titan_uranus

It's not the fact we lose or the individual goals that are scored that are the problem, it's OMac himself. He panics when he gets the ball. He makes bad decisions. He fumbles. He drops the ball. He loses his man in traffic. He gets outbodied and outpositioned. He looks lost in transition. He did things better than last week but the bar was set on the ground. He isn't good enough right now. Send him back to Casey, tell him we've seen enough to think he's got what it takes but now he needs to work on the above things at the VFL, instead of in the AFL where he is getting belted weekly.

Gratefully was able to attend today meaning I got to avoid McLachlan and Zempilas. Hamish McLachlan is, IMO, the worst AFL media identity going around. Hopeless commentator, knows little to nothing about the game, speaks in cliches and platitudes and yet turns up every bloody game Channel 7 shows these days. 7's focus on status, history and side-stories detracts from the actual game. I'll bet Rioli was talked about all day. He had 11 touches and pretty much no influence at all.

Isaac Smith is a softc*ck and a fl*g. Umpire Pannell too. However, Vince may well be in trouble for one of his errant elbows to Mitchell's head in the tackle right before that.

Exceeded my personal expectations today. Clearly the speed of the game (both generally and the way we move it these days) are things he needs to adapt to but he was strong, looked good with ball in hand and got involved. Fingers crossed it's onwards and upwards from here.

6 - Tyson 5 - Vince 4 - Jones 3 - Jetta 2 - Gawn 1 - Watts

We matched it with them for probably 2-3 quarters of today's game and for periods we out-worked them, out-pressured them, and looked good with ball in hand. But, though we might have had the three best on ground today (Tyson, Vince, Jones), we had probably the bottom 4 or 5 as well. Ultimately, they were smarter and cleaner when it mattered most. The umpires weren't paying kicking in danger so they kept doing it all day and we were slow to react. Harmes must be dropped. His turnovers across half forward kill us. Does not deserve a game next week. OMac was marginally better this week but is still way, way off it. I didn't like Dawes' game but for a first game back it could have been worse. Wet weather football makes his role harder, too. Putrid post. He wasn't even close to our worst player and there might be a good reason for him being a little off the pace of AFL football - 2.25 years out of the game might do that for you.

A lot of the players being named are, IMO, more half-forwards or half-backs than true midfielders: ANB, Harmes, Newton, Kent, Michie, M Jones, Grimes, Kennedy. None of them, to me, scream "midfielder" like Oliver, Brayshaw, Viney and Tyson (for example) do.

Depends on your definition of boring. I find watching Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney on TV every week to be more boring than anything else.

No matter what happens on the weekend, this is truly awesome stuff.

Generally good changes but I'm disappointed both Harmes and Kent have retained their places, yet again, whilst Kennedy is dropped instead. I'm confident OMac has held his spot because Garland was already out. I don't like it, but so be it. Grimes' time at this club must surely be coming to an end if he couldn't get a game this week.

Not that simple. That's why there are quadrants. The bottom-right quadrant is the bad one - you're conceding a lot and not scoring enough yourself. In the other three quadrants you can, feasibly, be doing fine. Sure, you might be conceding a lot, but if you're scoring more then you're winning. Same goes if you aren't putting a lot of points on the board. Not an issue if you happen to concede fewer. Our numbers are something like 105 for and 90-odd against (just reading that graph, anyway). Hence, we have a percentage over 100%, meaning we outscore our opponents on average. So the fact our defence is 13th on a points-against basis does not necessarily mean we are not good enough.

Agreed. It's also about how the opposition gets the ball back, and where. We are committing far too many turnovers across half-forward which gives our opposition the best possible chance to rebound straight back through a zone which isn't properly formed. At our best, we don't turn it over across half forward, we go inside 50 and we either score, or we lock it in, force repeat contests, prevent easy rebounds. That happens when our forwards and, in particular, our half-forwards are "on". By locking it in, pressuring the ball carrier coming out, our zone is then well-set to get the ball back at half-forward/wing and rinse/repeat. Instead, by turning it over across half-forward or, just as bad, by applying no pressure when we get it inside 50, we let the ball pivot and come straight back out. It's no surprise, then, that when we play poorly we almost always see bad games from Harmes, Kent, Kennedy and Garlett.

