titan_uranus

I watched Maric for the majority of the last quarter, as I didn't see the point in watching general play. He has no idea what to do when we don't have the ball. He doesn't zone correctly (i.e. he usually is too close to another MFC player), he doesn't run hard enough, he doesn't tackle hard enough, he doesn't make space when we need him to. I want to see an effort. I didn't see that from Maric, and I can't remember the last time I did. I don't care that he only got 1.5 quarters yesterday, that should not preclude him from making way. He was crap last week, worse yesterday, and I see no future in a player whose effort levels are just way too low. I sense a little bit of hypocrisy here. Jetta doesn't play as an 'oppostunistic small forward' (I resent that title, by the way. Decent small forwards do more than just rely on others to create chances for them to bob up and kick a goal or two), but your description of Jetta matches exactly what I saw from Maric. But by virtue of Jetta starting in the 21, and Maric starting as a sub (which tells you something about where the FD rated them before the game), Maric was unlucky, but Jetta was crap.

We most definitely should win the next two. Failure to do so will imply we play some pretty rancid football. As for the other three, depending on what kind of form we build over the next two weeks, they are all winnable but also are all loseable. We don't just go to Perth and win games. And West Coast are currently undefeated (sure, they've only played North Melbourne and Port Adelaide, but they've still got 2 wins). Adelaide beat Hawthorn last week, but it's hard to judge that performance given they had the bye this week. That's in Melbourne too, so that helps. And we suck immensely against North Melbourne, and that's at Etihad, but they're playing some shocking football atm. So they could all go either way. I expect us to win the first two, head to the bye on 2-1-1, and then proceed to lose the next three, leaving us 2-1-4 and facing a month of high-profile games that we will lift for.

All true. We must work on what is controllable. I never want to see our players reduce their effort to a point where I could count on one hand the players who looked like they were trying. That has nothing to do with how much more talented, experienced or older the opposition is. I also never want to see us have 26 chances to clear the ball from full back and fail every time. Again, that is more controllable than contested ball, clearances, controlling Lance Franklin and Cyril Rioli, and all those kind of things. Hawthorn is better than us, but we are a hell of a lot better than what we showed yesterday, and that kind of football should be behind us.

There is one clear benefit to us, and that is Stefan Martin. This sub rule has forced us to play Martin as a second ruck/rover, and it's working. Martin is getting more game time, and he is delivering. In previous years, players like PJ or Newton were getting games because we did not respect the second ruck position and were not giving them game time anyway. The sub rule worked well for us when we had a good sub, but didn't help us much with a bad sub. So the only thing I've really learned so far is the effectiveness of the sub is so crucially determined by the status of the player that if that player doesn't make any sort of impact in his time on the ground, you are at a disadvantage. That's not to say we should be making our sub one of our better players, it just means that we need to have subs who can come on and affect the game. Unlike Maric.

Ridiculous thread. I did, however, enjoy the booing. But he was more than entitled to celebrate kicking a goal that he started, that kept Hawthorn in the game (that's what it may have felt like when he kicked it) and that was against his old side when half the crowd was booing him.

All true. We were always going to struggle against their midfield, especially without McKenzie and Scully. But as I've said in basically every other thread, I still want to see commitment and hunger. I didn't see that today, and that's both disappointing and worrying.

The effort level today was appalling. It doesn't matter who was leading or how old we were or how many games we had played. We had players like Maric who just didn't even look like they were trying. Of course, the leadership issue is a big one. Green has had two shockers so far this year. For some reason he's playing further up the ground, odd after how well he did last year as a predominate forward.

JJC would be proud... It's embarrassing, and pathetic. After all those attempts the best 'plan' we seemed to have was a long kick to a contest. Every. Single. Time. Ridiculous. Here are a few suggestions. I would have liked to see something new tried: 1) Man up every man in the zone. A Melbourne player mans up every Hawthorn player. Creates space, and makes each Hawthorn player accountable. Probably wouldn't do that well, but we could have tried. 2) Get a group of players in one area of the zone, about 25-35 metres out. That way we outnumber the Hawthorn players in that area. This has been used with success by clubs in recent years. Helps with the run and carry plan too, as we have more numbers should the ball go to ground. It makes sense too; makes lots of Hawthorn players kind of useless covering space whilst we outnumber them in another area. 3) Run it out. Short kick/play on, work the ball via hand/foot through the 50, then release a forward at the other end of the ground to expose the back-end of the zone. Tough to do with our current skill level, but again, it's not as predictable as bombing it to Jamar/Martin every time. This is the number two thing I want to see fixed, after our effort levels.

Me too. It sucks so much. We haven't beaten them in years.

6 - Bail 5 - Martin 4 - Tapscott 3 - Jamar 2 - Rivers 1 - Davey

Absolutely loved the way he threw himself in front of Franklin and Roughead on leads. Brilliant. His kicking was poor again though.

