1858

Purely as a preliminary glance at our situation I think this is all pretty close to the mark. Spencer was always a project player (in the words of the club) and to put him on the senior list is a big move but given we can't keep him on the rookie list (or can we?) he is worth continuing for now. I think the horse has truely bolted with respect to trading Rivers though - for anything remotely significant at least. I'm not sure we are in the market for very late picks in this point in time having flooded our list with kids. Not sure what calibre of player he would get in a swap. JMac I think is having one last roll of the dice before bowing out but you never know I guess. Rhino's idea of Maric to the rookie list is not a bad one if he is contracted and not looking at making in-roads. It is still a pretty big move though so obviously where the club sees him is pivotal. It will be interesting what sort of moves the club makes to create flexibility, last year their list management was quite good.

Surely they should be more concerned that none of Judd's "team mates" even tried to support him.

Richmond are having a spirited phase atm no doubt. Really though, they have beaten some ordinary teams (coincidentally interstate teams) at far less than optimal performance - they have also done it with the pressure of expectation lifted firmly from their shoulders. Happy to get around with being regarded as the league's basket case they have got away with their shelackings one week to the next. Unlike us, they have not impressed in genuine contests where they were up against top level opposition. We have gone the distance twice with Collingwood and with the Dogs and we ended Brisbane's run when they had maximum momentum. Richmond cherry picked a lifeless Port in the wet, had a regulation win against a WCE team staring down the barrel and got Brisbane at the best time at the 'Gabba they'll ever have. Melbourne have been hit and miss but they have executed a better level of football IMO at times this year when staring pressure in the eyes and genuinely taking on top class opposition - this is the difference. Richmond have a great forward in Riewoldt who never gives up and can prove to be quite potent but I think if you take away him they still have a hard road ahead of them. Lets see how Hardwick goes for the remainder of the year when Riewoldt gets blanketed as opposition teams work more to nullify his effectiveness. To suggest Hardwick has done better than Bailey or even put this in the context of Bailey is really quite rediculous IMO.

On paper for the year he is 27 G 17 B so that is not too bad (obviously OOF or not making distance is not reflected in those numbers). His set shot misses severely hurt us yesterday and I think there was another game this year where he couldn't buy a goal from a set shot. If he has another shocker from set shots then (by his standards) I agree he may have the yips. He still played positive football yesterday though. If there is any injury niggle (hypothetical based on a previous post) then hopefully a couple of weeks break can help iron it out.

Regarding the OP, Gray re-signed with Port yesterday in case anyone missed it. (Along with Hartlett and Stewart).

Fair question, we don't have an obvious candidate who ticks all the boxes and I think that is what you are getting at here. Regardless, I would favour Green over Moloney to cover most of the important criteria (that I personally favour anyway). He is generally a consistent and polished performer up forward and has added elements to his game over the years that make him more accountable. As a player he is not in the fold as much as a mid but IMO he is effective for us and has good maturity and disposition as a player (I have nfi what he is like as a clubman which I admit is pretty important). I also think Green is an intelligent player which is important to development and assisting the coach. His versatility is also very handy which means (similar to JMac) he can move around the ground where required to help out and he has solid experience in this area. Obviously we prefer him kicking goals but never the less he has proven himself on a wing or in defence. I think he is ready to take a step-up. Whether Bailey and the club think so is a different matter.

His work rate is very good, his passion is excellent and if it is true that he has a mentoring role with the younger players then that is an asset. Having said that, I wouldn't have him as captain. As some others have mentioned, his decision making is not the best and he is not as effective as he should be as a player. Regardless of the fact that he does encourage players and sets standards in certain areas, a good captain is an extention of the coach as well as a player in their own right and I just get the feeling that Bailey could do better.

