Akum

Couldn't agree more! What I like about this is you've highlighted the team things - overlapping, backing up, shepherding, creating options, providing a contest and so on. This is where we really have room to improve, and it will all come with more games together & getting to know each other's strengths & weaknesses. For example, Scully will be much more dangerous when his teammates shepherd or block for him in close, when they know to give him more than one option for handballing it out (because it seems that he won't take an option that's bad), when they provide short options rather than long options for his kicking, etc etc. I'm just using Scully as an (admittedly speculative) example, but the principle applies to all players. They'll perform better as individuals when everybody gets to know each others' games better and start doing the team things. Which, incidentally, is why I'm not too concerned about losses before the team starts to click together in this way. They clicked in a few games last year, now they have to get it all over again.

My concern about early games is that the team hasn't played nearly enough games together yet, and it's unlikely that the team will really gel until a relatively settled group of players have strung a few games together. And until the team gels as a team, wins will be hard to come by. I'm confident the team will click together at some stage during this season and will perform much better as a team than what we've seen so far, but it's less likely to happen earlier in the season. So if we struggle in the early games, it shouldn't be a surprise. Barring a horror run of injuries (god forbid!), I reckon we'll get better as the season goes on.

Agree, though I'd put it slightly differently: It's only when Grimes, Scully & Trengove are ready to take over the midfield that we'll start to get a reasonable amount of inside-50s and the whole team will do better. I still think the other 3 are in our best 22, but with only one of them in our starting midfield.

Definite signs of continuing improvement in team performance over time.

Sorry for quoting myself, but this is the post I was talking about, by 'raymonds' on Demonology: "Over the last three weeks I checked as many unofficial club websites as I could. After they had their intra-club matches ... ... Melbourne was the only club that did not have a Grade A versus Grade B team. We had two mixed teams against each other. In other words, this was basically the first time many of these guys had played together, as opposed to Freo. Something to think about." Puts a different light on it methinks.

They played as if it was the first time they'd ever played together.

I think this is the nub of it. The creative midfielders we now have aren't quite ready to take over yet, but we can reasonably expect them to get better as the season goes on and take on more substantial midfield roles. Grimes isn't far off it already; Scully & Trengove & Gysberts will take longer.

I remember seeing a post somewhere (might've been on 'Ology) making the point that Sunday was the first time this team had played together. Other clubs tended to play their intraclub matches as "probables" vs "possibles", where the Dees played two mixed teams against each other. They certainly played like it was the first time together. It's going to be hard to see solid improvement until the team - at least the nucleus of the team - strings a few games together. But first we have to settle down who's best in which role and position, which is inevitably going to take a few weeks. There are already several changes this week, and probably several more the week after. So could this be a season where we struggle to see any improvement at the start, but maybe get better as the season goes on when the team settles and starts to gel? If so, we might have to get through a few ugly weeks before the sun starts to shine.

Yep. His worst game by a long way, the only way is up. Impossible to read anything else into it.

Agree. As long as there aren't any more like that, at least for a while. Sunday must be our low-watermark, it has to be the worst we could possibly do. Draw a line and move on. And there's no way we can ever win any game if we can't get it inside 50 more than 7 or 8 times a quarter (30 for the game). We have to get it around 50, the hard question must be asked about whether our current starting midfield is capable of that. The team won't improve until and unless the midfield improves - after Sunday there can be no doubt.

Notwithstanding post *57, there hasn't been an official announcement yet about DB being signed up for 2011 (let alone beyond), despite there having been rumours or indications for a couple of months. Why? I agree with KS and others that if we don't sign him up, we'll have until about Round 10 to make the decision, it won't wait until the end of the year. And at Round 10, signing him for just 2011 won't be an option but an insult, we'd have to sign him for 2 years at least. For me, 10 rounds isn't nearly enough to assess whether he should be our coach until end 2012 and beyond. It makes sense to give him adequate time to be assessed, and this can only be done by signing him until end 2011. BUT, especially after Sunday's display, I think this should be contingent on the team showing definite and unmistakeable signs of improvement from last year. Don't care about wins at this stage, but definite improvement in team performance. And so far in 2010 we've seen no evidence whatsoever. I believe it will happen and we'll sign him, but I wouldn't blame the Board if they too wanted to see signs of improvement before putting ink to paper. But maybe RR knows something the rest of us don't.

Couple of great points. IMO the club's injury management has become first-class and at this time of the year a safety-first policy is the way to go. With so many young players, and with many of our senior players with a history of injuries, this is the right approach for the medium- to long-term. There's plenty of reasons for getting maximum game-time into Spencer & Martin (& Fitz & Gawn when he's ready). The possibility of Jamar getting an offer he can't refuse is maybe not top of the list, but there nevertheless. On the other hand, if we plan to match any offers he gets, it's also a sound investment not to play him unless he's 100%.

