Dr. Gonzo

The gameplan relies on defensive pressure in our forward half. As others have said Garlett, Kent and Harmes struggled to apply any pressure on the weekend (0 tackles between them to half time) which is why our structures crumbled. We rely on locking the ball in our forward 50 similar to the Pies and Saints circa 2009-2011. If we can lock it in we score and score heavily. When we don't the opposition has an easy run out the back unless we run back hard to cover space which we are still coming to grips with, both how to do it and when to pull the trigger.

I dispute this. We have not been bullied or pushed aside this year, certainly not in the same manner as previously. We may get cut up on the rebound/turnovers and we may need to improve our workrate but our contested game is there. It's just that we're still becoming acclimatised to being the hunted rather than hunter. We struggle when opposition shut us down in the middle not from being bullied but just from a failure to understand how we can turn the tables.

That's the point though - our senior players haven't been good enough to lead us through. Other than Jones who have we got? We've got Vince now but he's been imported and been a great pickup. Dunn? Garland? Dawes, Lumumba, Pedersen (when they've been able to get on the park). TMac is still 23, Watts 25. We don't have the senior players and onfield leadership, we are still in the midst of cultural change. We've got the personnel in now but they're still kids and need time to grow into their roles. We're still paying for the actions of the previous admin and FD's, that's why it's been such a long climb back. We gutted the list and stuffed up our recruiting at a time when the Saints and Dogs were playing in PF's and GF's. Even Carlton has a core group who played SF's for a couple of years. They've still got a core of senior players, we haven't. Saying that Jones has been a lone hand for the better part of a decade isn't hyperbole, it's been him and not much else.

They lost to WCE by 8 points the week before and beat the Lions by 80 points two weeks before that. They weren't struggling like Gold Coast are they just weren't dominating as some expected them to. We definitely didn't play to our ability but this was a genuine 50/50 game, one in which we went in underdogs. Some are acting like it was the Essendon loss all over again - it's not. It was annoying, frustrating whatever but its not burn the house down blow up the list stuff that some on here are making it out to be. We are building a young developing list. Roos said he should've made more changes - he's said that a couple of times. But how do you make 4 changes to a team that won by 10 goals? How is that good for morale? I think he's also protecting the players by taking the heat while getting games into the kids. Would you rather Petracca and Oliver are in the team or out? Hunt and Wagner? Sure the argument could be made for Oscar McD but overall we're playing the kids because the facts are they are the better options.

They're coming from a higher base than us. We stuffed up two rebuilds in 5 years! We're onto our 3rd rebuild since 2007 of course ours is taking longer than some other clubs.

Who said Carlton are better than us? I'm as annoyed with the ups and downs as anyone but some people need to get a grip. We're not sub-AFL standard anymore, teams lose games sometimes. We're on track to be in the mix for finals (granted the next month may put paid to that) which is about where we're at. The Essendon loss was infuriating but other than that we've lost 2 games against better ranked teams and 2 games against 50/50 opponents. We've also beaten one team better than us, 2 against worse teams and 2 against 50/50 sides. So all up I'd say we're about par for the course. Not exceeding where we should be but not worse.

Round 18, Coll v North, Coll home game at Docklands. EDIT: Sorry already mentioned above

Only because it said he runs demonwiki (a great website for those who have some minutes or hours to kill)

Didn't realise this was the same Adam who writes Every Day Is Like Sunday

The "nature" of the losses amounts to poor disposal and poor workrate the latter of which is understandable in a developing side. It's hard to say which one causes the other, you will always look sluggish when kicks hit the opposition on the chest or handballs miss their targets.

Exactly - before the season I thought we'd be in the group of teams 7-12/13 an outside chance for finals but more likely to just miss out after a competitive season. That seems to be what we're on track for. The next month will be tough especially without Viney but let's see how we stand at the end of the season before tearing the house down in angst.

Rightly so with whats gone before but it doesn't exactly create a healthy environment for the club when we go from worldbeaters to no-hopers and back again every week .

More than half our team weren't playing senior footy or at MFC 3 years ago. It's a different team and to try and measure it against that is a misnomer.

Supporters latching on to this "diamond defense" idea need to think a bit more analytically - not singling you out but just using this as an example. The diamond defense is implemented at centre bounces. I'd have to watch the game again to be sure but I didn't feel this was our problem on the weekend. The biggest glaring problem was our inability to stop lightning fast transition from a kick-in in our forward line going straight down the other end. Combined with too many missed opportunities in front of goal, playing from behind, our inability to take advantage of Gawn's dominance, our inability to crumb contested marks and our over-possession/poor disposal it was a recipe for disaster. Fix up our disposal/decision making and our accuracy in front of goal and we go close to winning (we were only really blown out in the last 10 minutes remember). I don't think any of this falls onto the "diamond defense".

I'd assume we want Salem to be that player but he's been out of sorts this year seemingly due to his thyroid issue.

Can you articulate what you mean by "lack of improvement"? In 2013 we won 2 games, 2014 - 4, 2015 - 7. This year we've won 5 after 10 rounds. At this point last year we had 3 wins. Our percentage has also improved dramatically since 2013 and even since last year (72% after 10 games, 77% at end of season). I don't think it's necessarily that too much is falling on young shoulders because of an underperforming senior group. I think its that having so many new/younger players means we are more susceptible to being inconsistent. Especially when playing the "total football" game style we are trying to implement, having even one link in the chain not playing well can see the structure break down - if you have 5-6 not playing well or shut out of the game by their opponents it will result in games like the weekend.

Compared to our opponents on the weekend we had a relatively less experienced side too; 8 players <20 games vs their 3 12 players <50 games vs their 6

I think people need to relax a little and have faith that the FD we have aren't dimwits and have identified all of the problems we are seeing play out on game day. I know it is difficult considering we've been burnt in the past but we've got plenty of experience in the coaches box these days. I doubt what we're doing now is the end product, it will be more like a base to build off. Tweaking will occur naturally as the game evolves and as we become more adept we will become more flexible - a lot of it comes down to on field leadership knowing when and more importantly how to pull the trigger on structural changes. Having a team of kids where the mean number of games played is 30 (last week v Brisbane, not sure about this week) doesn't help this. It is unsurprising considering this that we are trying to focus on implementing the game plan first before trying to change things around.

No. Reverse ladder order is the way it should be and the AFL just need to accept that some clubs will prioritise having a better pick over winning games some seasons. It's just the way it is. If a team is genuinely rubbish for two years you'll just end up with the same situation in the 3rd year. This isn't basketball where a top pick can transform a team, and picking 18 year old kids is fraught with danger anyway so there really isn't much difference most years between a top 3 pick and a top 10 pick.

The irony being we'll probably still be scheduled there as the away team anyway

We may be able to put a couple of 2nd/3rd rounders together for a top 10 pick to one of the Academy clubs similar to last year and on trade that for Prestia- or has that loophole been closed?

McCarthy was still contracted for another year

Richmond will probably offer two first rounders for him similar to the Treloar trade and you want to offer a second rounder? Delusional

Going man on man shouldn't be too confusing.

Agreed - the other problem yesterday was missing too many shots. In the first quarter we had close to double the inside 50s but only led by three points. We missed quite a few set shots as well. Kick a few of those and go in 4-5 goals up at quarter time and it starts to put the pressure on them and the game turns out differently. Even in the 3rd when we were pushing we missed chances that would've seen some scoreboard pressure. All in all I think it was our forwards who cost us yesterday both defensively and offensively.