titan_uranus

Do people think that our players get inspired to perform better by looking up at empty stands? Or do you think they rest on their laurels and think "we don't need to do anything more, people are already watching us" if the stands were full? I am quite sure that, if it has any impact, it doesn't help our players. There is a reason the concept of a "home ground advantage" exists, and it doesn't come from empty stands. I agree with this. The MCC felt relatively well attended and AFAIK close to 100% of the seats available were taken on Monday/Tuesday. If my maths is right and the MCC was allowed 50% capacity, that would be around 11,000 total. I'd be confident that around 8,000 were there. That means 13,000 in the rest of the ground, which had room for around 40,000. If the MCC could have taken more, I'm confident it would have. Well he'll feel empowered to get on that high horse because our supporters don't help our club. The same supporters who don't go to games likely blame the club for not responding to these sorts of things in the media.

You see it on here though. So many "I'm not going until they play well" comments. Protests in that form don't help the club (nor does refraining from buying a membership when you can otherwise afford it).

Really disappointing. Surely more than 20,000 MFC fans could have made it today.

Sparrow, Jones and Hunt the clear three contenders to make room for any potential inclusions IMO. Harmes wasn't fantastic but I don't think he was anywhere near as bad as people are suggesting. If fit, I'd consider Viney and Melksham for Sparrow and Jones. Hibberd could maybe take Hunt's spot. Yes there's a speed loss there, but Hunt made so many mistakes today it might still be a net win. Jetta? You gotta be kidding.

6 - May 5 - Lever 4 - TMac 3 - Oliver 2 - Petracca 1 - Jordon

This thread is reaching new lows of Demonland pessmism. What's with the "it's only an injury ravaged Fremantle" stuff? It's not like we went in with a fresh first choice 22. AFAIK they were missing Walters, Lobb, Darcy, Acres and Hill (if he's best 22?). We were missing Viney, Brown, Weideman, Hibberd (plus Melksham and Lockhart, if you think they're best 22). They lost a player mid-game but the injury sub mitigates that impact. And it's not like Fremantle are a widely-tipped bottom 4 side. They're actually widely-tipped to be right around where we're likely finish. As to the match itself, we never really looked like being overrun after the first quarter. We won by 4 goals when not at our best, and but for some wayward fourth quarter kicking we'd have won by 6+ goals. We generated 25 scoring shots against a side whose foundation is its defence. There's no denying our skills at times were terrible (some of the kicking was just deplorable and almost everyone fumbled it at least once), and there's no denying we've got a number of weaknesses in the 22 we just fielded. But we also saw TMac's best game since 2018 (and probably Jetta's too), May and Lever were impenetrable, Oliver's workrate was better than it usually is, Harmes looked far more comfortable in the forward half of the ground rather than the back half, Jordon's debut was impressive, and Brayshaw found his touch as the game wore on. We were clearly fitter than them and ran the game out well, too. If that's all we've got for 2021 then we won't do much, but it's Round 1, it's our first game of 20 minute quarters on the MCG with new rules opening up the game, and by and large we were the better side for most of the match. The panic and disgust on here is ridiculously disproportionate.

Good luck to him. I like that we're backing in our read on him and his improvement over the whole pre-season, not just the Dogs game.

In relation to the (interesting) debate between @Lord Nev, @Axis of Bob and @JimmyGadson, I think it's fair to say the following: We are good at accruing "clearances" as that term is defined by the statisticians; We are generally better at accruing them than our opponents, and have been each year under Goodwin; We are not as good at turning those "clearances" into scores, or wins, as we could/should be. Part of this may be the way in which clearance is defined: it is "Credited to the player who has the first effective disposal in a chain that clears the stoppage area, or an ineffective kick or clanger kick that clears the stoppage area" The point being the "clearance" stat doesn't take into account success of those clearances. It literally includes turnover kicks out of the stoppage area. I think there is merit to Jimmy's argument that teams are content to let our inside mids grab the ball first and even take the first possession, because through Goodwin's era we have shown a tendency for that first disposal to not damage our opponent as much as it could/should. I don't know where to find it, but I'd love to see a stat for scores from stoppages, and particularly scores from centre clearances. That may show, relative to other clubs, how good we are at converting our wins in the stoppages to scores.

Yes but they sure as hell better not tell anyone that's what they're doing, lest they cop a spray from Demonland about "all talk, no action".

A week out from Round 1 and we have 9 (arguably) best 22 players on the injury list. Really, really not ideal.

