titan_uranus

Not sure why two questions needed asking here. Is it possible to answer 'yes' to the first one but 'no' to the second?

I don't get it.

It's easy to get excited about the Gold Coast. Their last two games have seen them in front of the top two clubs in the competition, Geelong and Hawthorn, into the third quarter of each match. This despite playing these two games away, including at Simonds Stadium. A quick reflection on where the Gold Coast have come from, though, provides some interesting material. Stuff that's largely been forgotten thanks to their improvement to date. Last year, the Gold Coast lost its first 14 games. Their average losing margin was 52.5. Included in these losses were losses to GWS, the Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide, all bottom 5 clubs. It also included a loss to West Coast by 126, and losses of 97 (Collingwood), 95 (St Kilda), 92 (St Kilda again), 69 (Adelaide) and 65 (Brisbane). In winning three of their last 8 games, they also lost to Sydney by 72, Hawthorn by 64, Adelaide by 91, and even lost to Melbourne. In 2012, the Gold Coast was ranked last for team-to-opponent tackles differential, averaging 8.7 tackles fewer than their opponents, 2.0 clear of the 17th ranked side. They were also 16th in team-to-opponent disposals differential, averaging 51.2 fewer than their opponents. The 15th ranked side averaged 16.8 fewer. They also averaged 6.5 fewer goals per game. This year, the Gold Coast now ranks fourth overall for the tackles differential stat, averaging 4 tackles more than their opponents. The disposal differential stat has also improved, now averaging 13.6 fewer per game. They now average only 1.1 fewer goals per game. Melbourne in 2013 averages more than 100 fewer disposals than opponents, 9.2 fewer goals, and 3.2 fewer tackles. Our average losing margin is 76. Last year, Guy McKenna was in his second year with a young list. This year, Mark Neeld is in his second year with a young list. You can probably get a sense of my point by now. I don't necessarily believe that in 2014 we'll be playing as well as the Gold Coast is in 2013. What I do believe, though, is that what we're hearing from Neeld and, implicitly or otherwise, Jackson and the Board, is that the lack of time Neeld has had with his players is hampering our ability to judge where we're at, and that with more time, improvement is clearly possible. Yes, there are differences. The Gold Coast has Ablett. True. But they had Ablett last year too. Our averages are worse than Gold Coast's this year. True. But disposals aside, not by a significant amount. We're also a better tackling side than they were, so there are some aspects in which we're not as bad as they were. Some may say Melbourne's performances have been way worse. At times, true. But the Gold Coast were pretty rank last year. Their 'performance' against West Coast was just as bad as ours against Essendon. They attracted similar negativity and criticism as what we're getting; some of what I have found in a five minute Google search includes this, and this. But the fact of it is that the Gold Coast brought a bunch of kids together and started getting games into them as a group. They've persisted with this group, and the group is now beginning to mature. The step has been taken from boys to men, albeit men who tire and still aren't fantastic. But they're men who can compete with men more often, for longer, and can beat them at their best. They're playing at levels that are modest, but those modest levels are exceedingly more than what they were producing last year. If anything, this should be at least a source of hope for MFC supporters.

I would have thought that's exactly what they said, and exactly what PJ had told the Board. Jackson knows what he's doing. The biggest problem right now is the administration of the club. With that stable, it gives Neeld nowhere to hide - he'll either show signs of improvement, or he won't. But we can't accurately know that with the current set-up.

Jackson to stay on is good news. The rest of that statement indicates that changes are definitely afoot. It's a matter of when, not if.

Might be just going back to where he works.

I think the lack of teamwork stems from the broader problem of decision-making. Barrett and Darcy do that show on the AFL website. It's really not worth watching, but today's edition did highlight a few passages of play you'd consider to indicate poor teamwork. Most involved players following their own man instead of being intuitive. I think this is decision-making at its core - at training, they'd know to go fill the gap, or chase the ball-carrier, or fill in for their teammate, but on game day, when the pressure's high, they lose their ability to think clearly and the boil their thought process down into 'what am I supposed to be doing? I'll do that'.

