titan_uranus

We're two weeks into the season. If he's going to "turn the corner", it doesn't necessarily have to have happened by now.

Not sure of correlation/relevance. Their first game was played in a cyclone. Their second game was played against a potential bottom 4 candidate, plus St Kilda had 18 scoring shots (5-13) from 47 inside 50s (30% scoring rate, completely equal to North's 20 shots from 67 inside 50s).

Ripping game, which is painful because I can't stand either side. The thought of Hawthorn being a finals contender (or worse) after only one year out of the 8 is not enjoyable. But there was joy to take from watching Geelong struggle despite "the three" - for most of the game the midfield battle was completely even. Granted, Dangerfield had a massive fourth quarter but by and large the three of them weren't dominant.

6 - Hogan 5 - Garlett 4 - Oliver 3 - Jones 2 - Hibberd 1 - Gawn

As usual, Demonland treats many things in absolutes, as if it is either the coaches or the players, but not both. I agree with STMJ and others above that we have leadership issues and drop offs from too mamy players within games (Oliver stands out to many of us because he plays four quarters). But we are too frequently outnumbered in our forward line and too often allow our opponent’s loose man to dictate play and those are coaching issues, not just player issues.

Port beat Sydney, in Sydney, in Round 1 last year. It was their only win, all year, against a top 8 side. Will be interesting to see if they can beat any other decent side in the remaining 20 rounds.

The big question is whether we bring in Frost. We know we are trying to get Lever to learn to be the second key defender, but Esava Ratugolea and whoever Brisbane's second tall forward was are different propositions to Brown and Waite. Personally, I think we should play Frost. He'll add run, which we need, and he'll be able to run off Waite/Brown who are both weakish defensively. I think we'll do better from Frost standing Brown and OMac Waite, with Lever loose and Hibberd freer to roam than we will forcing Lever to play Waite (and OMac Brown). So, if we bring in Frost, who do we drop? I doubt it will be Wagner, who was better than at least 6 last night and much better than Demonland is giving him credit for. I also doubt we'll drop Lewis, although he's not adding a huge amount. And Salem is working on his inside game and I saw real improvement from him last night in that area. If we're trying him as a mid we need to give him more than these two weeks before making a call, I think. Assuming no injuries, I think the players in danger of being dropped are Hunt, Harmes and Bugg. Agree, but Harmes is not playing that role well at all at the moment. Hunt is also really struggling to impact at the moment.

Finally got to watch the game. They got back into it in the third quarter through a couple of silly errors from us but also through three or four key free kicks at the wrong place/time for us. Then we started Q4 limply and by the time we worked out what was going wrong (too many behind the ball and outworked on the spread from stoppages) they had slammed 4 on. We fixed those up, and coupled with being fitter/stronger than the younger Lions, and we turned the game back in our favour. Having read this thread beforehand, I expected Lever to stink - he was much better than this thread suggests. It seems we are trying to get him to learn to be the second key defender, and at times last night he was no good in that role, but he had a lot more opportunities to zone off and break up Brisbane chains last night and he did it a lot better than last week. Oliver, Hogan and Garlett were all outstanding. Gawn's first half was part of the reason we were on top - Martin improved as the game went on and Gawn's influenced lessened. We're carrying a stack of underperforming/out of form players: Bugg, Jetta, Hunt, Harmes, ANB, Melksham, Lewis and Pedersen were all either ineffectual or just OK last night. ANB disappeared after HT, Harmes wasn't sighted. Tyson was a major improvement on Maynard through the middle but he has an infuriating tendency to handpass to someone under extreme pressure. Has to stop doing that or he'll never become the player we need him to become.

One (small) pleasing thing from our first two games: something we struggled with last year, and I know @jnrmac in particular was big on, was our first quarters. Already in 2018 we've had more first quarters with 5+ goals than for the entire 2017 season. At least we've started our games a bit better so far this year.

We beat GC there in 2011 too. And, to be fair, since 2011 we only played there twice, both times in the Neeld era (2012 and 2013).

Haven't seen any of the game yet but we did it again - this time it was spread out either side of three quarter time but outscored 42 points in what couldn't have been much more than 30 minutes of football. Yes, the most important thing was the win and we got that. Yes, we fought back once they drew level to win it, and ultimately by 26 points. But when we're 42 points up against a likely bottom-6 side, we should be putting the foot down and pushing on, not being run over the top of. Until I watch the replay I won't know for sure what it was that let the rot set in but when someone as positive as Wiseblood has a crack at the 2 off the back of the square and Goodwin's stubbornness, I can take a pretty good guess: Brisbane dropped a spare man back, we let them (i.e. didn't man that player up), and we proceeded to turn it over at half-forward repeatedly, whilst our loose man/men had no impact on the game.