I agree entirely. What he says may well be correct. But he doesn't know anything about our club. He's just a commentator using generalised statements because, as you say, it resonates with supporters. I haven't seen the example you've cited here with Oliver but if that's what happened, it's an unfortunate recurring trait with Oliver. He is a supremely good midfielder but his biggest weakness has always been the selfless side of football. Whether that's defensive running, sharing the ball around, taking the harder option to spread from a stoppage rather than just banging it on the boot, or in this instance shepherding, he can lift his game in those areas. The point you make about a senior player going to him is interesting though. I distinctly recall this board blowing up when May had words with Frost in a game against Brisbane in 2019.

I'm far from convinced in either Sparrow or Jordon but I'm not going to write them off based on yesterday. The entire side was flogged by the competition's best midfield. You mean who you would take if you knew what you knew now and could go back in time and do the draft again. Which is not how it works.

I agree with you that Goodwin has had issues working out where to play players. Hunt and Harmes are the two biggest examples. But I strongly disagree with the idea we should try May forward. The May-Lever combination down back is blossoming and is critical to us being any good. All good sides are set up well behind the ball. We literally cannot afford to play May forward. It's up to TMac, Jackson, M Brown and Gawn to hold the fort until B Brown and Weideman are back. Also disagree re: Fritsch, he'd get games for most sides and probably would be even better than he is with us if he had proper key forwards to take the heat.

Johannisen, Richards and Cordy were all dropped. Fit, but didn't make the 26. That's two best 22 and a fringe player missing. Not comparable at all. And as to their "depth", they have midfield depth like no other side in the league but they didn't look amazing when we went inside 50, so they didn't really have good cover for Wood.

Ah yes, the old "causation vs correlation" conundrum. Frost and Oscar were not the reason we made, or won, finals in 2018. Indeed, it is fairly arguable that they were one of our biggest weaknesses, if not our biggest, and with improvement on them we may have gone further in 2018. May and Lever are also not the reason we've failed to make finals since 2018. And indeed, as I believe you yourself even acknowledged, they were our two best players on the weekend.

Can now add Daw and D Smith to the rookie list. Three players to focus on this year: Oliver, Salem, Weideman (in that order). Very big years for Baker, Bedford, Lockhart, ANB, J Smith and vandenBerg. There are opportunities for each one to get into the 22 early in the season and take big steps towards a 2022 contract. But my expectations are not high for any of them except, maybe, ANB.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/876396/daw-and-smith-earn-list-spots Daw and Smith get rookie spots. Farmer and Declase don't.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/876396/daw-and-smith-earn-list-spots

6 - May 5 - Lever Daylight 4 - Fritsch 3 - Gawn 2 - ANB 1 - Langdon

It's very easy to react negatively to that performance. But it's a pre-season match in which we were missing almost our entire first choice midfield. Meanwhile the Dogs' overwhelming strength is their midfield. They bat deeper through there than any other side bar none. There is literally no worse side to be depleted in the middle against than the Dogs. So when we're running AVB, Sparrow and Jordon at centre bounces, it's no wonder that Macrae, Bontempelli and Liberatore are winning the clearances. Almost everything else fell apart because of our inability to compete through the middle. It's hard to judge the forwards because the midfield performance was so poor. TMac didn't look good at all though and I don't see a future in Bedford at all. May and Lever were comfortably our best two. With a bit more support down there from Salem and Hibberd, hopefully we can convert their intercept play into some more attacking ball movement. The way we tried to move the ball today was not good.

Lost me when he got to this bit: "The game style will shift to one that is predicated on forward-half turnovers. While this is hardly original, it represents a gamble for Goodwin, given that Melbourne does not have the kind of forward riches of Richmond, Geelong or West Coast. By seeking to play a “front half” game, those Demon mids will be more aggressive in their positioning, pushing up higher and affording their improved defence a little less protection. So, Steven May and Jake Lever must hold their own in more one-on-one contests." Has he not watched a Melbourne game in the Goodwin era? We've been a side predicated on forward-half turnovers for four seasons now.

The MFCSS is strong with this one...

Not sure about Pickett. Goodwin doesn't say he's going to play Round 1, only that he hopes he'll be "available", and at any rate I don't think he's certain about that. I'm surprised at Brayshaw's progress but not by Viney's, as I've come to expect slowness when dealing with Viney and his feet (pun intended). We won't see Viney in Round 1, I doubt we'll see Pickett, and Brayshaw is maybe 50/50%. What can be said about all this, though, is that this has not been an ideal pre-season. We'll have to see how it impacts our performance, if at all.

McLachlan's terrible, just terrible. Brayshaw is actually OK when he just focuses on calling the game, but he drifts off into bufoonery and "bloke-ness" too much (it's ingrained in him from his Triple M work). I can't stand Basil, but that's in part due to some of his non-AFL-related behaviour. If Adam Papalia from Fox was available to switch over, I'd be happy to hear more of him.

The website says "another three seasons" though? Anyway, I look forward to another 3-4 years of Lever being criticised, sometimes fairly, often not.