming in 'quicker' I also disagree with. I remember Essendon kicking plenty of long and high balls inside 50 which Daniher ended up marking. But again, it was a combination of the following: Essendon players kicking to the advantage of Daniher so that he could run and jump at it (unlike what we were doing with Hogan), the disorganisation and decision to stick with the 'rotating' backmen idea which saw Garland + others on Daniher at those moments and also our midfield's inability to really pressure Essendon's forward entries at times. Again, not just the midfield. You like to place yourself in the 'optimist forever' camp. You consistently defend a backman who is providing SFA for us at the moment and you decide that posters are 'overreacting' after yet another loss to a rabble of a side. This is a trend. It's not a one off. It's been happening for years. None of my opening post suggested we sack or delist players, nor did I say I'd burn my membership or send a hate letter to the club. I offered a view on some of the core issues that I still believe exist at the club, in fact I don't believe. I know they exist. Because we continue to lose games like we did on Saturday. If you had the faintest clue, you'd see that it's not an overreaction. It's a sad reality. Teams simply do not switch on and off like that year after year because 'they had a bad day'. We are repeat offenders of this kind of display and it points to deeply-rooted issues that I'm interested in finding out. You are a bore mate. Contribute something. The amount of blind faith you have for a player like Garland is beyond belief. I am happy to talk about all players if I think they have fundamental issues in their game that are constantly holding back the side but at the moment I think Garland is the one who is offering the least. And these are the things you, Sat-man and others seem to consistently miss. Consistently!!! McDonald, for all of the howlers he makes, generally provides more positive play for our side than negative. It's the same with many players in our side who are criticised (rightly) for areas of their game that need lifting. What are the positive sides of McDonald's game? Generally speaking it's his run, voice, aggression, spoiling, marking and link up play that can be really valuable. Lumumba is the same. Even though he makes the odd turnover, he provides the team a dimension that we don't have and that is relevant for modern day footy. Go through all players in the backline and you'll be able to make a similar list. Until you come to Garland. What does the list look like now? Tell me? Did you watch the game at all on the weekend? Did you see the bloke's post with the images pointing out one of many issues that contribute to our backline struggle on the previous page? Garland's refusal to run. One problem of many. If you can't run as a defender in this day and age, you need to be elite in other areas. Is he elite in other areas? Kicking, defending? Spoiling? No. He is not relevant to modern day football. I'm pointing the finger at him because he is one of quite a few who are still problem players and who I will continue to single out until something changes. I'm pointing the finger at the club for signing him on a three year deal. I want change. I want this club to stop losing games like this. All of these things contribute to us losing these sorts of games.

Well merge it if it really bothers you. I really don't care.

Did you read anything else I wrote on either side of that particular section on Garland or?

All fine, and I started a thread in hope that it could shed some more detail on what went on yesterday and less 'player X is [censored]'.

Give us something Sat-man. I want to hear what you thought of the game and why games like that have become a trend at this club. Fire-away.

Hard to sieve through with the drivel that's everywhere in-between. If starting a new thread is an indicator that my attitude is uppity then so be it, but is your post any different?

Solid contribution. I started another thread to provide posters a platform to talk about fundamental, deep-rooted issues that exist at our club. The other thread is seems to be a place to vent frustration. Why post on this one at all if that's all you have to say? Keep believing in the Tooth Fairy. The fact that you fail to observe and/or point out any issue with losses like these only highlights the fantasy world you live in. How about you post something insightful about the game on the weekend? Do you even have a view on it? On why we seem to lose games like this? Anything man?

I'm not so sure. Surely the test is just as relevant when we play a completely undermanned side like we did on the weekend? Next week won't show me anything because yet again, it'll be a game we'll get ourselves up on the back of a putrid performance. The real indicators with our group should be week to week footy and the gap between our best and worst. And there seems to be no bridging.

