Fat Tony

The OP pretty much nailed it. I think Tom McDonald lacks the skill to be AFL standard. And IMO Howe is definitely AFL standard (although he has started the year poorly.)

• Tyson looks to be a good AFL player.

Cross showed why he was so loved by Bulldog fans.

Dunn is a very good player.

The Spencer experiment should have been terminated when he dropped the ball against North in 2009. We desperately need to recruit an athletic ruckman and I would be chasing Blicavs from Geelong and even consider taking Stefan Martin back.

Watts was poor. Soft in the contest, dropped easy marks and missed targets. He was the most disappointing thing out of yesterday.

Tom McDonald lacks the skill to be an AFL player and should be traded (even if Frawley walks).

Fitz and Howe were disappointing, but the slow pace of our forward movement is the real problem in our game, not the quality of our KPFs. We need to be more willing to kick to a contest early in our attacking phase and use the corridor more. Roos has failed to get us playing with enough flair at the moment. He needs to be aiming to kick 13 goals (even if the opposition kick 25).

Watching Nic Nat, Shuey and Darling dominate is sickening.

Garland should be the sub next week.

The plan is ok when the other team's defence is set. It is still a work in progress going inside 50 however.

But we need to be more bold and attacking when we first retain the ball and more willing to kick forward to a contest from a stoppage rather than always handballing backwards.

Obviously we cannot recruit mid-season and I gave a list of players earlier I would have targeted last year. This season we should use the 2014 cap space on an option over Frawley’s future contract if we can convince him to sign and likewise Dunn and other lesser players we sign. Going back in time, Neeld should have obviously have not driven out Beamer.

I just think it is wrong to say we have no choice. We choose to spend resources on off field support, where the benefits to performance are overstated IMO. I am of the view that good players make good coaches, not the other way around.

You are having 50 cents each way. You suggest that after we front loaded Frawleys contract we should have adjusted other contracts to keep him an RFA but then you say we should front load contracts to get stars - this action is exactly why Frawley is a UFA.

So which one is it ?

On Frawley, I acknowledge it may not have been possible in this instance. Although I would find it surprising if Frawley was well outside our top 8 earners this season. And we have made a slight mistake in not understanding the rules fully if Vince, Tyson and Watts (all of which signed multiple year contracts and only Watts eventually becoming a FA) bumped Frawley outside the top 8 this year.

Going forward, we know the rules around FA and should structure our cap to front load players like Vince, Dawes and Tyson, who cannot become FA, and back load the last year on Watts, Trengove etc. Overall, our cap should be mostly front loaded and fully paid.

Yep nice one. Can't answer a straight question. And then you throw in spurious incorrect arguments. Typical bully behaviour.

Tell me the plethora of players lining up to play for the Dees?

I'm still waiting...

Come off it Junior. You asked six questions.

There hasn't been a plethora of players lining up, but front loading contracts gives us greater cap room to land a big recruit in future years. And by not paying the full cap we are a no go zone for quality recruits because they want to play in a successful side.

Our total football spend is well above the cap at the moment. All I am suggesting is we make sure most of that is running onto the ground on match day. Not in the box.

I think that he is the classic dees star.

In a period of low level results and performances we cling to anything that gives the slightest chance of improvement / success.

I certainly have seen him as being way better than I think he actually is.

If I think about the games he has played (57) how many have been in the top 5 players?

From my memory 3 or 4.

The rest have been good quarter games mixed with the occasional specie mark.

He is not IMO a KPF

He is a forward who flashes in and out of the game.

On his good weeks he is capable of 2 -3 goals, the reverse is like Saturday night when he gets the first or second defender he struggles.

In a good team he would be very dangerous but in the MFC team of 2014 when there are not KPF's playing he will be average at best.

We are expecting too much

Howe has been playing in a side with a third world midfield. The reason we have only seen flashes is because the ball has been at the other end most of the time. He would win the Coleman at Hawthorn.

1) Howe had a bloody good direct opponent.

