Dr. Gonzo

Viney gets driven to the ground - nothing. Jetta rolls on Stevens side - in the back

Did you see the Essendon game? Just imagine the third quarter but played over a whole game.

This club is having a laugh. The players are pathetic prima donnas. So glad I decided to turn the car around and watch from the couch.

Thanks for completely missing the point once again. I'm talking about systemic inequalities that effect the entire competition not the poor leadership of one club.

North did get more Friday games last year (4?) but that was a one off. They finished top 4 last year and then had less Friday games this year (2?). The thing is these policies have been going on since about 1992-93 and have become even more pronounced over the last 10 years. To think that one or even a couple of years of decent fixtures is enough to rectify things is ridiculous. If the AFL were serious about a fair comp they would create a fair fixture with ongoing compensation payments for the next 15-20 years for those clubs who have been disadvantaged over the last 15-20 years. Following that (and considering the AFL will own Docklands by that point), if clubs are still unable to stand on their own feet then I wouldn't be averse to rethinking the structure of the national competition.

Notice how following that, one of the few "equalisation" measures the AFL actually took up was to remove COLA and change the academies bidding system. Might help Hawthorn and Collingwood win premierships but won't do stuff all for those of us being reamed by the AFL's policies.

Not only that but go back and check the crowds for most of these "Blockbusters" - invariably the return game gets far less than the original game unless both clubs are in the finals race which has been rare recently. Look at the Carlton/Essendon crowd this year. Look at our crowds against some clubs compared to the big clubs crowds against those same clubs. We actually compare quite favourably and that's despite our complete and utter ineptness on field for the last decade. The AFL and the favoured clubs are selling us all a furphy.

Your anger at the inept leaders of the MFC over the years clouds your vision on this issue. Your focus is too narrow, don't just look at us and say "we did it to ourselves" look at the comp as a whole. Look at the Dogs, North even Port, Freo and the Crows.Also look at the home/away split of games rather than simply the time scheduling. Some Vic clubs are continually favoured and propped up by the AFL with the view to "maximise revenue" thereby increasing the pie so the small clubs can benefit from the increased dollars. However there are several problems with this. Firstly, there is no documented evidence that this policy even meets its aims to maximise revenue. Secondly there is no investigation of the long term effects this policy will have on the competition. Thirdly clubs are made reliant on the AFL dole with little prospect of becoming self sufficient due to the AFL's policies hamstringing them. Fourthly, clubs are then told to stop leeching off the rest and contribute to the comp instead of taking handouts - however the AFL policies are designed this way! The policies state the big clubs will be given favourable conditions to bring in more money to support the smaller clubs however the smaller clubs are then reprimanded without any acknowledgement that the AFL policies have helped make the bigger clubs what they are. Fifthly, I keep hearing about small clubs being run poorly and needing to "get their houses in order". No one has ever explained what this can possibly entail while having one arm tied behind their backs due to the AFL policies. Big clubs make poor decisions too. Look at Collingwoods million dollar losses on their pubs. Look at Essendons issues over the past few years. Look at Carlton! Meanwhile, what exactly have these clubs done that is so "smart" except ride the wave of increased exposure and dollars in the game due to the evolution to the national comp and greater media exposure while having the benefit of AFL policies created specifically to benefit them and entrench their advantages? The only club that can really lay claim to being "well run" to propel themselves into the upper echelon is Hawthorn and that is on the back of an unprecedented period of success (1975-1991 for 11 GF and 7 premierships in 27 seasons), another current period of success (3 flags and 4 GF in 7 years with another on the way) and selling 4 games a year interstate. Despite this it is yet to be seen whether their success will last beyond the current period of success. The only club to go from small to big in the last 50 years is Hawthorn. The only club to go from big to small is us. Even Geelong, for all their dominance, can't lay claim to a membership much more than ours and will be in the hole this year due to the debts incurred on their stadium upgrades. In the AFL as in life, the trickle down theory of neo-liberal economists is [censored] and only pushed by those with wealth and power as a means to justify and maintain their position while blaming the less fortunate for their own predicament despite the game being rigged against them.

