1858

Dunn was definitely given some game time up forward and I think there is a fair arguement that he didn't have enough to see what his full potential could be. In any case, Bailey has identified a very purposeful roll as a negater which Dunn seems to have taken on-board. Despite what others think I personally reckon this has improved his football and I think that is what Bailey was thinking about. There is no doubt that this year the focus is about consolidating Dunn's negating roll and adding a few strings to his bow. There was an article around the time this thread started (apologies if someone has already mentioned this) which outlines his MO. Given our limited options up forward I wouldn't be dissapointed if Dunn was moved forward but I think the club has concentrated on Dunn's specific roll knowing full well that our forward line is not up to scratch and the other forward options are going to take time to develop so I can't see them changing anything. Regardless of how you look at it, the negating roll he played last year did improve his footy and if he can add an attacking side to this then he could be a real headache for opposition teams, good attacking tagger types are reasonably rare.

If he is earning biscuits then I guess it dosen't matter too much between 1 year or two years. I just think the club kept him for insurance and to see what he might do but it appears to be a foregone conclusion that he won't actually do that much. As long as we don't have to watch him play (ie do nothing) that much then I can handle two years as if he wasn't there. When I look at Newton he plays 1980's style football. He actually reminds me of Simon Beasley back in his day - slow, talented, can take a mark here or there and kick a couple but in no means worried about doing 1%ers. Newton is averse to modern football in all it's competitiveness and professionalism, I say we put him in a time machine and send him back to 1985.

I agree both players were a huge loss. But I think sometimes there can be a tendancy to sidestep the crux of an issue and that is that we had enough opportunities to ice the game in the last quarter up forward and our midfield was completely over-run. Our younger players battled their guts out yesterday and they honestly deserved a win because it was those youngsters who gelled so well that gave us even a hope of winning in the first place. Instead of looking at what the younger players did do how about we concentrate on what the more senior players didn't do - this is where the problem layed. When Hawthorn decided that they were going to put in and actually play a quarter of football our juniors were always going to struggle. In fact the only reason we looked ok for the first 3 quarters is because Hawthorn let us. What I saw yesterday was a contingent of young players (who are still learning the game) play their guts out and be let down by more senior players who simply did not put in. I was swearing my backside off that last quarter with my heart in my mouth like any Dees supporter but once I calmed down I realised that even though I felt let down I actually felt more for the younger players who were put under pressure and made to look as not being good enough for the win - they were fantastic and they were sold out. Our senior Midfielders and forward line have a lot to answer for. I was disgusted that some people (on not just this site) suggested that we were chokers when in reality the young players who played hard were hard at it all day.

No doubt there were a few instances in the last quarter where some youngsters did panick, I whole heartedly agree but I was disagreeing with the notion "Melbourne was struck down in the end because its young group panicked under pressure". We need to go a bit further than that if we want to deconstruct that pathetic last quarter - I think that is pretty rough on the youngsters to be honest. Our juniors no doubt struggled a little against class opposition and will learn greatly from this but over the period of an entire quarter we were struck down by a pathetic (senior) midfield which couldn't stop the Hawks getting the ball or put pressure on the person delivering the ball to their forwards. Furthermore we were struck down by forwards who just couldn't conjur up one single goal amid a fair few opportunities. I don't count Sylvia as a forward but he was also a culprit. The entire team was at fault, I just didn't like the sound of that sentence that's all. Remember, Hawthorn lost Bateman and Osborne and we still got taken to the cleaners in the middle.

Our problem is that we have forwards but not goal kickers. Watts and Jurrah are the two main prospects along with Maric who is a sharp shooter. They can't come into the side quick enough (I realise I am commenting on just one pre-season game) but there is no way in hell that we are going to rush those guys. Bate was impressive and I say that not only because of how many goals he kicked but because of his kicking technique. Bate and Green are probably two of our best shots at goal - steady, accurate and penetrating. If you look at Roughead yesterday, he had a quite game tbh it is just that he was slotting them from the boundary line. Rougheads kicking technique is superb, along with others like Fevola and Bradshaw. We just don't have this type of weapon in our arsenal yet. As a result we will bust a gut this year for limited reward on the score board - in most games anyway. I doubt PJ is a realistic forward option. Aussie will be great for us as a close range goal kicker but apart from Bate I don't see any options unless Green is set in one area which we can't afford yet. When Robbo comes back it will help but he is not an answer to this problem. I think we will have (to a certain degree) to grin and bare it for a while until the newcomers start to get a gig.

Nice write up, I can see that I will enjoy some quality stuff on this board. One thing though: "Melbourne was struck down in the end because its young group panicked under pressure". I am not sure that I can go along with this in absolution. Sure some youngsters panicked a bit but at the end of the day we only needed one lousy goal in the last quarter to seal the win. Hawthorn only played one real quarter, the three quarters leading up to that they were going through the motions which allowed us to play constructive football (credit to the youngsters who gelled well). However when the game had to be won (because it actually became a game in the last quarter) not only was our forward line dismal but our midfield once again was completely over-run. The midfield looked ok for 3 quarters and then all of a sudden it was faced by a polished team actually playing footy and we were (yet again) brushed aside. Where was the leadership? Compare this to the round 9 game we played againts Hawthorn last year, there are quite a few similarities in how they pulled their collective fingers out and killed us in the middle. The youngsters were fantastic (they battled all day) and they were let down by more experienced players who did not do their job or show the way in tough times. As much as I admire Miller's work and tenacity he just doesn't finish it off with goals which after all win matches - he just isn't penetrating with his kicks - 40m out no hope. Unfortunately atm we just don't have any forwards with a geniune kick at goal (Bate was good though), which means we have a bunch of forwards but no goal kickers. As for Newton, the less said the better. As stated in the OP though it is all about learning and hopefully we have a pretty smart footy department down there.

Hi all, I too am a Dees tragic. On the wrong side of 30 now and looking at a career change (dangerous). I live interstate but am looking at moving to Melbourne some time this year. I have been following the red and blue since '87 and have had country membership for the last 8 years which will soon become a proper membership. Looking forward to a productive 2009 season and beyond.