titan_uranus

They kicked the first 10. Since then, 8 goals to 5. Reason? Either Fremantle put the cue in the rack, or we didn't start trying until we were 10 goals down. I'd say a little of both. Either way, another disappointing effort.

A list that long, to me, indicates the opposite. The common thread in all those players is that they were forced to start their careers at Melbourne. We can never know what they would have been like at other clubs, but I'm confident that a significant number of them would have been better (not necessarily the next Chris Judds, but better) had they had the chance to start their careers at Geelong or Hawthorn or Sydney. In addition, even if they shouldn't have been drafted where we picked them, they all would have been drafted at some point. For them all to fail, ignoring their draft position, is indicative of the club being systematically incapable of developing young kids properly.

I don't think West Coast will be losing to St Kilda at home. They've only lost to Fremantle and Hawthorn in Perth all year, and Adelaide is a much better side than St Kilda. The WC loss today will mean Fremantle will get top spot sewn up by beating us, which in turn means they don't have to rely on winning next week in Adelaide against Port. Huge relief for them. First spot means avoiding Hawthorn and getting the out-of-form Sydney, or a travelling Richmond/Bulldogs, in the first final. Ross Lyon is going to breathe a massive sigh of relief at the end of today, I think.

Most of the time, yes, his running is sub-par. Thing is, in those three games I mentioned, he displayed AFL-grade running. Gut-running, making space, double and triple efforts, long searching leads and chases. It made a huge difference to his game - it increased his ability to get involved, to impact the contest, to make space for his teammates, and to show off his traits. It's the running which has to keep improving IMO.

Last four five to the Eagles...don't write them off just yet. Top spot (and the chance to avoid Hawthorn in the first final) beckons. However, I love that this year the bottom half of the top 8 are going to be in ripping form in the finals. In fact, right now I'd probably put Adelaide, the Dogs, Richmond and North ahead of Sydney and Fremantle. It should be an entertaining finals series.

He showed glimpses this year that, when he runs hard and makes space, he can be an effective midfielder. If this report is true, I'll admit I'm a little surprised that those glimpses have been enough to get not just one year, but two. However, I like the move, I like that we're showing faith in someone who needs the confidence, and I like that it's happening before the end of the year. Sew it up, move on, deal with whoever is next to deal with. I know there will be plenty who disagree, plenty who either are hanging onto a grudge, or who see Stringer/Wines/Macrae/anyone else from that draft and get upset, so for their sake I really do hope something clicks and we see the kind of form he displayed against the Dogs, Collingwood and St Kilda in the middle of the year become the norm for him.

3 flags. 8 finals series. 21 finals. Jones has 0 flags, 1 finals series, 2 finals. Jones is also the 19th most losing-est player out of all current players (24.37% winning record). Such a stat is usually skewed towards those who haven't played many games (e.g. Giles in worst with 9 wins from 54 games). There are only two players in the top 20 who have played 100 games. One is Garland, on 133. The other is Jones, on 199. Selwood, on the other hand, is the 7th most winning-est player out of all current players (77.48% winning record). You wouldn't blame Jones for having just a tiny bit of jealousy.

Also Tyson (50), M Jones (50), Pedersen (52), and even Jetta (72), McDonald (80), Trengove (81) and Grimes (96) - we expect a lot from all these players. We consider Grimes, Trengove, McDonald, Jetta and Tyson leaders. We're hoping Pedersen can play a vital role for us next year. They're all still quite inexperienced.

If you think that one player (Wines) is the difference between us being bottom 6 and top 6 then you have no idea what's wrong with this club and you're one of those people who is too fixated on list changes and nowhere near enough on internal development. We are not going to go anywhere unless the leaders on our list change their attitudes and our list as a whole improves. Single players on their own are not, and won't be, the messiah. Just because you thought Wines was the better player doesn't mean he was the right pick, nor does it mean other people were wrong for thinking Toumpas was the better player. The evidence to that point allowed either option. So it wasn't a 'gamble' to take Toumpas, hips or no hips. At any rate, if we'd taken Wines, brought him into our toxic environment, there is every chance he would not be the same player he is now. Of course, this assumes Toumpas would have failed at every club, rather than just failing at this club. We'll never know of course, but I'm confident that a substantial reason why Toumpas hasn't made it is the fact that he came to Melbourne. To put it another way, if he'd gone to Hawthorn instead, the odds are he'd be better now than spending that same time at Melbourne.

