titan_uranus

Isn't he contracted for another 3-4 years? Hard to offload, assuming we want to, with that sort of contract hanging over his head, surely?

Not the time for experiments...but you want to play Smith?

IMO the biggest problem yesterday was that the Dogs generated their scores precisely in the way you would have imagined them to prior to the game. They came in with a plan and executed it. Whatever plan we went in with didn't work. It's OK to back your own system in but sometimes you have to acknowledge the strengths of the opposition and look at ways to set up to counter that. We should have known they would rely on Daniel's kicking, Johannisen's run, and their relative speed to move the ball. We should have known they are league leaders for generating scores from their defensive 50. We should, and I'm sure did, know all of that, but whatever we decided to do to counter it didn't work. Add to that their tactic of repeat switches (not sure if that's a standard ploy from them or something they came up with deliberately for us) and there were a whole host of things they did that we couldn't stop. I'm convinced part of it was on the players because we saw old habits creeping back in. Dinky handballs in tight and Viney trying to break tackles and kicking without looking are two classic signs of Goodwin's Melbourne struggling with pressure. But I'm also convinced we should have had considered how to set up across the ground to limit their run, and when they were switching it repeatedly from the first quarter, that's also something we should have adjusted to. Backing in our system to the hilt, even when it's not working, is a flaw.

Hope so! I'm not convinced that Tomlinson has failed on the wing, but even if he has, if he ultimately finds a spot in our best 22 then it's a successful acquisition.

As @A F said, I'm certainly not putting the performance down to these things, not at all. But one thing that was problematic for us yesterday was the way the Dogs spread the field and used the wings. We know that teams like West Coast and Geelong play their respective home grounds better by using width/length/etc., and we know we have struggled for a time at the MCG for a similar reason. I don't know Metricon's dimensions so it might not be a factor for us but I wonder whether the Dogs (in a credit to Beveridge) knew the ground's dimensions and tried to exploit them by stretching our zone out and switching across the ground. Maybe they would have done the same at any other ground we played at, so it may well not have been a factor at all, but it's just something I noted. With the Dogs having played 5 games there before yesterday to our 1, it could have been a (sort of) home ground advantage to them.

What baffles me about the focus on Tomlinson this week is that he was one of our best yesterday and played one of his best games for the club. He was providing rebound and making space for us to spread and get scoring chains going.

Two things I've been reflecting on and wondering about the impact of: Yesterday was our first game with a red ball all season. I'm also guessing it was our warmest game since Round 1, five months ago. I have no idea whether there's any merit to this at all, but is it possible we struggled to adjust to the earlier start, red ball and/or warmer temperature? Yesterday was our second game all season at Metricon, but it was the Dogs' 6th. I wonder whether they knew the ground dimensions better than we did and planned accordingly?

I know what his positives are. His mistakes, ill-discipline and failure to impact the game consistently mean the negatives outweigh the positives. It's a bit like vandenBerg. Positives with the physicality, tackling, pressure, etc., outweighed by the turnovers and ill-discipline.

No chance. We'll need to win 3 of the last 4 (likely dropping the GWS game) and hope that 9 and a decent percentage is enough.

Your analysis of Lever is not based in the evidence though, which is why I can't help but feel it's simply personal. He's been nailing his kicks for a month now. He's also more than just an intercept mark, although that is one of his strong suits. The way he and Lever (along with Hibberd and Salem) have been setting up behind the ball has been critical to our improvement. The way the Dogs were able to break that down today is one of the main reasons we lost. What you've outlined about the ruck changes Beveridge made is my point exactly: it's not "junk", there are just different approaches to it. They tried being cute, it worked for a bit then didn't, so they went back to a traditional set up, but chose Bruce over English (for two reasons I think - Bruce was giving them nothing in the forward line, and English was being outworked by Preuss). Agree on work rate. Their switches opened the fat side up and our zone didn't work across fast enough. We also saw mids failing to run defensively again. Old habits creeping back in when we're under pressure.

About 10 people have suggested it. And with good reason. But I also think it's unlikely Goodwin will drop him. Melksham is rated highly by Goodwin/the FD.

Yes, but what makes him "probably best 22"? Midfield/forward form. Not defender form. If Harmes is nothing but a defender, he's not best 22. That's the problem. He has talent as a midfielder and a forward. We had both Jones and Sparrow in midfield/forward rotations last week, so there is room for Harmes to play a role at that end of the ground.

First two changes I can get around. Not sure about Hunt for Melksham (I'm in favour of dropping Melksham though). I accept St Kilda is fast but is Hunt reliable enough to use his pace to our advantage?

It was the equivalent of 1 first rounder, and he's giving us exactly what we need. Our two best players today were May and Lever. They've been consistently good for two months. ROI is right there in front of you. I suspect you just don't like Lever and refuse to accept it.

As is too often the case, you're wrong. His efforts are fine. His ability is the problem.