2) Our ball movement was too slow and meant our forwards were outnumbered.

3) Our forward entries were woeful.

As much as our forward line was dysfunctional and Pederson and Howe were ordinary, the problem was more to do with our lack of risk taking up field.

What tripe are you espousing? The cumulative effect? WTF is that?

And Jed Lamb and Blicavs are superstars are they? Dusty would be a great pick up - no club wanted him as he is an accident waiting to happen.

And front loading contracts has worked out well for us hasn't it? Frawley is not in the top 25% of paid players and can walk at years end.

Any more bright ideas?

5 of the last 12 flags have been won by clubs paying around 110% of the cap. We have been paying 92.5%-95% for the last seven years and have won between 2 and 8.5 games with a soft draw every year. The impact of the cap is obvious.

And front loading of contracts is not the reason for our predicament. It is bad recruiting and Mark Neeld.

On Frawley, the FA rules couldn't have been foreseen, but once they were introduced we should have shaped the other players contracts to ensure he was a RFA.

Really? Name the players that Melbourne could have attracted so that we can pay 100% of the salary cap? They are queueing up to play for melbourne aren't they. I noticed the line outside our offices pre-draft of all the gun players that were itching to play for the Dees.

Or are you suggesting that we simply pay our existing players more?

Either way I suspect its you that doesn't understand.

We should be paying the full cap and sacrificing in other areas. It is only about $500K, but it makes a big difference because of the cumulative effect.

Personally I would have tried to get Dustin Martin, Andrejs Everitt, Shane Mumford, Jed Lamb or Mark Blicavs in the PSD with above market offers. If we couldn't land a player, we should be front loading the contracts of players like Vince, Dawes, Clark, Pederson, Jamar and Tyson. (i.e. any player on big money unable to become a free agent.)

Dave Misson has been a disaster for us

The physedders are witchdoctors. We would be much better off spending the money on paying the full salary cap.

My thoughts:

• That was a very disappointing performance. St Kilda were as bad as GWS last year.
• Our poor goal kicking really cost us.
• It is a disaster to have so much of the salary cap on the sidelines in Round 1, particularly for a bottom club paying only 95%.
• Watts was excellent and will only get better as a mid as he gets fitter and stronger. Roos has done well over the preseason on teaching him to use his speed more effectively and we need to keep feeding him the ball. Next Watts needs to develop his ability to mark at the highest point, rather than being too cute. His tackling will always be a weakness IMO and it still needs to be a focus.
• Whilst picking up a lot of the ball, Tyson was slow and made some bad errors. He is also very one sided for a slow player.
• I thought Michie showed a bit to suggest he could be a good player.
• Toumpas is developing but will never be the star we hoped.
• JKH will need to become much stronger to make it given his lack of pace. As much as it hurts to say, Byrnes is ahead of him at the moment.
• Georgiou looks a good honest footballer and is already in our best 22 IMO. His recruitment and Dunn’s great transformation to become a star will put pressure on T McDonald to remain in our best side when Garland returns.
• Spencer never has been or will be the answer in the ruck.
• I didn’t think Roos had his greatest night in the box. The slow reaction to move McDonald off Riewoldt was very costly, particularly when Frawley was the alternative. Also I thought we were overly defensive in pushing midfield numbers back AND allowing the spare man. This meant we had too many players behind the ball and our forward transition was too slow. The Saints were then able to pick us off on the counter attack enough times to kick a winning score.
• As ordinary as Pederson and Howe were, I thought our forward entries were woeful and it wouldn’t have mattered who was down there. We needed to hit up the short lead more often to draw the defenders out or run the ball to the 50.
• IMO we need to become a bit bolder in our ball movement from the backline at times and use handball as an attacking weapon. We tried this once (which was the correct tactic) but Frawley made an error and they got us on the counter. While our kicking possession game makes sense when the opposition’s defence is well organised, we should look to attack more like Geelong once the ball is turned over and/or when we enter our half of the ground. As much as it would hurt against us, we should play Blease in defence.

