praha

Watch him end up at the Eagles or Dockers in 2-3 years. Bookmark it.

Are you surprised? The team couldn't even run out full games last year. They let the Dogs score 8 goals in 10 minutes for crying out loud! They were absolutely stuffed with 15 minutes left in the fourth. Happened all too often last year.

http://www.aflphotos.com.au/galleries/results/?q=nathan+jones Don't think he's cracked the Top 50.

"Game plan". What is the game plan? GO. You know, having talls doesn't just automatically lead to a score. There are more variables added to the equation. On Saturday there were no talls, so lots of over-possession and errors. Say on Sunday two talls are playing up forward: 1. The delivery must be good 2. The delivery must be frequent 3. The team must collapse well and defend even better 4. The forwards must work hard enough to keep the ball forward The team has a lot to learn and simply scoring more goals isn't the answer. It's about being able to counter how the opposition responds to your style. I thought Melbourne controlled the game really well on Saturday night, for much of the game. The Saints broke through a few times but as Roos said in the off-season it's about not letting the opposition get a run-on. In 2012, 2013, that would have been a 7-8 goal loss after those Rooboy goals. Do not write this team off on Sunday. I think they'll be in it. If they can control the game and keep it at their level, they are a chance. That Essendon game is a prime example? How did they stop the run? It wasn't about kicking all the goals. It was about controlling the game, keeping it on your terms. That has really always been the Roos style, and I think Neeld ultimately wanted the team playing that way. He was a very defensive-minded coach, he simply didn't have the structure nor trust of the playing group. Control the game, stem the oppositions scoring, and make the most of your opportunities. For the team on Saturday it really was just a matter of not making the most of the times when they DID have an opportunity to score. They had no one up forward but they had plenty of opportunities.

IMO, he still looks to be in second gear, and he can't shrug off a tackle if his life depended on it. What separates the good wingman from the great wingman is his ability to run and carry, break through a tackle and pack, and get that burst of speed. Watts was great on Saturday night, really took the game on, but it's that one tackle he can't break: once he's caught, he never gets free. It's either a holding the ball, or an erratic handball that HOPEFULLY hits a teammate running past. That Terlich goal was an example. Watts had a streaming player to his right, ignored him and instead tried to take the chasing player on. He was tackled, and at his speed should have easily shrugged him off. It happens all too often, and imo will always dog him. It's why he's an outside player, and rarely tackles. He is a silky smooth kind of guy, but I am yet to see him break a game open. What we really needed from him on Saturday was a game-breaking sprint down the middle and goal. THAT is his role. He doesn't do it. Not taking anything away from his game. He was very good. But like many on the night, he didn't do what we need guys like him to do. Maybe I'm too harsh but that was the stage for him to shine. He'll get many more opportunities, but he needs to take the next step. He's had the time now. Time to win some games. Is he just going to be very good, or is he going to be great? There is a big difference, and ultimately the team's problem. No one takes that next step.

Thank you captain obvious!

I swear to God if he hits targets on Sunday I'll be flipping tables.

What makes St Kilda garbage? They had experienced Grand Final players, a Hall of Famer, and the knowledge of the ground. They play more than half their games there for crying out loud! The players went into their shells at the most inappropriate times. TBH I really think it was as simple as that. The two errors across the middle that led to goals, they came when a Melbourne player refused to just bomb it long. There are many variables involved in that scenario. Good and bad response to a lacking forward line. Melbourne had to control the play, keep possession, it did for a majority of the time, but then one error in the worst possible spot and you're on the other foot: making an error at Etihad is costly. It is at every ground, but especially Etihad. I don't understand why Melbourne was favourite. It was a pity bet. The Roos factor. Romanticism. Melbourne has done NOTHING to deserve going in favourite against a team like the Saints. This team will come good.

As Roos said, the most basic philosophy is you need to kick more points than your opponent. That does not mean you need to score 10, 15, 20 goals. Do people not remember Sydney's premiership and flying years under Roos? Slow the game, keep possession, and take your chances. Melbourne controlled the play for much of Saturday, but simply never took the chances when presented. A fit forward line and that would have been a 5-6 goal win. It's easy to say it's "ugly" and boring football when you're losing, but if you can stem the scoring, stop the flow and control the game, you will eventually break through. IMO Melbourne's primary directive for Sunday is to stop West Coast's run: imo they can do it. Then, obviously, it is a matter of scoring more than the Eagles, which at this stage looks impossible. When Roos says "you need to score more than your opponent", it's an assumption that you can stop them scoring TOO much. Roos' gameplan has never really been all-out attack like a Malcolm Blight circa 1989. If you can control the game on a consistent basis, the wins will come. At that point it's all about figuring out HOW to win. This team hasn't figured that out yet. But they have figured out how to control the play. I'm not prepared to write this team off yet. They will break through and it will be glorious.

