praha

I agree but the reality is that games like this no matter how well you play the home team has a greater margin of error and you need to be exceptional and well above your best to win. Keeping it close regardless of a win or loss would be a positive. No Melbourne team has gotten within 10 goals of the Eagles in Perth for, what, 10, 15 years? Wouldn't it be great if the youngest team in the comp and probably the club's history managed to keep up with a team that has pushed us around for a decade? If we play as we last week, it's a 100 point loss. If we play as we did against Hawthorn, we might win. I was far more disappointed after losing to the Saints by 30 than I was after losing to the Hawks by 18. I'd be filthy if they lost, but "it is what it is". If we get smashed *again* I'll be just as annoyed as you. We're not Hawthorn. We're a club that is trying to transition into a winning club, and sometimes that means making the opposition actually work to beat you. We have let Saints, Eagles beat us up for a decade. Taking it to them and making them work for it rather than push us down like always, I'd take pleasure in that.

Of course. But at the same time, as Roos has said, there is zero margin for error. When you look at the team, the inexperience, and the uncanny ability to drop from good to absolutely deplorable after one quarter break, the odds are as stacked against us as they have been in every game we've played there the past decade and a bit. I'm actually confident we can keep it to a 4-5 goal loss, which would be a "win" imo. I think that if it's more than that, it'll be a blowout.

Won't get close. We just don't win these games. Even when we are going well we don't win them.

If we can stay within 4-5 goals I'd actually take it as a win. If they play as they did against the Saints, it will be a 100-point loss. Regardless of form, it is hard to win there for any team. A good team performance that attacks and transitions well is all I ask. Our inability to play Etihad shouldn't translate to Domain. We *should* play the ground well.

Well the problem is that we are actually at near full strength, and have been all year. Few injuries and plenty of talent knocking down the door from the VFL, but it makes little difference when we come up against teams that sit directly above us on the ladder (Port, Saints, Eagles this week). The likes of Richmond, Collingwood and North if you consider them a bottom 10 side have played better football for longer periods than we have. We notch up one win and then get absolutely smacked the following. Somehow, Carlton notched up 4 or 5 wins in a row and could very well finish above us on the ladder. Maybe it's just me but I can't remember a team in the modern era (1990-now) ever having such a major gap in performances in such short periods of time. Sure, Carlton and the Saints have been smacked a few times this year, but they've also gone through long periods where they have played at a really high standard and beaten some good teams. We switch on and off at a really concerning rate and to me I just can't quite understand it. I don't think it's a speed or pressure or hardness issue...well, it is, but I think what's driving that deficiency is 100% between the ears. We played Neeld-era football on Sunday. It was a 10-goal loss had the Saints been switched on in the first (they weren't: go and watch the replay). Our leaders missed easy goals and stopped running IN THE SECOND QUARTER! "It is what it is." What it is, is astonishing. I'm filthy after Sunday's loss. I really just want to go up to guys like TMac, N Jones, Watts, shake them as hard as I can and say, "AREN'T YOU SICK OF LOSING LIKE THIS!?" Too many individuals who go into a shell. We play shocking team football atm. That's the stigma that infects a player's mind when they pull on a Melbourne jumper. It's not a "team" worth dying for. We're going to lose again this week. We're going to get run over, spread, mutilated. Because we're not a team that wins in Perth. It's just not what we do.

efa

Wines > Toumpas

I really hate when Burgs refers to players as "ex-team". "Former Magpie Ben Kennedy" last week. "Ex-Power played Newton" this week. It's not the first game of the pre-season ffs. They're DEMONS.

It's a [censored] quote, really. He's just saying it to cover his arse, because the whole "go home" factor is emasculating and is frowned upon more now than it was 10-15 years. A guy like him, he'd never admit to wanting to go home. He'll play it as wanting to be in a competitive club.

Haha I have that on VHS!

