praha

Offensive styles in ANY sport are far too vulnerable. Whether it's AFL, soccer, basketball, whatever, if you're playing an offensive style, you risk being absolutely smashed in transition if the opposition manages to get it out of defense. This was the problem with Bailey's gameplan: his team tried to play a fast, quick brand of football, and sometimes it worked wonderfully, but other times it led to the ball going out even FASTER than it did going in, which created bottlenecks and eventually the entire team found itself in the defensive half in what could only be described as unintentional flooding. Remember that Hawthorn game where they had a record-number of inside-50s in a quarter? It's because whenever we ran it out, they would just keep pushing down on the offensive flow and eventually the ball would get deeper and deeper into their forward line, and Melbourne's players would have to push deeper and deeper back. It's the same in basketball: if you play a fast, offensive-minded game, you'll have amazing games where you're in a shoot-out with your opposition. But if you start missing shots, or hit a brick wall against the opposition, they'll score even FASTER on the fast break. They will smash the offensive team in transition. Offensive football can very easily lead to unaccountable football, which is exactly what was Bailey's team's issue. Neeld is trying to instill accountable and individual responsibility on the field, and the players can't make the transition yet. I am all for going all-out offensive but imo it wouldn't help in the long-term: when/if this team gets up and running with any said style, it won't have the capacity to compete against defensive-minded teams like Sydney, or Geelong. It can't compete against them now, but at least, at the very least, the team is being taught a defensive style. Everyone knows how to kick goals. But not everyone can defend. This, imo, is the philosophy behind Neeld's plan.

"Maybe it can be traced back to his very first game in the AFL, round 11 2009. Having quarantined Watts from the pressures of the big-time for the first half of the season, Melbourne officials abandoned the cotton-wool approach and, putting its own public relations requirements ahead of Watts, unveiled him in front of 61,000 spectators in the Queen¹s Birthday game against Collingwood." He's not wrong about that. That entire thing was embarrassing for the club and Watts. They actually made an announcement as the team ran out: "Ladies and gentlement, No.1 draft pick Jack Watts, and the Melbourne Football Club." God awful.

Funny how you equate no priority pick and league handouts to being "unregulated". Teams lost on purpose to benefit from a welfare system. Shockingly, people still struggle to recognise the issue with that and the system. EPL is the way it is because there is no salary cap, and all the leagues abide by the same wide reaching set of regulations (or lack thereof). I was referring more to the competitiveness of the league, where it's every club for itself. The AFL still has a salary cap, and has no demotion system. It's like the NBA...only with extra rewards of ineptness...and even in the NBA you're not assured a top pick if you have the worst record. Melbourne hasn't struggled for decades because of a lack of resources, or because financially it's worse off than other clubs: it's struggled because it's been run so ineptly as to not have those benefits in the first place. There were no external forces compromises the club's ability to be at the top with the likes of Collingwood. The club has only itself to blame. The way I see it, and I understand that you disagree, is that Melbourne has constantly, consistently been lacking the ruthless competitiveness that is needed to win in this league, both on and off the field. You can have the most amazing vision in the world, the most spectacular understanding of the game, but if you lack the drive and capacity to thrive in a competitive environment, you won't ever fulfil the prophecy. I am still reeling from the fact that even jokingly there were people of authority at the club considering putting the club in a position to benefit from league welfare, to lose on purpose. Another priority pick is not a good thing. It's an act of pity. Many of you embrace as "yay another top pick", but it's not going to change a damn thing: it won't change our prospects, the culture, the earning capacity of the club. Nothing.

They should beat GWS by 10-12 goals. There is too much class up forward and too much experience down back for GWS to really challenge this squad. There are no excuses if they lose this week. Brisbane, on the other hand, will run rings around Melbourne at the GABBA. You can bookmark that.

Why don't we want to go the way of the EPL? The EPL encourages teams to strive to be the absolute best they can be: the PP has led to teams losing on PURPOSE to reap the benefits of a "socialised sport". I think you're mixing up "deserving of" and "entitled to". A premiership-winning side is "deserving" of financial growth, prime-time games and television spots: they earn what they deserve, based on their performance. A losing team is "entitled" to help only if it is incapable of building a team on its own ... as it stands in the AFL's current system. I am "deserving" of wealth. I am not "entitled" to it (I am sure some here will disagree with that...) We do not "deserve" an extra pick. No one "deserves" socialism, because you're not technically "earning" what you're given. The club "deserves" to suffer financially through its own failures. That's not an opinion. It's earned a bad reputation.

How exactly has socialism helped the club thus far? It hurts competitiveness. It's very clear. Clear as day.

Are you talking about Jack Watts or Toumpas?

They should try the opposite of what they're already doing.

