Its Time for Another

If T Mac keeps playing the way he has he will be valuable by the end of the season and will be expendable with all the other options we have. If he was traded to say the Pies that would release the money we need for a Kelly who would take the wing that Gus is on. Gus could potentially move on to play with his brother. One or both could be the solution to getting Kelly but he'd want to be playing better than last season and he'd have to be prepared to take a salary cut at least back to what Oliver and Trac will be getting. 

56 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Good footy comes with confidence, confidence comes from winning and winning comes from method. We've seen 2 wins with good method. Keep that up and the confidence will come and then we'll see more of the good clean footy you want.

Good point. I don't know if anyone else feels the same way but I thought in the second half after fighting back from that Saints run on you could palpably see a growing confidence in the collective body language. It felt to me like they were thinking hey this game plan we've worked on over the summer is actually working. We can do this. The play seemed to reflect what you're saying the longer the game went on. I have a feeling that second half is a lot more significant than we realise.  

The other thing I should add is that I think one of the keys to all of this strangely enough is Tomlinson. He is becoming a very good key defender which is freeing up Lever to do what he was recruited to do as the intercepting floating back and also releasing May to attack out of deep defence. They can do this because they know Tomlinson can cover their man if they leave. He has strength and agility and speed. Lever isn't the same player when forced to be a lock down key defender as we saw last season. Because of that May was also more restricted from attacking out of defensive 50. 

So in combination all of the above two posts results in better ball movement i50 before the oppo can flood back and choke the forward 50.  Problem is there was a lot of bombing still going on often to an outnumbered T Mac. The amount of balls dropped on or behind his head instead of out in front was a killer. I'm still waiting for them to deliver low direct sharp passes to leads like the Saints did. 

6 hours ago, binman said:

In 2020, particularly the second half of the season, we moved away from being a stoppage and clearance based team first and foremost to a team :

• that has shifted the dial to trying to win pure clearances that result in scoring opportunities - even though in doing so we 'lose' more clearances than we have historically done
• when we 'lose' clearances we put the ball carrier under pressure, force a poor kick or handball and look to create a  turnover from HB that we can counter attack from and set up scoring chains
• that is now all about intercept marks (Cameron will  now be sweating on how to prevent  Lever and May having field day)

This tactical shift has been really evident this year.

I don't see how wanting to score from clearances means you win less clearances. Could you explain your thinking there.

Here's some very interesting clearance stat's from the Saints game which support your theory about putting the ball carrier under pressure when we lose clearances.

- We won the centre bounce clearances 14 to 11.  Not that great a difference. But look at i50's and metres gained from centre bounces. The stats are to say the least a revelation.  Saints 11 centre clearances = 3 i50's compared to 11 out of 14 of ours. Even more dramatically metres gained from centre bounces was 821 for us and incredibly only 195 to them. Hard to believe. Clearly there's some fantastic defensive work being done at these stoppages which I for one wasn't aware of watching it. I'd love to know how this stacks up against the rest of the comp. 

6 hours ago, binman said:

My gut feeling is that the increase in pace on the game, which is the driver of open forward lines because the ball gets in there quick, is less a function of the rule changes, more a function of the psychology of the players.

I think in our case there are a lot of factors causing our forward line to be more open.

- We have a better structure with some defenders remaining deep and not all getting sucked up the ground. So on transition we have better shape to stop being easily opened up.

- The dominance of May, Lever, Tomlinson, Salem  has meant our defenders can run straight down the corridor to get back deep and can afford to concede more possession on the wings because by the time they are ready to deliver i50 we are back there. You could see the Saints having to stop in their tracks because they had no where to deliver the ball i50

- The new rules allow half backs to take off and get much more penetration. For instance Salem off half back had the 3rd most i50's in the team with 5 only Trac with 7 & Oliver with 6 had more. This fits in with pre season predictions that the man on the mark rule would mean half back flankers would get record amounts of possession.  

- I believe the dominance of the backline is creating a predictability to our ball movement so more players are creating options up the field. This is allowing our ball movement to be more deliberate causing us to retain possession and control rather than bombing long all the time. Dare I say this is looking more Clarkson/Hawthorn like. Thank you Yze. 

- All of the above ultimately contributes to better delivery i50 although lets face it there's still a lot of work to be done there. But the signs are good. It should be cherry ripe particularly for a leading forward like BB. 

9 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Didnt even get named in the Carlton team for tonight 

Seeing people in here talk him up as if we had let a superstar get away lol

Hmmm

O Mac makes history. First ever injury sub. Comes in after half time to replace Sylvani. 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Agree.

But culture will help turn a team of very good players into a championship team.

