Cam Schwab's Whiteboard

Can someone please enlighten me as to what the sorts of things McCartney is supposedly doing to get people offside? Is it the way he delivers his messages? The messages themselves? Or something else? As someone with zero inside knowledge of this sort of stuff, it would help me understand the consistent rumours. McCartney seems like a hugely passionate person who has assisted any number of the players on the list. Hopefully this is genuinely a recognition of the end of the road for him at Melbourne and a change in coaching direction is needed, as opposed to something more problematic. Either way, he should be thanked for his efforts, even if this year hasn't worked out. For the Club, I really hope this is a sign of admission that they have stuffed it up and a new approach to the game is warranted.

Hopefully this news has the desired effect and removes the speculation of trading Brayshaw. I'm a huge fan, despite his drop in form this year. Perhaps some injury news will come out after the season because he just doesn't 'look' the same this year. We all know he has been played in a few different roles, so that hasn't helped either. Overall, I think keeping the playing group together as much as possible is the right way to go for the Club. I still have a lot of faith in the list, and don't believe players lose ability over one preseason. This should, for the most part, be the core group that has a big chance at sustained success. Hopefully the club is pulling the right levers with a change in coaching (direction or just coaches?), as opposed to trading out players, and this can unlock the talent that Brayshaw and others have failed to display this year.

What about the forward half? Clearly that hasn't been a necessity all season.

I get that it's late in the year and whatnot, but it always feels like Gawn is the only one trying to win the game back when things start to turn against us. (With apologies to Oliver, Frost, Hibbard, Petracca)

Cameron Ling is almost as repetitive as a Simon Goodwin press conference... Almost

Jeez I would love to see Jones and/or Viney provide some direction and feedback to teammates rather than just wandering over listlessly to the throw in.

Refused an easy out to McDonald in favour of turning onto his left.

Was that a non-mark paid to Richmond after HTB wasn't paid to Melbourne? Unreal

Just all part of that 'tinkering' they've been doing for a year

Heard an umpire say that Ra Richmond player wasn't holding the ball because he was already on the ground. Where was that rule for Gawn a few weeks ago? The inconsistency in umpiring is a disgrace, and the AFL only have themselves to blame.

Big question so far is: Who's worse, Darcy or Ling?

Lucky you. I'm going to watch some Tigers run amok...

The gameplan was tinkered with last year after it didn't work. It then got dissected and destroyed by West Coast. It's been tinkered with this year since about Round 5, or so we're told. Yet here we are, tinkering (again) the approach that is an illustrious 5-16 with an absolute belting coming up. It's not [censored] working!

Surely Frost stays after his best season! Although it is tempting to throw more first rounders at Adelaide for Keath. Get him, and that's three or four first rounders plus Jesse Hogan for our three tall defenders (not to mention about $2m per year). Makes even more sense when the team's strength is its forward line.

Disagree. The talk was rebuilding the list from the inside out, not have the entire list on the inside. The Club has had 3 years to rectify this and hasn't.

Roos doesn't mean 'Brand' like Nike or Coca Cola. He means approach to the game; the way the team tries to win; its point of difference; its philosophy. When he originally talked about 'brand' at Melbourne, he meant that we would be a contested ball winning team with a sound defence,. The idea was that by winning the ball and being hard to score against, the team would be in a position to win in all games. Last year, the 'brand' was winning the ball and to then claim and hold territory to generate scoring opportunities. That's why there are inside midfielders playing small forward and linking roles in the forward half of the ground. Originally it was found wanting and so they relaxed the territory focus around mid-year that offered more space to work in in the front half, 1:1 forward contests, easy over-the-top goals, and a decent chance of defending turnovers. This year, there has been a revision to last year's early approach, an addition of lightyear speed, a subsequent doubling-down of it when things have gone wrong/been found out, and lack of change. The 'brand' hasn't worked, and what is left is a lack of ability, confidence, and, ultimately, direction. Roos is saying that when he watched Melbourne, there doesn't seem to be a clear method by which they approach the game that works and/or offers a way to win. I agree - I have no idea how they are trying to win games when the opposition is more than happy for them to do what they want in the knowledge that the team's inefficiency is insurmountable.