No doubt he has things to work on. We have got to work on kick ins. It's embarrassing how bad we are at them. We also need to work on our structure. When things get bad the first thing that always happens is we lose our structure. The forwards press way to far up the ground, so any turnovers we create, we lose immediately because there is nothing on for the mids to aim for. When we are on song the forwards aren't creeping up that far, and when we rebound they are in better position. He also has to do something to inspire a lift in effort. Absolutely non-negotiable.

Maric must go. He is useless. But worse than that, he doesn't even look like he's trying. He looks totally lost when he doesn't have the ball. He can't keep up. He should have been fine fitness wise after playing just a half, but he didn't seem any quicker than the Hawthorn defenders. I don't buy the argument that he needs more time, I've seen enough to know he hasn't improved at all. He offers us little that we can't get from Wonaeamirri, and I know Wonna will put more in. Out: Maric, Garland (injured) In: Gysberts, MacDonald Jones, Bennell and Jetta are all on the chopping block. Scully, Morton and McKenzie have their spots lined up for the taking.

Losing to Hawthorn is excusable. Not developing any sort of plan to get the ball out of kick-ins is bearable (just). Rolling over, not giving a yelp, is totally unforgiveable. Far too many players looked like they weren't trying. No gut running. Weak tackling. Non-negotiables were lacking. They lifted, sure, and they would have beaten us if we'd tried harder, but the lack of effort was appalling.

Oh boy. Hayes out for the year. That doesn't help.

Hmmm, point taken, but I still think it's reasonable to expect concussion as a part of playing AFL, and if it's reasonable to expect concussion, it's reasonable to expect injuries resulting from concussion. I similarly think it's reasonable to expect long term arthritis issues or something along those lines as a result of knee/joint injuries. Those kind of injuries happen in AFL. It's not to say that's what a player should expect, or that these injuries are common or meaningless, because they are not. But in a contact sport like AFL I think we need to be frank about the dangers it poses to its players. In that respect I like the provision in the contract. Still disagree. The clause in the contract is a good thing. Paying Bell out for life is not.

OK, thanks fort that. Clearly the club has a contractual obligation to pay that money. The claim is clearly not a negligence one, rather, it is a clause designed to ensure that players who receive injuries in their final year of contract have something to fall back on given the injuries could affect their future employment. Who said that? The potential issue here is not negligence on Bell's behalf, but on the MFC's. Disagree. The injuries Bell sustained were, IMO, nothing more than could be reasonably expected of anyone who plays AFL. It is a contact sport in which players are not required to wear helmets, and head-high contact is made every week. Having some sort of impairment as a result of concussion-related injuries is, to me, something that any football player could imagine happening to them before they commence their career.

Really a no brainer here. MacDonald goes out for Frawley, Warnock and Spencer join him as emergencies, and Maric is the sub. Anything else would be a surprise.

That would be an epic fail for us. In what way is the Melbourne Football Club to blame for Daniel Bell's injuries? That is the key question, and I cannot work out how Bell proposes to answer it. He has specifically stated that there was no mismanagement on the behalf of our doctors. If that is the case, then how did we contribute to his brain damage? Did we pick him when he was injured? There does not seem to be any evidence, nor any suggestion, of that happening. It was his decision to play AFL. The sport is inherently dangerous. I strongly doubt he was unaware of this before signing any contract with the MFC. In the end player autonomy needs to be respected. He chose to play AFL. The MFC, as he admits, did everything it could to manage his injuries. It was the MFC doctor who referred him to the neurosurgeon who diagnosed him with his brain damage. I feel for Bell. This brain damage may have been a strongly contributing factor to the termination of his contract (if it led to his lack of awareness, which I would guess was one of the primary reasons for his being delisted). But I do not believe the MFC can be held liable for those injuries. If we agree to take care of healthcare costs into the future, that sets a terrible precedent for future players who receive injuries as a part of playing AFL to hold their club ransom when the club did not do anything wrong. If it is not compensation, what is it? He is effectively saying 'I received brain damage as a result of playing AFL. I want the MFC to help me deal with it'. It sounds a lot like compensation to me, and you can't be held liable to compensate someone if you didn't cause their injuries in the first place. Of course, I haven't read the agreement, so I don't know exactly what provisions are in there, but it doesn't sound terribly fair for players, even those like Bell who may have seriously been affected by these kind of injuries, to hold the club responsible.

Sure will be. Given we have the bye that round, if we have a team at all that would be something!

Does anyone know what the sizing chart is? I want to buy one right now but I don't know what size to order and the link to the size chart isn't working...

Spiffing thread. Gysberts is not Flag Core © though.

Pathetic report. Pathetic peformance all round from McBurney, who seems to have followed McLaren's lead in wanting to be involved as frequently as possible.

It seemed at the time that McBurney only laid the report when he saw McGlynn lying on the ground. There was no contact to his head, so I can't imagine Davey being in any sort of trouble.

Bartram I would have thought. Who else? 0 points if anyone suggests Jones.