1858

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.

Appreciate your food for thought. Definitely we need straightening up, up forward. Who would you propose (from available stocks) against Port?

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.

It's not meant to be contradictory, it's inevitable that a young and mainly inexperienced side will have losses like today along the general path to becoming a great side.

But with experience and building confidence and physical strength, the expectation is that such poor performances can be largely eradicated. That's where coaches need to know the warning signs and how to negate them.

I don't feel Bailey and co can be seriously blamed for today's poor showing. There are things that happen with young inexperienced sides that no brilliant coaching can address.

Ok, a bit more context here - I understand where you are coming from.

Hadn't heard this, I guess you just have to work with what you've got. And there aren't too many gifted KPP coming on in the junior ranks it seems. Which is why Podsiadly works for GFC where they are at just now.

I was always keen on keeping Robbo (or picking up someone like Bradshaw) to take some of the pressure off Watts in his first couple of years (and maybe mentor him). Trouble with Green is we only have one of him.

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.

Hmmm... on grounds he used to play under Bailey at Port? Dunno, time will tell if he's any good. I don't feel we can judge Mahoney on these early games, because of both lack of experience in the team and the crop of injuries.

Agree DB's developing the squad well as a whole.

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.

It is not DB's fault that today's team played with no intensity for 4 qtrs.

He's probably learned something valuable from today too, and next time he sees the warning signs of a lacklustre performance coming on, he'll hopefully quickly fix whatever it is that gets into players heads and results in the whole team performing without intensity or confidence.

The second point kind of contradicts the first point but I agree with the gist of your over all post. Learning curve and all that.

--------

On the topic of the forward line, IMO we seem to take a naive approach to what constitutes an effective forward set up. I read words to the effect earlier this year that Bailey is all for "forward numbers" and that he wasn't too focussed on consolidating our personell in the way of KPP. If this is in fact a true indication of his thoughts on the matter then we are quite simply going to pay for it in the long run. I'm also sceptical of what Mahoney actually brings to the equation apart from (in all probability) being the most likely "yes man" of the coaching brigade. In any case I still beleive that Bailey is developing the squad well as a whole.

If the club, as a result, is seen as being committed to this venture then it will enhance our brand. I agree with others who have mentioned some of the gimmicks of the past - I'm sick of them. MFC is making a statement not only that it is behind the cause of breast cancer awareness but that it treats all associations with the club seriously and sincerely. There are intangible benefits to this. It's not like the players are going out in pink negligees and even if they do cop any flack then that will only make them more rounded in the long term.

The OP is spot on.

As long as you understand that letters like this which aren't actually addressing a specific problem which is actionable by the admin staff are more or less just masturbation then knock yourself out, write away. But if you expect Jim Stynes or Dean Bailey to have to pore through however many pages of rubbish and write you letters of response then you're just kidding yourself.

As an aside, if you think there is anybody in the MFC organisation in any capacity who doesn't understand all too well how unacceptable Saturday was then you're delusional. Try to realise that all of us on this forum, whilst passionate, have other things to occupy our time during the week. The people at the footy Club are living this Club not only on weekends, but all day during each week too.

A lot of sense in this post.

If CJ was under anywhere the same pressure that Joel Mac was under against the Hawks on Saturday he would have capitulated IMHO.

Its a tough question to ask, Do we handball or kick to a player and hope he beats his opponent (sometimes 2). I just hate seeing a player mark the ball, turn around, handball to the closest player only to see them have to side step out of trouble. A player sometimes has to way up his options. Our switching of play was horrible.

I agree, this happens all too often and the net result is not only putting ourselves under unnessecary pressure but it is also wasted energy cleaning up the mess.

The irony is that when we should play on because we have space there is nobody to pass it to. Our ball movement must improve as well as our positioning and ground coverage. Yes, this is up to the coach but our conditioning is also a part of this.

Teach the kids Man on Man first, then worry about more complex tactics please.

No problem with that, but to put that comment in context of who we played on the weekend (ie some purely reactionary views in this thread) was the part I was addressing.

This is all well and good to listen to Dermie talk about how some of the Hawthorn players like to go about it but Collingwood could be a completely different scenario. I think any pre-determined gameplan you take with a grain of salt. Traditionally Collingwood give MOM a go more than zones so unlike Hawthorn we may not be as effective as they prefer this type of game. Horses for courses.

The point is that there is no 1 single game type we should be employing, we need to learn all facets of modern footy. Unfortunately unless you can exert an effective zone in modern footy (which takes time) then there is no point worrying about AFL footy. MOM is just as important but it is hard to perfect everything at once which is why I give Bailey a bit of leeway when he focuses on one area over the other as part of the learning process. I do agree though that Bailey needs to be sharper as he goes along and needs to weigh up the pros and cons of sticking to a style in a game but he is allowed to develop as well as the club.

Why don't we, instead of fighting it, accept that our backline will be our strength.

I agree.

