titan_uranus

Georgiou apparently subbed off for Salem. Concussion-temporary sub, or permanent?

Good to hear JKH getting involved and Bail kicking a goal - needs to score more if he's going to continue being played forward. Thanks! I figured TMac would get Pods, hopefully he can exploit his lack of pace out of the backline. Jetta on Betts worries me.

Can't see the game today, radio not helping with match-ups, can anyone tell me where Frawley is playing? Howe? Who's on Podsiadly/Jenkins/Lynch? Would be much appreciated.

Well that didn't take that long!

I agree with this - it's why I notice Terlich's mistakes so much more than, say, Viney's. However, isn't it also relevant that those mistakes cost us more? As in, yes, we remember them more because of where they occur, but the fact that a mistake in that part of the ground can be so important surely means those players need to be extra careful? Which, for example, Terlich is not?

So this doesn't apply to Spencer?: Look, I understand that Watts was drafted at 1 and Spencer was drafted as a speculative rookie pick. I don't agree with the argument that pick 1 ought to be more strongly criticised than a rookie pick, as I see that as handicapping kids. Nonetheless, as you've already said, both have had the pre-seasons, both have played and trained alongside their fellow Demons. They've each had six years, and neither is where they should be by now. The divergence in criticism between the two is far greater than what may be expected of pick 1 vs a rookie.

I'm not offended. As I said above, I'm just not enjoying the negativity, and your post read to me as another one of those. Seems like it wasn't, so sorry for that, but regardless there are still a lot of people on here who aren't, or cannot, acknowledge that we are improving this year. So when you said 'The fact that we were never a remote chance of winning seems unimportant' (which, by the way, I don't agree with), it read to me like you were one of those people who won't accept we're improving unless we win games.

What's to re-read? 'Rucks are supposedly meant to take a hell of a lot long [sic]. How about like for like??'. Where did I take you out of context? You think it's fair to criticise Watts for being a sixth year player and not at the level you'd expect him to be at, whereas Spencer, by virtue of an extra 7cm of height, spares your wrath. I disagree.

So ruckmen get a free pass whilst a tall non-ruckman doesn't? You shouldn't go on about Watts being a sixth-year player if you aren't prepared to criticise all our substandard sixth-year players. Six years is a long time, you're not wrong about that. But if you're going to pin that on Watts, you have to pin it on Spencer too. Why hasn't Spencer gone anywhere in six years?

So is Jake Spencer, and people are willing to give him plenty of time and encouragement.

Possibly, but with the references to 'heaven' and that apparently we were never a chance of winning, it comes across as yet another of those negative, 'I won't say we're improving until we win a premiership' type of posts.

Whilst I don't usually agree with threads devoted to laughing at a player's misfortune, I am quite satisfied that people are now generally cottoning on to Naitanui being an overhyped, overrated, lumbering one-trick pony. I would not want him at this club, and I am fully aware of where Melbourne is at and what Naitanui is capable of.

Who's saying that? FFS, I'm really not enjoying the negative people who, at the slightest sight of someone noting something that has improved or is a positive so far this year, bleat 'but we're so bad anyway, what's the difference?'. No one thinks this is 'heaven'. No one thinks this is sufficient improvement. But some people are, rightly, aware that we are a different, improved, better side so far this year than we were in 2012-2013, and that is a positive. The fact that we are coming from such a low base does not change the fact that we're improving, and the fact we're improving is a positive thing. Why can't you (and so many others) accept that?

This is overly and unnecessarily negative. Why do you feel that winning is the only way to validate improvement? It's unfathomable that there are MFC supporters who, having been firsthand witnesses to how low we went under Neeld, cannot see improvement when it slaps them in the face. And that's another thing I can't agree with in your post, where you say we are 'scattering around' looking for improvement. The improvement is there to see. We're not leaking goals. We're tacking harder. We're kicking more, we're not dropping our heads as often, and we have a better, though not perfect, structure. We've also been in the contest deep into 5 out of our 6 games so far. At this point last year that figure probably was 1 out of 6.

Possibly the most disappointing, though not surprising really, of the lot is Blease: "Defensively, he had some major lapses during the game and we know he’s much better than that." I mean, seriously. Strauss is similarly going nowhere. At least Gawn and Clisby look to be pushing their case, a little at least. I'm a big Clisby fan, hope to see him back in the seniors soon.

