pitmaster

OPTION ONE: Is the high-intensity, numbers-to-the-contest style of play adopted by Melbourne in 2017 too draining for younger teams to sustain over a full season and does this explain Melbourne's fade out in that year? Thanks to those who took up the essay challenge. I posted the topics for light relief but since a few had a dip Clayton Oliver style I figure I should try to answer my own puzzle. So to begin, I reviewed our match statistics, which is not something I usually dwell on much, but I hoped there might be some patterns that might go some way to explaining our weak end to the year, losing three and recording two uninspiring wins among the last five games. I found that: In its 12 victories Melbourne won contested possession, clearances and tackles in seven matches. Every one of these seven was up to, and including round 13 against the Dogs. The sole exception to this rule was that we were beaten for contested possession in the win against Essendon, but wiped them on clearances. From this it would seem Melbourne’s early victories were founded on a basis of winning contested possession, winning more clearances and pressuring the opposition. No surprises there. In the five victories in the second half of the year Melbourne won these statistical categories on only one occasion, the round 22 win over Brisbane. In the other four wins Melbourne was beaten in at least one of these categories. Even during its five losses in the first half of the year Melbourne scored well on these measures, winning the contested possession battle and the clearances count on three occasions while matching the opposition for the tackle count except in the round 9 loss to North (78-94). Indeed, in the round 7 loss to Hawthorn the Demons won contested possession 153-128 and clearances 37-30. Tackles were 85 apiece. So even when Melbourne lost in the first half of the year it was competitive on these measures. In the second half of the year, the Demons drop off, just as they did during their second half victories. Of the five defeats beginning from round 15 (Swans) to round 23 (Collingwood return match) Melbourne trailed its opposition in clearances and tackles in every case, and several times by big margins. The Swans won contested possessions 157-124 and the clearances 38-27. In round 20 the Giants won the clearances 60-43 and out-tackled Melbourne 119-86. Melbourne also lost the clearances and tackle count by a big margin in round 17 (Adelaide). All this suggests to me that there is something in the suggestion that a young side faded as the season progressed. Melbourne’s best wins were against Adelaide in round eight, and over the reigning premiers in round 13. Even the wins in the second half of the year - let alone the losses - suggest the side could not maintain the pressure it exerted earlier. Obviously, injuries were a big factor in the outcome as well and not everything can be put down to an unseasoned side. Gawn, Hogan and Brayshaw missing half or more of the season were massive losses. Equally important were injuries to Jones, Watts and Viney, while the inability of Gawn and Watts to recover their pre-injury form meant the group could not settle into a cohesive unit. In this context 12 wins looks like an advance. But nothing explains that feeble effort in the first quarter of round 23.

Yes but, Troy Pannell was in perfect position to see a couple of throws in the first quarter and let them go. Ditto a push in the back in a marking contest that resulted in a Pie goal. Umpiring blues hurt us, no doubt. That does not change the fact that our blokes were a disgrace in the first term for the lack of pressure they put on their opponents. Not one free kick in the first term? Wow.

Richmond showing how it's done. It's time to show them some respect.

OPTION ONE: Is the high-intensity, numbers-to-the-contest style of play adopted by Melbourne in 2017 too draining for younger teams to sustain over a full season and does this explain Melbourne's fade out in that year? OPTION TWO: Can sporting clubs acquire a losing or winning culture over sustained periods of failure or success and have that culture maintained despite the constant coming and going of new and retiring players. Discuss with reference to Melbourne Football Club post-1964, Hawthorn Football Club post-1961 and St Kilda Football Club any time. Students seeking a high distinction and attempting Option One may wish to incorporate references to the subject of Option Two (allowance an additional 250 words max).

Was Tom Mc Donald solely responsable for our whole first Qtr? That's where the game was lost. ---------- He sure didn't help. The fact is our failure to put any physical pressure on them in the first quarter cost us the game, but when it was in the balance in the last Tom was a massive handicap.

