titan_uranus

Thinking this through, surely Tomlinson is going to play defence. If he does, we have a back six of Lever, May, Tomlinson, Hibberd, Salem, Lockhart. Jones/Harmes (vom)/maybe Sparrow seventh defender. Forward six then is Weideman, Jackson, Melksham, Fritsch, ANB, Bennell. vandenBerg/Jones/Sparrow maybe seventh. The rest are midfielders: Gawn, Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw, Langdon. Harmes/Sparrow/vandenBerg rotating through as needed. If Tomlinson plays wing, we're short in numbers and height in terms of defenders, and we then have too many players trying to fit into the limited minutes we can give to the five non-Gawn midfielders.

I don't get it, and I don't like it. Oscar was poor last week, but we've had a settled and functioning backline since he came in. Last week we had a disgusting drop in pressure and increase in turnovers, so it's no wonder the back half performed worse than it had the previous month. Adelaide has a relatively tall forward line (Himmelberg is 198cm, McAsey is 197cm, and Walker, Fogarty and Lynch are all 193cm). Was this the game to throw the third tall defender out and, presumably, rely on Hibberd to play on someone 7cm+ taller than him? Or are we sending Tomlinson into defence when he hasn't been training as a key defender all year? Or are we really dumb enough to put Fritsch back into defence after the abject failure that was Fritsch in the backline in 2019? It doesn't make sense to me. Meanwhile our midfield last week was poor and we've made no changes. All of Sparrow, Jones, Brayshaw and Harmes retain their spots. I don't mind Bennell and ANB changing up our forward half mix, and I absolutely agree with TMac being dropped, but I'm concerned that we're going to disrupt the improvement and progress we saw in our back half. Maybe it's MFCSS, but I can see one of Adelaide's talls doing a Kent Kingsley and bagging 5 against us, making Lever and May look woeful as they repeatedly find themselves out of position trying to cover too many talls without support.

Why do we need to think outside the box? Our four best players last week were, in no particular order, May, Lever, Lockhart and Hibberd. The midfield and forward line applied about 1% of the requisite effort and pressure, for whatever reason. So quoting the 23 form 47 stat doesn't say a whole lot about the individuals in the backline. Says a lot more about our team approach to defence. In each game from Carlton through to Brisbane, our defensive half set up has improved. We've seen Lever and May get better at working alongside each other, and for a period OMac looked decent and may have assisted (or may not, jury's out a bit on that). In the hierarchy of problems we have, the backline sits well behind the midfield and forward line. And if you were going to make a change, "thinking outside the box" is a nice buzz phrase but what are you actually trying to implement, and in what way does TMac help? He's slow, unfit, out of form, and hasn't played defence since 2017. And you've suggested adding him to Lever, May and OMac. Why do we need to go taller? Why do we need to go slower? Who makes way for him? I don't think there's a solid argument that TMac should be a defender and should replace OMac. I think there's even less of an argument that he should be added to the backline.

If the ANB news is true, it could easily be vandenBerg and ANB for TMac and Pickett.

You don't know that. Gawn's influence isn't just in clearances. Even on one of his poorer days, he is an elite runner, making position and dragging opponents with him as they're scared of his ability to control the air and provide an outlet for us. Neither Preuss, nor Jackson, nor anyone else on our list, can command the field like he does.

The article makes some interesting points. One of those is the argument that there is merit to a club staying strong and keeping the faith despite the outside noise. It also makes some odd points. He suggests trying Hannan or Fritsch in the backline, in some sort of attempt to replicate Howe. What has Hannan shown to suggest he could be a defender? And worse, did the author not watch Fritsch in the backline in 2019? The stat about inside 50s vs tackles inside 50 (4th vs 14th) is important, but the question is what is the cause of that? IMO, one of the causes is being outnumbered forward of centre, meaning that it's too easy for our opponent to clear the ball before we can put pressure on. Another cause is kicks resulting in intercept marks: I'd love to see the stat for intercept marks conceded, and I suspect it would be high. No chance to lay a tackle if they've marked it. And another cause is the wrong mix of forwards (e.g. too tall vs Port). I don't agree that we need to find a different sort of "high half forward" to put pressure on. We have them: Melksham, Hannan, Pickett, vandenBerg, even Spargo/ANB/Hunt when they're in the team, can all chase and apply pressure. But it's much harder to do when we butcher the ball and turn it over going inside 50. If we hit more targets, or create more even-numbered contests inside 50, we'll be able to generate more pressure. So much of our malaise stems simply from turnovers. If we reduce the turnovers, many facets of our game improve.