One example.

Few would argue that our best pure midfielder (ie not tracc) is Oliver. One of the best players in the AFL. 

In the tigers practice match in the last quarter he brilliantly won a contested ball, accelerated from the contest and then handballed to Salem who was ahead of him, about 70 metres from goal and had space to run into. Great work. And it should have set up a scoring opportunity. 

But didn't. Because Oliver stopped once he handballed and didn't do the basics - sheppard/block the player chasing him. Footy 101. 

That player was able to put enough pressure on Salem to affect his kick and Salem kicked it straight to a tigers defender inside 50.

A turnover instead of a shot on goal. All because Oliver was lazy and chose not to do the basics. 

No doubt that error was picked up in the review with coaches. But i reckon it has more power coming from a teammate   

Now, perhaps a teammate pointed that error out to him. I certainly hope so. I hope a senior player gave him a bake as defence is an area he need to improve in. I hope so because that indicates the sort of culture Its time noted was embedded at the swans

Sure it is a practice match but that is absolutely no excuse. And i'm not wanting to bag out Oliver, who is an out and out star. 

But Oliver is senior player - and should be setting an example to his teammates and in particular the young players', who must look up to him. And it is hard for him to hold teammates to standard he doesn't reach. 

To be honest, it is for reasons related to culture that I have come to appreciate what Jack Viney brings to the team more and more. He can't hold a candle to Oliver talent wise but he would have made the block.

Excellent Post. This is a perfect example of culture or lack thereof in practice. 

The rest of your post about players calling him out and what you appreciate about Viney could be more spot on than we realise. I have actually been wondering if all the rumours about Oliver wanting to go to Carlton in the off season were a result of him being called out by Viney for exactly this type of issue. There have been rumours for a while about fractures in the playing group, then Viney lost the Captaincy, then Oliver is rumoured to be investigating leaving. It's all complete conjecture. I have absolutely no idea. But it wouldn't surprise me. Gus also has the same lack of defence. I was told that after a Saints win in 2019 the Saints coaches discussed the fact they targeted getting the ball to Oliver and Brayshaw's opponents because they knew they wouldn't get chased by them. 

3 minutes ago, binman said:

Lewis said much the same thing about the super successful hawks team he played in.

The players set and maintained the standards. Let their teammates know when those standards were not met and payers answered to each other when not met.

And also said the culture was different at the dees when he got there....

Would love to hear if he thinks its changed yet. Also love to hear what role he thinks supporters have in setting and driving a Clubs culture. 

There's always talk about "culture" but hardly ever any attempt to define it. Some years ago Jude Bolton was generous enough to come down and speak to a Junior team I was coaching. We asked him to explain the famous Swans "Bloods Culture". He said when Roosy arrived he said to Stewy Maxfield the culture needs to be owned by the players. Maxfield created the Bloods Culture which in summary is:-

Don't ever let your mates down. Every time you walk through the door of the Club you give 100% to every training session and every game. Anything less is failing the culture. You could see from then on you knew you were going to get 100% effort every time.

Can you say you have the confidence to expect that every time MFC plays. The fact messages are coming out of the Club saying midfield egos have to be parked, says a lot about what the Club thinks about the culture. Maxy has been communicating a clear line about the players taking responsibility. Lets hope the players hold each other accountable to bring 100% every time. I'll believe it when I see Clary and Gus finally becoming defensive. I'll believe it when I see Langdon looking up and delivering passes to leading forwards instead of just bombing away like he did again v Dogs. I'll believe it when I see players gut running off the ball on defensive transition. 

Are we supporters the problem?  Do we not demand enough accountability from the footy dept and players. Are we different in that compared to the Cats, Hawks, Swans, TIgers?  I don't know but I wonder. 

Go Dees.

Interesting we've done Oscar out and Majak in.

I guess Majak has more versatility with the specific injuries he may need to fill in for. 

Glad to see O Mac get another chance. Hopefully it's a win/win especially if he plays against us. 

1 hour ago, Half forward flank said:

Ok, to please your controlling personality I will answer your last question. it obviously is just an opinion, however  With all the constraints Goschs paddock  presents, you say , move rugby soccer grounds, why would they agree to that? resident objections to public parkland, promised mcg sized oval and so on it is almost certain a project, if it gets up will be underwhelming. Go take a stroll around our competitors home bases if you wish to feel a real footy club and community atmosphere.. In no particular order go to Carlton, Geelong, Bulldogs and even Arden St. 

OK last roll of the dice.

To coin a phrase   What's with the negative vibes Moriarty. 

