Akum

Amazing how often Viney seems to be the nearest Demon if something out of line happens to one of his teammates. Sixth sense?

This is the absolute key. For young sides on the way up, every older side (especially those on the way down) is going to try to bully and intimidate them. The likes of Barrett & Lloyd would consider that to be "part of the game". When the young side refuses to be bullied and pushes back, it's somehow not acceptable. We had their measure without having to do the unsociable stuff, but when they tried it on, they got it back much harder. Just about every commentator I've heard or read today has ridiculed their comments and been - to some degree - supportive of Bugg, not so much for pushing Riewoldt as for the showboating.

It's no less than what Ballantyne or Crowley or Boomer Harvey or Jordan Lewis would have done in the same situation. And their fans would have been disappointed if they didn't. Agree that the Tiges failed the character test big-time in that game, in many different ways and by many different players. And again, it's a great shame that the teams that duck & dive (& throw their head back & wave their arms around & whinge to umpires and tell them how they should umpire the game) seem to get more help from umpires than teams that don't. Oh, and "bruise-free" is well and truly six feet under.

On the other hand, Salem & Lumumba & Hunt are moving up the ground more & either getting into space or being put into a position where they're able to create space for others. This is just as important for zone defence. Since Dunn has been back (and Lumumba has been just as important) , the defence has been much better organised. Our forwards are now more defensive & our defence is more attacking!

Agree, though he did have another kick off his right that put it into the path of Kent that led to Harmes's goal.

I'm not convinced. Old-style poster, stuck in superficial assessments based on outdated views, and shows no understanding of zone or team defence. Game gone past him?

Bump of the year. One of the more absurd threads in recent memory. And we do absurd as well as anyone.

Agree, although there was a bit of "wouldn't want this one mistake make anyone think badly of me". The main reason for the presser was to try to protect his reputation.

We've mentioned a few weeks ago the 'bromance' between Jesse H & Jack W & how they seem to combine so well. There's a similar synergy happening between Jeffy & Kent which makes them both much more dangerous around goal. It's great to see that having a settled forward line gives them a chance to really get to know each other's games.

... especially considering his early games. He's easily best 22. Big tick to the recruiters.

With respect, I think the phrases "needing constant praise" and "ruining his self-belief" are a bit too tabloid. I'd say it's more that he needs constant feedback that he's doing what the coaches want him to do. And that if they're not happy about any part of his game, that they let him know one-to-one and are prepared to discuss what to do about it. I think it dovetails with what Roos said after the Norf game about many players individually & collectively responding better to an "educational" approach than to being revved up or bawled out.

Zone defence has pro's & con's. The main "pro" is that it's more likely to lead to a turnover, and when it does, it's usually easier & faster to launch attacks. The main "con" is that there aren't "match-ups" as such, and it requires the nearest defenders to try to win the ball. Each defender guards a certain amount space, which changes depending on which direction the ball's coming from, and competes against any opponent who's within reach, to try to win the ball & launch an attack. This will inevitably lead to mismatches such as Jetta having to contest a mark against Cloke or Petrie, or Dunn chasing Sidebottom. Or Salem caught out against Varcoe's pace & agility. It's no longer a matter of beating a particular opponent over the whole game. Salem, for example, may be mismatched against a "one-trick-but-a-good-one" opponent 3 or 4 times in a game, but on the other hand he'll launch 8 or 10 dangerous attacking chains. So the "Salem equation" is that we come out way way ahead overall. As supporters, we've got to learn to think differently about zone defence, and how to evaluate whether our defence has done well or not. It's much more about positioning & running to space, and winning one-on-one contests, while still important, is no longer the main game. It also needs awareness of where your teammates are, and whether to go for the contest or not, so to get better, it's important to have a settled core of defenders who know how each other play. In the meantime, until this understanding develops, we'll probably see times when too many will fly for a mark and when someone's out of position and an opposing forward will be in miles of space. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason that Wagner & Hunt have been tried so early, in preference to Garland & Grimes who are probably much better one-on-one "old-style" defenders, is that Wagner & Hunt (and perhaps O.Mac & White) have adapted much better to zone defence than Garland & Grimes.