I think there are individual aspects in which we are progressing. That's not good enough, I'm not at all trying to say it is. The club is not progressing, as there are some fundamentals which are anchoring us. However, I've seen improvement in clearance work. I see our players positioning better, better balancing between stopping opponents from dominating stoppages as well as trying to command themselves. I've also seen improvements in tackle technique. What's not improving is decision-making, team selection, game-day tactics, gut-runing and fitness. These things will drag us down no matter how much we try to beef up statistics.

The thing that stands out to me when I watch us play, more than anything, is our decision-making. We continually turn the ball over. It's easy to put this down to bad skills, and sometimes that's the case, but skill isn't the only factor. The pressure, intensity and speed of AFL forces our players into rushing and making poor decisions. Kicking the ball at training is one thing. Kicking the ball when you're trying to out-sprint Sam Mitchell is another. At the moment the vast majority of our players aren't capable of making good decisions under play. This is why we 'don't play like we train'. This is why our players can show form at VFL level but can't step up. The result of this is that we turn the ball over in horrendous situations. It's one thing to turn the ball over by poorly kicking inside 50. It's another altogether to attempt to bring the ball out of defence, start running, panic, look around, and before you know what to do, you've coughed it up in a tackle. We see this kind of play far too often. Our turnovers are more costly than other clubs' because we make them in critical moments of a chain of play. The result is that we offer easy scoring opportunities to our opponents. This also explains why we're losing despite working hard on clearances and tackles. Even when we win or are competitive in these areas, like yesterday, our decision-making renders them redundant. I don't know how to fix this. On the one hand, Neeld has clearly been unable to provide an environment in which the players can make the transition up to AFL pressure. On the other, to a large extent this aspect of football is innate. It comes down to that player, at that moment, making a decision. IMO, it's on the players to learn from their mistakes, it's on the players to learn from our losses and from what we do wrong. I don't see learning, and I don't think Neeld has to be the one to point this out. As an example, we shouldn't need Neeld to tell Rohan Bail that continually ignoring options and attempting goals from outside 50 is going to fail more than it's going to work. Bail has to take responsibility for improving his game in this regard. It's this decision-making that stands out to me more than speed, or skill, or any of that, and it's on both the players and the coaches (not just one or the other) to work together at improving this.

Don't disagree with you, but what would you rather do? Would you rather every week we say the same thing? Our ineptitude has been discussed to death, and I don't think anyone on here uses small victories like winning a quarter as changing that. We all know we suck. I'd rather look to whatever positives we have and hold onto those as signs that there is a future than to continually talk about how we're the worst AFL side in living memory.

Yes, but if you asked Adelaide supporters if they'd trade Dangerfield for Ablett, they'd also take it every day of the week. That doesn't mean that Dangerfield isn't a required player. Prestia is better than Watts, but that doesn't mean losing Watts to get him is a good idea.

MFCSS strikes again.

Watts is a forward. What does this mean for the MFC? It means we have Hogan to play FF, Dawes to play CHF, Clark to play FF/ruck, and Howe and Watts as our higher leading forwards pushing up onto a wing when needed. It means that if we can find a crumbing forward (or two), we have a full forward line.

Food for thought: FB: Evans McDonald Terlich HB: Garland Frawley Kent C: M Jones Grimes Sylvia HF: Howe Dawes Watts FF: Clark Hogan Davey R: Gawn N Jones Viney I: Trengove Strauss Taggert Toumpas Absent from today's 'team' - Rodan, MacDonald, McKenzie, Fitzpatrick, Dunn, Bail, Tapscott, Jamar, Pedersen. In other words, the under-performing duds. Obviously we're not going to have Clark or Grimes for a lot of 2013, nor Hogan at all, but give the majority of this team as much game time as possible, and ignore the duds, and maybe we'll get somewhere in 2014. Maybe.