In our biggest losses this year in the third quarter: St Kilda (Round 6): 3.2 vs 8.2 Port (Round 10): 5.3 vs 4.5 Sydney (Round 13): 1.3 vs 2.5 Adelaide (Round 15): 4.1 vs 7.3 Total: 87 vs 141 61.07% Factor in the North loss, it's actually 107 vs 186. That's also not including the Bulldogs loss or Hawthorn loss, although we were fairly even with them. In our wins: GWS (Round 1): 1.1 vs 2.6 Collingwood (Round 4): 2.5 vs 3.2 Richmond (Round 6): 3.4 vs 4.4 GC (Round 7): 9.4 vs 3.1 Brisbane (Round 9): 3.3 vs 1.5 Collingwood (Round 12): 2.1 vs 1.2 Freo (Round 16): 2.3 vs 4.3 Total: 153 vs 132 116% If you take out the GC game, it's 95 vs 113 Let's look at our last quarters vs the same sides: St Kilda (Round 6): 4.1 vs 3.4 Port (Round 10): 1.4 vs 6.2 Sydney (Round 13): 1.1 vs 6.1 Adelaide (Round 15): 1.3 vs 3.4 Total: 51 vs 119 43% GWS (Round 1): 6.3 vs 2.4 Collingwood (Round 4): 2.2 vs 1.3 Richmond (Round 6): 6.2 vs 3.3 GC (Round 7): 7.5 vs 3.0 Brisbane (Round 9): 6.7 vs 3.4 Collingwood (Round 12): 5.1 vs 2.4 Freo (Round 16): 1.4 vs 1.3 Total: 222 vs 111 200% So, what do we get out of this? I see that in our wins, we almost always win the third quarter, and comfortably. On average we outscore the opponent. This tends to lead to strong fourth quarters where we hold on. In our losses, we tend to lose the third quarter. IMO, our last-quarter performances are irrelevant: we're giving teams far too much space after half-time, where they break out and control the game. Sunday wasn't really a last quarter 'fade-out'. We played just as bad as we had the three quarters prior. In most of our other loses, it's patches in the third that have cost us, and big time. The third is the "premiership" quarter. If you have momentum, you can hold on and bounce back in the fourth. If you hand the game to the opposition in the third, you're playing catch-up in the fourth, when it's harder to get things going. As the stats show, we're good in almost half of our games, but bad in just a little over half of our games. That's exactly where our record sits. To be honest, to sit above 100% at 7-9 is pretty good. If we can finish between 95%-105% and on 10 wins for the year, I'd say 2016 has been very successful. My concern is that we're seeing similar fadeouts in the second-half as we did in the Bailey era, and we're seeing similar beltings of opposition teams in the second half. We're either attacking hard, or defending extremely poorly. There's no in between. We still have a "running both ways" problem. I put that down to poor leadership. We have no one on the field that really empowers those around them to continue performing for four quarters.

Oh Go, the "honest reviews" are starting. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-07-19/honest-review-completed-kent Eagles by 80.

1994 season.

He's right to a degree, where we've gone and how we've developed are probably below where we'd want and where we think they should be. We were a far better side than 4 wins in 2014, we were better than a 7 win side in 2015, and as it stands we're better than a 7 win side in 2016 but it might be tough once again to move beyond it. Three years in a row now we lose the same games, against the same teams, in situations we should win, but don't. It's a vicious cycle. Last year against Geelong we "turned the corner". Against Richmond and then Collingwood we "turned the corner". But we lose to Essendon, get smashed by St Kilda, get smashed by Port, can't win at Etihad, let teams break all sorts of records against us (tackling, contested ball), let spuds light it up under no pressure. It's astonishing. Still. We're had this conversation at the same time each of the past three years. Blues, Saints have all pushed top 8 sides on a number of occasions but we tend to fold. Guys like N Jone and Vince, they've been in the system for a decade. I was disappointed with Jones on the weekend because surely he must be sick of loosing there and against that mob. His body language didn't scream "LET'S WIN THIS" to me. I hate to point the finger at him, though. He's one guy. But he's cooked as a leader. I've said it once and I'll say it again: A Nate Jones captained Melbourne just won't go very far. It's a hard thing to say against a club stalwart, but it is what it is #Neeldism. I'm worried that guys like McDonald, Jetta, Tyson, Garlett have all developed losing habits. None of them are "leaders", they tend to be part and parcel of bad performances. My concern with Viney is that he becomes just another Jones: a good player and clubman but just someone who goes through the motions. He had a Nathan Jones kind-of-game on Sunday: good, but, like, nothing special. He held his head high and performed. It was one of those "the only guy who can hold his head high" kind of games. I went into the game thinking, "Surely we'll beat them. Surely. SURELY!" I'm more bewildered than angry now. It's a rather astonishing record. Comical, even. And we have another one this week. Eagles have beaten us the last nine times. We haven't won in Perth since 2002 (!!!!). We're just a bad club. It's not so much the development. It's just a bad club with bad records. You could bring in God himself and even he would surely think, "[censored], this club hasn't won here in a decade+...what hope do we have!" Melbourne isn't just coming back from a poor list and poor performances. It's trying to climb out of a stigma that hangs onto the jumper like a desperate ex. That's got to have some sort of effect on whoever pulls the jumper on. There's no "pride". That's hard to build.

Interesting. Although I suspect that with Hawthorn playing so many games in Tassie (more than we play at NT), we get the short-end by being forced into an Etihad game. To be honest I'd rather play a third home game in NT than a home game at Etihad.

It's to do with the fact that we should be on 9 wins as it stands. We should have beaten Essendon, and should have beaten St Kilda once. There's not much difference, my point being that I set 10 as a pass mark at the start of the season, and it's staying there.

