Wiseblood

Yes we will. Viney to have 40 touches. Frost returns and kicks 10.1 from just 11 kicks. Dunn keeps Petrie scoreless. Gawn monsters Goldstein in the ruck, forcing him to retire. Watts lays 17 tackles. Garland makes no mistakes yet still cops it from everyone. Lumumba takes 27 attacking bounces and doesn't get tackled once. And Hogan re-signs for 15 years at just 200k a year, realising money isn't everything and he wants to sacrifice the coin for a premiership. DEMONS!

I still remember Farmer taking a screamer over Robert Scott within the first 30 seconds too, which I thought was a great omen in that Prelim. He then proceeded to go back and miss from 35 metres out!

I think he might have been one that was 'tired' during the Bombers game - I still think we might have rushed him back a little after his injury concerns late in the NAB Cup. Hopefully with a couple of weeks under his belt he is ready to bounce back to some good form.

Oh look, another Hogan thread. We don't have enough of these.

So because he's been on the list for a few years means he deserves a run, regardless of form or ability? I'm all for changing things up a little, but let's think it through. Max King is far from ready and he would be a liability, at the moment, to the side rather than a positive contributor. As Steve said above I'd like to see Hogan moved a bit further up the ground, especially early in the game, to get him involved and to build his confidence. Could we then leave another tall up forward with Garlett to create a contest and put pressure on the backline? Clearing out our forward 50 and giving them a chance to get the ball would be a start though.

True, and I see what you're saying as well Stuie. What we've done the last 2 weeks hasn't exactly worked, so why not try something a little different? Their backline is extremely disciplined though, and it would take some excellent work from our forwards to make it work in terms of getting the ball to ground on a regular basis. It would be good to see them challenged with that task this week. If we start just bombing away blindly, though, then we would be playing right into their hands. We need to be smart about it if we're going to go a little smaller up forward than we have in the first 2 rounds.

Particularly when they have 3 key backs in Thompson, Firrito and Tarrant. We need to keep all 3 accountable to a man, because if we leave one of them with the option of zoning on regularly on Hogan then we are in for a very long day.

Dave Misson on the MFC website has basically said the AFL article is rubbish - Garlett will 'absolutely, definitely play on Sunday." A bit of good news this week is nice for a change. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-06/no-dramas-with-garlett-says-misson

Spot on. Plus you'll get those who make up the rumours to stir the gullible who eat it all up and start thinking the worst over nothing. It's regular as clockwork.

Both Hogan threads were a disgrace pages ago, and it will only get worse as people sprout their supposed inside knowledge and reputable sources that we all know are garbage. Its going to be a long 2 years...

I think this can be an easy thing to overlook too, something I did earlier in the season. These guys who are re-signing are in the last year of their deals, and we all know Hogan isn't in the same position.

Exactly. The best thing to do is to put these sort of articles to the side. One day you'll have someone saying that have a 'source' that tells them he is going home, the next day someone else is piping up saying he loves it in Victoria and is a dead cert to re-sign. The cycle will just continue over and over again.

No wonder he is struggling on field. Just look at the scrutiny the poor bloke cops. He still has 44 more games to play before his contract is up and he's already copping it. We've got short memories too. Everyone, even Jesse himself, have said that he loves it in Melbourne and has no real interest in going home. Yet we believe journo's instead. I know the Scully fiasco has tainted our thinking here, but we need to get behind the big fella and trust in the club to get things done. We'll be right.

Not at all titan - I know it's Leuenberger on the mark. My argument is that the ball, at the time, is near the boundary line and that it allows him to be close enough to Garland to stop him - thus there is no handpass regardless of what Garland does. Yes, Garland may get past him, but it's no sure thing. If it's in the middle of the ground then it's given, or Garland hasn't done enough, as he has plenty of options. In this case he has few and the margin for error is greater. If it's not 100% in that situation then you don't give that handpass. I'm not sure I agree with your second paragraph, although I see where you are coming from. I've said my piece a few times on it though so I'll refrain from repeating myself.

No, the bloke on the mark, who is about 3 metres away, would be the one to tackle him.... because he is closest. What planet are you on? Keep trying. Edit - I still don't know what you're trying to achieve here jnr. Nothing you've posted makes a lick of sense.

So recent history is 20 years ago now? So recently Melbourne were fantastic, then? That might have been a 'tough' time, but it wasn't recently.

Exactly, I'm right. Bugg could have gone down the line and there are two opposition players, one on the mark and one on the inside, who had both of them pretty much covered, or at least close enough to put off this supposed handpass. Thanks for proving my point.

I notice you didn't respond to my previous post where I made you look rather silly, instead you're closely analysing my posts and looking for something to pick at, no matter how petty. How mature. There are two Essendon guys there, plus he is running alongside the boundary line. What is he supposed to do? And at the time Bugg could have handballed it anyway, but chose not to. That was his choice. Gawn is on his own 30 metres down the line, which is where Bugg should have kicked it anyway. If anything Bugg is to blame here - he waited too long and kicked it late, which by then saw both Gawn and Pedersen covered by the opposition and caused the turnover. You can stop following me around now.