It's quite funny reading the posts in this thread. There seem to be two views. You get the logical, reasoned poster who notes that we are well in front of Brisbane in development and talent and that, on paper, we are a 5+ goal better side than them. And you get the posters who, for better or worse, and whether or not they accept we are on paper a better side than them, cannot shake that gnawing feeling that this is precisely the sort of game the MFC loses. We're not two home/away games removed from the most recent instance of us losing a game we should have won, against a side we are unquestionably better than. I fully understand anyone who can't help but be slightly concerned about tonight. We've achieved nothing as a club to warrant confidence. Edit: but the conclusion I was going to draw was that we are, actually, much better than them and we are capable of winning this game, even on the road, by a substantial sum. I expect a win.

I don't like Scully but do we really have to take pleasure from what could be a serious injury?

Silly comment, by that logic any team with a "match winner" should win every single game. Gawn misses one shot and all of a sudden it's not possible for him to be a "match winner"? Watch Viney's game against West Coast last year and tell me again he can't be a match winner.

True, forgot they didn't have Walker last week.

It will be interesting to see whether we learned something at HT last week and us holding them to 17 points in the second half was because we changed things, or simply because Geelong tired out with one down on the bench. If we lose a quarter to Brisbane by 30 points, I'll go ballistic.

So Adelaide goes in without M Crouch, Douglas or Lynch, loses B Crouch early, and Sloane cops a knock, and they beat Richmond by 5 goals - but they couldn't beat Essendon last week? Might be another even season this year.

Changes make sense. Tyson replacing Maynard is no surprise. One of the non-pressuring forwards had to go and it was Hannan. We don't need him and Fritsch in the same side and Hannan didn't do enough last week to warrant keeping his spot. What Bugg did last year was a dog act. But he's done his time for it. I actually think this is a good opportunity to get him in. I'm not sure if the wider AFL community cares any more but, in case they do, we'll be totally off Broadway with this game, no one will be watching/listening other than Melbourne and Brisbane fans. Take any pressure off and get him back into the side. Let's hope he's learnt his lesson and he's worked hard. His pressure last year was important and he is a strong two-way runner, which we sorely lacked last week.

Agree, but as has been said I think there's more to it than this. That plan doesn't work as well when we're consistently down a number in the forward line, because we've set up with a player off the back of the square at the centre bounce. We're too often kicking to a 1-on-2 or a 2-on-3 and so we ask Hogan/Pedersen to bring it to ground but, even if they do, our smalls/mediums are outnumbered. It can work, but too many times it doesn't, because we're outnumbered, hence the +23 inside 50s but a loss.

It's not just about speed. We regularly moved the ball fast into our forward line for our repeated inside 50s. It's pressure. Our biggest issue is that, when we have these 30+ point quarter losses, we're not applying pressure on our opponent. It's almost inherent - a side under proper pressure might win a quarter, but they're not going to win it by 30+ points.

I'm not sure that's accurate, but even if we assume it was (and there certainly were times when Hawkins pushed up the ground), it doesn't mean OMac played poorly. We had bigger issues on Sunday than OMac, that's for sure.

That's not what the stat means. This is correct. A disposal is effective if it travels over 40 metres to a 50/50. That doesn't mean it necessarily hits the target. It could bounce out in front of a clearly open player but, if it's 50/50 as to who gets the ball, that's still "effective". If you pick a terrible option but it's not a direct turnover, it's often "effective". There are a lot of misunderstandings in the Champion Data stats (another is looseball vs hardball gets. They don't mean 100% precisely what they sound like).

We had a number of players with either no impact (Harmes, ANB, Melksham, Garlett), minimal impact (Fritsch, Hannan, Pedersen, Hunt) or well below their A-grade best (Lever, Jetta, Hibberd) yet still pushed a preliminary finalist and a widely-tipped flag contender to the brink; We fought back from 27 points down at half time and forced Geelong from scoring 80 first-half points into only 17 second half-points (although I can't help but query whether this would have happened if they weren't a player down on the bench); Petracca and Oliver are stars.

An interesting set of responses (which, I might add, has been great to read without bickering etc.). Leadership, fitness, coaching, the gameplan and skill have all been suggested. My personal view is that we, possibly more so than other clubs, are really set on following our gameplan. We keep our extra man off the back of the square almost permanently. We continue to attack the contest in the same way and try to move the ball in the same way. We don't often stop and spend 5-10 minutes playing slower, possession football. We don't move the spare man into the forward line or the contest. Instead, I get the feeling that we prefer to back ourselves in (the coaches having instilled this view in the players). If it doesn't work, we don't seem to make any substantive changes until the next break between quarters (whether that's because the coaches don't send messages out to make certain changes or the leaders on-field don't do it themselves). It shouldn't take until late in the fourth quarter, when the game's on the line, for us to be prepared to depart from the standard. I'm all for pushing our players to play the brand of football we want to play, but we have to have that understanding of when we need to make small changes - given we're a complete outlier statistically in terms of these 30+ point quarter losses, clearly minimising the damage from a bad quarter or an opponent's momentum is something the better sides are all capable of doing, and we need to learn how to do it too.

That might be so, but not only did it not result in a win today, it regularly did not result in wins last year, either. It's been a big problem of ours for 12 months now.