Deemania since 56

Thanks

But have the players learned anything? Around 6 players went missing quite frequently, losing their opponent for some other objective that left the team exposed and in some parts of the ground, undermanned. I'd like to think that one lesson could cover the gaps and lapses. Until Viney, TMac return, it is going to be very tough at best. Are we too good to have a place for Brayshaw, Tyson. Frost?

Yep, quietly is the big word.

Thought it was pretty good, with OMac on the bench, as well. Hey, don't talk too much about this in case the other team finds out.

Out: Maynard, OMac, Garlett, Hannan In: Frosty, Brayshaw, Tyson, Bugg, I/change Bench: Spargo

Most unlikely with this little black duck.

The game, in a nutshell. Don't give it an elaborate name folks, 'Uncontested...", just call it '...run into space..." all over the place. Lead your opponent to redundancy.

Not sure that I am any richer for reading all of this thread, and obviously, the protagonists are not any richer for taking part in this thread. Think I will go to have a pot of tea, a scone and a short nap for the hell of it.

The composure problem seems to be at the centre and chf areas. Given timely and triangulated fast leads, this could be augmented by the three good runners and passers that we have (Hunt, Melksham, Harmes and now, Wagner) aided and abetted by Mr Conflict Resolution: Bugg. Our forwards need to do the same ... triangulated leads for the likes of Garlett, Hogan and now, Fritch ... aided and abetted by Hannan and Pedo. I cannot see the likelihood of any team beating that style of combination. Other players could just join in with their contributions, as required. It would sure beat the current system of sitting on your heels trying to guess where the 'bomb' is going to land and then running into a congested pack mentality to shoot at goal from any residual angle - if at all. These leads, particularly those not selected as an avenue forward could realistically act as shields against defenders left, right and centre, whatever the case in need might be.

Absolutely and the lack of talls was highly evident, even for spoiling. Frost had to be in the team against Geelong. TMac was sorely missed. Of our smalls, if Brayshaw had been in, and Tyson, and Kent, I'd reckon we would have spoiled far better and prevented many of the little chip-kicks that the Catty Puts succeeded in to keep possession and then progress goalward. We could have been celebrating a win - it was that close - but for poor selections at both ends and across the midline. Someone, please take Goodwin aside and let him know his mistakes...

1. Selection without Brayshaw, Frost, Bugg, Tyson is fraught with danger in a weakened team 2. Kicking and moving with accuracy needs immediate improvement 3, We actually won the game except on the scoreboard, it was a great game except for the biased umpires, we had too many passengers across the game.

Nope, the discrimination between the two past rules is still too close to establish - perhaps deliberately - and one cannot rely on an umpire to get it done correctly, nor the vast numbers of fans who realise that if in possession of the ball with a delay holding onto the ball once tackled/legally held, and then illegally releasing the ball without kick or handpass it hits the ground WTF does an umpire spread his arms, low down as if it were a dropped ball, not a throw and for holding the man, why does the umpire grab his shirt at the hips? Dropping the ball is now ' illegal disposal' and the semantics no longer matter to the purist. Any other interpretation gives a distinct advantage to that rotten sod who is in possession of the ball and who cannot legally release the ball so he drops it like a hot-cake and so often gets out of gaol - particularly if he plays for Essendrug, Carlscum, the Filth or in this case, the Catty Puts. Stating the obvious, there is no 'dropping the ball' so depending on how much the umpire wishes a particular side to 'win or be evened up' it is either recognised or it is not recognised; that is the gambol that the player in possession exploits against legal disposal protocols.

It was a great game, ignoring the outcome, if possible. Umpiring was atrocioius, however.

Bugg would have had a field-day against Geelong. The kind of rough 'n tumble that he thrives upon. He stop a few along the way, too.

Absolutely stupid use of the ball to 'bomb' and it is costing us heaps of scoring certainties. Our forwards have legs and require passes to space. As for Wagner, he was orienting himself to the game in the first half and through some excellent decision-making came out after half-time with resolve and determination. I thought his second half was 'inspirational' as well; in fact, I was amazed at his skill development, poise and placements. This guy is a driver for us that needs a few more games to bring it out across an entire game - through confidence. I have three of these types in mind to be almost unstoppable: Harmes, Hunt and now, Wagner. Mobile storm-troopers to feed the forwards.

