Mono

If hard running is the essential part of the game plan, where's the fitness level to go with it? :angry:

Well summed up. Though I reckon the WBD are about half the Hawks, so say 26pts margin. Care to suggest what the other half of changes would/should be? By the way, anyone know who sits on selection?

No way he, or any of our midfield could keep up with Bateman - they aint quick enuf.

Nah, didn't put it very well, did I. What I am saying is, if you put a reasonably skilled player in a hard group (midfield, onballer, forwards) they will have a much better chance of displaying their skills. Maybe even help their 'hardness'. As for Jolly, 'not hard' doesn't mean 'soft'. Any decent tap ruckman could have filled Jolly's shoes 2 years ago - don't forget the Swan went for Everet straight after winning the flag.

Best reasoning I have seen for Moloney's ommission. If his contract's up this year, I reckon he is finished.

They better be right!! Moloney is good, not great. But he is HARD!!!. Better hard and average than not-hard and good.

Just wacked a small bet on MFC to make the 8! 6/1 after 1 game!! What the hell.

Didn't mind them actually. Better than little tight ones. And what other colour? Red? Good grief!

What do you notice about these players. By and large, they are HARD as well as talented. Bruce: talented, not hard; Miller: hard, not talented; Yze & Robinson? ...hmmmm Again, we need HARD & skilled players. And I mean hard, not stupid aggressive etc.

Only thing stopping him will be injuries. I'm betting those long legs, and knees, will be vulnerable. Someone will jump on his legs one day and bugger him. Hope not though. Great player.

Correction: exciting, HARD football.

Heavens! Well said!

Main quote: They had Ron Barassi, Laurie Mithen, Bob Johnson, “Tassie” Johnson, Brian Dixon, Ian Ridley, Ian Thorogood, Noel McMahen and many other stars — colour­ful, too. Colourful?! Read HARD & SKILLED. Again, what we need is HARDNESS as well as skill.

The "leadership group" was elected by the players. Make of that what you will. Frankly, I think the whole notion is [censored]. Looks great if your winning, stupid and silly if your not.

Jolly is/was no great shakes. But he went to a team of HARD players, many skilled as well. Same for Thompson. He's a good, maybe hard player, but he is part of a HARD midfield - gets a chance to show his skills. Similarly Armstrong. A skilled flanker, but not good enuf for MFC top 35 or so, but good enuf for Eagles top 25. Why? Because he is surrounded by HARD players. Get the pattern? - with a core of HARD (and skilled) players, skilled players have a role to play. WE NEED HARD & SKILLED PLAYERS.

Nice to see Moloney running around again. He is a good, hard player with decent skills but lacks pace, bit of a Stenglein in fact. Put him in a good mid-field and he would be an important cog, again like Stenglein. But he's not good enough to be a main man. Anyway, he must wonder wtf in his quieter moments. Drafted from Geelong because they had salary cap problems; 2/3 years later and all his ex-teammates have a premiership.

No they are not soft, but they are not highly skilled, and in the case of Moloney, McLean & Jones, they are not quick. These are (very) good, hard players but not top flight. If they had a Judd or Kerr or Goodwin with them, then .... who knows. Nick Stevens is similar to our boys. With Judd at Carlton, I bet he's relieved. Melbourne has no top flight players ATM ie skilled, hard and with that extra something. But some are being paid as if they are top flight.

Maybe, maybe not . Essendon got flogged a few times last year.

Overpaid? Yes. And I don't think he's 'soft'; he's just not hard. He supposedly has a big 'engine', but only the SKILLED and HARD players get paid the big $'s. Check the other clubs - the best are HARD and SKILLED.

And the Duke played in a premiership too.

There have been lots of posts here about how 'soft' some players are, especially senior ones. I don't think any are actually 'soft' - no one playing AFL is, but many/most are not naturally hard. Unfortunately, I think MFC has many (highly) skilled players who are not naturally hard. And I don't think that's new - eg Steven Stretch was a highly skilled player who is now largely remembered for shirking a full on confrontation with Dipeodomenico in the 87 GF. And I remember when the Duke was traded to Carlton, there was talk around that other teams considered Melbourne 'soft', and couldn't believe they were prepared to trade one player who wasn't. And what's more, I don't think hardness is a learnt thing, I think it is a natural thing - you have it or you don't. It is also very different from 'bravery', like diving backwards into packs (Green has done this on occasion, and he is certainly not 'hard'). I guess the trick is to draft skilled players who are naturally hard. Not easy. Does Melbourne not value naturally hard players enough?

Will be soon. What's your answer to the question??

No expectation of instant resurrection here, or to lay the smackdown on Bailey. But every supporter has a reasonable expectation that their team will be competitive, and that coaches will coach (ie respond to changes/events on the field). None of this happened on Sunday. Take note: be competitive, not necessarily win. Again I state, this was a club changing/generation changing loss. Make no mistake.

I another post, I want to know why these overpaid, underperforming players should not be asked to give (at least) this weeks wages back to the club. Well, why not??

A bit strong, don't you think. My point is that Bailey is senior coach, and responsible for all assistant coaches appointed at his request (excepting Williams, who was carried over). No assistant coaches had any ongoing affect on their areas. What started badly finished the same eg kick ins. And following a poor first half, what did he say to make the 2nd half even worse.