Skuit

Hmm . . .

So you're saying many are overestimating the future potential of our list - which there is no way to refute at this point in time. And your evidence is that many overrated the list in 2010, but you agree that this list is more talented. Then a comparison to North Melbourne that I can't comprehend. Do suggest it's time for a rebuild?

Another way to frame the above, and the most equitable I could think of as a broad but reasonable picture. The combined number of games played for the season by players over 190cm per club: Adelaide 60 GWS 54 Geelong 75 Melbourne 36 I'm not saying that height directly equates to top teams. It would probably apply equally across the league. But not having it is a competitive disadvantage. And we're talking just 190cms - barely above the average AFL player. Do a comparison above 196cm and it is worse still: Adelaide 18 GWS 25 Geelong 28 Melbourne - 3 1/2 (with no overlap) It may not directly translate to huge contested mark differentials, but it has a big effect on structures, game-plan, in-play options, and the expenditure of defensive personnel.

Losing one of our best players in the middle is going to have an impact. Being a ruck and losing him at the start of a game more so. Losing his back-up more so again. Losing his back-up at the start of a separate game again more so. Having no further mature ruck-men compounds the problem . . . Having one tall forward missing half the games, and another not ready to compete, is going to further compound the problem, especially when your third tall has to spend half of the season in ruck. That leaves Pedersen, on a hiding-to-nothing trying to compete against both an opposition's established ruck and their marking utilites in a single game. Gawn is important. But it's the trickle down effect and the sum of injuries/stage of development in regards our talls. This is a list of every player currently ready and available on the Melbourne roster over 190cm. Watts 196 OMac 196 Hogan 195 (missed 3 games) TMac 194 Frost 194 Pedersen 193

We've also had strong runs of goals in these games. I don't know if it's just the nature of our game-plan or sport in general or modern AFL or something that happens with rotations etc. When we light up we're unstoppable. But there's also periods of dominance where we leak goals the other way and allow teams to keep in touch, and periods where we have the overall balance in our favour but can't quite convert that into a meaningful dent on the scoreboard. It must be exhausting. Don't be pessimistic though. We haven't remotely had this problem in recent years: dominating large swaths of games and putting together regular 7-8 goal quarters.

He also said we hand-balled too much. But when he says he's not bothered by this aspect, it's probably because it's not the hand-balling per se, but some other aspect which caused the poor hand-balls.

Tom draws a diagram of Melbourne's zone defence for brother Oscar.

Be fair Deemented. The Dees didn't cause the tears and tantrums of your children. They're only capable of doing that to adults on the internet.

Oh. And I nearly forgot. Jeff Garlett - 3 goals. (For a quick recap - that's five of seven matches he's kicked 3 goals for a current 2017 tally of 18.5)

Trust and positioning. One of our defenders said earlier in the year that Goodie had given them license to be courageous, leave their men, and fly for the spoil. This license needs to be suspended while we go back and learn some tactical basics. It's okay to be taught to back yourself in and trust your abilities, but you also need to trust that your teammate can effect the spoil so you can be better positioned at the fall. Likewise. There is nothing inherently wrong with a lot of handballs. Our drive in the third came off the back of attacking hand-balling. But if all of your mids are within two meters of the ball at the same time it is going to come unstuck. We are a good contested team, and it's built on inside strength, not because we all go for the ball at once. Trust your teammates to win the ball and create some space for them. There was a passage toward the end, where Hunt was chasing down a Hawk who was running back toward a loose ball on our forward flank boundary. Hunt had him corralled but Salem came off his man to provide extra pressure for the tackle. The ball was released to Salem's opponent and off they went with a free man. Trust your teammates. It will help you to maintain better positioning in the contests.

Is the reason no one has bothered to start a 'changes' thread yet because it's so obvious? We may achieve universal Demonland agreement on a particular 'out' this week. Has that ever happened before?

Jayden Hunt busted his absolute gut all day to put on some defensive pressure when we were flat early. No love?

Concussion victim? Lock your doors everyone.

And, if we'd had just a tad less poor game-day luck (losing a ruck at the start of two matches so far this year is a pretty serious hit), and managed to snatch just one of the matches we had dominated in, then we'd be playing for fourth spot tomorrow (third, if that better luck was against the Cats). A far better reflection of where we sit. But such is the nature of this season.

Discussions over whether the coaches are infallible with selections are a sideshow. It' easy enough to recognise that they're placing a premium on forward pressure, and that they're giving JKH an extended run because they believe in his potential. But this is the part I don't understand. Why they rate him so highly, and training standards surely can't be enough at this stage of the season. He has never shown anything at top-level that indicates he has a long-term future there. Form and injury may account for poor skills and slow decision-making (although I'd argue this has been consistent throughout his career), but - He isn't a good enough small forward specialist and wasn't drafted as a one either. He doesn't have explosive outside speed or evasive skills. And he just doesn't have the height or strength to ever become a competitive modern midfielder. Where are we going with this? Sure, Jetta nailed down a spot in the back-six over time and became a super-reliable defender despite size and speed limitations, but it's rare, took a serious rethink, and even then, we're moving away from the lock-down type down back. I, of course, like any reasonable individual, also accept that the footballing department are in a better position to assess a player's talent than I am. But my question is: why do others think that the footy department rate him so highly? And if it's forward intensity or training standards, is this enough for JKH to be a part of the future? If, say, he improved 200% of his current output, would that be enough? (Yes, I know 0 goals x 200 = 0 goals, but for argument's sake, if he threatened to kick one or two a week).

So big offers put to Danger and DanHan during Roos' tenure were just great big lies?

What was your conclusion? Some vague KPI's set to a very low bar? Well that seems a bit idiotic, but . . . Maybe they're being patient and see him as a future week-in-week-out best 22? Well that seems a bit idiotic, but . . . Perhaps the club has magical genetic-transplant equipment at its disposal? Makes sense. I was wrong to question their wisdom.

This article is a bit meaningless. Petracca has better early stats than some people who turned out good?

They also haven't been afraid of bringing in players off the injury list without much conditioning. JKH for one. Hibberd, Tyson also, maybe Kent? And I'm sure a couple others that escape me right now. In my mind, the hierarchy of Goodwin selection criteria based on the evidence to date is as follows: Melksham Best near future 22 or so as pencilled-in prior to the season. Team-rules and individual KPI's. Form/output. Structure (when forced). Conditioning.

Tunnel-ball Fitzy and Aimless-chip Morton (v Collingwood) were two pretty clear on-field visual representations of off-field paper-stamping (backed up by their career-trajectory at the Demons post-incident). Torpedo Dunn, although the evidence fits, I'm not so sure. But rewind to the North match (his first for the season), where he held the ball up in defence at a crucial point in the game, and I think that may have been the moment he was effectively delisted. It was Wagner's debut, a week before the introduction of Hunt, and Omac wasn't quite yet ready - so I suspect Lynden just got a stay of execution for a few weeks until we felt confident to roll the dice without him.

I assume sometimes players are named in the extended as a reward for VFL form and a message that they're close, but not sure why they would bother if they thought he was underdone and no realistic chance of coming in? If an injury pops up in the back-line, we can bring in whoever we like.

boViney to be the face of the campaign?

You're a company-man through and through Saty. Employee of the Month for mine.

It seems that JKH has gone beyond Jetta's mind-meld trick and just straight up infested your brain.

I think it can confidently be said now that Goodwin has form on 'form' - not blind but willing to give players blocks to work into it before the axe (early forward reshuffles probably more structure). Some here will be very happy with that approach. I'm still annoyed with JKH retaining his spot - but more because I think it's a capability issue rather than a problem with form.