I don't agree that this is what is happening in 2016. We're conceding too many easy goals out the back, no doubt, but that's not the same as being "easily bullied and pushed aside". To me, we have a structural problem that, for large portions of games, isn't working. In 2010, we had a systematic down-hill-skiing, bruise-free gameplan which, when it didn't work, meant the entire park was littered with embarrassment. This year, we are structurally being opened up as opposed to physically being brutalised. Big difference, IMO.

It's understandable to an extent, but generally speaking irrational and not backed up by facts. St Kilda is a case in point. Any time we lost last year, especially when St Kilda won the same week, all we ever heard was "St Kilda has gone past us". We finished the year above them on the ladder and after 10 games this year remain a game and percentage in front of them. The same people who say they have "gone past us" also think we're playing poor football so imagine how far in front of St Kilda we'd be if we were playing good football!

The core of their good players were playing finals in 2009-2011 and 2013. Everyone (media and fans) misjudged their list. I think Malthouse's terrible coaching was underestimated. He took a list that was good (not great, but good enough to be playing finals) and wrecked it, basically. Bolton's taken over a list that, at its heart, has leadership and talent. He's exceeded expectations but I think, reflecting on their list, that's because those expectations were incorrectly too low (as opposed to Bolton working some sort of miracle). None of this matters, of course, to those who simply look around them when Melbourne loses and, if they see something else going well, they complain that we're not them. Good for them. See above.

Another one - the last time we had two more wins than losses at the end of a round - Round 22, 2006. We've had four chances to do this this year (we were 1-0, 3-2, 4-3 and 5-4 and lost our next game each time). We beat GWS twice in 2012 and GC twice in 2011, though if you don't count those then yes, Richmond in 2010 is the last time.

I don't think we'll win, but I'm sure you (as did most others) said the same thing before the Geelong game last year, or if you'd looked at the Carlton team before they beat Geelong this weekend. We can win. I don't think we will win, but we can.

A couple more streaks to add to the list: Beat Port Adelaide - last win Round 17, 2011 (7 game losing streak) Win in the NT - last win Round 17, 2011 (7 game losing streak).

Bulldogs sell a home game to Cairns, have done for a few years.

Dawes will not work as a defender. It just will not work. Too slow, not good enough of a mark, won't be good enough in transition into attack. He can still provide us something in 2016 as a forward, might even be this week (we must pick either him or Pedersen as the third tall forward/second ruck). But it will not be as a defender. We need to put VFL time into Frost in that regard (Dunn might pick up the new plan at some point too). Problem with Bugg is that when he's not tackling, like yesterday (1 tackle all day), he adds precious little to the side. He gets under opposition players' skin, sure, but he doesn't really damage opponents because he can't really kick, he's not a goal-kicker, he doesn't have overly-good speed. IMO, he turns it over so much that if his tackling/harassing game isn't at a high level, he's a nothing player. That's a tough act to maintain for 22 weeks.

I think OMac's actually got good pace and mobility, I think like TMac those will be his qualities in due course. I look forward to seeing him get another crack later this year or next year when he's had the chance to develop those traits in the VFL.

Our next 6 day break is from QBD to the following week, a Sunday 1.10pm away game against Sydney. I'll be interested to see what we do at the selection table for that game - 6 day break against a top 4 (or top 2) side on the road. We've also got another one in Round 16 when we go to Darwin to play Fremantle, Round 18 vs West Coast in Perth, Round 20 vs Hawthorn and possibly Round 23 vs Geelong. Those are some pretty difficult 6 day breaks IMO (adding in Port, that's 4 road trips on 6 day breaks, possibly the trip to Geelong on a 6 day break too, as well as an Etihad game (St K) and Hawthorn). Thanks, AFL.

So why are you complaining about Carlton getting their defence right "so quickly" if you admit you know we did the same thing in 2014? Add to that the pressure we feel in games where we are favourites, or thereabouts, or coming off a win etc., and I think with every missed shot we get less and less confident in ourselves.

We average 67.4 tackles per game this year, ranked 11th (not good enough IMO). Carlton averages 64.1, ranked 14th. Don't base too much off one round.

As for Geelong, I love seeing them lose. Their arrogance is second to none and IMO that is the second game in a row they have gone into expecting the win to just happen and not working hard enough. Far too reliant on Selwood, Dangerfield and Motlop and if two of those three are down they struggle. Not convinced they are as even across the board as Sydney or even the Dogs are.