Hard to watch us, or the competition overall? I'm not finding the comp hard to watch at all. It's odd, and it's different, but it is still a competition with meaningful games and meaningful results. The condensed rounds are tough, but whenever I hear players quoted on the topic they talk about being grateful for their chance to keep playing and being ready for the challenge. Yes, it's tough, but I'm not sure there is currently sufficient evidence that these shorter breaks are detrimental to the look/feel of the game, the quality of the game, or player health. Happy to revisit in two weeks as we see how it unfolds, but right now I'm comfortable with it all.

How many soft tissue injuries this round, Skuit? More than a "normal" round? (PS: Gawn's injury is yet to be confirmed, AFAIK).

I appreciate some of the attempts to spin positives out of this, some of which I agree with, but let's be clear: Gawn is a superstar and one of the few players we've had who have performed at, or above, their expected level this year. We will be worse overall for not having him out there. If he's out for two weeks, he'll also miss the North game and probably the Collinwood game too. Having said that, I agree we can win without him, and it may be a chance for our midfielders to think differently about how they approach stoppages. If Preuss is available for selection then surely this is his time. What's the point in having him if he doesn't play when Gawn's unavailable? If he's not available for selection though, then I'm not sure what we do. TMac was hopeless and should be dropped. I'm not sure he's fit enough to ruck. Maybe Tomlinson gets the spot?

We won't learn anything from the Adelaide game unless we lose. It's one of those classic MFC lose/lose situations. We either lose (all hell will break loose, and rightly so), or we win, even by 100 points, and the response will be "well Adelaide are as bad as GC in 2011"". If we win, as we must if we are even half-decent, it will tell us nothing. North on Sunday is the far more telling game, particularly if we beat Adelaide easily. It will be the real test of our players' resolve: will they rest on their laurels after "easing the pressure" with a win over Adelaide? Or can they focus for consecutive weeks?

Agree with this. A funny thing about Demonland: posters complain all the time about selection being ridiculous but then use the fact that someone was dropped against them. Yes, Tomlinson was dropped. Some would argue a bit prematurely. And when you consider that the FD has, ostensibly, played favourites this year in retaining Melksham though his form slump as well as Harmes and Brayshaw, bringing TMac, vandenBerg and Bennell back before they were ready, and not picking Weideman for weeks, maybe the FD got it wrong in dropping Tomlinson too? And he was never in as poor form as being dropped suggests?

The Geelong loss? Our third game for the year? After we'd fallen over the line against Carlton? It "killed any momentum"? That makes absolutely no sense to me. You are advocating for writing off the season because, the argument goes, we can't make finals (and/or can't win the flag). That, IMO, is accepting our current mediocrity. You want improvement. So do I. But why can't we demand improvement as well as wins?

Based on the way he moved around the ground, yes it absolutely was. Sparrow I agree with: he wasn't necessarily the wrong player to pick but he wasn't in the right role and it impacted others. If we want to tag someone, Harmes should do it. In fact, Harmes probably shouldn't be playing at all unless he's spending significant time in the middle. So putting Sparrow in there over him is a mistake and the FD should have foreseen that.

Goodwin moved Fritsch into the backline in the second half, as part of his (useless) flipping of magnets. Yes, we run around the field a lot, but it stems from turnovers. We looked composed and well structured over the past three weeks. We weren't turning it over as much. The two are, IMO, inextricably linked. When we turn it over, we find ourselves caught out of position and then we look all over the shop, forcing everyone to sprint around to try to plug gaps.

Says the poster who does nothing but start and bump threads criticising players and doesn't engage in rational discussions. You cop heat on here because, like olisik, you're impossible to read or deal with and infuriatingly repetitive. If you don't like copping heat, relent on the monotonous over-posting and try talking about something else once in a while.

No posts between July 11 (the night of the GC win) and last night. One post about the GC win, half about us and half about Rankine. One post after the Carlton win.

Maybe we should re-name this thread the @Elegt and @olisik circle jerk.