What about this question: "Are Melbourne capable of making the 8?" The best answer is "On the strength of their last two games, yes, they're capable of making the 8!" It was an amazing performance against North who were right at the top of their game and everything went right for them. And Collingwood aren't as bad a team as they look. They've had a bad start, but they look much better with Sidebottom back and Pendles in the midfield, and actually put a hell of a lot of pressure on us in the last 3 quarters, and we had to play well to keep them at bay. If they maintain that level of intensity, they'll beat a lot of sides. That's a different question to "Will Melbourne make the 8?" It all depends on whether we can maintain our current level of performance. One part of me says: from past experience, we probably won't maintain this level over a season. But another part of me says: we still haven't had a settled side, and we have 4 or 5 still to come in who could all improve our performance, so it's quite possible that we have more upside than downside. It's a matter of whether you think we've "played above ourselves" the past two weeks, or whether you think that's the level we should be able to maintain.

I agree with the bolded bit. But it's not as easy as it sounds. He needs to know where to run so that the other defenders can get it to him in space, and the other defenders need to know where he's going to run to so they don't have to search for him. If we can get Salem into space with the ball 15 times a game, he'll be incredibly damaging. And the zone defence strategy should make it easier for Salem to get into space when we have the ball. It probably just comes over time - a core group of defenders playing together often enough that they know each others' games, and getting the most out of zone defence. In fact, though our defence did very well on Sunday, the more that core group of Dunn, T-Mac, Lumumba, Jetta & Salem play together, plus the continued development of the likes of Wagner & Hunt, the more they'll improve offensively as well as defensively.

That's where Viney's technique was so good. Instead of trying to push the don't-argue aside and grab the body, which is impossible and is what the other player expects you to do, he grabbed Weller's don't-argue arm above the elbow. As soon as he did that, there was nothing Weller could do, it was only going to end one way. Viney used the arm to pull him in and then smash him to the ground. It's obviously something he's practised, though doing it at full pace is amazing.

If the Essendon game knocks every last skerrick of cockiness out of us for the rest of the season ... it's worth the loss of 4 points.

I get the feeling that he's trying to get his defensive game right at the moment. I'd like to see him get put into space with the ball more often, but this may only happen once the defence can settle for a few games. There's been a couple of changes every game so far.

Patrick Smith on KB thinks the MRP's reluctance to call any tackle "deliberate" or "intentional" is because it may leave them open to a legal challenge from the offender. He thinks that "careless" is in fact a euphemism used to attract the same penalty while avoiding legal problems. Hope he's right. It would be a tragedy if the Tribunal gave him 4 or less on the grounds that it was "careless rather than deliberate".

I admit to doubts about Wagner. I just thought he didn't look ready, both in his NAB games and against Norf. Especially in a game where I expected Pies to hit us hard, and to get in the face of all our young guys, which they certainly did. But he stepped up very well indeed. He was solid defensively, his disposal was mostly great, he seems to like the hard stuff, and he finds space and gets into space well on the rebound. Certainly has the full toolkit. Almost Salem-like except bigger & stronger. He could easily hold down a spot in defence long-term.

Petracca & Trengove prob will be OK to come in the week after next against Saints. So whoever goes out this week is going to be competing with them to get back in. Yesterday was the most even team performance for years. Not one of yesterday's 22 "deserve" to get dropped on performance. In recent years, even in our few good wins, there's always been 1 or 2 who would have been dropped if there was anyone better. This is a new situation! We also need to look at who we're playing - Richmond & St Kilda next couple of weeks. Neither of them have strong talls, the danger with each of them is being run off our feet. So maybe for team balance in those games, we don't need both Frost and Pedo, though both of them added plenty yesterday.

Seriously, this playing injured players bothers me. VdB and now JW, as well as bringing back Gus too early. So this is the meaning of "tired"! How many others? Tyson still doesn't look 100% to me, and usually only gets around 70% TOG

Edging towards the threshold of 426!

Suppositories??

We must have been the control group!

You mean "Hoo's on first"