Just to stick to the things that don't make me want to top myself: We've had 178 disposals in a half. Much better than the last few weeks. We're now leading clearances 20-19, and leading tackles 37-23. That's about it really. 34 inside 50s to 19, conceding 224 disposals in a half (100+ that quarter) - the usual MFC problems. It sounds like Neeld put numbers behind the ball. Again. I hate this move. He then uses it to defend the team afterwards ('look, we had to put numbers behind the ball early and we were under the pump all day'). Bailey used to do it too. It never, ever works. All it does is free up a dangerous opposition player to play loose and do what they want. It's an awful strategy. One of the reasons why Neeld isn't good enough.

Looks like Dawes is presenting well. 8 marks and 12 disposals. Never mind his kicking...

Is Neeld out there? Is he there to tell idiots like Fitzpatrick and McKenzie what to do? No, he's not. He can tell them all the right things during the week, but he can't replicate gameday no matter what he does, and players who are not natural footballers like Fitzpatrick and McKenzie, who cannot make the transition to the speed, pressure and intensity of AFL football, are prone to making bad decisions. Decision-making is not as easily coached as tackling, clearance work, positioning, or even ball-skills. It's innate, and our players wholly lack it. It's up to them to learn from their mistakes and get better. Neeld has a raft of other issues he can be responsible for.

Haven't seen a single second, but looking at the stats, we've had 98 disposals in a quarter, which is better by our standards (we've been having games of 250 overall, 98 in a quarter way exceeds our usual output). We're level on tackles 13-13. We're level in clearances 8-8. Those are good signs too. Clearly the 8-19 inside 50 count is abysmal, and they could already be 8 goals up, but if we're matching them for tackles and clearances then hopefully there is a base to work off. Nice to hear good things about Watts and Pedersen. Sounds like Fitzpatrick is doing nothing to quell my fears that he will never make it at AFL level.

I do love the negative nancies getting on here and saying 'look at Gold Coast, why aren't we like them, look how good McKenna is'. Do these people remember how pathetic Gold Coast was last year? They were bottom of the ladder last year at this round. Winless. Lost to GWS. People were wondering whether their list was going to make it. Lo and behold, look at that. The group gets two years under its belt, and in its third, reaches new heights. Melbourne gets 1.5 years and is condemned already. You also cannot underestimate the effect that having Ablett in your side has. Take him out and all of a sudden Prestia gets tagged, and his game drops, and now they're down two midfielders. I'm not defending Neeld, but I am having a direct swipe at those who have posted in this thread to the effect of 'McKenna is a great coach' or 'we should be more like the Gold Coast'.

The alignment with Casey serves another benefit I haven't seen mentioned here. It gives the MFC exposure in a growing young family market. We all know we need to ensure kids support Melbourne. Families moving to Casey/Cardinia are getting to see MFC players playing for Casey and training at Casey. An invaluable benefit, if you ask me.

He won't kick a huge bag. I think what will happen is about 15 Hawks will all kick at least one goal. Their mids and defenders will find themselves able to push up the ground and press us in with no pressure, and they'll end up being able to kick goals. However: If Dunn plays on Franklin he will break the record for goals (and for marks, and for disposals).

It's true, and then it's not true. Yes, we are the brunt of jokes. I read this one last year, it's nothing new. However, we've always been the brunt of jokes. Even when we were half decent in the early 2000s, when I was at school, I used to cop it weekly for being stuck up, for going to the snow (which I have never done), for driving a Range Rover (which I do not drive), etc. Also, if you think joke-making is tied to poor performance, how do you explain the insane amount of Collingwood-related jokes online? Let's just ease off a bit. People have never liked the MFC, and this is just a new reason to make jokes about us (one which is true, granted, but nothing that bad).

