2014-Flag

March 7, 2010

I'll stick my neck out & say that from Rd 1 we should start with Trengove, Scully & Grimes in the centre square with Jamar. Partly because these three - Scully in particular - seem to go much better on the ball than as wingers or flankers. Partly because this is already our most creative midfield combo as far as setting up teammates is concerned. And partly because this is going to be our star midfield for years to come so they may as well get used to playing together.

good call, I like that suggestion. The centre square clearances hasbeen a great weakness under Bailey. We now have the firepower to fix that, especially to exploit Jamar's expected superiority in the rucks

March 7, 2010

I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere... who gave away the free at the end? Was it there? Obviously it's of no real concern but it whoever it was has hopefully learned a lesson about keeping a cool head in critical moments like that

Most posts here suggested we dominated the rucks, with BOTH the Russian and Spencer playing well, especially Spencer round the ground. Does this mean we used the Russian affectively up forward as well? This is a really important area in round one as it is one of the Hawks biggest weaknesses, and we need to fill the likely non availabilty of Watts and liam. Anyone with comments who was there? If we can get this right it will give us a huge boost as Jamar has played very very effectively in the pivot in the past, and on his day is an excellent pack mark.

Exciting times.

March 4, 2010

Bate, Bruce, Davey all need to play round 1

And so does Watts. Going by DB's past comments he thinks so too. I hope so anyway - I think he will make a huge impact and considerably jncrease our skill level.

March 4, 2010

Not a bad team Flag, but given their limited preparations, I very much doubt that we would want to go into the first round with all of Garland, Bruce, Bate, Watts and Wonna. Maybe just a couple of them at most. Also, I don't know what the situation is with Dunn. He's not listed as injured, but if he's not, it's hard to fathom why we havn't seen him over the last two weeks. I saw him getting treatment for some sort of hand / finger injury at the intra-club game at Casey a couple of weeks ago.

Yes, i was sitting in front of the players at Visy Oval on saturday and he ws there and looking fit. DB has said that he not playing senior players who are not 100% fit but if it was the real season he would. Specifically he has said this about Jack Watts, but i assume it also applies to Bate and Dunn. I wouldn't play them either if they did not play in the next two weeks, but i expect them to if only the last competitive game plus the intraclub.

We'll see over ythe next two weeks, but I must say that side looks a lot stronger.

March 4, 2010

Since most on this forum seem to think we have a great chance against the Hawks in round one (I need to be convinced), what will be the team to get us there and how will it differ from that which was flogged over the last two weeks?

As of today, according to the Club's website, this is our injury list

Aaron Davey – Adductor Soreness – 1 week

- Cameron Bruce – Hamstring – 1 week

- Matthew Bate – Quad – 1 week

- Colin Garland – Foot – 1 week

- Neville Jetta – Groin – 1-2 weeks

- Jack Watts – Back – 2-3 weeks

- Sam Blease – Ankle – 2-3 weeks

- Paul Johnson – Foot – 5 weeks

- Cale Morton – Knee – 8-10 weeks

- John Meesen – Ankle – Indefinite

- Max Gawn – Knee – Indefinite

- Luke Tapscott – Hip – Indefinite

Based on that, let's assume Davey, Bruce, Green, Bate, Garland, Jetta, Watts all play. Let's also assume Wonna is fit.

Based on current information, how does this look for a team for round 1? Can it beat the hawk minus Burgoyne (injured), Buddy and Bateman (suspended)

B: Dunn Warnock Rivers

HB: Garland Frawley Bruce

C: Pettard Sylvia Trengove

HF: Davey Miller Jurrah

F: Grimes Watts Bate

Fol: Jamar Green Scully

Inter: Wonna, Martin, Maloney, James MacD

This means the following missed out who are available: Bail, Bartrum, Bell, Bennell, Bleeze, Cheney, Fitzpatrick, Gysberts, Jones, Jetta, Joel MacD, McNamara, Maric, Strauss. Of those only Bartrum, Bell, Bennell, Cheney, Jones, Jetta, Joel MacD and Maric would be seriously considered.

I'm sure we would all agree a very much stronger team than we saw on Saturday, and yes, possibly could knock off the Hawks. So where are the weaknesses/strengths in this side?

The obvious one is in the rucks although the way the Russian played at the weekend if he stays in one piece we will win there in round 1. Certainly the forward line looks very much better than it has over the first two weeks. Much more bulk and experience. The question marks for me are:

Is Watts fit and ready? Will Miller provide a target and run on the leads he is capable of? Will Liam re-capture last year's form?

The mid -field is populated by either experience or great skill and they are all in form.

The addition of Bruce, Dunn and a fit Rivers adds considerably to down back with Dunn providing additional height and run and Garland providing marking power

The bench is a mixture of runners and height.

Garland at half back also provides an option of putting him in at half forward if miller or jurrah have off days

Looking at this side I am very much more encouraged. It is a very different side to the last two weeks.

What do others think?

