titan_uranus

The only reasonable explanation I can think of for OMac getting a game along with Frost, Lever and May is that one of them is going to play forward/ruck. That does not sit well with me. Hore should be playing, OMac shouldn't, and we should still be able to find someone to relieve Gawn.

I don't agree with them getting pick 2 but I don't know that this is a decent argument against it. Those three wins were vs the Dogs, Carlton and Fremantle, and the loss was to St Kilda. Not exactly a taxing month. Since then they've only gotten within 4 goals of their opponent three times in 15 games (vs us, St Kilda and Essendon).

Good research. TMac/Weid's drop in form is certainly a part of our problem but it's not as simple as the OP's analysis suggests. We didn't play a single repeat game until West Coast a few weeks ago. They're in a five week stretch from Round 18-22. The season was shot by Round 18. The double up games have pretty much played no role, at all, in our season.

Interesting stuff, thanks @fr_ap. The TMac/Weideman stuff is interesting but I'm not sure it's as simple as analysing the specific defenders each one has played on, given the quality of ball coming at them. The handball receives stat is a pretty good indicator of one of our big problems.

Why the bump? Some sort of news?

Is it only Melbourne supporters who think that if someone finds a positive in a loss then they're "happy" with it? Three of the clubs you've then picked out to apparently contrast with us (Carlton, St Kilda, the Dogs) lost. Sounds to me like you're suggesting they might be "happy with supposedly honourable losses". I also love the comment that the final margin flattered us. Of course, when the final margin flatters our opponent (e.g. because we're horrendously inaccurate, or down to one on the bench), that argument never goes the other way. And 39 tackles is pathetic, but Richmond's 45 isn't? That's barely one more tackle per quarter than us. None of this is to say I'm "happy" with losing. I'm not. I hate 2019. I hate the promise that we were given after 2018 and having had all the excitement for this year get ripped out from under me. I hate that I'm back to going to a near-empty MCG to watch low-quality football. I hate that we've been thinking about the draft since Queen's Birthday. But that doesn't mean I can't look at a game and analyse where things are maybe working well, or improving, or even just changing from week to week in a way that suggests the FD is trying to change us for 2020. Agree wholeheartedly. Of course, that makes us one of the dreaded "apologists" (FWIW, I detest the phrase "wrist-slasher" as much as "apologist").

Did he say that? Far out.

I didn't say you did. It's just a trend that pops up from posters who are down about 2019 and are trying to make 2018 sound like less than it actually was.

There's a really good pinned thread at the top of the board.

What a ridiculous and unfair thing to say. You don't like the Lever deal. Fine. I did, and still do, so apparently I accept mediocrity? I hope he plays incredible football for us, because it will make us a significantly better side and because I will remember this post of yours.

A bit like the revisionism that says we "fluked" making it to a prelim because we hit a "purple patch" over Rounds 22-23 and the first two finals.

Some stats which catch my eye: 2nd for inside 50s 4th for inside 50 differential (i.e. only three clubs get more ball inside their forward 50 compared to their opponent than we do) 4th for clearance differential 14th for rebound 50s 17th in opposition rebound 50s 17th in rebound 50s differential Validates what we're seeing on the ground. Too many entries inside 50 are wasted - they're not marked (TMac, Weideman struggling, Melksham and J Smith not playing, Fritsch not playing forward) and when they hit the ground we can't lock it in (Spargo, Garlett and ANB all struggling, Lockhart playing in fits and starts). I am of the view that the stats relating to rebound 50s derive significantly from the stats relating to inside 50s - I would like to see a stat showing how often our opponents' scoring chains start from within our forward 50 or forward half. Interestingly though, this is not how we lost vs St Kilda. Though I've still not seen the game, we had fewer inside 50s than the Saints and I understand we were turning it over a lot in our back half, rather than our forward half. Not sure if that signifies a change in how we tried to play (which we obviously failed at) or not.

We've been doing this all year. It doesn't work unless the forwards actually pressure the defenders (and it requires forwards to be forward of the ball carrier at all times, another problem we've had too often). Not sure why we need Frost to do what we're already doing with our current mids. I can't believe this is being advocated as a solution to our woes following what we've seen this year. If anything, we need to move away from this.