I think the direction Dean Bailey is taking the group is the right one and from that pov I am happy with our plan A. Trying to use the corridor and make attacking play is a requirement in modern football and the fact that we have a raw team is irrelevant, it just means that we will have to give them time to develop. I don't mind mistakes (decisions, disposal) that are based on showing initiative against a better side or are a result of a game plan that is not yet within the grasp of the younger players, it's all part of the learning curve. I've seen some comparisons between the current Melbourne group and Geelong of a few years ago (in varying capacities) which have been interesting. What is also very interesting is that Melbourne currently has the highest play-on percentage of any team in the AFL - including Geelong (in their prime I might add not the Geelong of 5 years ago). There is no doubt that what Bailey is doing at the moment is quite dynamic (almost revolutionary) and I agree with others who re-iterate our need for patience, to go one step further I think all MFC supporters should take solace in the fact that we have one of the most rigorous learning regimes in history of the game unfolding out there rather than worrying about short-term symptoms. My only concern as we go forward is that our eagerness to develop our attacking play does not stifle our decision making and responsibility processes that our players also need to develop. I've noticed that we seem to be taking the play-on at all costs strategy to the extreme with (on many occasions) minimal scope for advantage or common sense. The decision to play on from a kick out with 20 seconds to go before half time on the weekend and an opposition zone of 3 on 1 was quite simply horrendous with an inevitable turnover and oppostion goal with 7 seconds to go in the quarter. I don't normally use individual incidents as examples to general opinions but it was one of those moments where I asked myself have we really come this far? It was mindless, automated football and it was exhibited by a senior player. I don't use this as a criticism of our gameplan (in general) more as a concern that our gameplan is being adopted to a very high degree. With 20 seconds to go we needed a cool head, someone to assess the situation (both positional disadvantage and presence of mind of the length of the quarter) and say "no" I won't play on in this situation, just hold it up. It is easy to say that that sort of awareness will come over time once the playing group is on top of things and in theory it makes sense. Having said that, I think it is important though to coach the players both as a group and as individual decision makers similtaneously rather than in tiers or coaching may simply become conditioning. I appreciate that the load on these kids is massive and there are benefits to drilling them early with this intensity and keeping things simple - they can't do everything. From this pov I am not suggesting that Bailey is doing the wrong thing (he's an AFL coach, I'm some random typing on a computer). I'm simply recognising that there is currently a trade off happening out there due to the intense, unprecedented focus on ball movement which I hope doesn't manifest. As I said, in general I fully support the direction we are taking. There are naturally some symptoms of our attacking game style that some people tend to get caught up with. Some will improve naturally and some need to improve structurally. It stands to reason that our disposal efficiency is low at times and I see people make a point of it quite often. There is no point getting caught up in stats like that as they don't suggest we have an unskilled group at all, it's simply due to the fact that we are making more disposals under pressure due to playing on more than any other team - it isn't rocket science. This is where we will improve naturally. Personally, I maintain that our forward setup is quite simply non-condusive to the direction the team is taking. Not-withstanding personell inadequacies or an ever evolving forwardline (due to multiple reasons) we can't just limit the focus of our gameplan on the midfielders and have them control our destiny. Obviously they have to develop and as they do we will naturally improve as a team but with such a dynamic strategy it is crucial that the forward line is in tune with what the midfield is trying to achieve and it is currently severely lacking. Here we need structural improvement and integration. We have a dogs breakfast forward setup with some players who belong back in 2005 interacting with a new-age midfield learning one of the most rigorous game styles ever in 2010 and beyond. To simply say that once our midfield improves (which it admittedly will) our team will improve, is backwards reasoning for arguing that our current forward setup does not need to improve (significantly). Yes, it certainly begins in the middle, but no it certainly does not end in the middle. If anything, a fordward setup that is condusive to how our midfield is being coached will accelerate their development. In any case, it is a very exciting time at demonland and if you actually understand what is happening out there on the ground you will appreciate rather than lament most aspects of our strategy and performances.

Fair enough thanks for that, 26 scoring shots to 25 and a 1 goal win does suggests a pretty close contest though. Sounds like it. I get the sense though that they used him well and being a dependable target made the job simpler for the midfield.

Cheers for the info on the Casey game. I'm thinking that given the conditions most of Dunn's goals weren't served to him on a silver platter from the midfield - surely amongst 8 goals in the wet some of the balls coming in were simply slapped on the boot and he outplayed his opponent. If what you say is accurate in that he was the difference of the two teams then it sounds like the midfield battle was pretty even. It just goes to show that if you structure up forward well and play to a good tactic your destiny isn't dictated by whether your midfield dominates or not. Eggs, basket and all that. Not good to hear about Martin, I don't like where he is heading atm.

Very interesting on Dunn. Did he play a roaming half forward role or was he camped closer to goal? Given the wet I would hazard a guess of close to goal.