After he kicked it, it was in fact Dunn who signalled to those in the back half to make the effort to get down there to congratulate him. In years gone by, Dunn's 'leadership' has been anything but, but in full credit to him he's turned himself around and he's transformed into a player I have a lot more time for and lot more respect for. As has been said, I wonder if that was more a byproduct of him getting a lot of attention in the NAB game v Richmond, coupled maybe with the fact that we were completely devoid of spirit at that point in the West Coast game.

Agreed. I've seen opponents' possession chains breaking down, stuttering, stopping, switching backwards/sideways way, way, way more frequently this year than in the past. In 2012-2013 we had clubs just stream through the middle as if we were witches hats. This year, we've even had Sydney stopping and propping and trying plan B a few times. It's a huge part of modern football and a huge part of why we're not conceding stacks of goals. As Roos has said, though, we're not translating our pressure into enough turnovers that themselves translate into scores. That's to come (hopefully). True, we haven't played some of the best yet, but compare this year's efforts to last years': 177 points against West Coast, who finished 13th 103 against GWS 122 against Brisbane 121 against Carlton 114 against Gold Coast 106 against Richmond 104 against St Kilda 100 against Bulldogs 94 against Brisbane 150 against North Melbourne, who finished 10th 124 against GWS 90 against Gold Coast 120 against Adelaide 107 against Bulldogs So, as you can see, even against the middle of the road sides we were leaking points. I expect us to lose to Hawthorn, Geelong, Port Adelaide, Collingwood, Fremantle and probably Essendon too by loads, and we're likely to concede 100+ in most of those games. But the fact that we're not conceding big scores against the sides we shouldn't be conceding big scores to is a huge improvement for us.

I'm with you on the idea that there is no replacement for Terlich putting their hand up at Casey. However, I think we all notice Terlich's errors more than others' because his seem to invariably come at crucial times and with disastrous results. His clangers stand out to me because they're often made under no pressure, in the back half (which is more harmful than the front half), and often (IMO, at least) lead to goals or shots on goal. Despite all that, Saturday was not Terlich's worst game, and we have others who are below him. I'm not sold on Dean though, and I think he has a lot of work to do to make it. As an aside, I don't like the DE stat because I don't think it accurately measures anything, but the stats are surprising indeed. What I'll say about them is that if Terlich is going at 81%, our other players have a lot of work to do. Good on you for having the balls to say that, but...no. Not only is Dawes one of our best, and one of our first to be picked, but you're offering Fitzpatrick and Blease as replacements. One won't defend, the other can hardly mark.

Who said we should be happy with either? Despite the better of the two options still not being good, clearly the 56 and 84 option is far superior and demonstrates a significant improvement on last year's 66 and 120 mould.

Don't bother, we all know you don't care. Whilst you're probably right in that a 50% Watts or Howe is better than even a 100% Byrnes or Bail, how long can we tolerate players not putting in 100%? What is going to have the bigger impact on the team and our morale, as well as our chance of winning - someone giving 100% but not being talented, or someone giving 50%?

I'd be surprised if Stuie thinks that. I'd be surprised if anyone thinks that. Simply put, we are not improving in all areas. We are, though, improving in many areas. Points for is not one of them, but that makes sense given some of the injuries we've had and Roos' statements that the first focus was to tighten up the defence. What we are doing is ensuring that we don't get blown out of the water repeatedly. The strides we've made in stopping sides from doing this are immense and commendable. They have, to date, come at the expense of us kicking big scores. That hasn't stopped us being competitive in 5 of the 6 games so far.

I read Howe's face as more 'what is he talking about?'. A lack of understanding, which is indicative of where we've come from and where we're at.

Based on the early reports, very disappointing day. A few holes in the MFC side but apparently no one at Casey putting their hand up to take them.

Let me ask: what would you rather? Average points for of 66 with average points against of 120, or average points for of 56 with average points against of 84?

I know, and my general policy is to play for the long term, not the short. But Watts and Howe cannot be played whilst they are jogging around the field. Send them back to Casey as punishment, get them to find their hunger again, and then they can come in and push out the lesser lights.