It's an interesting debate. I personally would maybe make one or two changes - I'm not against dropping Brayshaw, and I'm quite in favour of "resting" Viney (i.e. dropping him without having to say it). I'm not sure about giving JKH another go - are we going to give him another contract based on 1-4 games at the end of a dead season? I would, though, stop playing players who have no future - C Wagner looks to be one of those, I'm not sold on J Wagner, and I'm increasingly of the view that ANB now falls into this category. Would rather we keep putting games into Baker, Lockhart and Hore if we can. And you know this how? There's plenty of stuff to get stuck into about the club at the moment. Why do you feel the need to invent some extra tripe to go on top? Lever's not playing well but maybe you could put that into some context, given his long-lay off and having only played four games this year (and the fact that he's only 23).

I have no idea, haven't seen anything, just saw some stats. I'm personally not a fan of Preuss and wouldn't necessarily be advocating for him to come back into the seniors, but I was struck by those numbers as I don't think of Preuss as a high-numbers sort of player.

Just had a quick look at the stats. Preuss has 25 disposals (23 kicks and 2 handballs), plus 7 marks and a goal, all to go with 52 hit outs. Not a bad response to being dropped.

One of our overarching problems all year is a lack of cohesion across the group. Players routinely chopping/changing, positional changes, no consistency anywhere. I understand your frustration and your desire to "shake things up" but I think that has to come from the coaches in some other way, not selection. In saying that, maybe dropping one of our "core" players (e.g. Brayshaw) might be warranted. But I'd be restricting the changes and trying to keep the players that we need to improve out there, as a group.

When Melbourne plays well but doesn't score - we're crap, it doesn't matter how much you dominate general play if you miss/don't score. When our opponent plays well but doesn't score - they were so much better than us, the scoreboard flattered us, we should have lost by 10 goals.

I was at that RIchmond v Port game and this was the most noticeable difference. Riewoldt and Lynch marking it far more often than TMac/Weideman have been, and small forwards making things happen when it hits the ground.

But didn't we lose last night in a different manner? i.e. our opponent had far more inside 50s than us? I'm not saying that's a good thing, and I haven't seen the game either. But surely this was a different sort of loss, and at face value maybe a by-product of some changes to the way we're playing (which clearly didn't work)?

I haven't seen last night's game but even if it was a career worst game from Frost I still wouldn't understand that part of this thread. He's one of maybe three players who have improved this year compared to last year. The Fritsch bit we already know. Whether "necessitated" by injury or not, we kept Fritsch in the backline for too long. He's a forward, or he's in the VFL.

The only clip from the game that I've seen is that free against Petracca in the fourth quarter. Seems like there isn't much point to watching the rest of it. Agreed. We might only have won one or two more games, but there's a clear pattern of fourth quarter fade outs that is hurting us significantly right now. Yes, he is. But he's worse than Lever at everything else associated with football.

Gotta love Demonland. Articles mention we beat out other clubs/leagues to get him and the pessimists start asking whether we've overpaid. I look forward to those posters blaming Burgess as soon as our first injury under his watch strikes. FWIW, I have no idea how good Burgess is, nor how good Misson was supposed to be before we hired him, nor do I know how Misson in particular might have contributed to our bad run of injuries and struggles with running out games this year. If Misson played a role in either of those things then I'm just interested to see what difference, if any, comes next year.

I don't get the hysteria. May is out. We want a KPD to replace him, hence OMac. Lockahrt is out. We want a runner to replace him, hence Baker. Preuss is out. We want a KPF to replace him, hence T Smith. The article says Weideman and Hore are named as emergencies but returning via the VFL for match fitness. I suppose the only point to that is to have them available as genuine "emergencies" if needed, but otherwise the message on both of them is they need a game through the VFL. I'm not really a fan of OMac or of T Smith and would rather not have either of them in the side but in the context of the above, I completely understand why they've been picked.

Problem is they got the first one (ladder position last year) wrong. It says we finished 3rd last year but we finished 4th overall (losing prelim but Richmond were higher on the ladder so finish 3rd), or 5th on H&A ladder position (which is the position the articles gives Fremantle for 2015, when it finished top of the ladder).