It seems the post match discussion thread is again full of the usual over-the-top comments regarding yesterday's loss so I thought I'd start a thread for those who wish to share some views on some of the deep-seeded issues that are obviously still with this club given yesterday's debacle. Couple of things to start. When you're up against a really proud side with an enormous supporter base who are hosting a 'stand by us' game at the MCG, it would be fairly obvious that as an opposition side, starting well and taking the crowd out of the game as early as possible would almost be dot-point numero one on the whiteboard... What happened? Here are two significant moments that contributed to the essendon snowball that quickly gathered speed pretty early on yesterday: 1: From as early as I can remember, they were running harder, tackling harder and executing their skills to a level above us. Why? 2: Tom McDonald's turnover directly resulting in Essendon's first goal. Crowd went up a gear and so did their side. After 10 minutes and even after the first goal for us, it was clear that they had us covered everywhere except at clearances and eventually that was the story of the entire afternoon. But before I go on to some more pressing issues I have about yesterday, I would like to say that these two points were the catalyst for Essendon to really believe that they were in with a chance. The crowd and their players lifted enormously. As for point 1, I refuse to believe that this is a one off. Do we need reminding of the Nab challenge game against the Bulldogs? Was it not eerily similar early on? The young dogs side ran hard in numbers on the outside, were tackling more ferociously and were generally more efficient with the ball than us in that game and similarly to Essendon, had around 15 of their starting 22 players out. We almost had a full-strength side in. I'm not sure about anyone else, but that game for me was without doubt cause for concern and I made a point of it. What the dogs game and now yesterday has proved is the following: From our backline through to our midfield, we severely lack running power and speed, football smarts and disposal skills. It's alarming and enormously concerning. We're a really one-dimensional midfield. Almost all of our midfielders are contested ball winning players, most of them are one-paced and nearly none of them are damaging by foot. Also alarming. I completely understand that Roos and co wanted competitors but I recall saying a year or so ago that if we keep neglecting equally important attributes such as running power and kicking skills, we're going to stall. Evolutionarily speaking, has the Hawthorn model been completely forgotten? Contested ball winning isn't any more important than being efficient by foot nor being able to run hard both ways. All attributes are equally important and as a team there must be an equal balance if you're expecting to be a quality side which is why Hawthorn have been so dominant. The balance of attributes across their midfield is incredible and now the dogs are on the same path. Roos is still thinking Sydney 2005. Which brings me to my next point: Paul Roos: I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I strongly believe he is past match day coaching. As posters have rightly noted, he was outmaneuvered yesterday. Embarrassingly so. Following on from my views about the way we've been drafting and recruiting, it's clear he is stuck in the 'Sydney of 2005' model of playing the game. His post-game pressers rarely shed light on anything. I think he's been huge for the club in regards to steering the ship, implementing elite behaviours within the club and assembling a great development coaching team but the sooner Goodwin takes over on match day, the better. Backline: Would love to know whether this is Roos or Rawlings idea, but this rotating of backmen on opposition players is simply a joke. I heard McDonald talk about it during the week. When asked if he was looking forward to getting redemption on Daniher, he answered something like 'the way we're playing defence this year is a bit different, it's not as much an individual battle'. McDonald has played his best games for this club when assigned a single opponent. Garland has played his best for the club when assigned a single opponent. Dunn has played his best when assigned a single opponent. What the [censored] is going on? Yesterday, Daniher took marks against Jones, Jetta, Garland and McDonald. There is absolutely zero organisation in our defensive group at present and it's contributing to poor performances. McDonald and Garland again played with an incredible amount of inconsistency. Jesus I hate to say it again, but will Garland contribute anything positive to the team again? Kicking, body language, aggression, run, leadership, anything? I'm becoming increasingly confused about his role at our club. He has no spark! Why we're trying to emulate Hawthorn's back six when we simply don't have the cattle I have NFI. If we want to improve our backline in a way that is going to be relevant for successful football next year we'll need to offload Dunn, bring in Hurley and another defender who can break lines and use the ball who can provide what Garland should be providing. Forwardline: It will continue to suffer if the quality of the disposal going inside 50 remains the same. Kicking long to the disadvantage of Hogan and two opposition defenders. It simply comes back to my point about the types of players we have on our list and what their strengths are. I can deal with it from time to time as every supporter can. But game after game we're seeing it. It's deep-rooted. We have a long way to go. We're still broken in certain areas of the ground and the only way we'll see genuine improvement is through further list changes that contribute to a more 'balanced' team. We are missing far too many important attributes all over the ground.

The fact is, if we can't convert more inside 50's into shots on goal/goals then we will find ourselves in a dog fight. I have absolutely no concerns over our side at the contest, but it's what happens after we win the ball that continues to concern. We simply don't have the footskills accross the board to be really damaging going forward but our players can definitely be smarter and I think that's what I'm most looking forward to seeing. As a poster previously said, we're kidding ourselves if we think the answer isbanging it long to a pack situation where Hogan is a one in 10 chance of marking it. Last week we were ranked 18th for inside 50 conversions and we nearly lost the game because of it. '4-quarter effort' can mean a variety of things. I don't think our effort at the contest dropped off last week. We were always on top. But our 'effort' going forward wasn't where it needs to be. Effort includes smarts, discipline and decision making. That particular side of our game remains a work in progress and will improve over time when we start adding some class and outside run. But this weekend is the perfect game to try and execute this side of our game and if we do it well we should have them on toast.

40 + points is what I expect. Minimum. If we cannot win by that margin against a side like this, we're in no hope of troubling decent teams this year. We need to come out breathing fire and be efficient as possible going forward for the majority of the day.