As noted earlier in re-capping the match, I was right behind Lewis when this 'trip' occurred. The umpire, deaf as blazes due to the crowd protests for the exaggerated penalty, must have thought Lewis swore at him. Hence, the severity of the penalty. In other words, umpire error once again. No MFC player would ever swear on the field, anyway. It is noted as a general observation - even amongst some Geelong fans nearby - that these two umpires did everything that they possibly could to keep Geelong in the game from the start of the first quarter. This 'evening-up' of the game reached its first climax across the second quarter and then, in highly questionable decisions in the third quarter from which they did not score. It happened again in the final quarter and was represented by not recognising 'holding' and 'dropping the ball' decisions against some very desperate and rule-abiding MFC entries and defensive play. It left one wondering how could a brash new-comer like Melbourne do that to our beloved team of champions, Geelong?

There are many points and observations that may in combination result in that loss. Most seem entirely reasonable as each point contributes to success or failure to score - or defend against scoring by the opposition. Binman hits these nails on the head and we may still have won had our forward defensive pressure been greater on the day. The loss was a consequence of poor kicking to the advantage of our forwards, repeatedly. Kicking out, we went to numbers, not players. If key 'marking players' assemble with the opposition, the chances of winning the ball are somewhat in the order of 40:60. We need to up those odds by establishing mobile marking and shepherding small groups that move away from the opponents' congregations to gain that space of about 30m at the most. That is the start of effective rebounding. It takes a good decision-maker at full back, and one with exceptional kicking/placement skills. It also involves taking control of the game. Geelong broke our penetration ability; if their forwards were manned, they used a series of accurate kicks to 'switch' or to maintain possession mid-field, and wisely selected the moments to pass to forwards. We did not.

Watching the game at the 'G, I couldn't agree more - even in the first quarter. The ball winners seek - at the first sign of defensive pressure or contest - to handball in close proximity rather than get open clearance through run/kick means (from where the reliance on handball may better gain metreage in our favour), and that suggests that our set-up - particularly for centre contests and bounces is at fault. Geelong players intercepted and sharked ruck duels all day to great effect. They also 'stole' this reliance on handball almost at will as it is predictable based upon its inward-looking execution. Geelong set their clearance players out from the melee in a periphery of circling receivers, and make better use of the short kick than the Dees can. We should not have been reliant on one shot at goal to win the game, either. We were winning the last quarter with some style.

One of the umpires did everything he could to keep Geelong in the game after quarter time and it was this attention for scoreboard assistance that lost the Demons momentum. Petracca, Gawn and Oliver were great, Pedo was very useful and competitive, Hibberd and Lever seemed flat across the game. For me, it was Wagner who performed very capably once on the ground. Our Full back line was crumbly, loose, loose, and loose, never on their man and unable to punch the ball clear because often it was marked while our backs were still getting to the contest. Melksham had a quiet one and Chunk worked hard all day. Work to do and improved selections for next week. Maynard might be rested to find some form and pace. We need the vigour of Kent. Hunt and Harmes need to be let off the leash that is imposed on them - both are runners, tacklers, body-men screeners, pacy and very capable of running into the 50 arc for a decent shot. Yet, it was a ripper game despite the outcome. Half of our players were not ready kill Geelong. Those who battled were great. We actually had Geelong beaten for 3 quarters and very successfully made up the score gap across the 2nd qtr. OMac did two nice, clearing punches and one good pass to a teammate. What he was doing for the remainder of the of the game is anyone's guess. Less than 10 seconds effectiveness and each effort was quickly rebounded.

Are they pretty?

Great points, yet I am worried about the loss of TMac in the backline...he was getting very good down there. Oh, for a Stephen Icke!

Some people make stupid statements in the face of facts so we must feel sorry for Harvey's comments, he did not look wide enough in his sample ... Go Dees!

As stated by quite a few on DL, if it rains on Sunday, go for Brayshaw over Frost. If no rain, go for Frosty to streak the half-back flank.

NIcely posited proposition, in all exhausted timeframes.