Remember too that in all the 3 games that Jack played in last year we got absolutely spanked, and they were arguably the 3 worst team performances of the whole season. We'll have a much better idea about his worth when we see how he goes in games when we're at least competitive - in fact, that goes for all the newbies. At the moment, there's nothing to go by so it's all speculation for all of them.

Does me a lot of good to see such an intelligent thread about Jack Watts, coming with such a great OP. I've been bagged a few times for standing up for Jack, but the only posts I have problems with are those that indulge in the sort of speculations that RR refers to. I have no problems whatsoever with posters expressing concerns or reservations about Jack, or even criticising him for something that's happened. This is what S_T & Jarka have done in this thread, and I fully agree with them that if it ever becomes unacceptable on this forum to post anything negative about Jack, we lose something essential. But there's a world of difference between criticising or expressing a concern about a player - any player - for something that they've done (for example, avoiding a physical contest on one occasion), and speculating that this somehow "proves" that their whole attitude is wrong - that they're not fully committed, or not prepared to give 100% on the ground or to do the right thing for the team etc etc. That's where I draw the line, for any player. Jack seems to cop more of the "speculation" than other young players, though Cale Morton gets a bit too; it doesn't need to happen to this year's newbies. In particular, if any poster calls into question a player's commitment, they should expect to get "called" for it and asked to justify it, IMO. In this thread, S_T & Jarka have IMO expressed concerns about Jack (and done it very carefully - in fact, perhaps more carefully than they needed to) without resorting to speculation; that's the way to do it.

Fantastic work WJ & JCB & others, and of course the club. Improved my day totally.

Wouldn't mind a season like Essendon's 2009 - a few unexpected but stirring wins against top sides, even at the expense of one or two unexpected losses that should have been wins, and sneak into the 8, even if just to make up the numbers. At this stage that seems a bit of a stretch, but it was for Essendon this time last year - you never know.

A useful byproduct of Grimes in defence setting things up is that Flash can play further forward where he's much more dangerous. In fact, with better disposal out of defence from JoelMac, Bennell, Strauss, Garland & Frawley as well as Grimes, there should be many avenues out of defence in future, in contrast to 2009 when IMO we were much too dependent on Davey & therefore too one-dimensional & predictable and too easily shut down out of defence by the good teams.

I see your points. But the thing that strikes me as Jetta is the fact that he's a real scrapper, and no way is he going to be satisfied with being a depth player. He'll just keep trying & trying to improve, and his workrate may well take him a lot further than we think. I think this intensity means that he's got a lot more upside to come. Of course, these comments apply to Bennell too, it's just that his upside is maybe more obvious at this stage. I thought they actually look quite at home in our best 22 (with Jetta on the bench).

A hardy perennial of a question, though a good one. I'm sure it will keep popping up year by year, and part of me wonders whether we'll even have a clear answer by the end of Cale's career (2025???). With his height & good hands, his ball sense and awareness, and his massive tank, he will be a nightmare to match up wherever he plays. He also showed against Goodes how good he can be when he was asked to match-up against one of the greats. Cale's "best position" will vary depending on who we're playing - a bit like Goodes, actually. In other words, rather than use him as "spare-parts" or to plug holes, he'll be used in an attacking sense, where he's likely to do the most damage to the opposition, where he's going to give the opposition coach the most headaches. That's the beauty of our side for the future - we'll have so many players capable of doing serious damage that they can't all be covered, and Cale is right up there near the top of the list.

Brad's entitled to his opinion. I've got much respect for him as a coach. And quote him by all means. But it's all your own work to imply that because Brad has "high standards" and is "an honest talker", it means that "Jack will blow up a few times" at him. Does Jack have a history of blowing up at coaches at MFC? Or is Brad the only coach at MFC with high standards and speaks honestly? Or does Brad know something about Jack that the rest of us don't? Such an over-reaction to a single incident, which all those who actually saw it say is nothing. Yeah, you DO do it better.

Way too much has been made of this issue already. But there's such a huge contrast between those who saw what happened and say it's nothing, and those who didn't see it but have implied from it that: * it gives an insight into his whole mindset, including his "commitment issues" (this one's yours - do you really think he's not fully committed to MFC, just on the basis of this incident?) * unless he gets a spray, he can't get himself going * he thinks his talent means he doesn't need to put in the necessary hard work * he won't cope with a coach who's got high standards and is an honest talker * his mind is less AFL-ready than his body * he's not prepared to perform a role for the team. If this was the latest in a string of such incidents, then all these comments would be justified, and I'll be first in line to kick his a#@e. But this seems by all accounts to have been the only time anything like this has happened, and it's completely at odds with just about everything else that's been reported about Jack's character. Yes, he did something wrong, it was extremely well-handled by O'Donnell, and the lesson will by now be seared permanently into Jack's brain. Criticise him by all means for what he's actually done, but if you want to take it so far beyond what actually happened, you're just as guilty of over-reaction as the "Jack-the-messiah" crowd.

Can't help but be impressed by the number of people who know exactly Jack's attitude and state of mind and how it will affect his football career, based on a few descriptions of a minor preseason training incident. Gotta love preseason.