I don't usually barrack for Collingwood but that was a result I really enjoyed. Geelong and its bunch of arrogant tossers can go sulk about missing finals. As for the match - let's hope our players watched what Collingwood said last week ('nothing to play for') and how they changed it to this week.

No, we don't. What does this mean? You think our 'development' is still A-grade, and was in 2013? Cute? It's not like we did a Gysberts or a Cook and picked some unknown. Toumpas was rated by many to be better than Wines. If we'd taken Wines, we'd still be a bottom 6 side right now, and you'd be saying 'why would we take two identical players when we are crying out for uncontested possessions and outside run? How stupid of Melbourne'.

I'd go with Watts, Stretch, Riley and Grimes for the bench. If Roos is imploring us to be 'angry', put Riley in at the first bounce and let him put that standard out there. He'll butcher the ball when he gets it, but given the opposition and location, it's not going to make too much difference. I'd rather see us play with the required level of intensity, especially when Freo have the ball. I'm happy with Spencer replacing Dawes. Gives Gawn assistance against Sandilands, and gives us something to aim at in the forward line other than Hogan (Dawes wasn't doing a lot of that of late). Good on OMac for making the team. Gotta love how he's named at FP but in his interview said Roos told him he is playing defence. If he plays defence I wonder who is going to be freed up to play forward - Howe? The VFL report this week described JKH as a 'work in progress'. He is, clearly, not ready for AFL selection if the coaches are describing him using that phrase.

I'm confident it's an attempt at deflection. Much of the reason why Roos is here is to try to deflect attention as much as is possible from us while try to improve but lose games in the process. PJ said it today: "We brought Roosy in with the primary aim to fix the culture and the leadership and create structures around our football club". Notice how he didn't say "and to win games". Their primary goal with this club right now is to fix the ingrained problems that were left behind by previous administrations. They want, as best as possible, to deflect attention from where it is deserved - underperforming coaches, underperforming players - to other areas. Hence, Roos continually talking about the past. Now, he's done it again, trying to talk about the negativity around the club. Problem this time is that he's stuffed it up by pinning it on the supporters, making it sound like we're ungrateful sods who should just put up with things, but it all falls into the same aim of PJ's, which is trying to do anything other than say 'yep, we're struggling' or 'we're going to cull more players' or 'the players are so negative, it's all their fault'.

No, it's an indictment on the supporters who, year after year, think the answer is in players who aren't at the club yet. The answer is, and has been for years, finding it within the current crop of players, the overwhelming majority of whom are the ones who will be playing next year, to work out what is going wrong, to apply themselves, to work harder, and to better themselves individually and as a team. We can delist fringe players all we like. We can bring in a FA and/or some kids. But 35+ of the current playing group will be there next year, and more than we need to bring people in, we need to get the players on the list performing to an acceptable standard.

I like that someone at the club is acknowledging the ingrained issues at the club. I'm not sure Roos has done it perfectly though. Either way, the key is how he coaches moving forward. Identifying issues is only half the job.

First he says aiming for 7 wins was too 'modest'. Well, Bartlett and PJ have said the aim is for finals next year. They're being laughed at. We're damned if we aim high, we're damned if we aim low. We're coming off a 4 win season. Prior to that, a 2 win season. There's no shame in aiming for 7 wins, which is more than the previous two entire seasons combined. Combine that with the fact that, when he named players who have improved, he included Dunn and Jetta, both of whom were better last year than they were this year, and I don't have too much time for his thoughts on football. Finally, as has been mentioned, if you want to get some respect as a commentator, don't just pop up and mouth off when things are going to sh!t, as Gardner has invariably done over the years. I put Lloyd in the same basket. Never misses an opportunity to bag Melbourne. Everything's wrong about what we do, who we draft, how we play. Rarely says a nice thing about anything remotely related to the club. As for his comment that our game plan is outdated, I don't agree at all. The gameplan isn't the issue. It's fine. It's the execution of the gameplan that is the issue. The gameplan doesn't require some sort of special breed of players to be able to play it. It simply requires, like every other team's, four quarter efforts, real intensity, and players who put in week after week after week. In summary, I don't like Gardner and I detest Lloyd.