I think Nic Nat is a star but I am not sure you want to pay anyone 10% of your salary cap.

I would go hard after Blicavs from Geelong instead.

Sorry Tony, I disagree.

I think Melbourne players in the last 6-8 years have, overall, been physically smaller than other teams. And I'm not just talking about some obvious former players such as Morton and Gysberts. Just look at West Coast and Adelaide players up close and compare them with ours. In comparison, ours seem physically weaker. There are exceptions (Jamar and Tapscott come to mind), but players such as Watts, Strauss, Trengove and even Frawley are relatively skinnier than players of equivalent age and playing in similar positions in other teams.

We drafted weaklings.

Picking out players such as Watts, Strauss and Trengove and pointing to a lack of development on our part is all hypothetical. The question is 'would they be bigger and stronger if they were drafted by another club?' If you think yes, then ask why didn't Morton bulk up at West Coast? And then ask, what would Jack Darling look like if we picked him?

Moreover, Misson has been with the MFC for three preseasons. He is using the same techniques to bulk up Watts as he was using for Barry Hall.

I completely disagree on Frawley BTW.

Yes, I'm told by one of the best recruiters in the game that he thinks we have a much better list than we have shown.

And they are correct. The talent on our list was suppressed by the worst coach the game has seen.

dc lets not forget that free agency is a players union requirement.

It is all about the free movement of players.

If it was not for the AFL putting up some sort of fight we would have total free agency.

The only people that gain from free agency are the rich and powerful clubs and the players

The thing is that all the players won't benefit though. Only the top players will. Eventually the competition will become so inequitable that poor clubs will fold.

The AFLPA, like all unions, will cut off their nose despite their face.

I am firmly in the camp that our recent woes are almost solely due to bad drafting.

Development can be broken down into three components, two of which are individual based and one of which is team based.

Firstly, there is individual physical development. That is, making our players stronger, faster, fitter and more skilful. This largely comes down to training (running, weights and skills) and diet. IMO there are negligible differences between the top and bottom AFL clubs in terms of physical development. This view reflects the number of assistant and senior coaches continually migrating from successful clubs and that the science of exercise is not all that complicated (injections aside) or sophisticated. It also reflects the inability of most players to ‘change their spots’ when they change clubs.

Second is the individual mental component. This involves teaching players where to run and position themselves and decision making (most importantly with ball in hand but also otherwise). These aspects can be taught to some extent but are largely instinctive. The mental side of things also includes training players to be at peak aggression while maintaining discipline. This is complex and coaches will use different techniques for different players. (i.e. for some players the coach will use the carrot and for some they will use the stick.)

The third component is team development. This involves teaching the team to play together to its strengths and to negate the strengths of the opposition. I actually believed Dean Bailey was quite good at this aspect of development and we looked really good on a handful of occasions. He was let down by a lack of cattle. Mark Neeld was terrible at this aspect because he wanted to implement an outdated philosophy.

The key disadvantages of Frawley being an UFA rather than a RFA are 1) that the AFL may scrap the compensation for UFAs over the next year and 2) that he could go to a club chasing a flag on a below market salary which then reduces our compensation.

The AFL website has had a go at our 22 for round 1. I think it is a pretty good effort. I would use Watts forward when Spencer, Fitz or Howe are off the ground FWIW. I would also consider playing Dunn forward, although he is in good form in defence.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-09/your-clubs-best-22-hawthorn-to-west-coast

Melbourne

B: Lynden Dunn, James Frawley, Dean Terlich
HB: Jack Grimes, Tom McDonald, Alex Georgiou
C: Bernie Vince, Nathan Jones, Jack Watts
HF: Jack Viney, Jeremy Howe, Jack Trengove
F: Jay Kennedy-Harris, Jack Fitzpatrick, Jimmy Toumpas
FOLL: Jake Spencer, Daniel Cross, Dom Tyson
INT: Viv Michie, Jordie McKenzie, Matt Jones
SUB: Sam Blease