I'm not surprised that Gawn has been dropped back to the VFL. For one, no decent AFL side runs around with two ruckmen in the ilk of Jamar and Gawn. They're both what I would call number 1 ruckmen, the type who play 75-80% of the game rucking and spend the rest drifting forward. They're not what I would call a second or backup ruckmen, who fills in for the remaning 15-20% and spends the rest of the time forward. If we're going to play Jamar as a number 1 ruck, Gawn probably unbalances the team and shouldn't be in. Certainly on his recent form he shouldn't be in. Of course, there is a second question, and that is whether it should be Jamar or Gawn as our number 1 ruck. Clearly Gawn is the future, and will take that spot in the long term. Jamar also is in awful form right now. I think the thinking here is that sending Gawn down to Casey helps him get his touch and confidence back, possibly/hopefully with a view to replacing Jamar in a few weeks (maybe after the bye) if he can't lift. Pedersen for Sellar makes perfect sense, and IMO improves the side, especially if Pedersen can become a longer term defender. He is far fitter and more mobile than Sellar and, ideally, I see him adding run off half back. Dropping Jetta doesn't really phase me too much. I'm not sure Jetta is going to make it at AFL level; I just don't see what he brings. He's not quick enough to be a small forward/mid, but he doesn't really play tall enough to be a half-forward. I just don't know what he offers. I can't see how he fits into a real AFL side. I like his endeavour and his tackling and his aggression, but when he gets 10 touches a game, that's just not enough. The one decision I can't agree with is dropping Magner. There may well be something going on behind closed doors regarding his attitude or something, but that's just guesswork and speculation. From what we've seen, he's been an addition to the midfield and has helped out our younger players by getting his hands a bit dirty. I don't think he's got enough talent to make it at AFL level, but right now I think he's best 22. If they're not going to play him, though, it begs the question of why they wasted the LTI spot on him, when Couch continues to play well. Bail and Nicholson appear to keep getting games because they can both run. Bail can't do much, but he never stops running, and Nicholson provides a lot of pace, which I think Neeld is wary of. Personally I've always liked Bail, but he's not in form right now and shouldn't be playing. I think Nicholson actually has a high ceiling and could really become a good player, but he has to work on his disposal. Right now, I think it's much of a muchness with him, and I can't really fault giving him an extended run to see what he's made of (that's what many ask for Strauss, who IMO has less of an impact more often than Nicholson does).

Just a point - have you noticed how Port Adelaide has lost four in a row, with Wines struggling to influence games like he did earlier? And have you noticed that, simultaneously, Hamish Hartlett is being tagged out of games and Ebert, Cornes and Boak are down on output and form compared to their five wins? My point - Wines was playing in a midfield with performing A-grade talent, making his job easy, but when that midfield is down (which is to be expected of a young midfield not yet in its prime fully), the heat is back on and the possessions aren't as easy to come by. Meanwhile, Toumpas has had to play in an F-grade midfield with no support or leadership.

Cats supporters either said Gillies was a good player squeezed out of a good side, or didn't know much about him because he never played. He never played because Geelong's back line is star-studded. Pedersen did play good games for North Melbourne, and the same deal goes with him. Rodan's selection did not 'provoke mirth everywhere', that's untrue, but to the extent that people questioned it, that questioning was met with the fact that he was taken at 88 (i.e. no cost at all) and was brought down as much for his harder body and training standards than anything else. The same deal goes with Byrnes. Saying Moloney is better than Byrnes and therefore we made a mistake there overlooks the fact that Moloney wanted out of the club (for whatever reason) and we were powerless to stop him once he'd made that decision to due FA. It wasn't a decision of 'Byrnes or Moloney, who is better?'. It was a decision of 'can Byrnes add to Melbourne?', which was made independently of Moloney. I won't make fun of you for suggesting we should have taken Jordan Russell. Or Simon Buckley. But I really want to. As to Blease, he did not show 'a lot' last year, he showed flashes in amongst inconsistency and periods of lethargy and ineffectiveness. Nothing's changed. He is an inconsistent lazy player who doesn't work hard enough to build on what appears to be some talent, and until he does, he doesn't deserve to play AFL level football. That's what's happening.