The Taciturn Demon

And he very nearly was. Before he became the player most supporters were devastated to lose, he was told by the FD he'd be best to explore options for a trade.

I'm not excited by Tholstrup at the moment, but this is an excellent post. I don't think you can underestimate just how bad we are at lowering our eyes and finding a leading target. Inside 50 it's very obvious, but it happens further up the ground as well.

It did. It just doesn't anymore. The two ingredients you need is fervent support from players and fans. This doesn't exist.

I'm too young to have seen Dixon play, but will forever be grateful for his anti-merger advocacy during a period where so many players and ex-players were pro-merger. I think we underestimate just what a profound, overwhelmingly negative, effect the merger attempt had on this club. And while we can pretend that it was, in fact, just a sneaky takeover, the truth is there would be no more Melbourne Demons without resistance from people like Dixon, Flower and Alan Johnson (and of course the many no voices at Hawthorn).

Exactly. Unless you're in a coterie group or have some special connection to the club, you really only hear from the coach through website puff pieces and the press conferences. And, on one glorious occasion, in a self-filmed video involving red wine and pasta. Yes, press conferences are strange and awkward and sometimes punctuated by the most idiotic questions, but they're not completely useless. And, whether you think they're an absolute waste of time or not, they're there (at least in part) for fans. I think you can get a fair bit out of them. For example, Goodwin refuses to resort to ludicrous conspiracies or woe-is-me nonsense like many of his contemporaries. For the most part, I think we should admire him for this. A coach should never be satisfied with "The opposition was just too good", but they should never fall into the trap of "We were, once again, the better team, but X, Y and Z conspired against us." And on the other side of the coin, as others have said hundreds of times, he's obsessed with corporate cliches that occassionally verge on New Age [censored], as corporate cliches so often tend to do. If that's what he needs to do to avoid giving away trade secrets or to avoid making harsh public statements about individual players (which just isn't his style), so be it. But when the whole thing is just a string of platitudes and buzzwords, it's so deflating. Worse when there's not even any internal consistency - are we about to turn the corner with this group or are we still finetuning the 'process' that will lead to 'outcomes'?

I'd say Salem has been in people's cross-hairs since very close to the start. Understated footballer who seems to be the first on the "let's trade" list. (A long while ago, I know, but widely underrated in the GF.) I've been a huge fan for a long while. I do think he's slowed noticeably and at this stage I'd be open to making "tough calls" on anyone over 30 other than Max. And I think the lack of take-the-game-on aggression is a fair critcism. But I wonder whether how he plays - reasonably cautious short kicks that change angles around half back - is exactly what he's asked to do by the coaches. Only a couple of weeks ago Goodwin mentioned him by name in the press conference, something along the lines of "He's back to his very best footy after injury." I'm not suggesting that if he wasn't being asked to do this, he'd be playing like Jake Bowey. I just think there's a fair chance he's following instructions to a T. But I may be wrong. He may be dropped later today or later this year.

Yep. Got to see what he can do when he's not one or two.

Might be getting Judd mixed up with Tom Bugg.

Understand what you mean about a change in coach not magically leading to improvement. But I can't agree that Roos' voice had less influence than mature recruits. Neeld's voice was completely wrong. We deliberately went for a bloke with a tougher approach after deciding Bailey was too nice and we found ourselves with someone who couldn't control their frustration. It was worse given how young our list was. Roos' approach was FAR more balanced - neither soft nor stupidly aggressive. And he had gravitas. Vince and Cross were fantastic. Tyson was good for a while as well. But part of the reason Roos got them - and had licence to go the big cleanout - was because we made a break. We said "Nup - whatever Neeld was doing wasn't working." The interim coaches you mentioned had no opportunity to do this. They were coaching the same group with the same neuroses and habits built up in the fading years of the previous regime. I think his game plan was important as well. Anyway, my point is, I don't expect a new coach to get us into the top 4 in year one or two. What a new coach would bring is a fresh beginning - as Roos did. They wouldn't throw everything out - even if we wanted it, that's impossible in a sport with 40 players on a list and 22 in a team - but they would break away from certain solidified ways of going that a ten-year coach simply can't. I'm actually not saying "We should sack Goodwin now". But we seem to be failing by our own standards - those presumably agreed to by Goodwin. I say that because Goodwin seems all in on this change in the way we play, and said on the weekend "we're in a hurry" to return to flag contention. He's made it clear numerous times that he thinks this group is good enough. To me, that means 2026 is make or break. Frankly, I would be astounded if we made the eight next year. Would you persist with him if we finished outside the eight for a third year in a row?