The loss of Jesse Hogan because of a back injury is disappointing but it is silly to think he was critical to the Demons winning in round one. After all, he has not played an AFL game yet. The absence of Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes makes Jack Fitzpatrick and Jeremy Howe the key talls up forward. Both are in good form and will test the Saints' defence. Max Gawn, Dean Kent and Mark Jamar will not be match fit and Alex Georgiou deserves his chance although Mitch Clisby and James Strauss will be considered. Jay Kennedy-Harris should get his chance although Sam Blease and Rohan Bail could easily win a spot as a small forward. Luke Tapscott had an interrupted pre-season and Christian Salem won't be ready although he is certainly talented. - Peter Ryan

This was a pretty weak draft overall and we should have gone hard at O'Meara in hindsight. GC got him for a steal.

Having just watched the game for the first time, my biggest impression was that we got far more out of that game than they did. We gave up at the very least 9 goals from turnovers (all of them horrendous mistakes, not just "oh well" mistakes) and another 2 goals from head-ducks straight out of the Selwood playbook. Yet we only lost by just on 2 goals to a team that has set the standard over recent times.

This implies two things. The first is that Geelong may well be in big trouble this year, unless they improve. Were they cruising? Well, they seemed intent on putting a hard tag on Jones, who could hardly take a step with the ball without getting buried. What sort of coach of a top team tags the best player of a bottom team in a practice match?? And they seemed intent to exploit the lack of our best 2 tall defenders by bombing it high to their tall forwards - what they could possibly have gained from that in a practice match I have no idea, except to show that it will never work against an intact defence; it was a great lesson for us in how not to use tall forwards. And they were also intent on trying to niggle the likes of Tyson, Watts & Nicho, and holding back their opponents to stop them getting to the contest ... again, in a practice match. OK, this is just being a "professional" team (for want of a better word), but how far did it get them - 2-goal win against last year's easybeats! It's not as if they played badly, just that something's missing. They'd have to be concerned.

The second is that we committed hara kiri - complete with ritual disembowelment - over and over in that match, yet still only lost by 2 goals. Add to that, the conditions were the worst possible for our game plan. Many turnovers were the result of trying to kick accurately into the teeth of the strong wind blowing across the ground, and the humidity prevented the same level of relentless running and presenting and blocking of the previous game.

We've all feared what might happen if this game plan should fall apart against a top team. Well, with our mistakes, the conditions, missing tall forwards (and therefore our "get-out-of-jail" option) and tall defenders and support rucks, against a top team intent on undermining us - it was made to look very shaky indeed against a (supposedly) top team. And we only lost by 2 goals.

So just how robust can this game plan be???

It was 27 scoring shots to 15 and one of the best players in the game was injured early. Geelong had 62 inside 50s to 31.

• IMO we need to be more aggressive in playing on immediately after a turnover. Our game plan is good when the opposition defensive structures are set, but we go too safe and are too slow to shift the ball early on when we first get possession. I am also not convinced our slow ball movement will work all that well with a very top heavy forward line.
• I also think we are too willing to go backwards from a stoppage to maintain possession rather than just go with a quick kick forward.
• I thought Nicholson was pretty good and it wouldn't surprise me if he was picked in the backline in round one. I like his willingness to run but his kicking is always a worry.
• Michie showed he will be a good pick up.
• Tyson will be a good inside mid and is exactly what we need.
• Watts found the ball well and has lovely poise, but needs to improve his tackling and intensity. I think he will benefit from playing on bigger grounds.
• Hogan did well given the limited supply.
• Fitzpatrick was pretty ordinary.
• Dunn has been excellent so far this year.

Based on the two games and what we know, and assuming Clark and Garland aren’t fit, the Round 1 team is shaping up something as below. The bolded players are locked in.