But they're not though. More than ever under Goodwin's reign, we're keeping forwards higher up the ground as outlets for when we get the ball back. Our mids are defensively running now, which is essential. No team leaves defence up to the back six alone. If we're losing energy defending, which we are, it's because we keep turning it over forcing us to have to manically re-set our zone and sprint back into defence. Too much running between the 50s and not enough keeping of the ball inside our forward half (which is what Goodwin has always wanted).

Our defensive zone is actually one of the things we've been getting right the last month. There's no defensive setup that can contain a top of the ladder side when you turn it over like we do. Longing for old-fashioned one-on-one footy isn't the answer. Concerted effort for our mids and forwards to improve their skills and work rate is.

You know they lost their last 4 in rather pathetic fashion? Sure, a fightback tonight was good for them, but they're old and experienced and should be contending for top 4, not trying to escape the bottom 4.

Oliver does a lot right but he stands out when he plays poorly because his kicks are absolute coach-killing soul-destroyers. I don't agree with anyone suggesting we should trade him. He's only just turned 23. He's played 90 games. His peak football is still be ahead of him. But he clearly has to work on his kicking and, indeed, his disposals under pressure. Too often guilty of the hot potato handball when he's under pressure.

Last night was appalling but if you're writing the rest of the season off now, aren't you just "accepting mediocrity"? We're 3-5. It's not exactly a launching pad for finals, but the 5 losses are to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th. In a season where we play everyone once, we have plenty of games to come against sides not currently in the 8 with few to come against sides that are consistently good (indeed, St Kilda is the highest-ranked side left on our fixture). That doesn't mean wins will come automatically and if we play like we did last night, we'll be 3-7. But if we get back the run and aggression we showed in Rounds 6-8, we can and should beat both Adelaide and North and level out at 5-5. From there, a 4-3 record may be enough to make finals.

Can we stop with the "put him in defence" thing? His field kicking coming out of the backline is a team destroyer and we cannot tolerate it. We also don't need it with May and Lever finally settling into their roles. He kicked 53 goals in 20 games, and a sizeable portion of those games didn't have Hogan so let's also drop the "it was fine when Hogan was there" schtick too. He's capable, but he's not delivering. Simple as that. Is it fitness? Probably. He was always an elite endurance runner but that's disappeared. He was also always a reliable shot on goal and that's gone too. Is it confidence? I think so. I think he's a major confidence player and in 2018 he felt like he could do anything. Now I suspect he thinks he can't do anything right. Is it coaching? I think so too. He should be playing a lead-up mobile forward role, not a goalsquare gorilla role, nor a high half-forward/wing role. Ultimately it doesn't matter what it is, the reality is he's not best 22 and shouldn't be playing. From where he was in 2018 to where he is now is a remarkable drop. If he cannot get fit and improve, his career at this club is probably finished.

There's certainly merit in suggesting we trade one of our midfielders. Brayshaw and Harmes are inside midfielders being played in roles they're not suited for. If that's our long-term plan for them, it's not a smart use of resources. If either of them could be traded for something different (e.g. a key forward, a high draft pick, or another midfielder who varies the dynamic), we should be considering it. But by the same token, one or two list changes here or there isn't going to fix us. We're going to hold onto the majority of Oliver, Viney, Petracca, Brayshaw, Harmes and Sparrow. The only way forward is for them all to collectively lift their output.

I think the point May is making is that when you turn it over as much as we do, you continually ask your forwards and mids to double-back from aggressive forward running to provide scoring opportunities back into defensive running to help out. So we had our forwards and mids slingshotting up and down the ground because we kept turning it over. Which in turn meant we were exhausted and then the errors mounted. The same thing would afflict any side turning it over as much as we do. So much of our malaise comes down to turnovers. Are you basing this on last night or the year overall? Because last night Lever was looking for switch/angled kicks every time he had the chance. We had three talls plus Max last night. Repeatedly kicking down the same wing to Max is stupid. I'm not against the concept of kicking to a tall target and being content to let the ball go over the boundary line if we can't retain possession, but it shouldn't be Gawn every single time who is the target. I accept the differences between the Richmond loss and this loss, but the point is that we had a poor performance just four weeks ago that, rightly or wrongly, brought significant heat onto us. Yet here we are again. We need to learn to sustain effort for four quarters, and for more than three weeks at a time.