Tomlinson was one of our best rebounders today. What we'd get from Smith in rebound we'd lose in countless other areas. However, the general point you make is sound. Harmes is neither a lock-down defender nor a rebounder. So what is he doing there? Sure, the players needed to work harder, but again, it's not coaching OR players, it's coaching AND players. It's both. As to the ruck issue, I disagree entirely, as you know. Beveridge doesn't think the ruck is a "junk position". Indeed, he identified at HT that they were losing because of "one position": the ruck. So he made a change, bringing Bruce in, and that made a change to their midfield in the third.

Look, TMac's struggling, but the answer isn't OMac, and it may well not be Smith.

Rubbish, he's a midfielder and a competent forward. He is not, though, a defender. He shouldn't be playing there. Good call to those who suggest he could take Sparrow's spot with Rivers coming into the backline. Like Fritsch last year, Goodwin is stubbornly persisting with this but like with Fritsch last year, I'm utterly convinced it's not the right call. If Harmes is squeezed out of the middle, which is a fair call to make, Harmes is a forward, not a defender.

A few changes here and there isn't the priority. A lift from our midfield is what's really needed. But there are a few changes to be made. Looks like Sparrow's going to be out for a while. Will Jones get his spot back? Fingers crossed Gawn's fit and can come back in. Should be for Preuss. However, I'm not a fan of TMac's current form and I think we need to consider dropping him. But we may be reaching too many changes. And finally, Melksham. We know Goodwin/the FD rate him given he was captain vs North. But this is probably the 8th game he's played this year which simply isn't good enough. Another 50m conceded, another weak defensive game, and to top it all off a set shot kicked into the man on the mark. IMO, those sorts of performances should result in being dropped, particularly when they're on the back of a year of largely poor performances. Bennell could be a replacement. I'd keep Pickett in because there's no better option out of the side and he did lay 5 tackles to his credit, but he keeps being close without actually converting that into a solid performance. Maybe he needs to kick an early goal to get into it, and he had two chances today.

Yeah I don't agree with those who think Preuss played well. He's like Smith and vandenBerg on Demonland, gets praised for physical attributes and some old-school tendencies regardless of actual output. We have some real issues in our entire midfield. We have to be able to compete when there is pressure in the middle. The difference in Oliver's play between the last three weeks and today was so stark. Gone was the burst from the stoppages, back was the immediate handball release. The Harmes thing just frustrates me. He's not a defender and wasn't impacting the game in the backline, whilst our midfield was being beaten. I don't need radical changes, but sometimes just one player moving around maybe can spark us.

Jeepers, Lever, Tomlinson and Weideman were all decent today.

Agree with a lot of this, particularly Viney, but what's conspicuously absent is that Brayshaw was poor as well. Brayshaw hasn't just had his poor form forced upon him by being played out of position. What frustrates me is that our four mids were being belted in the third, whilst Harmes was having no impact in the backline. Surely that was the time to try throwing Harmes into the middle?

Yep, the worst. The bolded bit is on coaching. Beveridge's tactical decision to switch repeatedly was a good coaching move, with no counter offered by Goodwin. We didn't slow it down in the third when we needed to. Also on the coaching. We keep kicking to the pockets and boundary. Another coaching issue. This isn't to excuse the players. Again, it's not either/or, it's both.

Let's get the glass half full bit out of the way. We were never any good but never really out of the contest, even in the fourth quarter we were challenging at various times. The Dogs were also wildly accurate in the third quarter. I reckon we got really unlucky with the wind: they were slotting them dead straight on the angle, but look at what the wind did to Fritsch's kick in the fourth. IMO that's not technique, that's the wind picking up. They only had 3 more scoring shots but their accuracy hurt us. OK. Now for the glass half empty bit. How predictable was that. The Dogs are a level above our previous three teams and brought the pressure, and we crumbled. They out ran us and they carved us up on transition. Petracca, Oliver, Viney and Brayshaw all had poor games under that pressure, with their old habits coming back again (dinky handballs, lack of two-way running, missed kicks). We had the same number of inside 50s. But our small/mid forwards, Fritsch aside, put in shockers. I said in the Game Day thread that every week Pickett feels like he's close to dominating, but never actually does. We can't keep carrying small forwards who neither impact the game nor pressure. Goodwin blatantly outcoached. We've had a strong defensive zone that was broken to pieces today, largely through the Dogs switching repeatedly. They've played a lot of footy at Metricon (we've only played once there before today), so maybe they knew it well, but it was clear from the start that they had a plan and it worked. Preuss was beaten by Bruce. Can we end the whole "we're good without Max" thing? We're not. We only get one let off in this run home. It was today. If we want to be a finals side, we need to bounce back next week. Given the opportunity we had today to solidify our top 8 spot, today was horrendously disappointing.

6 - May 5 - Langdon 4 - Tomlinson 3 - Lever 2 - Weideman 1 - Hibberd This was pretty much impossible to do. Far too many disappointing players rather than impressive ones.