Exaggerate? Most of your posts contain a large shot at Garland. It's an obsession. Not every defender needs to be an attacking defender in the modern game. Every team has one that is generally a stay at home, negating type. They don't get high levels of possessions, but they do their job. Clearly that's Garland's role. McDonald is also, clearly, told that they want some attack from him from the back half, as are others like Jetta or Salem. Plenty of teams have them. Ted Richards at the Swans. Jamison at Carlton. Lonergan at Geelong. Merrett at Brisbane. Frost at Collingwood etc. etc. etc. Their job is to shut down a player, while others are given the task of providing that attack in the back half. Why does Garland need to do more than the 'spoil', or 'tackle' on gameday? Where has Garland shown he doesn't bring a willingness or passion to the club? Just because he doesn't have the demeanor of a Viney also doesn't mean he isn't giving 100% on game day for the club. You seem to feel that every defender in the modern game needs to bring attacking elements, but what club has 6 attacking defenders? What other sport has their entire team bringing an attacking aspect? It just doesn't happen that way. Soccer, Basketball, NFL etc. all have players whose job it is to simply defend and contain a player. Look at Man Utd last night - Daley Blind was tasked with shutting down Lukaku and do nothing else, which he succeeded in doing. Their full backs, wingers and attacking midfielders provided that spark and attack. Blind was in the side to defend, and just defend. I think that's what you fail to understand - you want things from Garland that he isn't being asked by the coaches to provide. That is being asked of others. You're right - McDonald, Jetta, Lumumba provide run and attack from the backline and Garland doesn't - but that isn't his role. His job is to contain, spoil, tackle and support. He makes mistakes along the way, but so do the rest. We saw that on the weekend. And this lack of passion and so forth - if that's how he approached games, training etc. then the players themselves wouldn't elevate him to the leadership group. They would have selected someone else. As I've said before I think that's telling. We interpret his demeanor on the field differently, and that's ok. But his inclusion in the leadership group should be proof enough of his standing and respect within the club.

You're in la la land. Garland is clearly 25-30m away in your first picture. More than far enough away for a kick if he wanted it. As Bugg goes to kick there are two Essendon opponents there. Handpassing off to Garland in that situation would have been suicide. Was there any other option but to go long? It seems to fit how we played on the weekend in that we didn't move the ball quickly enough to create those options. It seems like you're keen to pot Garland, but you've chosen a very thin example of what he is supposedly doing wrong. In this case he provided an outlet option, and once McDonald went longer to Bugg (right option) there wasn't a hell of a lot else he could do. He could have continued to run past, but he would have been right on the boundary line and close enough to the man on the mark for that to be a problem. Outside of this I don't see what the problem is.

The first picture has Garland giving an option for an outlet pass, something all the backmen do. What did you want him to do in that situation? Where in the world did you want him to run to? You then complain that Garland was just jogging past, yet in the next picture we see that there was an Essendon opponent there and he would have been tackled immediately. Bugg was right not to give it to him, although he was there moving past anyway. Your example is not a good one at all in this case. Garland did nothing wrong here.

Thanks, again, for your contribution jnr. As you'll see above I haven't said that he NEVER gets beaten, I said rarely. Yesterday was one of those days when he was beaten in a few one on ones. Daniher beat everyone, taking 15 marks. I don't know what your point is, but thanks for trawling back through my posts.

Not to mention that they voted not to merge, and we did (although that may be due to some dodgy counting). I'm not sure of his point either.

Ah Steve. Poor old Col, he must have really done something to you personally, as after every loss you seem to lay much of the blame solely at his feet. But we'll get to that later. Firstly, I do agree that the way our backline functioned in terms of their 'rotations' didn't work. The players have spoken in press conferences about how different players will spend time on the key forwards, so seeing guys like Jetta on Daniher for small periods of time didn't come as much surprise. But the lack of pressure up the field meant that often we weren't able to cover their key forwards properly, nor were we able to consistently have that extra man back to support like the Dons were able to do time and time again to Hogan. Because of our slow ball movement through the midfield they were able to that to us. Which brings me to the second point - their quick ball movement. Because of our lack of pressure and run they were able to take the ball forward quickly, and often it was through the middle of the ground. It had me pulling my hair out. Where was our midfield? Why weren't they pushing them wide and plugging those holes through the middle of the ground? And sometimes the Bomber midfield bombed the ball long too, but that doesn't mean they weren't moving it quickly. They could bomb it long to one on ones that Daniher would often win, although obviously that wasn't always the case. What chance did someone like Garland have, one one one, with someone like Daniher when they move the ball quickly and there is no one to come over and give the chop out? When they moved it quickly they bombed it long to Daniher who was too tall and marked the ball with ease. That's not the backlines fault, that lies at the feet of our midfield. Our backline couldn't cope with that, which meant our rotations looked completely our of whack. I don't necessarily place myself in the 'optimist forever' camp, I just take a different view. I'll admit I was angry and supremely frustrated when the final siren went. It hurt. Quite a bit actually. But I refuse to drop my bundle. Yet. As for Garland... do you sit at games and curse him out when Hogan misses a shot for goal, saying he should have been in his ear before he kicked it, showing some leadership? Do you shake your head when we lose a clearance, blaming Garland for not being at that contest? You claim we have all these deep seated issues that need addressing, yet you seem to use Garland as the total scapegoat every single time. What did he do so wrong for you on the weekend? He lost some battles with Daniher, sure, but he lost battles he was never going to win with everything I mentioned above. I do remember him showing terrific endeavor to lay a last second tackle on Daniher to win a holding the ball decision in the second term. It works both ways. I'm not going to waste more space going over things we have time and time again - we aren't changing each others view of him. But you need to somehow get past Garland and blaming him for all our frailties and all our problems. You say you want to analyse the game, yet you spend half the past waging war on Garland. You did so again on the post I quoted. It's all about him. You need to get over that aspect. Until then, well, I don't know what else to say.

There are always some who feel their thoughts on the game are more important, and rather than just discuss it in the post match thread they start a new topic.