OP wouldn't have helped I agree and I think he has at least tried to work on lowering his kicks so I'll give him that. His kicking technique in general play is not the best. The problem for me is when he gets the ball, too often he refuses to get it off quickly and pauses for a second then takes on a tackler or two and gets both himself and his team mates in trouble. Sometimes he just has to play as a quick link man but tries too much. If he had the burst speed to get around an opponent then great but he doesn't. In any case, regardless of his strengths/weaknesses as a player I agree with what he said.

Can't argue with that, his brand of footy is often antiquated and counterproductive.

Good to get something like this straight from the horses mouth. We are making the job for our mids nigh on impossible when there is no MO in our forward half. Leigh Matthews summed it up perfectly last night when Richmond kicked about 6 goals in a row - it is amazing how a midfield can perform when they have confidence in their forwards. Yes, they subsequently lost but the point was that their ball use was instincively attacking where the mids didn't have to think twice in what they were doing. The mentality that it comes down to our mids and how they deliver it and that the buck stops with them is so backwards it isn't funny. Our lack of forward system is making an already hard job rediculous.

I agree. It is one of those rules which was conceived in an era when the game was drastically slower and different for that matter. It has also evolved in a way (I am guessing was never originally intended) as a means of rewarding tacklers rather than merely penalising (when applicable) a player who had a sporting chance of playing constructive football.

It's a catch 22 IMO. He needs more senior games to get used to the tempo and physicality of senior footy as well as familiarise himself with the other players but yeah he is still underdone in other areas so he still needs to be managed. Unfortunately for Jack, he is not playing as part of an effective forward set up where everyone plays a certain role. He is just thrown up forward and expected to deliver cartwheels in what I can only consider a drop-in centre. He does make elementary mistakes which can be addressed over time but the pressure he is under is quite rediculous IMO.

A lot of things that went wrong for us today we can work on but there are a couple of things that we do that no amount of development will fix. Playing on at all costs simply is killing us and there are still too many senior players who play how they want to instead of how they have to. The ease at which Carlton brought the ball out of defence in the first half was mindboggling. Our lack of consistent forward setup and system is hanging our mids out to dry although having said that today they struggled on their own turf at the bounces. In any case, a loss to Carlton was not unexpected. Gysberts was great again and we are getting important games into our youngsters but that is about it atm. Looking forward to seeing more players debut later in the year.

Wow, given the talk of Boak to GC, how filthy would Port be if we landed Salopek? Is Salopek out of contract at the end of this year?

Down the track I wouldn't mind seeing an interstate game out of the way within our first 4 or so games. I don't have any major reservations with our draw at this point but I think as we improve we'll appreciate not having our second half being stacked with the interstate games. We only travel to Perth once which is good but we also have AAMI twice and the 'Gabba. We only play at the MCG twice from rnd 13 to rnd 18. I'm thinking it is only a matter of time before we cop 2 Perth games again so definitely one of them out of the way early would be good IMO. Geelong have their 2nd Perth game this week and I think they'll be happy to have them both out of the way before closing in on finals. 7 of our first 8 games this year were at the 'G so I think transferring just one of them to the latter half of the season wouldn't hurt our early momentum at all.

This is not an in depth analysis, something I more stumbled on... Also, I am not interested in debating what these numbers necessarily mean or whether they justify any particular stance over another. I just thought it was an interesting fact that (at the ripe old age of 33) JMac averages more disposals per game and tackles per game than ever before including 2006. Marks per game are around average and I don't have access to data such as hardball gets, handball receives, efficiency etc - in any case I'm not interested as that sort of stuff misses the point anyway, it's his work rate. Obviously the game has changed with players racking up easier possesions in the modern game but given how hard JMac works I still think it is a significant fact that he is currently having his best year (so far) for getting the footy and laying tackles. Probably not the most silky smooth or dominant footy player getting around but there is no doubt that he is digging in for his club and assuming this is his last year at Melbourne he certainly can leave holding his head high as he helps lead and lay the foundations for our kids in this transition period. Great effort I reckon. Yr Disp/Game Tack/Game 2010 24.2 8.2 2009 19.3 4.8 2008 19.9 4.6 2007 23.3 6.2 2006 23.1 6.2 2005 15.7 6 2004 18.6 3.3 2003 20.9 4.2 2002 15 2.9 2001 17 2.7 2000 13.9 2.2 1999 11.9 1.5 1998 10.9 1 1997 9.5 1.5

