titan_uranus

I just do not see what you see, dazzle. I know you're not the only one, but I thought Smith was our worst defender today by a mile. Lever cops it because we spent two first round picks on him but Smith was so much worse. If we're going to drop a defender IMO it has to be Smith, but I'm inclined to leave the backline as it is, with one exception: get Harmes out of there. Surely Lockhart can play Harmes' role? Harmes goes into the middle where someone has to go - Brayshaw is in line to be dropped IMO. I love him, but he and Oliver are emblematic of our problem: sub-standard defensive pressure when we need it the most. Hunt and ANB were pretty poor for 2.5 quarters but as they kicked 5 of our 8 goals, I can't see them getting dropped. Jones and Melksham, though, should be in trouble. Pickett and AVB could be replacements? I'd also look at Weideman in place of TMac or Jackson (TMac deserves to be dropped but Jackson just doesn't look ready).

The problem with Lever isn't his ability. It's his role within our defensive unit overall. Like almost every player in the league, he has weaknesses, and they get exploited when: 2-3 of Smith, May, Jetta and Lever jump at the same ball; May and others shank kicks coming outside of the back 50, opening us up on a quick rebound; our mids/forwards don't put the requisite level of pressure on the opposition, meaning they get to pick and choose who they're kicking to. Lever is essential to holding our defensive unit together but when the other cogs break down, he does too. He isn't very good one-on-one but if we're playing well, he doesn't end up one-on-one very often and the ball isn't coming in to our opposition forwards' advantage. He can do better, but there are much more significant issues in our midfield and forward line than there is with Lever.

It's hard to see us having a good season based on that. We were utterly dominant for 1.5 quarters. Our pressure and clearance work was A-grade. The connection between Gawn and the mids, the connection between the mids and the forwards, and the pressure in the forward half of the ground, was exactly where it should be. But in an all too familiar tale, our opponent adjusted to what we were doing and when they brought us back to the pack in our "one wood" areas (ruck dominance, CPs, clearances), we went to water. We will never get anywhere as a club if we cannot respond to our opponent changing things up to nullify our strengths. We will not make finals, or win them, if we can only produce A-grade football when the game is on our terms. We have to learn how to respond to opposition challenges. There's a lot of heat on our backline. IMO, there were areas where our defenders were poor (May's kicking, Joel Smith in general) but a lot of the problem was that our forward/mid pressure disintegrated so the ball was just coming in with too much ease. Reality is they didn't generate that many scoring shots from tonnes of inside 50s so the defence wasn't completely terrible. Same old same old with the mids and forwards though. Oliver and Brayshaw look great when we're good, but seem to get run around when we're on the back foot. ANB and Hunt gave us a lot in the first quarter but disappeared completely in the second half. Melksham looked disinterested, TMac is either unfit or down on confidence, or both, but should be dropped, Jones was nowhere, Bennell has touch but isn't fit enough to impact the game. After quarter time it felt like Fritsch was double-teamed and we had nothing unless we put Petracca down there, which was robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don't understand Jetta on Mackay - Mackay didn't dominate but it just makes absolutely no sense. Jackson has all the promise in the world and I'm beyond excited that he's on our list, but if Weideman couldn't get selected in front of him based on what Jackson showed today, I'm scared for where Weideman is at. Loved Rivers: he does enough right that IMO we can deal with his errors. Petracca was exceptional, Gawn was generally good (but honestly should have dominated Pittonet all day, not just for a half). Better a win than a loss, but we've shown again today that our best and worst are too far apart and our worst comes out too often for us to compete for finals.

You got a source for this? Or are you just making complete [censored] up? And poor though he was, is there any reason to stick the boot in further with the unnecessarily harsh Weetra call?

Very disappointing. Whether you agree with the current COVID rules or not, they are there and the players know they are supposed to adhere to them.

You continue to astound me with your unbridled, unrelenting negativity. Which are the players who haven't been selected who should have? Agree that pressure up the field is key, but so is the way the defensive unit works together. West Coast's back six/seven work very well together, reading each other and covering for each other. Richmond and Collingwood too, IMO. Through constant personnel changes and May/Lever injuries, we haven't had our preferred back six/seven playing together long enough to get them to gel together.

Footy is finally back, and this is what we're discussing?

Couldn't agree more, Scoop. A bit of baby-bathwater going on with this one, IMO.

What are the alternatives? You're not a Weideman fan so I can't imagine you thinking he should be in the side. Who would you rather us have picked? This forward line is about as good as it is going to get for us this year.

I think is a fair way to look at it. I agree that, on paper at least, this side looks better than the Round 1 side. Having said that, if there isn't improvement from the likes of Langdon, Gawn, Oliver, Viney and Brayshaw in terms of their disposal going inside 50, some of these changes won't make as much difference as they could.

No surprises as to Spargo, Bedford or Brown. I am surprised that OMac has gone but I think we suspect Carlton will go in with a smaller forward line and we can cope without him. I'm surprised, but not disappointed, that ANB and Hibberd have been dropped. I'm surprised and disappointed that Lockhart has been dropped. I'm even more surprised that Hunt is in the side. Edit: OMac's not an emergency (Spargo, Hibberd, Weideman and Jordon) so we must be confident in Lever's fitness.

In: Bennell, Rivers, Jackson, Salem, Jones, Hunt, Smith Out: Hibberd, Lockhart, Spargo, Bedford, Brown, ANB, OMac And you thought you were joking!

So you're saying every time a side wins they are more professional than the side that loses? If you are correct, and our players "felt" the suspension of the season more than West Coast's did, why is that such a disaster? Humans do not all react to things the same way and I do not expect our players to be robots and to block out every emotion. If they were affected by the suspension, I understand that. If they were affected more than West Coast was, I understand that too.