I think a reduction of players combined with a reduced interchange (or having only subs, no interchange) could be the answer. On a ground the size of ours having only 12 or 14 players (maybe 16) makes a zone almost ineffectual and forces defensive teams to play one-on-one. At the moment defensive zones are effective because 18 players can cover a 50-60 metre area of the ground (between the player with the ball and his goals) and leave limited space between each zoned defender. This makes it impossible to hit up targets further than 15-20 metres ahead because a defender is able to get to the drop of the ball before the ball hits it's target. If you reduce players and spread the zone it takes a defensive player an extra second or two to cover the ground to get to the drop of the ball meaning the attacking team can move the ball further more effectively. The zone will become obsolete because to have an effective zone you could only cover a 35-40 metre area meaning the attacking team could simply kick over the zone.

I'm not convinced it would happen like that but if I try and think "what would Ross Lyon do" I have to think with a focus on a defensive gameplan and less options to rotate players there will be more flooding with attempts to score on quick breaks. This would likely result in more soccer style scores with more games won 6 goals to 3.

If you reduce the interchange with no other changes it may have an adverse impact though. Tell Ross Lyon or Roos they only have a limited number of interchanges and what do you think their strategy will be? Drop more players behind the footy (soccer style) to stop a team scoring goals and clog up their forward line then try and score quickly on a fast break from defense. Essentially this is what happens now but it would get even worse I think with teams starting most of their 18 behind the ball with only limited players forward. Coaches will always try to stop the opposition scoring before trying to score themselves.

Getting rid of the interchange and reducing the numbers on-field (anywhere between 12-16 players a side) would go a long way to solving the problem. 18 players with elite fitness can cover the ground all day. 18 players can set up an effective 60 metre zone so whenever a team has the footy there is little room to create play. Remove a couple of players and the zone breaks down, play opens up and we get more one-on-one contests and less packs and constant stoppages. You may also create a higher standard of play with fewer less-skilled players on the ground.

He wasn't "bad" but he should've dominated. What's the point in winning the tap if it doesn't register as a hitout to advantage? BTW last week's game was putrid too, would probably struggle to find 5 good players - Daniher, Goddard, Baguley that's about it.

Yep Roos anf Buckley discussed this on 360 after the Saints loss - sometimes you can get the lesson but still get the points, in this instance we got the points but there's still plenty of learnings to come out of the game. The Queen's Bday game was a far superior spectacle but we lost. I'll take the 4 points any day thanks.

I thought last year they beat us with dominant no-name forwards Close anf McStay?

Gawn was rubbish last week. Hmm maybe more "ineffective" than "rubbish" actually but same thing.

Essendon were terrible in the first half. It was only once they realised they were in the game at half time they started to get some belief. We dominated the second quarter but couldn't score.

Add in Farmer and pre-knees Schwarz.

Hey mate, how much for the Linda Carroll book "The Grand Old Flag"?

Kicked one in the last I'm pretty sure.

A book like this has been sorely lacking, especially with the footy media's unwillingness to present the tactical aspect of the game and focus on lowest common denominator stuff (like scandals and footy show "humour"). If only Champion Data stats were made available, at the moment you can't even get easy access to basic stats like "hitouts to advantage".

Stop making excuses for the players. I said many times under Bailey our platers are either the laziest or stupidest in the comp. Judging by your post above nothing has changed.

Who was the spare Collingwood player? Who was the spare Essendon player? Essendon were just as disenchanted last week as we are now.

Of course - but the point is what in the hell right do our players have going into ANY game cocky? They've been a laughing stock for a decade! You don't overturn that with one win. Surely the players know what the competition thinks of them and are determined to eradicate that with YEARS if not entire CAREERS of hard nosed performances. Where is the killer instinct? The taste of blood in the water? Who is getting inside these guys heads? Why didn't the coaching panel pre-empt this when every single Melbourne supporter new what was going to happen? I just don't get it. Even playing juniors we never wanted to let up or go into a game cocky, if we were beating a team we wanted to win by 50 or 100 points. We wanted to grind the opposition into the ground. Where is the will to do that from our players, a group of PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMEN!!!

Richmond played a spare man in defence against us the whole game and we beat them.