KS, you have a unique talent for major bickering about side issues and missing the main point. Tho' maybe that's my fault for such long posts. But I think this is an important issue. Which in this case is that we have had more than our share of "foot injuries" of whatever severity over the past couple of years, but that I have enough confidence in the club's fitness staff to believe that Bate will be where the line is drawn. I think the club's made great progress with its injury management, and according to the pictures from last Friday, with its player preparation. But there's prevention of injuries too. From the team point of view, if we're getting more than our fair share of a certain type of injury, we need to work out whether there's anything can be done to improve the situation. OK, you're right that Bate has "foot soreness" while Garland has (or had) a "stress fracture", but the same or similar factors are behind both injuries. Foot stress fractures all start off as persisting "foot soreness" that is passed off as just another niggle. Bate, to his credit, just picked up on it much earlier, well before it got to the stress fracture stage, and you're right, his injury management is a lot easier as a result. However, the club now has 6 players that can be (and probably already have been) interviewed about their how their foot injuries started and what else might have been happening at the time. As you say, there are always reasons why stress injuries occur. There are bound to be factors that these players will have in common, some of which will be obvious (i.e. they're all big guys) and some of which will be less obvious, and will have to be uncovered by careful questioning along the lines of known causative factors for this particular injury. These factors are likely to be correctible, sometimes easily, so that the injury can be prevented in other players. As you rightly state, when the causative factors for OP were uncovered, now nobody gets OP any more. Yes, I was "speculating" on some of the factors that may be pertinent; these and other possibilities are some of the things that need to be specifically asked about. Look KS, I'm on your side. I'm confident that the fitness staff will handle this. The fact that Bate picked up on it so much earlier probably means that they're working on it already. And they'd be much better at this sort of thing than me; it's their bread & butter. Except that if we do get another injury of a similar nature, well that's when questions do need to be asked. But not before. Let's see what happens.

First, agree with all the remarks about the players looking fantastically prepared. Nathan Jones' remarks about "plenty of PBs out there" is great to hear. Second, sounds like the Jack Watts thing was O'Donnell just making an important observation about trying to avoid getting caught flat-footed in a tackle, which by Jack's reaction he must have mistaken to be criticism rather than damn good advice. The most important aspects of this incident are: (1) I'll bet that this is advice that Jack will now remember for his whole career. (2) If it prevents him getting a serious knee or ankle injury in a tackle, it's been more than worth this minor misunderstanding.

LH, I see your point, and my statement may seem harsh. But the problem can no longer be overlooked. The article about Stef linked in the OP does say that "Melbourne has been hit with a string of serious foot injuries over the last 12 months" and mentions Jamar, Johnson, Meesen, Spencer (all of our 4 experienced rucks), Garland and now Bate who all have stress fractures of the foot. It also mentions Davey & Wona who have hamstring injuries. To have a fifth of our list (8 out of 40), including 3 or 4 of our most valuable, off the track with strain injuries before a ball's been kicked in anger is a concern; that's not something other clubs have. Sure, the collision-type injuries that occur during a game are not preventable, but these strain-type injuries really can be prevented. The factors that cause foot stress fractures are well known, and include things like doing too much running on hard surfaces in inadequate footwear without the proper warm up. It's no coincidence too that it's some of our biggest players who have the stress fractures. I wasn't actually thinking of Bohdan by the way; these injuries may well have happened outside the club's training times, when players do some work on their own. It seems likely that these big guys have been working so damn hard to improve their aerobic fitness that they've pushed too hard and made some simple but easily overlooked mistakes, possibly without the club even being aware of it until the stress fracture is diagnosed. On the credit side, we seem to have put behind us that run of OP (osteitis pubis) that we had a while ago, an injury that's also preventable. This must have been due to the right measures being put in place by our fitness staff, and we'd all like to think that OP is now a thing of the past at MFC; I can't recall an OP injury for a couple of seasons now. If there's a number of players with the same overuse injury at the same club, efforts are needed to identify the common factors and deal with them, rather than just ignore it or pass it off as somebody else's problem. I fully expect that measures will be put in place - in particular for the big guys, and in particular for the work they do in their own time, if that's the problem - so that foot stress fractures too can become a thing of the past. Sure, this is all so much easier in hindsight; it's only when you get a certain number of the same injury that the penny drops. But they need to get onto it, and a.s.a.p. The fact that Bate, who by all accounts has put on a bit of size, has a similar injury to the ones from last season, means that the lessons hadn't been learnt up to a few weeks ago! At least he seems to have reported it very early so it won't be as severe or prolonged as Garland, for example. But if we get another foot strain injury, especially another stress fracture, it means that the right lessons still haven't been learnt, and questions really will need to be asked. It's essential that Bater is our last foot injury of this nature. So yes, this spate of preventable injuries is disconcerting. It's what happens now that's important. If Bohdan was responsible for seeing off OP, this shouldn't be a problem.