On top of that we also need to understand that our backline is a strength in relativity (to our midfield and forward line) but not in absolute terms. You only have to look at how easily Essendon scored against us in the 1st Challenge Match and now West Coast today at Casey that our defence needs all the integrity we can give it. If teams are scoring easily against us (yes I know it starts in the middle but that isn't the point here) we are hardly in a position to take key players out of our defence. Garland is one player I can understand being suggested as he (despite being a very handy defensive prospect) hasn't been integral to the defensive development over the last 12 months. Frawley (and to a lesser extent Rivers) on the other hand has been integral to our defensive shape and development and will be going forward so why undermind that? I still think Garland is of more value in defence but IF we have our bases covered down back then perhaps see if he can fill a hole elsewhere.

Posters need to understand that we need to progressively develope our team not chop and change to suit short term qualms and over value our defence in the process. Yes, we have a hole up forward but our priority should be focusing resources without "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or we don't end up making real progress and (in the case of suggesting Frawley) risk wasting inportant development and using players to less than their optimum.

Can't these ****heads take a breath?

Good to hear it's a grand old flag in the background!

Only by coincidence I suspect. Norwood Redlegs in the SANFL have the same theme. "Freo way to go"... may have been a different story lol.

I Thought Maybe the Club could use this idea as well!!

As long as the escalator isn't a metaphore for the AFL ladder I like it.

hmmm, perhaps a bit of 'The Prodigy' before home games?

Today's game was better than last week for the Dees - but not much. I think both the Bombers and the Dockers are going to end up in the in the bottom four, and so will we if we don't improve rapidly. Although i previously predicted a top 8 finish for us

This is as far as I got.

Grimes 29 touches by 3/4 time!!

Great centre clearance from Grimes which resulted in a goal to Petterd – Dees 5.9.39 to Ess 9.5.59

Oh yeah, love the sound of that!

Some telling information there about where MFC is at. It should correct some chronic misconceptions around here.

Good analysis and not only were Freo and North significantly more experienced, they were also playing at their home grounds which can't be underestimated.

Agree. However the issue goes beyond just sub standard facilities. It includes medical personnel, fitness and development personnel and all off ground support. For example about 12-24 months ago MFC had a staff of about 50. WCE had a staff of nearly 200 fulfilling the same or greater functions. Some support upside there

Absolutely spot on.

I'd have to agree that our substandard training facilities haven't helped. The Junction Oval is a joke and the sooner we are into our home at Olympic Park the better. We've been amateurs playing in a professional comp for as long as I can remember. In saying this facilities don't excuse lack of effort. Collingwood seem to get every last drop out of a pedestrian bunch of players. Is it their facilities, I think it helps. Of course it's by no means the whole reason.

Lack of effort can't be tolerated under any circumstances I absolutely agree mate but I think there was more too it than that on Sunday. I think we genuinely were shown what AFL in 2010 is about and many of the players who were putting in (lets say a "reasonable" effort) got a bit of a wake up call. Also our problem was that we spent too much effort on inefficient football due to the way our lack of speed was putting us in hot water. No doubt we were fatigued at the end of the game. I think our preparation was more the factor than simply just the effort but sure some players didn't dig in like they should have.

Good point, How good are our senior players and have they ever reached there potential?

As individuals constantly performing under pressure, they probably have. As a collective group probably not and this is what has hurt us.

If they have not reached their potential is it because of the inferior training facilities this club has had for years? or is it because they never quite pushed themselves through that extra barrier?

North Melbourne seem to always punched above their weight for many years (Having W.C up forward certainly helped that cause i know, but even after he left when a lot of people said "that's it for the kangas" they pushed on.

Are we lacking that collective belief that we as a club can be the best? That old x factor i call it.

North Melbourne is an interesting revelation since probably 2008 when the game took it's first major spike in elite pace - I don't just mean running but ball use, decision making, reading the play etc. For some reason North simply perform and I can't put my finger on it apart from to say that they keep it simple. (The Carey era is was a completely different style of footy). On top of that, collectively they look sharper, better drilled and most importantly up to a base level of conditioning to be competitive with the best. They play tempo football and apart from when Laidley was on the outer they seem to still get the simple things right. I tend to think that our training is not as advanced as it could/should be and I don't know if that is because of the coach, the players or our overall set up as a club. My POV is that Olympic Park will make a profound effect on our whole regime and outlook - "belief" as you say. Perhaps we are training well by our standards but not AFL standards. Bailey came from Port Adelaide who are very good at training IMO so there has to be more to it. I do think that we will at some stage this season perform in some games where we are polar opposites to what we were on Sunday.

Correct, but that still does not excuse missing targets from 40 metres or handballing to someone in a worse position.

All players at AFL level should be able to do that, and after 5 months of training i was a little concerned.

3 more practise games to go.

Well, some of us who actually gave the Shane Crawford article an ounce of creedence were probably prepared for a less than brilliant game skills wise and hence had more time to put things into perspective.

I agree it is still a concern but in context of our list and the players on the ground it is important to understand why we have skill errors. Yes, there were some genuine unforced errors (clangers) but the problem our youth will constantly face at AFL level is pressure and perceived pressure as a result of us not having enough top level senior players. Our over all game is slow and opposition teams dictate the play. Bailey knows exactly what is happening and he also realises that the senior players we have can only perform to a certain level which is on the whole inadequate. Our younger players will have to work harder under duress than their equivalents in nearly every other AFL team.