praha

I actually can't remember a Round 1 being so important for the club. We live in a world where information travels faster than it ever has before, and it's only getting faster. Melbourne has been a bad, bad football club at a time when social media has grown and flourished. We have missed the boat during marketing's golden era. We have never really been worth talking about in a positive way. I'm talking about random people talking about Melbourne in the same way they do about Geelong or Hawthorn. More people take in more information on a daily basis: we turned bad at the worst possible time imo. The negativity is amplified with today's media and online environment. A big loss would be utterly devastating. A win would be amazing. It's not the end of the world but a strong win and performance will do wonders for the club's brand and the playing group's reputation, particularly against would-be finals contenders. But I actually have zero expectations. I actually expect a loss. I'm not sure where a win will come from.

Round 1 is integral. We have two away games after that, so the prospect of walk-ups on game day is diminished until Round 4. Win Round 1 and drive people to the club, incentivise them to take the initiative. Losing Round 1 would be devastating imo. We have to win more Home games, in front of our Home supporters. We only won away games last year and even at the MCG, our support contingency is lower, especially for casual fans who attend with members on guest passes. MUST win.

I actually don't disagree at all. I acknowledged that his vision failed. I said I admire that he had a consistent vision and had the ambition to help drive the club up the ladder quickly. We bought in because it was a romantic vision. It's gotten to a point now where romanticism just sets us up for disappointment. The club is on the brink and needs to start winning. Schwab's romantic vision for the club ultimately banished us to the bottom for a number of years and I acknowledged. I simply meant that he had a vision and it was easy to buy in.

An organisation is obliged to buy into a vision, though. When someone comes in with an ambitious plan, you owe it to yourself to buy in and trust that person. How successful would the club have been had no one put "blind faith" into Schwab? Would things have been better or worse? Believe it: they would have been much worse. It's not really the fans' responsibility to buy into what Jackson is saying. What he says has about 80% to do with sponsorship and PR relations for people that aren't actually invested in the club on in a fan capacity, and about 20% to do with actually keeping the fans happy. That's because it's a lot easier to create a positive brand and keep sponsors happy than it is to convince fans, fans that know that a lot of what he is saying is just fluff. I bought into Schwab because he had a bold vision. He was a bad manager, a bad people person, and ultimately, a bad CEO. But I admire the vision he had. He had an undeniable passion for the club and he refused to acknowledge that the club was minnow. I liked a lot of what he did (trying to reconnect the club with the MCG, its history, etc.), but it didn't work. Jackson has a sense of arrogance about him, no doubt acquired from his time at Essendon. He comes out not praising the club, but saying where it should be and where it is. Sometimes realistic expectations help those involved in an organisation (including fans) adapt to change easier. Would last year have been as manageable from a fan perspective had Roos or Jackson come out at the start of the year promising finals football? It would have been worse. Both said we needed to keep our expectations in check because we were coming from a long way back. It was a realisation we needed and it made the four wins all the more special. It was a frustrating year but we should have expected it. But what are we buying in to with Jackson? I had more to buy in with with Schwab than I do with Jackson. I'm buying into Jackson, not necessarily because of his vision, but because of his portfolio. That's more dangerous imo. I don't like being told to get over it, or not to say, "Here we go again". Schwab would never have said that.

He's done.

Round 1 is an absolute must-win for both teams for different reasons. GC need to be able to win on the MCG consistently. They've beaten us the last two times and will want to kick off what should be a finals campaign with a win. Melbourne need the win because: 1. It hasn't won in Round 1 in a decade 2. It needs members and bad starts in previous years have severely hurt marketing efforts 3. Its suffering supporters need hope 4. The game's followed by two tough interstate matches 5. The team hasn't won in front of its faithful (home team fans) since 2013: we didn't win a home match last season, and our three wins at the the MCG were in front of small fan contingencies. I think a round 1 loss for Melbourne would be rather disastrous. It's a must-win imo. Prediction: Gold Coast by 28

"Wait until 7 weeks in" is troubling.

2002 and 2004 were bigger let downs than 1994. We beat second placed Carlton in the finals from 7th and destroyed Footscray. We were a mid-ladder team that peaked at the right time. In 2002, 2004, 2005, we genuinely slumped whenever people started respecting us.