Eagles are beatable. If it were at the MCG and if we put in a half-decent effort against the 'Aints I'd be somewhat confident. But nothing about this club tells me we'll pull off the win. We allow teams to far too easily transition out of our forward line, and their mids and forwards will have a day out against our diamond defense. I predict a 30-40 point loss. At this stage of the season I'd like to see ANB, Stretch get more play time. Grimes and Kennedy are liabilities and should not play against the Eagles. If Hogan gets suspended (doubtful), then I suspect Dawes will come in. Frost for White. Yesterday we had a terrible team game. Stretch and ANB to me seem to walk the team line better, whereas Grimes goes back to bad habits he developed from the Neeld era, just going through the motions. Trengove I fear is the same and he may struggle to get back into the side.

I don't think it's a coaching issue. We played them well in the first quarter, spread hard, moved the ball efficiently and played confidently. The Saints adjusted in the second and gained momentum. As for kicking into the corridor, again, it's not a coaching issue. The players constantly underestimated the pressure and misjudged the kicks and pressure on countless occasions. When we did go down the corridor and actually found space, we went forward quickly. Granted, you don't *need* to go down the corridor on Etihad in the same way you do on the MCG, but it's mindboggling to see players kick or handball 15-20 meters to teammates who would be put under immediate pressure. We tried to play it on our terms but ultimately the players constantly played directly in the Saints' hands. Nate Jones made the same mistake, guys like McDonald, Jetta, Grimes all made the same mistake. Hospital handpasses to teammates who were either immediately tackled, or strolled away in second gear completely lost on the fact that the Saints play a high-pressure game and will always have someone nearby. Whenever we did hold possession, it was always poor decision making and skills that caused a turnover. On top of that, our midfielders were absolutely destroyed on the spread and simply didn't run both ways. We lost yesterday because of lazy football. The Saints thrive on that and exploit the narrowness of Etihad. I don't know what the coaching staff could have done to drill home to the players that they can't play as they do on the MCG. As Roos said during the presser, there is ZERO margin for error on Etihad. I felt that players let each other down far too often. In one instance when Brayshaw got caught, everyone on here was hounding Gus for not getting rid of the ball. The reality is that McDonald had a clear path to kick down the line, or into the corridor where Jetta and White were clear by 20-30 meters. Instead, he gave in to the Saints' pressure, gave a hospital handpass to Brayshaw who was 10 meters directly ahead of him, and Brayshaw, thinking he was clear because why else would a teammate handball to you when they're so close, turned around and looked for an option, only to get buried into the ground. McDonald let him down. TMac also didn't bother to shepard away the guy that was on the mark. As soon as Brayshaw saw him running towards him, he panicked and then got caught. Instances like that happened all too often, and it wasn't the inexperienced guys causing it. We still have a major gap in experience, and too many players that don't quite know how to respond to pressure like that. That is where guys like Vince, Jones, McDonald, Jetta, even Garlett, M.Jones, Grimes etc should be directing traffic and controlling the play. Instead, every single one of them played like deers in headlines. We were let down by that core group, who always seemed to set the tone for big patches of poor play.

Regarding the MCG-Etihad debacle, I am fairly certain that each Victorian side has to play at least one home game at Etihad a season. From a financial standpoint, it's better for the club's bottom line to play an Etihad tenant in our home game there than a GWS or WC or Freo or Brisbane as we have in past years. We got 28k in our home game there, which was more than our match there yesterday. Anyway, let's not pretend like playing at the MCG would have made a difference. The Saints smashed as there in the corresponding game last year, and it wouldn't have made much difference yesterday. 26k vs the Eagles is probably the same figure we'd have gotten against the Saints had we played them there.

8 wins would be a disaster. 1. Club had aimed to make finals. 2. Roos' last season. 3. Haven't won more than 8 games in a season since 2006. 4. Continue to lose at Etihad and against Saints, North, Hawks, Eagles in Perth, etc etc My "pass" is 10. Nine wins would earn a "participation" award but not much else. We should already be on 9 wins but we're stuck in neutral beating crap teams and getting pounded by teams around us on the ladder. Yesterday's loss and the Essendon loss just make me so angry.

Taking the [censored], surely? Even when we got within 5, we never had momentum, never seemed to control the play. Every time they got the ball in our forward line they looked like transitioning and scoring. EVERY time. Sure, a goal would have put us in front, but we were never going to win that.

Love him to death but been saying it for a while. It's not his fault but gee, you'd think he'd be playing angry today. He let us down today. Fancy going your whole 10+ year career unable to heat a handful of sides and unable to win at certain stadiums. He just goes through the motions.

Essendon and St Kilda games this year have been among the most disappointing I have been to on 20+ years of going to the football.

Please srop saying this. Freo almost beat Geelong with two days less break It is such a [censored] weak [censored] excuse. Who comes in that would possibly have made the difference?

This might be the official end of the Nathan Jones era. He has beaten them once in his career and his irrelevance and lack of leadership today has been putrid. Love the bloke, but is a loser. He hasn't played like a bloke who would want to lead his team to a great victory. Instead, he puts in a shocking performance in a match that ends our season, against the Saints, at Etihad. This match epitomises this football club, and all that have been involved for the past decade. Saints fans laughing at us. Fans of a team with 26 spoons and 1 flag are laughing at us.