I agree having Hogan, Pederson, Frost and Watts all playing in the one forwardline isn't a great combination. But it was our entries inside 50 that was the reason we kept seeing packs of 6-7 al flying for the ball. Players will rarely mark in that situation and none of that was the fault of any forward. Kicking to the advantage of forward targets and to space is what we need more of. Just look at Watts' kick to Hogan in the last. He saw the space, recognised that it was Hogan in the best position, and kicked it to that area. Too many times in the first three quarters we just bombed long in hope. And there were a few repeat offenders who I won't name. This week we absolutely must improve on our delivery inside 50 because we're going to have plenty of them. Roos mentioned in the presser that Essendon aren't an overly tall side which says to me we might see one of Frost/Pederson dropped with Dunn coming in for O Mac. Or perhaps we could see Frost move back for O Mac and no Dunn at all. We need to improve our efficiency going forward if we want to trouble some of the better sides this year.

Still outside your starting 22 PD...?

2017 Round 1: B Jetta Dunn Hurley HB Salem McDonald Vince C Brayshaw Tyson Kent HF Kennedy Hogan Watts FF Garlett Weideman Petracca Foll Gawn Viney Jones Int Prestia Oliver Vandenberg Trengove

He might just be arriving...

Great to win Round 1. Exactly what we needed for the confidence of the entire list of 22 and all supporters. We need as much momentum early in the season as possible so it's only a positive from that viewpoint. Individually, Matt Jones, Watts, Ben Kennedy and Jack Viney clearly carried their pre-season form into Saturday's game. That's the most confident I've seen Watts play. Ever. He had a great energy and he's obviously really inspired and confident atm. Really good to see. What was really pleasing was the effort and contribution of players other than Jones and Vince. We're building the list. The negatives and things that remain a worry is our ball movement. Same story. We're lucky this time that GWS were really inaccurate, but holy [censored] we've got to sort out our inside 50 delivery. We didn't turn the ball over as much as we have been in the back half of the ground, but we really butchered it going forward and weren't kicking to the right spots. It can be improved for sure, but it'll remain a worry this year as we still don't have many guys who are really damaging by foot.

There should be a cap for GIFs posted on this forum...

Still think when Weideman is ready, he'll be the one who plays deep forward most of the time. Jesse has many more strings to his bow and as a CHF he'd be able to impact more regularly and in other ways. His field kicking is also quality. Might not happen this year, but I'd say that's the plan into the future.

Melbourne supporters are fickle and given our more recent history, it makes even more sense that we'd see a great turn-out after a really exciting start to a year that has a sense of real unpredictability because of the talent we now have. So I don't really think it's ridiculous for someone to think that 30,000 Melbourne supporters would turn up to 'our' home ground on a traditional Saturday 2.10 pm game against a side who have bullied us for years. I'll say it again, but Easter weekend is always going to mean there will be less supporters at games. 25,000 + Melbourne supporters will be there on Saturday. That's a minimum.

Trac will play when he's match fit and in form. To think we've pencilled him in for a particular game already is ridiculous.

Smith and Hill are both cherries on top of the cake and cream. Their engine is made up of players who are both really strong contested ball winners and are equally as damaging on the outside with their disposal and decision making skills. Which is why they've been so dominant. I think posters are really confused about Prestia. It's as if everyone thinks he's a pure inside mid who offers little else when in fact he offers our midfield a dimension that we're lacking and which stood out on the weekend against GWS. Running power and efficiency by foot. Prestia has both. Compare him to someone like Tyson. A player who excels at winning the ball and is creative with his hands but really one-sided, has little running power and is an average field kick. We need players who will complement our midfield group and add attributes that we lack. Pace, running power and kicking skills is what we lack through there and Prestia possesses those attributes. Is it any wonder why over the past couple of years players like Dahlhaus, Jack Steven, Boomer Harvey, Dylan Shiel etc destroy us. We're very much a one-geared midfield atm.

It's absurd isn't it. As for being a player 'we don't need' because of how many strong inside players we have on our list, it's just utter shite. Prestia possesses qualities that we lack as well as being a strong inside ball winner which is what makes him so good. He is really skillful and a smart user. The more players you have on your list with a really strong blend of both, the better your side. Just look at Hawthorn.

I don't think anyone expects as to have more there than Essendon on Saturday but I don't see why we couldn't get good numbers to the game. Three reasons: It's at the G. We're on a roll and we'll be going into the game as obvious favourites after a solid round 1 win. It's not Easter weekend.

C'mon now..

I don't think people realise how good GWS are and nearly everything will have to go right for us to win on Saturday. I predict a 30 point loss on the weekend. As much as we've improved, they have too and their midfield are a few levels above.