It really is all down to the players now. Must start winning games. Must be a good team or two. And must present that "x-factor".

Melbourne beat Footscray. Footscray beat Collingwood. Melbourne is better than Collingwood (?)

It's actually very simple: it's a lot easier to kick goals than it is to defend from them. The team's problem has never been actually kicking goals: it's transition, countering transition, and being able to transition out of defense. During the Bailey years, we had no problem scoring, but we had major problems defending and transition *out of defense*. Games against Hawthorn and Carlton in 2011 stand out for me and I remember them well: they knew exactly how to beat Melbourne, and that was simply zone OFFENSIVELY rather than DEFENSIVELY. Keep the ball in your forward line because Melbourne simply cannot transition. Transition is all about your efficiency to both defend the goals as well as effectively get the ball moving forward coming out of defense. This team now continues to struggle in this regard. You can teach an attacking structure all you like as Bailey did, but if you can't defend (which includes transition), it's pointless focusing on attack. Neeld, for as bad as he was, acknowledged this straight away: the team simply did not run both ways. It could defend hard, but it couldn't run hard offensively and therefore the transition broke down. That problem was particularly evident last season: we were great defensively but simply were clueless going forward. Transition goes hand in hand with a good defense, and it requires ALL players to buy in. Roos made this comment on Friday. If you win the ball out of the middle and go forward, that's easy to score. But we haven't had a great midfield, and if we lose it out of either the middle, or when we go forward, it's very clear that the opposition SMASHES us in transition. Essendon did this time and time again on Friday, and it happened often last year. Roos is ultimately trying to build a good defensive team. If your defense is disciplined and structured, it has a chain reaction on the rest of the pitch. It's the same in every team sport particularly in basketball, if you can defend well and transition effectively out of defense, you'll be hard to beat. This team is unfortunately filled with too many plebs. If you can't see how much the team has improved on the transitioning and defensive side, you haven't been paying attention. But when you have guys that can't kick or have a low football IQ, what else can the coach do? Ultimately, this team does a mixture of really good, exciting things, with really, really dumb things. Viney is an example: he doesn't play to his strengths and it hurts the team. Do you honestly think Roos is going to say to him, "Hey Jack, stop trying!" These are grown men and sometimes they need to realise and change the way they play. Forgot about attack. If you perfect your defensive structure and transition, the goals will come easily. Defense comes before attack. Always.

The good: Bergs Nate Jones Jeff Watts Hogan second efforts Dawes taking marks McDonald Frost H The Bad: Handballs to stationary targets Bail, Toump and Viney costly errors Dropped sitters Losing another match after leading in the 4th Dumb football The ugly: Me paying $17 for chips, nuggets and a beer

Toumpas has evolved, though. Now, instead of making one mistake, dropping his head and disappearing, he keeps his head up and sprays a few more kicks. At least he's trying! see guys: improvement!

Oh, the club has a history of assembling sheer stupidity. They've turned it into an artform.

The idea itself isn't what's bad. Kicking across goal creates space and opens the play. Deep in defense is risky but if it pays off the transition can be deadly. What was frustrating was that everyone seemed to see the Essendon player there but Viney. He took zero time to assess the area. Such a risky take must be made with extreme caution and utter perfection. It was a lazy kick and ultimately he deserved to be punished for it. He let the team down at that moment He'll learn.

He's right. Seemed to me Melbourne was in second gear all night.

It's harsh, but our team is filled with losers. Loser mentality, loser team. Hogan already looks to have been Melbourne'd.

Evidently, so do I...

I'll be there getting sloshed for one of two reasons. 1. To make the celebration of a 100-point-plus win all the more exciting and fun. or 2. To help feed the depression if they lose, because I love pain.

Not to disregard your talent, because you're clearly talented, but I threw up in my mouth a bit. It looks like the logo of an expansion team from a US league.

Tough URL... I have them finishing anywhere between 18th and 8th. I have no idea tbh. It's less about how I think the team will go, and more about how I have no idea what other teams will be like. It's a very tough year to predict from 5th-place down imo.

2014 gained some ground by the 140-point loss in 2013 negates anything achieved in the 2011 and 2012 wins against the Bombers.