titan_uranus

Paranoia thread.

Surely one of Dawes or Fitzpatrick comes in this week (preferably Dawes, I don't know if I can stomach seeing Fitzpatrick play again).

It's at least heartening to see comments relating to us giving a crack and having a go. I can stomach losses when we go down fighting. Looking at the stats (dangerous, as I haven't seen a second of play), it's good to see we're at least matching them in certain areas (clearances, contested possesions, inside 50s) which at the start of year we had no competitiveness in. Clearly we've got significant problems in terms of defensive pressure, zoning, stopping their spread. It's all rather redundant if we get blown apart in the second half, but I guess there are some things to hang our hat on right now. Is it fair to say that if we had a fit Clark we'd be doing a lot better? With that many wasted inside 50s, you'd have to wonder.

Sounds like we're woeful. At least we're matching them in clearances and contested possessions. If that keeps up all day, that's at least something. Obviously, an inability to pressure the ball carrier, coupled with our ridiculously poor skills, will lead to us losing most games.

We won't win, because we won't compete with their midfield. With Clark out, we also don't have the one thing we need against Carlton, which is a strong forward line presence. Their backline is weak, and that would be the way to exploit them, with quick movement and long kicks to the 50. Unfortunately, even with Clark, we will be dominated in the middle, and the ball will spend a lot of time in Carlton's forward half.

It doesn't feel like as epic a round as we've been having recently. I don't know why, maybe just a few more interstate games or games that I don't view as particularly contentious or interesting. Essendon-GWS, Adelaide-Hawthorn, Sydney-Brisbane and Carlton-Melbourne all stand to be blowouts, with the first and last the two which could be really messy. If West Coast can hit their stride, they can smack the Dogs too. North-Port is in Hobart, which maybe doesn't give North much of an advantage, but I still rate the Roos, who would be 4-1 or 3-2 with an easier draw. Geelong-Richmond is probably the game of the round.

Statistics relating to us sucking at contested ball and clearances are probably more indicative of our laziness more than anything. I don't know whether 'soft' is the right word, because our problems go deeper than merely aggression. We don't tackle hard enough (too many broken tackles), we don't chase hard enough, we don't stand strong in enough marking contests. I still feel like we're too unfit and not strong enough. Is he a pest towards other players, or MFC supporters? Either way, he deserves no place in a post talking about toughness.

Yes, but all you're doing is preventing one problem while enhancing another.

If I were a mod, I'd take this post, start a new thread with this as the OP, then lock it and stick it to the top of the Board. Could not agree more. Especially the final paragraph.

Good thread, nice work Adam. A decent midfield seems to require players who can work well with the clearances, and players who can run and spread and deliver the ball with precision inside 50. Not only does Melbourne not have enough of either category, we seem to have attempted to fill these groups with players who are either one or the other (i.e. 'inside' or 'outside'). Thus, we have Jones, Trengove, Grimes, McKenzie, Viney in one group, with Blease, Strauss, Davey, Bail in the other group (amongst others). To me, Sylvia is the only one who transcends both groups. And this is our problem. Jobe Watson isn't 'inside' or 'outside', he's both. Nor is Judd. Or Pendlebury. Or many other A-grade mids. It's not a problem to have players like Jones in the side, but we seem to always look to either 'inside' or 'outside' players. Our mids don't appear as fit (aerobically or strength-wise) as others' either. They also seem to operate either in 'offence' mode or 'defence' mode, not being able to combine both. I don't think our defence is all that bad. It's having to deal with the toughest situation for a defence - the ball just streams in without much pressure, and that makes it hard for us to defend. However, there are issues nonetheless. Tom McDonald looks worse than last year, Frawley isn't rebounding as well as 2010/2011. Too many of our defenders can't kick (Terlich, Nicholson, Grimes, McDonald), which makes us turn it over in the back half too much, and that hurts our defence more than anything. Our forward line doesn't phase me too much. With Clark, Dawes and Hogan to play tall, resting ruckmen floating down there (Gawn plays FF well enough), and Howe (who should be playing permanently as a marking forward, similarly to Chris Mayne), we probably still lack a crumber, but Davey can play that role, and I think he should be tasked with doing so, and we probably lack defensive pressure, which players like Davey, Jetta and Bail can and do provide.