"We're losing by so much because we have a plan." "But the team is just awf...." "WE HAVE A PLAN!" *slams fist on table*

You mean play [censored] football for 30 years and make the finals sparingly? Yeah Melbourne's already taking a leaf out of their book.

Top 20 pick so yes.

Watts is done. He'll be gone at year's end.

What's Neeld's average losing margin? Must be 60+. I feel the club is trying to remain stable even in the face of needed change. They play awful, awful football. The team shows absolutely NO promise. I am just bewildered as to how a young, finals-fringe side from 2010, 2011, can break down so badly. Need says they're building the club from the ground up. It seems like they've turned the ignition off but are struggling to get it going again. Is Neeld driving the cultural changes at the club? We really need to start scrutinising his vision rather than just sit back and take it as the gospel. It's just astonishing that a team falls so far below AFL standard. Neither GC nor GWS are as convincingly smashed in certain important areas. Melbourne hasn't lost this man consecutive quarters for 99 years. It's suffered it's worse loss at he MCG in its history. I'm sorry, but "rebuild" should not equate to accepted ineptness. You don't maintain stability when said stability doesn't exist. The club is trying to justify its stubbornness by talking a lot of garbage about stability. It's a get-out-jail-free card for Neeld and the board. I am happy to give Neeld the year...but not with a consistent stream of 100-point beatings and records. No rebuild, no established club, no competitive environment - as minnow as said competitive environment at the club might be - can justify the brand of football this club is playing. Its vision is bold and ambitious. And I get that. But my family has been going to the MCG for half a century. I'm a very competitive individual, and I can handle losses -- "we succeed because we fail," as Michael Jordan famously said -- but such ineptness, excused as the downtime before a promised period of "sustained success" does not sit well with me. No club that loses games by 186, 140 points turns it around in less than a decade to win a flag. We thought the club culture was toxic? It's the losing culture that fuels it. Neeld wants to change this club, but he's regressing it back further than its ever been in the process. I am seriously concerned about this club's welfare.

We will [censored] GWS. If we don't the club will have earnt the honours of being one of the AFL worst teams if all time, if it hasn't already.

When you're second to the ball you're going to get calls against, good or bad. This team gets a lot of calls against it, many bad, because it plays lazy, reckless football. The Eagles were always going to run away.

Yeah, a critique of a critique. Alternatively, he could have written WHY the club isn't as bad as his colleagues are making it out to be, without actually referring to them. Rebutting the media when he should be challenging and/or positively critiquing the club instead.

No. The club needs to stop relying on league socialism.

Sam Bleese avoided a contest? STOP THE PRESSES!

I have to be honest: I find the commentary to be especially condescending. What is it with Melbourne supporters being so damn apologetic? I mean, as great a writer as he is, he somehow managed to politicise the issue within the first few paragraphs. I live in a free country where I expect things to be to a certain standard. I'm a competitive individual and I'd expect nothing less from the club I support in a relentlessly competitive competition. I shouldn't be made to feel bad about that because there are young men losing their lives in Afghanistan. It's actually a pathetic smug comparison to make. It's like he HAD to force his views on war into the article. Yes Martin, we get it. You're a progressive thinking that hates seeing people criticised for their misdemeanours. Those poor, poor footballers. Give me a break. The football club is "rotten to the core" in its obvious inability to develop highly talented individuals. It's structure is fractured, its development rotten, and its culture inept. People need to stop running away from that. Martin is essentially victimising the club, which is not constructive. The club has only itself to blame. We need to stop feeling sorry for this club when it fails to meet expectations time and time again. That does NOT mean we stop supporting them. It means we scrutinise and hold the club to account. I think we've -- supporters and the media -- have done that collectively. Sorry, but I just don't like the article.

Don't underestimate Kerr. He will come back fit and ready to go. He will paste us. He plays for West Coast not Melbourne.

I honesty think he's already resigned. If the person that basically hired you steps down BECAUSE their decisions haven't planned out, that's basically admitting Neeld was the wrong choice. Can't imagine him picking things up tbh. He's look a shadow of his former self this week, like he's reached breaking point.

I will never forgive this club if they give up on Watts. They must keep him. Sylvia is a downhill skier. Talented as hell, reads the play well, but has NEVER, EVER performed to his potential when the club is getting flogged.

So glad they sacked Schwab. Worst player in the team.

I'm afraid it might be a 100-point loss again. They will trounce us in the middle, put the backline under pressure, and eventually it will unravel again, probably mid-way through the 2nd, or perhaps at the start of the 2nd half. Boy is it going to be a long season.

I get the feeling that Neeld is done. He's got a few more weeks but then it's over. Seems like Craig has already taken over proceedings.