That report is a joke. The only one likely to be rubbed out for that is the umpire for rank incompetence (or scalp hunting). He's one to be watched, VFL No 6.

I had forgotten just how good this kid is...sensational comeback. Let's hope he continues to prosper and becomes the absolute star his talent suggest he could be. As for the question can exercises strengthen the neck, take a look at the NRL folks!

The grading system and the MRP should be scratched. It was supposed to make penalties more transparent and yet it's even more laughable than the old tribunal. How Wines walked is a mystery all its own. But Redpath's three weeks, like Hogan's two weeks earlier this year, are hopelessly out of line. As bad as it is, they should just go back to tribunal hearings and every one of those f---wits on the MRP forced to walk a lap of the G on Grand Final Day while they're pelted with rotten fruit.

This is a typical post of those critical of the Weed. Not singling you out in particular Doc since plenty agree with you, BUT what I saw against the Aints was that as the game progressed Sam increasingly positioned himself better in packs, working his way to the front. Only one of them stuck but over the course of those four quarters he really seemed to be learning how to set himself. Once more of them start to stick I think you'll see rapid improvement. As for the short term, Watts would give us more but given all reports suggest he was OK but not fierce in the twos one week's banishment may not be enough. I'd be happy to see him back but I think Sam deserves another crack rather than have his confidence undermined.

If you seriously think there is nothing dodgy about the umpiring then you have not been attending too many games. At 3/4 time today it was 11:18 against us despite the fact we had been leading all day. While the Saints clearly "won" the 3rd quarter that was on the back of bewildering decisions at centre bounces. Final stats were 20:20 - Razor and his mates clearly set out to even up the stats in the last term once we were on top. Were they biased? I don't know but they were clearly intent on fixing the stats/

Clearly you've never worked in journalism.

The time I am talking about Tim would have been kicking a Coles plastic footy in the back lanes of Hobart - he might have missed something.

It would be sad if the Melbourne-Collingwood QB fixture was dumped for precisely this reason: it is one of the few blockbuster matches that reflects the cultural history of the game rather than the contrived marketing of modern blockbusters such as the Essendon-Collingwood Anzac Day game. Demons and Pies on QB harks back as someone else noted in this thread to 1958 and the biggest ever home and away attendance on...wait for it...Queen's Birthday. That was also an era in which a Melb-Coll grand final was played with thousands of spectators sitting inside the boundary line so great was the rivalry and the interest. (That was 1955 or '56. Ticketing was introduced the following year.) So when I say our QB fixture reflects cultural history I mean it's authentic and evolved from the game's pre-commercial, pre-industrialised past. It's from the time when no-one talked about the football 'industry' and when retired footballers went back to the bush to coach or simply went back to their old jobs and were not guaranteed a future as media personalities. Kevin Sheedy's Anzac option at the beginning was opportunistic and phoney by comparison, although it has developed into something more since. Other true blockbusters would be Carlton-Richmond, Collingwood-Carlton - rivalries that reflect the battles of the past and raise passions. Hawthorn-Sydney and Geelong-Hawthorn are genuine modern blockbusters, especially the Cats and Hawks. I doubt QB will go at least in part because this year was such a brilliant contest and neutrals loved it. They loved it for the closeness and the quality of the game, Howe's screamer and finally because Collingwood lost. Narrowly. Whatever the Magpie nuffies think, the deal the MCC gave the Woods, gifting them a social club area for every game they play at the 'G means they gain plenty commercially from QB even if we do win the gate.

Well said Sylvia but aren't you hiding your light under a bushel, or is there another SS on BF who was quoted?

EXTRACTED from BigFooty: "Good: We won and are briefly in the 8. The BF gameday thread on the Melb board (see below).Bad: 1st half! Ugly: Demonland gameday thread. Today well and truly convinced me that is not a place I want to be. So negative and derogatory to players and the club. The Melb board gameday thread here on BF has sarcasm, humour and not a lot of bagging in comparison. Mate word of advice, avoid the gameday threads at all costs over there and unless it's a 4 quarter, 100 point shellacking then the post match stuff straight afterwards is littered with negativity too. Although to be fair our second half tsunami today did paper over a few cracks in the side." Very interesting to see what other Demon fans think of this place...I have to say I tend to avoid the first couple of hours after a loss.