Do you want to try explaining why? Twice now you've not tried. You're a complete and utter moron who is incapable of having an argument/discussion with anyone, as you spend each back-and-forth simply re-stating your position, not listening to anyone else, not comprehending other arguments. You're just like stuie: You're just as bad as jnr. You don't acknowledge other arguments. I understand, and agree with, what you're saying. We didn't lose because we didn't have Clark/Dawes. We got tonked in the middle and that is a predominant reason for our loss, not our forward line. What I said was that the lack of Clark and Dawes made things worse. We lost by 28 with no forward line. We didn't score from all our inside 50s. With a forward line, it's reasonable to say we'd have scored more from those inside 50s. Given the margin was 28, my overall contention was that if we'd had a forward line, the score could have been closer, and the closer the scores, maybe people wouldn't be so depressed right now. OK? Does that make sense? Would you like to at least acknowledge the argument? You don't have to agree with it, I know you don't.

OK. I'll take a sub forum. At least you won't be there.

Google 'parallax error'. Then get back to me.

Where did I say that? Your argument is something along the lines of 'if the supporters continually whinge, the club will listen and do something'. That is so incredibly stupid and wrong that I can't believe you keep saying it.

No I know, I didn't mean to sidetrack. I guess what worries me is that goal umpires behind the line just aren't able to be correct on all the decisions that require them to see down the line. The reason why the system exists is irrelevant. It's there. IMO, if goal umpires were behind the line, which necessarily means they won't be able to tell 100% of the time whether a ball is touched or not, they'll resort to saying 'look, I think it was touched, but I'm not sure because I can't see down the line', leading field umpires to call for reviews more often than is currently the case.

See, I think it would be a big issue. Once you're not on the line, it's that much harder to know for sure, and with the third umpire, the goal umpires are just going to be unsure every time and second guess themselves. Difference between boundary and goal umpires, though, is that goal umpires are dealing with scores, and boundary umpires don't have giant goal posts blocking their view, so they can stand a few metres away from the play.

The third umpire can't be there for every decision though, that's unhealthy, slow, and will just lead to more errors and laziness from goal umpires.

Yes, I do. Think about it HT. If they aren't on the line, we open the game up to continual referral of decisions because the umpire simply cannot know what's going on on the line. Yes, it's not ideal to have the ball touch the umpire, but to ask the umpire to stand behind the line only serves to increase the errors they will make and the number of reviews they will call for, increasing the length of the game and putting more decisions in the hands of the video referees (who are struggling, if their work on the Byrnes decision last week is anything to go by). Your last line is unfair.

I just can't believe people think this is a better solution. You'd rather have the umpire behind the line? This necessitates that he/she cannot see down the line, meaning they cannot see when the ball crosses the line, meaning they can't accurately decide if the ball is touched/marked/etc. That is going to cause far, far more problems/errors than the tiny amount of times the ball touches the umpire.

No, it's not crap. Both WCE and Brisbane are having bad years so far. WCE has played about 6 good quarters all year. You've seen no improvement this year? Either you didn't see Rounds 1-3, or you haven't seen Rounds 4-5. Either way, you're blind.

Correct.

There have been plenty of moments this year where PA has lacked passion/energy/desire. The first three quarters against WC, for example. One of the main differences between PA and Melbourne, though, is that PA has a core group of stars who, if they lift, lift the team. During the first three quarters against WC, the entire 22 was flat. When PA got going, it was on the back of their stars picking them up and willing them into the contest. It's the same way Geelong fights back from 30 points down against Hawthorn and North. Since round 3, our effort rate has increased significantly. It's still not good enough for long enough, but it's improving from the dreadful position it was in a fortnight ago. My point, which you seem to be missing, is that it is easier for a side to turn itself around during a match (or a pre-season) when there are stars leading the way. We don't have that. PA does.

Really? Please explain. I'm all ears.

This is true, but I'm fairly happy to assume that yesterday's forward line is improved by, for example, including Dawes for Pedersen, or using Dawes as a marking forward rather than Howe.

Byrnes is beginning to stand out at the MFC for his skills. Seriously, the way he kicks the ball reeks of not having been taught by MFC people. He stabs passes when there's no room for error, he puts the ball to the advantage side of a marking contest, he just knows what he's doing.