Extremely highly rated at Hawthorn. At least he was a couple of years ago. EDIT: Didn't realise he'd done two ACLs. I had in my head that he was out with other long-term injuries. Not quite so keen now.

I agree on Jefferson. When JVR was in the ruck, Jefferson esentially became the bailout target. That's a very difficult role for any 21 year old and basically impossible for a bloke who, if he makes it, will surely be a second or third tall forward. I'd give him games, too, and I'd do anything I could to make sure he's the third banana. Laurie is built like a forward pocket, but without much speed I wonder if he's a small-midfielder-or-bust type. I'd love to see him get three or for full games (not the sub), but play at least some time in the middle. I just don't see that happening in a system that constantly goes back to Oliver, Viney, Petracca and (rightly) Pickett.

And mostly I can't stand this sentiment. (I fundamentally disagree with the widely held belief that we should look at the Carlton semi-final as a "SO CLOSE!" moment. Collingwood were a very good team and there was no shame in losing to them in the qualifying final. Carlton were and remain a wholly inferior team. Fancy letting Blake Acres kick the winner against you in a game to make a prelim. I nealy vomited when Matt Owies kicked an important goal.) The problem is, this sentiment is not always wrong. I remember scoffing at people who told me that at the end of 2020 there were clear signs of strong, meaningful improvement. I saw nothing of the sort. I heard people talking about so many close losses and such a great percentage and "Ooh, only one win outside the eight" or "We won six of the last nine" - and thought they were dreaming. We played every team once for the first time in... what?... ever... and were found wanting. Simple. And then we won the flag the next year. Now we're back to that "just one more roll" mentality - but without a 23 year old Oliver, a 25 year old Petracca and Brayshaw, a 26 year old Salem, a 27 year old Viney, a 28 year old Gawn, Fritsch and Lever in WAY better form, Tom McDonald resurgent, without Luke Jackson, Hibberd, Harmes, ANB and Jordon. In truth, for a long while I thought 2026 might be a one-last shot season. Then I thought it might be a good launching-pad year for a new era. Now I think neither is true. Even if most or all of my original hopes came true - Oliver returning to top fitness, May and Lever staying fit, JVR becoming a solid and dependable key forward, strong improvement from mid-agers like Rivers, Chandler and McVee - we just don't have anywhere near the depth to compete. We're 5 and 11 with a percentage of 86 and Jack Billings is still right on the cusp of selection. Kozzie, Turner, Langford, Lindsay, Windsor, Bowey, Chandler and Petty give me hope. But hope that we don't become North circa 2018... or worse... St Kilda since 2012. Not the kind of hope Goodwin is hinting at in his press conferences.

We have indeed. It's very sad. And you're right - a few of them can still play good or very good footy. But not every week. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything you've said (I'd differ with you slightly and suggest a couple from that list are looking more like liabilities than gently fading stars) but the reason I'm responding is that in the press conference Goodwin seemed to suggest, once again, that he had total faith in this group. He talked about being "in a hurry" to settle the big change in the way we play and then responded to a question about Max and Petracca not having a chance at a second Flag with Melbourne by essentially saying "there's still plenty of time". I know a lot of people will say "what else would he say?" I'm a bit of a weirdo, though, in that I think you can always take something from a press conference. And this week I realised - Oh, Goodwin still believes what he said earlier in the season: that you can turn situations like this around and then you're off and away. Rather than falling off a cliff, he thinks we're reaching the apex of a very difficult climb and are about to go "weeeee!" down the other side. So when you said you hope the club is prepared to answer the question of who do we keep, who do we ask to be more adaptable and who do we release, I wonder if we are. If we're sticking with Goodwin, we're sticking with his plan. And part of his plan is absolute belief in a group of players who helped him get the ultimate success. I can see us making one major change... possibly instigated by a player. Maybe two if it just blows up again like last year. But I can't see us doing the big list shift we obviously need. And the worst part is, if we DID bite the bullet, we'd be getting very little back, picks wise, in a draft widely considered somewhere between mediocre and poor. I don't like the position we're in. And I think we're in that position because we acted too, slowly. Not on sacking the coach after the second finals failure as some have suggested (although I think the constant refrain that we were a kick away from a second flag or that we lost two finals by a combined total of such and such, or that it was completely down to injuries is complete nonsense). But on demanding that the coach make changes - to the way we play and to the list. Now the coach is saying "we're in a hurry". Yeah, everyone who procrastinates or kicks unpleasant jobs down the road end up needing to hurry eventually.

