titan_uranus

No second tall forward again. I'm not convinced that's the right call. I seriously hope Sunday shows me that this can work.

I agree. Much of Geelong's slow ball movement was designed to break through what has traditionally been a poor zone of ours. It held up relatively well on the weekend. When we had the ball, Geelong's slow ball movement became irrelevant. The main two reasons we didn't score were our own failures (missed kicks, poor choices going inside, no leading forwards, no tall forwards the usual 2018-20 Melbourne stuff) and Geelong's strong defensive set up. We still needed to adapt to how Geelong were playing, but the bigger issues from that game were what we did with ball in hand, as opposed to in defence.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint about us "grammophoning" our game plan to the world. Almost every good club has an identifiable brand. We know how St Kilda tries to move the ball. We know how GWS, Richmond and West Coast tried to move the ball the last few years. Why is the issue that we've "grammophoned" our game? Isn't the real issue a combination of two things: we didn't execute our own game plan well (e.g. missed kicks inside 50, poor choices, etc.) and we didn't adapt to an opponent to tried to take that away from us?

Agree with your post, particularly the bolded bit. Our game vs Essendon last year was high scoring (100+ each) but devoid of all skill. I strongly disagree with the notion that "more goals = better product". If there is an issue with the game, it is that a higher proportion of the game is spent in stoppages with a higher proportion of the 36 on-field players within a certain radius (say, 20m) of the ball. Reducing the number of players on the ground won't fix that. If anything, it could make things worse (there will be fewer options forward of the centre and teams may just try to roll stoppages down the wing until they have a forward 50 stoppage). Making backwards kick play on won't fix that either. There is no evidence to suggest backwards kicks are contributing to lower scores (indeed, it's the opposite this year) or more stoppages. IMO, three things that could be done to reduce stoppages: Immediately penalise a "third" player into a tackle. Where one person tackles another to the ground, we often see others jump on the pile. The first player to do that (whether they are on the side of the tackler or tacklee) should be penalised. Keep it to one-on-one on the ground and the onus remains on the tackled player to make a reasonable attempt to dispose of the ball. Remove the ruck nomination rule and permit third man up to come back into ruck contests. This is to our detriment as it weakens one of Gawn's strengths, but it allows clubs to clear the ball from stoppages. It also saves time, removing the need for umpires to slow things down by asking who is rucking. Just get the ball, throw it up, and move on. Tighten the rules around holding the ball. I think we've erred too far on the side of "protect the ball carrier at all costs". I don't agree with the idea of removing prior opportunity, but I also think too many players take it, drop it in a tackle, and the game is allowed to play on. There is scope to tighten that rule without going OTT, I think.

Agree, except I can't see why they would make us "host" GWS or Sydney at their home ground. We'll end up having "home" games in other states. So long as they're against other random clubs (e.g. we host Adelaide in Sydney or we host the Dogs in Alice Springs), that's completely fine with me. There is a lot the AFL can't control in this season but one thing they can control is not making sides "host" their opponents at their opponent's own home ground. A real risk, IMO. Victoria's current problem stems from two things: bad management of hotel quarantine, and bad luck. NSW has the first one under better control, but I suspect it's more likely than not that the second one will hit at some point.

Axis of Bob said they're similar players. He's 100% right. The difference between them is Pickett is, right now, much better. But they are both on our list to do the same thing and in 2018 Spargo was doing what Pickett is now doing for us. I'm not in favour of Spargo playing this weekend but not because I think he's inherently incapable of playing AFL, like you and many others do (prejudicially and unfairly). I'm simply not in favour because I don't think he's in form and I don't think I want him in the side at the expense of the likely candidates on the extended bench to lose their spot (Hunt, Rivers, Lockhart).

So does this mean Rounds 8 and 9 will be vs GWS and Sydney? Surely, if so, both will be away games. That will mean that after Round 9, we'll have had 2 home games and 6 away games. Meaning that we'll need to have at least 6 home games somewhere else to come. Presumably will have to be in NSW against other sides to join us, or in another state. At least that Hawthorn game should be on FTA for us. Which is inexplicable given how we're playing.

I knew this thread would start up the whole Dean Kent thing. We did nothing wrong in moving him on, and he's not playing as well as this thread suggests anyway. We don't make decisions with the benefit of hindsight, we make them at the time we make them, and at the end of 2018 moving Kent along was a completely justifiable decision, as was keeping vandenBerg. The tendency of MFC supporters to complain the moment an ex-Melbourne player kicks a goal is so incredibly frustrating.

And ahead of Jones and ANB, too. Did he play well in the scratch match?

Poor old Weideman clearly still struggling. I hope for Rivers, Hunt, Brown and Lockhart as the bench, meaning Brown takes vandenBerg's spot.

We very well still might. We've already had a FTA game and we've got another one coming this week. That will be 50% of our games so far on FTA. It's hardly a disaster.

The same Ross Lyon who spent his entire career being criticised for being overly defensive and not scoring enough? The same one who never won a premiership despite coaching the best side in 2009-10 and getting three GFs to attempt it? Meanwhile Simpson "has a great team" which is some sort of negative against him (how does that work) and Beveridge gets two question marks. At least they've gone all the way!