He was solid on Saturday. Also, this goal: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2014-03-22/dean-terlich-running-goal How often have we seen such clean, crisp movement leading into a goal over the past two seasons? There's definitely something to work with. Pity they couldn't take the game on similarly throughout the match. Went in their shells a bit.

Relax. The guy is at his best along the wing and being the occasional man up. He is not a leading forward, nor a primary target. He was playing a role last night not suited to his best role. Give the guy a break.

Vince on the radio said he thought they were pretty average, said the first half was terrible. Summed it up perfectly, said they had run and were always confident when they had the ball, but as soon as they SHOULD have gone forward, they hesitated. At least they can see what we see in the stands. It always seemed they went one or two possessions more than they should. I'd imagine that even without good positioning or a target, kicking it inside 50 towards the boundary would suit the structure rather than make an error along the center or half back line. Three goals directly from missed handballs or over possession. There's the game right there. It seemed that for 90% of the time the players were confident with their skills, delivery and ability to control the play, but it was the 10% that led to a loss. It's all it takes. Also there was one forward on the ground, he had three goals, and that's the difference. He is a superstar and ultimately, really, he was the game's x-factor.

Media department's issue.

I thought we ditched the "Watts as a tall-forward" in 2010?

He looks amazing. Port look very good. Wines, Westhoff, some nice run and silky smooth skills coming out of half-back. Even Butcher looked good. They made Carlton look very second-rate for large parts of that game. Port was in 2nd gear for much of the first half, brought it up a notch and they looked like a top-4 side at times.

FA has been in the pipeline for 5-10 years. Every club knew of it and surely when sighing him to a contract that would have brought him into free agency would have anticipated this.

If the club loses Frawley and Dunn in the same year, our backline would be similarly as inept and dysfunctional as the midfield was in 2013. Would be a step backwards.

Very poor planning by the club. Front-loaded his contract so now his pay is outside the top 25%. Top teams will be lining up for him. Can't see how the club will be able to match an offer from top-tier teams like Hawthorn, Swans, Pies, even Dockers who will all have big pay-packer players retiring and will have the room to afford him. You mean Lions fans are laughing about not having to pay $500,000 for a guy that can't get on the park?

Roos said he won't play according to Channel 7 journo Nick McCallum (who I trust a lot more than Barrett...) http://twitter.com/nickmccallum7/status/441538136632328192

Published 24 minutes ago - Young key forward Jesse Hogan set to lead Melbourne Demons attack in Round 1

Hate to nitpick but when is a turnover NOT unnecessary? Anyway, he seems comfortable in his position but his drop of the ball is very awkward. Reminds me a lot of Bruce. Overall though been a nice addition.

Daniher's Dees were consistently inconsistent. Reality is that had the club made the right choice after the '03 season and decided to move him on, the club would be different now: it would have been able to build a young list around experienced leaders that, as history shows, had 4-5 years left. Daniher was at the club for four years too long. Great bloke and great coach for '08-2000, but '02 was a massive underachievement after a dismal opening against Adelaide in the semi (we'd have pushed for the flag that year had it shown up in the first 20 minutes of that match), and '03 was truly "dismal". Kept players on for longer than he should have, and seemed to lack a "plan B". The club got way too comfortable with him and it cost the club, big time.

I hate when they hit a high pitch and say, "And now Melbourne's hit the front!" Like as if, "How about that. They have a lead!" Sports commentary in this league gets worse by the year. He looks like he's playing a game of high school football. EDIT: Well how about that... "And second-year midfielder Jimmy Toumpas ($240,800) showed some of his glittering potential, needing just 12 disposals to power to 86 points."

Who cares? I follow NBA, NFL, MBL, AFL, NRL players on Twitter: 99% of the time, they're tweeting about personal stuff.

Professionally, a victim of a truly inept, inefficient organisation. Privately, a top block and a real thinker. All the best!