No there's not. You're welcome to set your expectations as high as you want. If you choose to mark the team harshly for Round 1, you're entitled to. 2019 gives you that. But I don't think it's unreasonable for others (myself included) to look at Round 1 in a different context and come away from it less disappointed than we otherwise might have been in "normal" circumstances. It's very easy to sit at home and say "the players should have played to their best ability regardless of the suspension of the season". Very easy to say, very hard to do. I don't agree that West Coast played to any sort of different, or more professional, standard than us. Indeed, but for our finishing inside 50 the game was relatively even (both statistically and in terms of watching it and the general "feel"). The game was played under extremely odd circumstances and if our players were affected by them, I completely understand that. It is therefore my view that it is reasonable for any MFC supporter to take our Round 1 performance with a grain of salt. This week, assuming no further changes to the AFL/COVID landscape, will be different.

Exciting news, even though I'm a little worried that Jackson isn't ready for AFL. If we assume Salem is an inclusion, that's four changes minimum. Jones is also a chance to be brought back so could be five. Could be more if we're looking at Smith or AVB but I suspect they're depth at this stage. Would have thought Spargo, Bedford and Brown are all going to make way but from there I don't think it's clear. Presumably someone has to come out of the backline (Lockhart or Hibberd).

Reading this thread reminds me about how much of Demonland in the 2010-2014 period was a constant debate between drafting and development.

Yes, but what if there has been improvement in the midfielders honouring leading players and hitting targets (which is something Lever08 has mentioned)? A smaller forward line can work: look at Richmond. The key isn't necessarily the height of the forward line but making sure that, whatever forward line we go with, our ball movement suits it. So, if we're going to have TMac and Weid/Jackson leading up the ground out of the 50, their leads need to be solid, we need to honour those leads, and they need to hold their marks. If that frees up space for Fritsch (who is smaller but plays a marking forward role), Melksham, Petracca and Pickett, then that can work. My thought on TMac's comments in the video is that we're doing something new/different and it works some times, but not all the time. I didn't, at all, read into his comments that he's frustrated with his personal performance or where he's being played. I thought, instead, that he's concerned that we're going to stuff things up and the fans are going to get upset.

@Lever08 thanks for the write up. How was the ball movement and structures?

From the footage on the MFC website and Twitter, I get the sense that we were keeping more players forward of the ball. Seemed to be more options forward of the ball carrier in each clip than what we saw in Round 1 and for most of 2019.

Would love to know if there were any interesting/surprising players lining up in the royal blue "seconds". Defenders aside, sounds like Bennell and Brown were royal blue and Weideman and Jackson played half-and-half. Edit: looks like lots of players spent time in both colours: from the TMac interview video, I can see Jones, AVB, Bennell and J Wagner all spent time in both royal and navy blue. I can also see ANB and Hunt in royal and Lockhart in navy.

Quite a few interesting arguments/debates in this thread. I agree with those who say the club's communication to the members during COVID-19 has been poor. IMO it is a continuation of the downward trend in the club's communications over the past 1-3 years. On the topic of taking out memberships, my position has always been that if you have the money but you choose to withhold it as some sort of "protest", you're doing the club a disservice and you arguably call into question the use of the term "supporter" to describe you: what sort of "supporting" is that? As to attendances, there's no doubt that when any team plays poorly in a season its attendances drop. The interesting thing seems to be that this phenomenon affects some clubs more than others: in particular, it affects us more than clubs like Richmond, Collingwood or Essendon. When we play poorly, we stop going. When they play poorly, they still draw crowds. That helps the AFL keep scheduling them for blockbuster fixture slots even when they're coming off a poor year. It's very hard to criticise people for not going to games because there can be so many reasons why attending may not be possible for all of us at all of our games. My general view remains that if you can afford it (both as to time and money), you should go, whether we're playing well or not. Certainly, regardless, my view is that if you make a deliberate decision to not go to games or not buy a membership out of "protest", you shouldn't then complain about a subsequent poor fixture or poor sponsorship results given both those things are impacted on our attendances/memberships. This reads as sarcasm, which I don't understand. The crowd at those two finals was incredible, akin to any loud finals/ANZAC Day crowd I've ever been to, and MFC-dominant both times.

The revisionism about this game never ceases. We were 7 goals up when we had a bench. They caught up because our 6-goal in three quarters FF went off and we couldn't rotate anyone off the ground in the fourth quarter.

With no crowds, I don't mind the three Sunday 3.30pm games. Easy enough to watch on TV. Will mean that at Round 5 we'll have had 1 home game and 4 away games. I imagine that means we're one of the 9 clubs to get 8 home games this year rather than 9, and that we'll have a 7-5 home/away split for the remaining 12 matches.

It's certainly not a great plan when we: don't have decent small forwards able to pressure the opposition's back line; don't keep our forwards forward of the ball carrier (or deliberately let ourselves become outnumbered forward of the ball carrier); don't run hard two-ways; play like this every week without accounting for our opponent (e.g. this is not a good game plan to take to Perth to play West Coast given their A-grade intercept defenders). But if we play more like we did in 2018, with better two-way running, better small forwards and slightly smarter entries inside 50, our list is capable of winning games, and scoring heavily, doing this. IMO the concept of forward half dominance doesn't need to be scrapped entirely, it just needs to be modified.

To me, the most revealing part of what Mahoney said was the bit where he talked about teams winning when they keep the ball in their forward 50/half. IMO it's confirmation that the FD wants us to play a style of game where our focus is time in forward half, so the focus (in training) has not necessarily been on hitting a target when going inside 50 as much as it has been getting there and keeping it there until we score a goal.