Our contingency for Darwin games has to be absolutely spot on in future. There are both pros and cons of playing up in Darwin so I won't get into that debate but our recovery is critical. Firstly I agree with others who mention playing before the split round, that is common sense and I think the club got a bit of an eye opener up there (despite the weather being unseasonal for May). Secondly. although we move into OP soon, our immediate recovery program before coming back to Melbourne is just as important, in light of this I am curious as to what standard of recovery facilities the players had up at TIO and after the game. All the PR work that the players do before and after game day is great but it is also taxing (I would imagine). The players come first. If the club has an optimal contingency in place then I am happy atm with the Darwin games and the benefits they bring although I am conservative about measuring the impact the club will make (in my view Port are a big winner out of all of this and potentially steal some of our market). I suspect though that the way we go about it next time may be a little different. Down the track when we are pushing for finals I must admit I may not feel as positive about playing in Darwin (similar to some others). On another note, I will obviously watch the Dees this week but I'll make a special effort to watch the Port game as well. I'm curious to see if there is any obvious difference in the way the teams have recovered fitness wise. Obviously Port play the cellar dwellers at home and we play one of the best teams ever away so I won't be going by the game results, just the movement of the players.

From my understanding Mitch Thorpe avenue was explored and turned out to be a cul de sac.

If this is true then that is genuinely bad news for McLean. He needed as much momentum he could muster IMO to make it in the current climate of the game. For him, 12 months out of it could be terminal. Despite the fact he walked, I feel sorry for him. On another note, if we can get the brothers signed up pronto then that is great work by the club.

IMO Miller is the best option of the forwards we have tried so far (excluding the injured players of course). He was a shambles against Hawthorn when he came down the ground. Dropped marks on the run, put others under pressure and generally was a liability away from goal. Later when he was camped closer to the goal square he managed a couple of goals and had more of a purpose - he was quite simply misused but I give the coaching staff the benefit of the doubt as it was round 1 and nobody could have predicted he would be that incompetent down the ground. The key is to keep Miller and Bate out of each others area as they are too slow to interact with each other and create a speed vacuum. The main criticisms I see (on sites) to playing Miller are based both on his game against Hawthorn and the future he has with the club which seems not too long. In any case he is on our pay roll and until some of the other forwards return I think we have nothing to lose in playing him and a little to gain if we use him right. Newton/PJ/Martin are no good up forward although Martin hardly ever gets a chance to consolidate a position anyway. Obviously Watts is an option and I have faith in the club to make the right calls on him based on his development but I don't think we should put him in the KP bracket too soon.

Ok, a bit more context here - I understand where you are coming from. I can't even remember where I read it so take it with a grain of salt. I am not one for making up things as fact, I simply read it somewhere and it stuck in my mind so I made an effort to point out the fact it could be misinformation. I am so far in the dark with respect to future prospects it isn't funny but I still get a sense that we haven't played the percentages with respect to up forward over the years. Hopefully with our move to OP we may have a little more confidence in our future ability to develop players of all sorts and the club may go for some likely kids with a good frame and see if we can "bag one" and not be affraid to "get it wrong". In any case it was more the philosophy of it that worried me. As you say, JPod at the cattery. I realise the cats are at a different stage and JPod is a mature age player but even so, they aren't relying on just forward numbers and that is even with Mooney and Hawkins in the side as tall forwards along with their other accomplished forwards. Geelong are one of (if not the) best running side for forward numbers under pressure and yet they go for another tall forward and a risk I might add if it doesn't come off. On Robbo, I thought we made the right call. I didn't think Bradshaw was such a contradictory suggestion at the time either as he would have straightened us up significantly. This point was missed on many simply due to him being in the twilight of his career which was a seperate issue. In one sense I agree, given our stocks/injuries it is hard for him to make an impact but on another level I still have my concerns. It seems that every week our forward line changes based on the reactionary ins/outs of the week before - Miller/Newton/Martin/Hughes/PJ/Watts for example excluding injuries and it will continue like that all season. I just get the feeling Mahoney just goes with the flow and doesn't have a strategy that demands a consistent set up so we end up with a drop in centre. I realise Watts needs to be managed but still.