What a bizarre game. I got to the end and couldn't believe it was 13 points. There were SO many poor Melbourne performances. I guess when Viney is in that kind of form, and you've got a bloke like Turner turning 50:50s into contested marks you're always in the game. Tell you what... I thought I'd become inured to Ed Langdon turnovers. Nope. That was butchery like I haven't seen in decades. The Taciturn Household TV was seconds away from death by fly kick on at least a dozen occasions.

I would argue kicking to advantage has been a problem for a very long time, and we won in 21 in spite of it remaining a problem. A more charitable take might be that Goodwin found a way to mitigate it as a problem - i.e. "This team struggles to consistently kick to advantage - let's find a style that rewards low-risk, low-accuracy kicking." I'm not a good enough observer of the game to understand why we seem to so infrequently make or hit leads. My probably dull observation is that when Kozzie kicks inside fifty suddenly our leading problem appears magically fixed. I would be astonished if we didn't train it or if the FD department didn't put an emphasis on it. I just think we're a team, whether through calcified habit, or outright lack of skill, that has a greater-than-average proportion of players who can't lower their eyes and drill a hard, accurate pass. Gold Coast showed us up with this last week. Numerous teams have for years.

It seems we're asking players to move the ball more quickly than we used to - i.e. mark, turn and kick... or mark, "drive legs" and kick... or mark, turn, and give the quick handball... as opposed to mark, stop, ignore risky first option, take safe option (most likely down the line). At the same time we're "working very hard on our connection" and have been for what seems like an eternity. These two message - move it faster and hit more blokes inside 50 - might be simple, but the execution is difficult. And half the problem is the first makes the second easier in some respects and harder in others. Yes, it gives the opposition less time to set up as we apparently used to do so well and so the kick inside 50 isn't two a swarm. (I imagine part of the reason the game has moved towards faster ball movement is because coaches said "We can't let the reigning Premiers put up that defensive roadblock. We need to give them less time to organise.) But it also asks players to make the most difficult skills in all of sport - kicking an oval ball 15 to 50 metres to a fairly small area while moving at very high speed - even harder. Kick an oval ball 15 to 50 metres to a fairly small area while moving at very high speed and don't pause to assess. Just kick. I wonder if when we talk about players like Oliver, Petracca and Viney reverting to old habits, it's not a case of ignoring instructions. It's an ineffective attempt at a very explicit instruction: get it and move it. What I don't quite get is why that "move it" doesn't include WAY more handball - although I suspect it has a bit to do with players like Oliver and Viney having lost the explosiveness and constant run you need to link chains of handball. Collingwood tear teams apart with forward handball. We've shown we can do it as well. But only in quarters and halves.

This is interesting. Having watched the explanation, I can easily believe we're close to top in this measurement. A team that has a tendency to turn and just kick, and specifically to turn and kick long into the forward fifty will naturally get higher scores. The Mark O'Connor kick at 4.45 and again at 5.30 is very Melbourne. Very Oliver and Viney, to be specific. (The Tom Stewart kick that precedes the first one is extremely UN-Melbourne.) It seems like the point is move it fast, don't give the opposition time to get back or set up defensively and give your tall forwards a chance to have genuine one on one contest. Or, ideally, hit a forward lace out with a two-second-to-make-a-decision bullet. The first makes sense. For us, the second only works if the last kick is always from Kozzie. I see how this is a useful indication of the big change in the way we play. Although I think this change is pretty obvious without "metrics" to underscore it. I'm not so sure that this is something we should see as a positive in and of itself. Of course, go the way the game is going. But, at least in part, what this measurement rewards is precisely the stuff that makes most Melbourne supporters tear their hair out.