I'm not so sure about this position. I often see Jackson on the train home from the game with his Melbourne gear on, and Roos has repeatedly stated that he is a Melbourne man even this year. Roos' comments are out of frustration of the fall from what he put into place, not because it's all about him. Yes, both were heavily influenced by the AFL to take the jobs, but that does not preclude them becoming part of the Club. What actually needs to be addressed IMO is this belief that it's their fault because they didn't stick around 'to finish the job'. Both put Melbourne in the best position it has been in since the 50s, and at some point the Club needs to take responsibility for itself and drop the continual finger-pointing and/or hoping for a rescue. Unfortunately, the way things have panned out since both left it seems the Club has broken with their work in two ways: 1) Jackson's replacement: This is not to suggest that Pert hasn't been doing a good job, or that he wont be a fantastic appointment in the long term, but I remember some talk about Jackson being ignored/excluded in discussions to his successor. Considering the job he did, which we must all agree was phenomenal given what he started with, surely the Club should have allowed him to hand-pick the next CEO to ensure the trajectory continued in the same way. I could be wrong about this, but that's the way I remember it. Having said that, the Club still seems to be going fine off-field (next year will prove to be a challenge considering a likely large drop in membership). 2) Goodwin's appointment: As opposed to the new CEO, the choice of next coach was the choice of Roos, and regardless of whether Goodwin was his first choice or not, the platform was set for Goodwin to be mentored and eased into the position. I am a big supporter of this approach, and, importantly, the narrative coming from the Club throughout this time was that Goodwin has the same approach to football that Roos has, and so the transition would be smooth and build off what Roos did. However, and has most have highlighted, the coaching approach since Roos left has seemingly broken with the platform that was put in place, in favour of all out manic attack on the ball and an ultra-aggressive press designed to hold territory but proven to be lacking against composed, clean, and speedy opposition. Gone is any sort of balance that can come with a sure and reliable defence. Roos is right about a lack of 'brand'. When he was there, it was clear what the team was trying to do even if it wasn't quite capable to carrying it out. However, what now? We have a coach saying that we need to do a better job of playing the Melbourne way; players talking about how they lack fundamentals and are without answers as to what's going on; and what seems to be an all-round lack of confidence in an approach that has failed but is also being pushed as the way out of it. To me, that's absolute nothingness - a lack of direction in attempting to rectify what has gone wrong. I am perfectly fine if I can see what they are trying to do, but are simply incapable of doing it because of a lack of fitness and injuries due to a horror offseason, or if we are a couple of players short of the combination required to do what they're trying to do. However, the things that the team tries to do are also the things that still remain its strengths. This season, these things have been countered by opposition coaches without response. The plan for next year seems to be more of the same, but doing a better job of it. That's not a plan, that's madness. I have no idea of what they are trying to do, and am very worried.

Can anyone name a single thing that has improved on last year? This is a genuine question because I can't think of anything. What a season...

Injuries or not - what we're all watching is disgusting football. I would love to see winning football by a team that is so injured it simply can't carry it out. Instead, we get a team that has no plan with or without the ball.

Good of him to say, but we can all see that as plain as day. What's important is the rectification. There's been absolutely nothing in response to the ineptitude.

This team's ability to turn clean possession into a 40/60 contest is unprecedented.

You must have been sitting on that one a while. Salem's been great all year.

Will this make the Injury Report videos any more interesting? In all seriousness, sounds like a fantastic appointment. Well done to the Club.

We need to remove 'G. Lyon' from this and accept that it was also the other panel members in agreement with him. Regardless of the Neeld stuff, perhaps 'aberration' is the wrong word but the analysis is correct: Melbourne have been poor this year. As I stated in another thread, what's worse is that the statistics that the club tells us are the most important are not where the issue is to be found. Contested Possessions and Inside 50s are where the value is for the coaching staff, as they have consistently told us that the brand is centered around winning the ball and winning territory. Slight falls in both of these categories should not equate to the poorest team of 2019, regardless of injuries, etc. The problem is that the team is failing in spite of the very things they profess to be what the 'brand' is all about, and the only conclusion I can draw from all of the evidence is the assumption of the coaches that doing those things 'more' than last year will ensure continued improvement. Surely gameplan discussions are deeper than 'How can we construct a plan that wins those two categories?', however there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. 'Win the ball, smash it forward and we will win out overall' - that's it? Gameplan, Recruitment, Narrative, Swapping of coaches in the offseason, etc. they all point to this single (flawed) belief and a lack of creativity in all facets. Why did it take until at least half way through this year to acknowledge that they perhaps got it wrong with the gameplan? Regardless of injuries, why can the team not run out 4 quarters? Why was there no adjustment for the injuries that occurred? Why do we see the same errors each and every week? There have not been any satisfactory answers from what the club has said or what the club has produced during games. This is not to suggest that Goodwin is done, and I absolutely hope he is The Guy. But the approach needs to fundamentally changed. Until that is evident, Lyon, Brown, Roos, King, All of them are absolutely right - this team just doesn't get it.

Three soft goals from the square. Lacking instensity in the back 50. I know he's missed a lot of football, but Jetta looks miles and miles away