I think this is a case of correlation rather than causation. I don't think teams win finals because they have an "average" ruckman, or because their ruckman isn't as talented as Gawn or Grundy. I think you're just looking at some recent successful sides and noted that their ruckmen aren't at Gawn or Grundy's level and concluded that there's some sort of relationship. I don't think there is. Wasn't directed at you, there were others who were jumping on Gawn and bemoaning his output. Part of this makes my point - where you say hitouts to advantage is as much a midfield group stat as it is a ruck stat. I agree. That's why I asked the question of whether playing against WC and Geelong, two strong midfields, impacts that stat across a sample size of three games. That doesn't mean Gawn is doing flawlessly in the ruck: indeed, the other side of the coin of him dominating the first half vs Carlton was that he let Pittonet level the playing field in the second half. All I'm saying is that I don't think Gawn is playing as poorly as some other posters on here suggest, and I don't think his output at the moment is a significant reason for our current poor form.

Nice conspiracy theory but we can't go to WA because we've already played West Coast. Having said that, North is being suggested as going to NSW but they've already played GWS and Sydney so I can't see the logic behind that.

I've just watched the segment. I think the thing I liked the most was Ross saying "play the way you face", which was in response to a clip of Gawn picking the ball up on the lead and then turning around himself, rather than handpassing to Pickett who was running past him. He should have given to Pickett, he didn't, which didn't help, and then he missed Melksham out in space and went to the pocket. Too often we have players who take the ball on the lead but either are given no options for runners past them (i.e. we're not working hard enough) or they don't take the opportunities when presented.

IMO it makes no sense at all. There were signs, albeit small ones, of our defensive unit actually starting to work better together as a unit vs Geelong. There were also small signs of TMac getting some form back with his marking. Now is not the time to make positional changes for the sake of it.

Can we ease up on the Gawn bashing? I agree he hasn't been dominating in the ruck so far this year but before we all jump on him, two of our three opponents have been West Coast and Geelong, two of the best midfields in the comp. Maybe that's part of the reason his hit out to advantage stat is lower? Gawn's midfield/repeat effort work vs Geelong was exceptional. He leads by example in training and on the field. He's not perfect (he's a repeat offender when it comes to poor kicks inside 50) but he's not even close to one of our biggest problems right now. Edit: and of course, our best football this year was the first half vs Carlton when Gawn was utterly dominant.

Right, I understand. I suppose the question is how impactful is our financial position on our footy (e.g. how, if at all, does it impact training?).

Can I just call this out? @Demonland and others go to significant effort to run the podcast and to get someone as important as Bartlett as a guest. This isn't a hard-hitting investigative piece of journalism, it's an online forum. How about, if you want to ask the club a question, you do it, and otherwise don't [censored] and moan about questions possibly not being asked of Bartlett tonight.

Nope. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/735403/we-don-t-use-covid-19-as-an-excuse-bartlett “We rolled out some club values at the start of the year and some expectations, and one of them is that we’re not going to use COVID-19 as an excuse” “Our expectation is to play finals. “We set out a strategic plan at the start of the year for the next four years and that plan hasn’t been altered. “We can still absolutely assess the performance on and off the field - the performance of our coaching group, our playing group, everyone across the club. “Absolutely you need to take into account the circumstances we’ve faced, but also how we’ve dealt with those challenges and circumstances.” I read this as an admission by the club that our response to COVID is where we can, and should, be analysed (i.e. rather than saying "COVID means this season's a write off", we need to accept COVID changes things but grade our performance based on how we adapt). What he's actually saying, if I read the articles correctly (I didn't hear the interview), is that we've decided to ask our supporters for donations and if we can get $1M in donations by the end of the year, we won't need to rely on an AFL assistance. That, to me, is not an unreasonable financial decision. If we have a wealthy supporter base, why not try to tap into that before we have to go to the AFL? I also don't think that's inconsistent with us saying we should still be playing finals.

I can't stand the whinge of a team "passing us". Did we pass everyone except West Coast and Collingwood in 2018? Yeah, we showed them! Did Fremantle "pass" us last year? But now we've "passed" them? Have we "passed" West Coast now?

A disgrace. We traded a first round pick for a first round pick. We cashed in on what we knew was a strong first round. We backed ourselves in to be better in 2020. That's precisely the sort of attitude this club should have. Doing the opposite would just be "accepting mediocrity", wouldn't it? FFS. There's plenty to question about Mahony and the decisions our club makes in many areas. I really, really, do not think this is one of them.

I largely don't agree with any of this, but appreciate individual perceptions of players can differ. Even if he is slow with ball in hand, I don't see it as an overall blight on his game, given the attributes he's bringing to the table. In a side that has, for years, cried out for two-way running up and down the wider wings of the G, we saw yesterday from him precisely what we need, and with effect given he was involved in link-up plays. Some of the stats which I think show his impact yesterday: 19 disposals (3rd highest for us), 5 marks (2nd highest), 6 inside 50s (2nd highest) but also 3 rebound 50s (suggesting he works both ends of the ground), 4 score involvements (equal highest). Again, I accept he may have weaknesses, but I think you're (significantly) overstating his weaknesses whilst (significantly) underplaying his strengths.

I'm wrong: they can't play Geelong because Geelong was in Melbourne yesterday. This will all be very interesting.

They actually play in Geelong, so I think they can avoid the new rule by just avoiding Melbourne altogether (e.g. flying in/out of Avalon). The problems will begin to mount from there, though. We can't play Fremantle next week, Brisbane can't play Collingwood either. And there is a third limb to Queensland's new rule: if a Queensland team plays any side who has been in Melbourne in the previous 14 days, they have to quarantine. There is every chance the 10 Victorian teams will have to leave Victoria to keep the season going.