The area I suggested for the building is already an open air car park. So no loss of public amenity if it's retained under the building. As you point out the M & OP decide about use and accessibility of the land. It's up to them if they switch the fields between soccer, rugby and AFL. I'm not sure how much of a say the different sports would get especially if they still have their fields there. If they all fit in better then as they are already sports fields there is nothing for the community to complain about. They might have to remove and replant about 4 trees. Doubt that would stop it. 

Anyway we'll know in due course. 

46 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Well you are getting ahead of yourself. 

A proposal to expand to MCG size, not going to happen. I see dockland sized has crept into the discussion of late. Major facilities being built on public land by a labor Governement.  Not likely. Social facilities there will be a basketcase unless you are counting stray pidgeons.   You say barlett and perts hands are tied,  In your scenario it is wrong to descibe their hands as tied when it is simply part of a professional process. There hands are free when and if they pull this off and as it stands we are all still waiting. 

Talk about taking comments out of context and twisting meaning. 

I did mention Docklands size if not MCG size. If the rugby and soccer grounds are switched to Goschs an MCG sized oval could fit in that area. 

The most likely package of land I see for a building is over the car park between AAMI and the Goschs fields. The car park could be retained and a building put over it. Not sure if that's out of the question. 

I talked about Bartlett and Pert's hands being tied in the context of not making an announcement till the Govt etc do. Wouldn't read too much into that.

None of these issues you have incorrectly raised answer the question of why you think supporters will be underwhelmed if Goschs ends up being the site. 

4 hours ago, Half forward flank said:

I agree LN and I think there will be a lot of underwhelmed supporters when the hand I think they have known abouut for a long time is revealed. 

14 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Goschs 

Why would we be underwhelmed if they manage to get all the authorities to agree to giving us the land to build our facilities around Goschs and expand it to MCG or Docklands size. That would be a massive win. 

If this does end up being the result I would say Pert and Bartlett's hands are tied behind their backs in being able to make any announcement as it is Govt land and multiple authorities will be contributing to it.  I'd say the lesson has well and truly been learnt from the premature announcement by the Club of Yarra Park.  

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

He "announced" it was one of the options. My point is you're editorializing a fair bit with your reflections on Jackson's time.

Perhaps "sudden" to you, but clearly given Jackson's actual comments it wasn't a 'sudden' decision, nor was it without thought.

They didn't 'stop the pokies cold'. Did you notice the new sponsor that came on board once we exited pokies? That was obviously part of the plan, as for the rest of the plans, as mentioned, you'd have to ask Pert and Bartlett what happened there as Jackson didn't announce what they were. I take him at his words that there were plans there though.

You said Jackson was responsible for setting up the 'flawed' succession plan, but now you're saying it was a compromise he accepted to get Roos on board? Given Roos was great for us and you have said yourself you haven't judged Goodwin yet, how exactly is it a failure?

There was lots of talk about how Jackson had seemingly groomed Mahoney to be his successor, but I'm yet to see your evidence that he was 'trying to force the club' into choosing Mahoney. The duty of providing evidence for that is on you given you're the one making the claim.

That's fair enough. I'm not sure then why you're re-framing so many things from Jackson's time.

I think you might find some posters here do hear things from reasonable sources, including those inside the club, so I would keep an eye on the inferences being made about Bartlett. Obviously be sceptical, it's the internet after all, but in time things will come out about Bartlett, in fact some have already started noticing given his actions around the board election, so let's wait and see how the rest of his tenure goes, however long that may be.

 

Respectively argued Lord Nev. Appreciate that. 

I may be editorializing but he certainly announced it and all hell let loose. However you want to categorise it after that is up to you.

As I said earlier. My definition of sudden is dropping $1.5mill in revenue and not having an alternative in place before you do it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I agree with the sentiment of getting out of pokeys but not how it was executed.

I haven't written Goody off at this point but I would have taken Dew or especially Ratten in a heart beat but Swans wouldn't release a contracted assistant to be an assistant somewhere else. It had to be as a coach. There may have been other reasons but that was a deal breaker anyway.  For sure Ratten was never going to be appointed as an apprentice to Roos and I was really hoping we could get him so my overview is that would have been a much better alternative than the succession plan. But as we have it I have hope it will still work but it hasn't been a great performance so far. 

Call it what you like but when people go to the press it is generally to force an outcome when they aren't achieving it internally. He made it clear to the press he was unhappy at being left out of the process to appoint his successor. It was also well known he wanted that person to be Mahoney and he would mentor him.

I don't agree I'm reframing things from Jackson's time. Just being realistic from what I've seen and read

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

...and it's all gone downhill from there.

Coinciding with the time Bartlett wanted to put his nose in.