It could be. I'm not convinced, though. I think the difference between the top clubs and the also-rans is their bottom 10 or 15 players. Teams that make it to prelims have a group of extremely strong A-graders complemented by good B-graders and a group of dependable... 'role players', 'third tier' players, 'non-stars'... call them what you want who do enough. And when that dependability wanes (ideally in only a couple of players), they have solid replacements in the VFL ready to go. Carlton is the gold standard in the opposite of this. Weitering, Cripps, De Koning and Curnow... spines don't get much better. And they have some pretty good players on the next rung down - McKay, Walsh, Cerra, Saad, etc. But the list falls off a cliff at about 12 or 15. You might argue that all players below a certain level are balancing on the precipice of 'good enough' and it's basically all psychological for them. I'm not so sure. I think there's a huge difference in the skill and overall quality of these not-first-picked players and mental toughness is just one of many many variables. The better teams simply have better players further down their list... ...and, of course, as others have said, many other factors come into play. Injury, coaching, little bits of good and bad luck, game trends, etc. My huge concern with Melbourne is that we're not even in the also-rans category anymore because our A- and B-graders are either a little bit below their best (Petracca) or an absolute mile off it (Oliver, May, Fritsch, Lever, Rivers, Viney, Salem). And even if we were - Brisbane and Collingwood shows we're still capable of being competitive against good teams - the VFL cupboard is almost completely bare. I like the all-above-the-head theory because it means there's a chance we can return to finals soon. Next year, maybe. I want it to be true. I just don't think it is. I think the problem is much more structural than psychological.

The Americanisation of everything. So stupid.

Why?

Do you think his draft position alone explains this teetring on the edge of selection without the obvious form to warrant it? Or do you think the FD see something there that isn't perhaps obvious to the average punter?

Sorry to bang on about this, but when Langdon is 100 spots higher than Pickett in a stat supposed to measure quality of kicking, is that stat in any way meaningful?

These are fair questions, and I think the answer in a nutshell is a combo of necessity and inflexibility. I think it was @titan_uranus who mentioned the Viney shift as a problem after the game. Started in the forward line as Goodwin said he would, but then had to go into the middle because we were being massacred at centre bounces. It was pure necessity. Petracca WAS doing 50/50 midfield forward at the start of the year. His centre bounce attendance stats were very low against North Melbourne, Gold Coast and Geelong. We got obliterated in each of those games, and if you're into stats, in that Gold Coast game they were absolutely dire for centre bounce clearances, clearances, contested possessions, etc. Against Essendon he was at 65% of centre bounces. We got killed again. Against Fremantle he was back to 80% and we won well. He's been at around 80 or 90% in most games since then. Again - necessity. Rivers, I reckon, was unlucky not to be top three in the B&F last year. And he spent the second half of the year spending a lot of time in the middle. But this coincided exactly with Petracca's injury. They won't play him there unless there's a 'spot'. This year he's played 50 or 60% of games in the middle but again it coincided exactly with Jack Viney's injury. The glaring problem I see is that Oliver can't really play anywhere else. So it's centre bounce or bust (read bench). That would be fine if he was in good nick. I don't think he is. That leaves just two more spots at any one time. Petracca, down a little bit since his injury, is still too valuable in the middle to play forward. And Pickett is now literally keeping us in games with his midfield stuff. Viney looks to have slowed right down, but certainly helped to stem the bleeding on Saturday. Petty? Because Jefferson isn't a 'gorilla' forward and JVR may be but is spectacularly out of form. Very interesting to see what they do this week with Petty out and Howes no longer available as the mid defender playing tall. Windsor? I don't really understand. Chandler, Langford and Lindsay on the wings has worked pretty well. But I'd love to see Langford forward and Windsor back on the wing.

Yes! In the Dean Bailey days, almost every week he talked after losses about winning small parts of the game - halves, quarters or even parts of quarters. He was working with a truly awful inherited list and so had to find positivity somewhere, but I still found it frustrating. Mainly because it ignored the fact that these good patches rarely troubled the opposition. We weren't often wresting back control but merely (usually narrowly) outscoring a team in cruise mode. And apart from anything else, it was so unambitious. The expectations must have been so low. Goodwin saying he was proud of the final three quarters was too reminiscent of this for my liking. And as you said, JJJ, it bizarrely ignored the third quarter, which I think was almost as bad as the first. And even if the third was somehow passable (six goals to two?!), the game was over after the first quarter. We only looked vaguely damaging at the very end of the game when Gold Coast had slowed to a walk. Our team's own non-celebration after goals showed we knew there was no life left in the game. Yes, it's difficult to win with two players down. But it doesn't guarantee massacres. And teams have beaten us with players down far more than I care to remember in the last 20 years. I reckon GWS, on their own, have done it two or three times. I don't like our list. But Goodwin does. (He's said it numerous times over the past few years.) And whatever you say about it, it's a list that still has a large number of battle-hardened, very experienced footballers - many with a Premiership medallion. You can't on the one hand say "I fully believe in this group" and then on the other say "I'm proud we broke even after conceding twelve scores to one in the first quarter". To me, that's not putting a positive spin on a shocker of a game; that's conceding we're back to holding ultra-low expectations.

When you say the list the way it is, you mean in such poor shape?