Thirty points down and I was ready to give up on them but it's simply wrong to say we were lousy for the entire first half. The commentary made it clear that our effort into the wind in the first quarter was pretty good and that the Suns were not far enough in front. Inaccuracy burned us when we had the wind in the second, so skills and finishing (and lack of forward structure) cost us, but we were in the contest. In the end Jones, Garlett and Hibbered really shaped this win and maybe we should just enjoy the fact we've found some who can hit the scoreboard in Hogan's absence. In short: whingers, get over it.

I thought that was Clint Bartram, on the wing that created the crucial turnover. I am open to correction but in any case the AFL was responsible for allowing those fraudulent fools (UMPIRES) to impersonate players.

This is exactly right. Brown used his full 30 seconds and THEN he began his approach. And tonight the umpires get trigger happy with Dixon. My God I hate the AFL. We were completely screwed (even as we screwed ourselves).

Dreadful shock but as others have noted, it's early days and very curable. Just have to wish him a change of fortune and a quick return to fitness. The club will be right behind him and his family.

I understand what you're saying but when the game plan is executed properly, with ground level pressure, tackling and purposeful handball to moving targets it can be devastating which is what we saw in the third quarter. (It's also why Hawthorn played us so physically when we didn't have the ball. They were on the edge all day mauling us and the umpires of course, let them get away with it.)

Just registering my disappointment. I agree with so much on this thread sadly. Dumb decision making; lack of effort and run in the first half, overuse of the ball, hand passing to team mates under pressure (Viney in the last quarter hand passing when a short kick would have done - and I pick on him because he is so good and a leader but it was dumb dumb dumb football); multiple defenders flying together with none staying down, let alone staying down goal side, Vince undisciplined again and a smart coach against us who exploited our lack of height and tendency to over-use. We should or could be 6-1. The games against Richmond, Freo and Hawthorn all thrown away. We don't seem able to win when the fates are against us - so much went wrong with the ball running for Hawthorn and Roughhead having some protected species status - but even so this was there to be won. The only consolation is this ends the JKH debate. He did a bit, had a goal assist but when the time came to nail a goal for himself his kick was all wrong with too much air and never looked like getting the result. It reeked of not quite good enough, not confident enough and not skilled enough.

CBDees is right. The MCC asks its members to nominate a team they support but that's for their own internal reasons - just a survey to profile their membership. Numbers don't count in the football membership tally. I think most MCC members take out the discounted membership as a donation to the footy club and in turn score a scarf, car stickers, the usual stuff. What is new this year is that if you take out a full MFC membership with your MCC membership then your football membership entitles you to take a guest into three games in the MCC reserve at no extra cost. Normally you would have to buy a guest ticket, costing around $40, to take a guest into the MCC. This applies only to five matches (the lower attending ones against Freo, North, Port, Saints and Brisbane) but if you use those bonus tickets for three of those matches you are almost all square (and popular with mates).

Hawks have given away their first and second round picks this year so definitely they'll be looking to trade back into the draft. They've done it before offloading players like Hay and scoring big time so they'll try to do it again. The main problem is their best are ageing. Hodge, Gibson even Roughy are last legs options. Besides Roughy should stay for sentiment if nothing else- he is a heart and soul character. Frawley? Ha ha. I don't want Cyril - great highlight reel but does not get enough of it. He is icing only. Age is catching him and Poppy too. Breust I'd have but as discussed is locked in. For mine that only leaves Gunston as a target. His kicking is off atm but he is a class act. Otherwise don't touch them.

Arguably the better coach if Norm's biog is right.

which one? The Dogs do alright.