The point he's trying to make is that, if we've become so inherently pessimistic, maybe the players have too. Maybe the players go into games against Carlton thinking in the back of their minds 'we're going to lose this', just like a lot of us do. And that kind of mindset begins to spill over into doing selfish things (getting kicks out the back of packs or running past the mark to get a cheap handball received) instead of team things (like tackling and spreading).

Or like the time they kept Collingwood in the game by kicking 11.21. Or the time they lost to North by kicking 10.15. Or when they drew with Gold Coast by kicking 11.17. As for St Kilda, no doubt they're far exceeding our output right now due mainly to the fact they're putting in the required effort weekly. Their kids are able to play with that kind of freedom in part because their 25+ year old players are leading properly. I'd love for our leaders to put 100% in weekly and see what effect that has on our kids.

Agree entirely. I'd love the players to think they're better than what they are. A bit of confidence would be lovely. The side is clearly devoid of it.

The 'MFC supporters trap'? If there's any 'trap' set by our supporters, it's turning a blind eye to any skerrick of positivity in favour of continually being negative and pessimistic. I do not see things that are not there. We have a lot more talent than we previously had. At our best, we play finals-quality football. The problem isn't whether we can play football. The problem is why we choose not to do so weekly. It's almost a worse problem. It's not like the answer is simply 'it's the cattle', or 'the list needs to be culled'. It's deeper, more ingrained. Also we're fifth last. We're a draw behind St Kilda, who everyone raves about having an awesome young list. The list isn't bad talent-wise. It's horrendous leadership/effort wise.

I'm not trumpeting our current form or saying the season is a resounding success, but we are entitled to reflect on our wins this year as improvements on previous years and previous wins. Beating one good side might be a fluke. Beating three (Richmond, Dogs, Geelong in Geelong) is a testament to the fact that, when the players can be bothered trying, we are a better side than we have been since 2006. We made the Dogs, coming off a strong performance against the at-the-time flawless Dockers, look pathetic. We made Richmond look soft by attacking the ball and hunting them down (watch the game again. It's much more fun than watching anything we've done since the bye, for starters). We beat Geelong by playing four quarters of team-oriented football. If anything, those performance makes the bad losses worse. Under Neeld we weren't capable of anything, so what was the difference really. This year, we are capable of more, a lot more, which reinforces what the true problem is - effort.

Jones is too important to our midfield. Watts is finally developing into a best 22 player. The others, agreed. Frost, Pedersen and someone else (don't care who) in for Dunn, Dawes and Garland. Howe, Grimes, Cross and Lumumba out too. Let Jones and Vince, and then Viney and McDonald, lead the club, and rid the club of the absolute disaster material that is the aforementioned players.

I haven't read the whole thread, but Garland is wholly part of the problem (though clearly not 'the' problem on his own).

One of the best bits of that 360 segment was when he discussed the email from the supporter who said 'driving in today, I knew we were going to lose', which caused him to reflect on how many of the players would have had the same mindset. People talk about how almost every single player who was here under Bailey is gone, so how could the tanking era still be affecting us? The problem is, this club hasn't prioritised winning since 2006. It's always been about development, or about building to the future, or worse, actually about losing. Consequently, I'm confident that when you come to the club, you second-guess yourself. What are these other players thinking? There's no winning culture here, they don't win a lot, where's the belief? And it seeps through. It doesn't help that we have no respect from the public. It doesn't help that the supporter base is, by and large, pessimistic. It all feeds into the same thinking - we probably are going to lose this game. We're down to a handful of Bailey-era players. Funnily enough, they're the biggest offenders - Garland, Howe, Watts, Grimes, probably Jones too. They're the wrong players to lead the club, and the mentality just trickles down.

I fail to understand the way Garland is discussed on this board. Almost every other player on the list comes under fire repeatedly, but for some reason Garland is some sort of wonderful hard-working sympathy target who is exempt from criticism because,,,.who knows. IMO, he exemplifies everything that is wrong with this club. The odd thing is, at the press conference yesterday he didn't say any of this stuff at all. I wonder if yesterday was the honest view slipping out a little bit, and today was the media performance back on point once more. It should be noted, regardless of whether he should be saying this stuff so frequently, it's all true.