What is it you say Bartlett has done wrong.

Are you suggesting the footy team performance is his fault. 

I think to the extent the Admin have got involved in FD reviews a lot has been done mostly to the group that was there when PJ left. I think it's looking pretty good now. Personally I choose to believe that the devastating injuries in 2019 and the interruptions last year to a group that mostly hadn't played for over a year had a lot to do with it. It would be looking entirely different if the team had continued the trajectory we all thought it would after 2018. 

Are you suggesting it's his fault the facilities are taking so long like many seem to be. 

I don't buy that. For all the reasons discussed above. 

Genuinely interested to know what sticking his nose in it Bartlett has done.

8 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Jackson: “The club is looking at a number of options for its ­future training and administration facilities, and this is one of them.”

"Sudden"? It doesn't even completely happen until next year.

"Totally unthought through"? Jackson: “This is an important day for the club and there has been a substantial amount of work to achieve this result.”

"Without having a plan"? Jackson: “If you take the gaming revenue out of the equation, we need to make up 10 per cent of our overall revenue,”  “Over a two to three year period, we will be able to readjust and grow, and we have several ideas on how to do that.”

Perhaps you should take it up with Pert and Bartlett on what happened there?

When did the CEO become solely responsible for the appointment and performance of the coach?

 

What exactly is your evidence that Jackson 'tried to force' the club into that?

Personally, I think leaving us with an (at the time) finals quality team, a totally revamped brand, an exit from gambling, the Santa Teresa Oval Project, a new role of Indigenous Project Officer, 5 straight years of operating profit and mroe is a pretty decent legacy when you look at where we were when he first came in.

 

Yep. He announced it and killed any chance it had. Not that it apparently did. It would have been wonderful if it had.  Not sure what your point is. 

Sudden. They immediately exited Leighoak at the end of his last year.  Use numbers however you like. 10% lost revenue equated to a $1.5mill revenue hole for a Club that was barely treading above water. I'd call that sudden.  

You call stopping the pokeys cold without having the alternative revenue avenues already set up a plan. Thats not a plan mate. A plan is  putting the alternative revenue streams in place before you lose the revenue. Having several unrealised ideas is not what I call planning. 

I think you'll find Jackson, rightly took the sole credit for recruiting Roos and agreeing to the compromise of the succession plan. A great idea if it worked a terrible one if it didn't. I'm still not one to right Goody off till we see what happens this year but at this point you wouldn't call it a raging success. There might be reasons outside Goodys control so fingers crossed. 

The evidence about Jackson's wishes around his Mahoney succession were well documented at the time. He went public making it clear he was very unhappy at being excluded from the CEO appointment process and he was very unhappy about Mahoney not getting the gig. I'm not going to spend time looking it up but it's out there. Perhaps start with Wilson.

I mostly agree with your last comment about what he achieved while he was here, however, it's the way he did some of those things and their impact going forward that is his legacy.

By the way I want to make it clear I'm not a PJ hater. I'm extremely grateful he took the gig when he did and believe he may well have literally saved the place. But casting aspersions about the people here now on the basis of what he left for them to deal with is a bit rich.  

1 hour ago, rjay said:

He's got a track record for action.

He's certainly got that. Like spending $475,000 on a feasability study for a concept that was never going to be approved. Then publicly announcing it like it was a done deal without even consulting the Govt or MCC who manage Yarra Park. Thus ensuring politically it would never happen. 

Or making a sudden, totally unthought through and unplanned for exit out of pokies without having any plan on how to cover the instant $1.5mill loss to revenue. Lovely gift to the next administration. 

Or setting up a flawed succession plan for the coaching. 

Or trying to force the Club to take Mahoney as his successor so he could continue a gig as his mentor, even though he had absolutely no commercial experience and at this point not a great record as Footy Head,  

Despite that legacy he was what the Club needed at the time and I take my hat off to him while he was here but it's not a great legacy to waxing so lyrically about. 

37 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Wouldn't marketing/digital spend be part of the "soft cap"? I realise within the soft cap clubs will prioritise where they choose to spend their money but because of this cap I wouldn't have thought any club would be able to spend massively more on marketing and digital than any other club. 

If it's not part of the soft cap, then I agree with you.

Pretty certain soft cap is the football department. Originally brought in to even up the competition because big clubs were spending way more than small clubs with extra development, coaches, IT and stats support etc

He must be feeling like a kid let out in a candy store. The money a big club like them have for marketing/digital compared to a small club like us will be massive. Having said that ideas are the key not resources. 

3 hours ago, 58er said:

It must  have given you Its Time confidence that The Casey deal would be a success with a major player in our Club hardly giving it his spproval.!!!

