titan_uranus

@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.

This is such a bad take it reads like sarcasm, but I know it isn't. You've literally said "even if the game had no meaning, I think it meant the following". There is a massive asterisk over Round 1 given what the players knew going into it, and we won't know whether what we showed in Round 1 is indicative of what we'll show in any remaining 2020 games until we start playing again.

Not sure that's right. Jones said they haven't had the chance to review it - the players flew home and went straight home, with no next-day recovery session and since they haven't been back to the club since, there's been no chance to review.

Always a pleasure discussing things with you, jnr.

What rubbish. Round 23 2017 was nothing like last weekend. Round 23 2017 was indeed "everything to play for". Round 1 2020 was a maelstrom of stress with potentially nothing to play for, if the season can't get re-started. They ran out there last week with significant job and financial uncertainty. A game that could have had plenty of importance turned into an odd shell of a game that could literally mean nothing when the ink dries on 2020. And I don't buy the "West Coast were switched on" argument as if to say they were on some other level to us. They weren't exactly dominating. The game turned on a 5-minute patch at the end of the first quarter where they kicked 4 quick goals. For the rest of the game it was quite even. Incredibly different to Round 23 2017.

This is a problem in itself. Why are we setting up scoring chains with players like these delivering inside 50? Particularly Hibberd who is a half-back. Why is he galloping up the ground and bombing it 50m repeatedly? We need players delivering the ball inside 50 who know what they're doing. I won't write Langdon off after one game but we all know Hibberd and Viney stink at it so we need to change the way we're setting up and the way we're getting the ball from the back half to the forward half.

If we had a game this weekend I'd be looking at dropping Spargo, ANB, Hibberd and Brown and looking at bringing in Jones and Salem if they were fit. No idea who else would come in. If Goodwin cannot get these players to lower their eyes and deliver the ball at leading forwards without resorting to up and under bombs, then we're going to finish bottom 4 again (if there is a season 2020).

It's hard to know what impact the announcement of the season suspension had on the players. There's a significant degree of uncertainty about what happens next: staff members at the club may lose their jobs, financial position is unclear. I don't think it's fair to say that the players should have been able to put it all behind them and perform at the top of their games. Having said that, there were some extraordinarily disappointing signs that have me more worried than I want to be. The kicking inside 50 looked exactly like 2019. Exactly. Hibberd, Viney, Gawn, Oliver and Brayshaw (all "leaders" to certain extents) were guilty of lazy, thoughtless, up and under bombs. If this is what Hibberd is going to produce in whatever's left of 2020, I don't want it. Langdon's positives are important: his two-way running and link-up down the wing is critical to us improving. But he joins the aforementioned players in being an appalling kick inside 50. Still too many turnovers. 15m kicks under no pressure missing targets. Handballs to the opposition or to our feet. Dropped marks. Fumbles. Missed tackles. I don't know how critical to be of the forwards: TMac kicked 2 but was nowhere for most of the game, Brown was woeful, Melksham largely ineffectual. The commentary on Fox suggested that at times TMac and Brown were leading to the ball carrier but being ignored, so I suspect part of their struggles was the poor delivery. The defensive unit held up well I thought. Credit to Oscar, Lever and May for working together well to quell their tall forwards. Loved what I saw of Pickett, Viney's game (inside 50 kicking aside) was excellent, Brayshaw got better as it went on, Bedford got involved in the fourth. Otherwise, incredibly disappointing.

Twitter suggests our game will be played but then the season is shut down until 31 May at the earliest.

I don't think this counts but anyway: We've never won an interstate Round 1 game. We're 0-3 (Sydney at the SCG in 1982, West Coast at Subiaco in 1991, Fremantle at Subiaco in 1998).

I actually think the reaction will differ depending on the premier. If we win it (same deal with a team like St Kilda or even Carlton/North Melbourne), there will be sections of the media/public who will say that it doesn't really count (e.g. we beat sides on the road because there were no crowds, levelled the playing field in favour of small clubs like us etc.). But if, say, RIchmond or Collingwood or West Coast or Geelong wins it, I can see the story being "champion teams find a way despite whatever adversity is thrown at them".

The two big surprises to me are Brown over Weideman and that we're playing a side with all four of ANB, Spargo, Pickett and Bedford all in it. Still, possibly ANB aside I see why they're picked.

Should be a rather different looking 22 than what we were putting on the park last year.

At the end of 2018, both Kent and AVB had played 35 games in their prior four seasons. Kent played 20 in 2016 but 4, 6 and 5 in 2015, 2017 and 2018. AVB played 14 in each of 2015 and 2016, 0 in 2017 and 57 in 2018. If Kent wanted more than one year then he wanted at least two. So the difference you've cited is an extra year for AVB in circumstances where, going into 2019, they were essentially equally flaky in getting on the park. I suggest AVB is, when fit, better than Kent. As such, I don't see any irrationality in picking him over 3 years over Kent at 2 years. The fact Kent went on to play 13 games in 2019 doesn't mean our decision at the end of 2018 was wrong (hindsight etc.).

What were the questions and his answers?

I have no problem with people refraining from buying memberships because it's a difficult financial decision for them. Breaking it down into "two coffees per week" is not a fair way of looking at it - it's one of many weekly expenses and for some people those two coffees need to go towards a bill or another household expense instead. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with people who have the money and can afford a membership but chose not to buy one because they want to make a statement or something like that. I accept that doing this (i.e. making a statement by not buying a membership) is important for some people but IMO it is counterproductive and unhelpful.

Good stuff. The focus in the meetings on the enjoyment the players got from being -60 in possessions in a low-scoring practice match is good to see IMO. Do you mean the camera angles (with the behind the goals camera from the North game)?

The action should be what is punished, not the outcome. If Viney's tackle was a dangerous tackle, then he deserves punishment. However, the fact that it appears the tackle didn't impact Stratton at all means a fine should be the maximum punishment. Any punishment of Viney will, though, make Crouch's lack of punishment stand out even more.