Dunn Frawley Nicholson

Terlich McDonald Grimes

Trengove Cross Watts

Howe Hogan Tyson

Bail Dawes Kennedy-Harris

Spencer N Jones Vince

Fitzpatrick Michie Viney

Blease

Agree with most of your post and your team. Agree that sharing the ball around the backline when under pressure is great but when we get a turnover there should be space to just attack and get a goal. I remember one we got and Blease ran out to his right to then find a wall of Tigers when all his support was on the left. Which brings me to my thought that no way in hell is Blease a backline option. Firstly he wont be able to defend and secondly he just doesn't seem to have the ability to think through pressure and use his team mates. He should be the king of the 1-2 or give and go but instead he's all grab the ball and run straight in to trouble. He needs to realise unless he has a clear path to goal he's so much better using his team mates to get him in to space. Or just as much using his pace to draw defenders but finding his team mates. Half the time when he puts his foot down and runs all he does is burn off his supporting team mates and leading forwards and run straight in to the opposition. So frustrating.

I don't think Blease will make it as a forward because he doesn't read the play well enough, doesn't have the engine, can't kick left foot and is useless in the air.

Down back, he will have more space and be able to use his blistering pace to break a line (or two). I share concern that his defensive side is inadequate, but I think we need to get some pace into the side. I also think Blease played his best footy in backline under Viney.

My thoughts:

• An impressive performance overall. The way we controlled the ball was excellent and Roos showed in one quarter how diabolical Neeld was as a coach.
• I would like us to attack a bit more aggressively immediately after receiving a turnover, but this may be Stage 2 of Roos’s game plan.
• Howe is really well suited to being the main man up forward. It will be interesting to see if he can adapt and have the same or greater influence when we get our key forwards back and he gets a lesser opponent but has less space to operate.
• Vince is a better pick up than I thought.
• Our midfield still lacks pace, but we should be able to win a more reasonable share of clearances this year. Hopefully Watts going into the midfield and Viney returning will help in this area.
• Dunn was fantastic and is a certainty for Round 1.
• Bail was also very good and has penciled himself in to the side.
• It was good to see Trengove get so much ball, but he is still slow and we need to be tactical in finding him the right match up. (i.e. not Deledio)
• Spencer lacks the requisite skill to make it as an AFL player. If he gets a game in Round 1 it is because Gawn hasn’t developed an engine, Clark is not fit and Jamar is past it. A fit Clark would be ideally played as a first ruck given our weakness in the ruck and our strength up forward.
• Kennedy-Harris is an exciting pick up. He isn’t all that quick but reads the game very well and uses the ball effectively.
• Michie was a bit quiet and doesn't help our pace issues in the midfield. He will need to have good games against Geelong and Hawthorn to be certain of a game in Round 1.
• Tyson is also slow and his kicking was rusty. His work in centre square was pretty good.
• Frawley was dominant at the start of the game and is a lock in my Supercoach team given our change in game style.
• We still have one or two small defender spots up for grabs. I would like to see Blease trialed down back next week.

Based on what we know, and assuming Clark and Garland aren’t fit, the Round 1 team is shaping up as below. The bolded players are locked in.

Dunn Frawley ???

??? McDonald Grimes

Trengove Cross Watts

Howe Hogan Bail

Fitzpatrick Dawes Kennedy-Harris

??? N Jones Vince

Tyson M Jones Viney

???

I like the move of Watts into the midfield. He is well skilled (particularly by foot), athletic enough to run both ways and he reads the play well. Watts should also have an advantage in marking contests over most midfield opponents. While Watts is well composed in traffic, he will be predominately ‘outside’ and won’t be a big contested ball winner in the clearances. But we have others who can do that and he should be positioned outside the centre square to mitigate this weaknesses. I don’t see the best comparison as a Pendlebury, Mundy or Fyfe type, rather I see him being more outside like Gibbs, Goddard and Embley. However, for Watts to make it, he definitely needs to improve his tackling.

Later in his career I see Watts evolving into a forward, but he needs to get stronger first. (Besides, we have plenty of key forwards on our list.)

The poor children.