TBH I was shocked both because he was so candid and because it was a very negative view about the prospect of getting members from Casey which I thought was the ultimate point. 

I grew up visiting Berwick through the '60's onwards. My Uncle had a farm there that by the 2000's was surrounded by houses. The rate of growth in that area has been phenomenal. Moving out there is quite similar in many ways to what they are trying to do with GWS in Sydney. Put a team in a massive population area and hope to convert it to supporters and members. Ten years in it's a very very slow grind that may possibly never happen. 

12 hours ago, Grapeviney said:

Identifying the growth in that part of the city when we did - and jumping in there - was extremely smart thinking in my view, and going all-in might be the better long-term option if we truly want to attract 70,000 members down the track. 

That would certainly change the fundamental fabric of the Club. It would obviously kill off the connection with the MCC and it's members. 

2 hours ago, Salems Lot said:

I would argue that it definitely matters, if you get zero take up in 10 years that is a significant rebuke to the plan. Besides, they must have modelled some targets before they started. If those targets are not being met it gives you a good reason to rethink your strategy.

The other thing Schwab said to me at that B & F was that he didn't believe people would go to the MCG to see games. He said people want to stay home on a Saturday afternoon and do the lawns not do a long commute to see a game of footy. 

At the time I wondered if it was a comment indicating he was against the whole Casey deal. But it could also be that the arrangement wasn't ever meant to be about memberships. Although I can't see that makes any sense. It has given us a base at this point and a second training facility for AFLW and VFLW teams and the AFL seconds. 

16 minutes ago, Salems Lot said:

Not sure if this has been previously stated but I wonder how many members have joined the club from the Casey corridor in the last 10 years. I am sure that that would provide excellent insight as to whether the experiment worked. Numerically we are attracting far more members than we did 10 years ago and if it could be shown that a large percentage of that growth came from that area then it provides compelling evidence to continue down that path. If it amounts to 2 cats and a dog then move on to a closer base. Simples!

I spoke to Cameron Schwabb at the B & F a year in to the Casey deal. We'd spent $1.5mill on the alliance at that time and had a sum total of 1500 members. Half of them were probably Casey Councillors and Casey Scorpions and their families. It is a really good question to see what it is now. 

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

What a load of rubbish...we've been more than patient.

Rubbish.   57 years.  Meh!!!! That's just a flea bite. We've hardly warmed up. 

4 minutes ago, 58er said:

Finally some common sense It's like our flag it's got to be 2021 or 22 !!! Can't wait !

we are an impatient lot with very little common sense. This search has not gone on for 57 years like our flag hunt. It takes 5/8 years to build a team sometime and I feel that we are getting closer with our list. Time to back in the Coaches Inc. Choco snd Ooze. and  our list Getting deeper each year with some real talent and X factor stRting out on the journey to unite with the existing talent Ready to fully blossom.

To borrow from Martin Luther King. "I had a Dream."  

I was talking to a mate the other night and mentioned that someone asked about building something over the train tracks. That's been talked about for more than 30 years Probably more. 

We started thinking. Imagine if they built over Brunton Ave (which they've already partly done) across to the Tennis Centre and towards the City. Get the State Govt engaged by building a massive car park to service the MCG and get cars off Yarra Park forever for MCG games. It would be in walking distance to the City if people stay off public transport post Covid. It would service the Tennis and AAMI. A great addition for every stake holder. Build a state of the art sports facility in that space that MFC need but which the Aus Open could use. Have the MCC affiliated with it and contribute to it so there could be access to the gym and other facilities for MCC members with a new premium membership.  It could have squash courts, basketball courts, which could cross over for indoors training for MFC. etc etc. And on top a Social Club for MFC that could be taken over by the tennis during the Aus Open etc etc. 

How good would that be. We have no idea what they're working on. Wouldn't that be worth the wait. No naysayers please. Leave me to my fantasy. 

As for the criticism Bartlett is getting for not looking the part well enough and not doing enough so sack him. I'd much rather have a low profile "President" who's set a long term strategic plan and focusing on it no matter how hard, than a few of the high profile alternatives like Eddie "Proud" or Jeffrey "Tassie Hawks" or Kochie etc etc.  I like the Board stability over the past couple of crap years. I like there hasn't been a traditional MFC knee jerk Coach sacking through a very difficult time.

I believe on the back of Goodwin's coaching  in 2018 there's justification to think he and the team might turn it around this season. If not then he's obviously gone. And frankly, probably so am I for a while.  But it's not round 1 yet and like every year of my definition of insanity MFC supporting career I am still eternally optimistic until the final siren ends round 1.