March 3, 2010

Here's an exercise in damned lies and statistics for you. I have a different opinion about the results.

Comparing our side with the Grand Finalists is always going to accentuate a point. We are nowhere near there (and of course no-one is saying that we are). So for us to win a GF we will need to have a list that is around where Stakka highlighted we should be. That theory has been around largely since Mick Malthouse's 'Premiership Clock' which Daniher also tried to model our side around. It doesn't give a true picture of what we should be achieving now with our list where it is at. North and Ess appear to have exciting game plans with young players. They are going to get flogged every now and then. One would expect inconsistency.

But one also would expect that every now and them we play a recognisable game plan that produces more than 12 wins in 3 years.

But I digress. Since Stakka noted that the 08 Hawks were a bit of an exception I took the trouble to download the official AFL team lists for the START of 08 (which would make a fair comparison to the Dees at the start of 2010). I think Stakka may have used the stats from the end of 08 and it makes a whole lot of difference:

His stats for the Hawks were:

Age 24yr 7mth

Games 87.0

Less than 50 4

50 to 99 3

100 to 149 9

150 or more 6

Their Grand Final team at the START of 08 shows:

Age 24yrs 1 mth

Games 76.3 (without Crawf as Stakka omitted Junior)

Less than 50 6

50 to 99 10

100 to 150 3

150 or more 3

There is now only a minor difference in the Dees of 2010 and the hawks at the start of 2008. In particular 16 players less than 100 games compares to our 18. And they won a flag with that team!

I hold the opinion that our players are hearing the company line " we are a young team that's building" AND consequently not performing up to their capability as a team instead of the Voss or Scott line "we may have a young side but we expect to be competitive".

People we have won 7 games in 2 years. IF we were competing well then the actual win/loss ratio would not be so important. It's how we are losing that is frightening.

And I make the point about tackling, chasing, running, hitting targets from 20m, defending kick-ins, centre square set-ups etc - these things don't necessarily depend on number of games played, experience etc. It's about attitude, basic skills and accountability. You don't need to be elite to do most of those things.

You are spot on Jnrmac. The Hawks example is illuminating. See my earlier post comparing the Hawks side to ours. They took a very different approach to recruiting.

I too have a real problem with the way we play the game and frankly a lot of it can be put down to lack of discipline and poor coaching. Your examples: tackling, chasing, running, hitting targets from 20m, defending kick-ins, centre square set-ups etc are mostly in my opinion more to do with those two things than basic lack of ability. Last saturday the lack of chasing, and poorly executed set plays eg kicking in after points scored so many times went astray. That would not happen in a well disciplined unit. We are a long way from the Hawks of 2008. We should be a lot closer.

March 3, 2010

I read this thread on Demonland and thought-- what a well written thought provoking argument for negative persons. I for one am not negative, I am realistic. Read my threads since joining in September 2009.I originally posted saying we needed another tall forward. Temel or someone like him made for football now -I thought it would help.Actually I agree with Stakka with the majority of what he says. I have been questioning in my posts other factors.I also placed a post saying I thought Bails would get another year. I still think even with this very young inexperienced out fit that we can win 7 games.This is what I stated many months ago. However it is the ending of the preseason that is definately worrying me. The young ones- in particular Scully will have to be nursed very carefully. Even more so with regards to Watts last year- do not forget he only started training early this year.Even last years , the year before recruits will basically take another couple of years. However, I would have thought,even with our current injuries we would have shown something more than the lack lustre and unskillful first quarter of our match against Freo.Anyhow, back to Stakka- well presented, well adapted which may also make some dreamers realise we are not just going to turn up and win a premiership in a year or two.Playing Fitzpatrick first up shows that we are not ready yet.Also when we get our full list available we will improve well-I think we will play well mid season to late in the season.And maybe a win in October in China.That's positive isn't it ROOST IT.And whilst you think I am a doubter Roost it- have a look at another Demonolgy site to look at how our memberships have decreased against other clubs over the last few weeks

nick48 Posted on Tue 02/03/10 23:18:28

Member #

Date joined

Posts

2131

08/12/2006

3427

just to start the month off.

L/Y

WESTCOAST 54,074 50,000

Collingw&%$ 45,954 46,126

HAWTHORN 52,496 44,874

ESSENDON 40,634 33,576

stKILDA 33,522 31,414

CARLTON 43,294 30,563

RICHMOND 29,379

GEELONG 28,773

FOOTSCRAY 23,693

portADELAIDE 23,428

MELBOURNE 22,844

BRISBANE 26,324 22,388

nthMELBOURNE 26,121 18,806

SYDNEY 26,269

Here here Jayceebee31. One of the most realistic and thoughtful posts i have seen on here. Bring a welcome sense of realism to the table.

March 3, 2010

The Above Post is all very well & Good and i do not question the Figures, but for this club to be "Building" for the next 5 seasons meanwhile 2 new clubs are introduced & Free Agency takes hold-It is a fairytale. Wake up People.

We have got to play above ourselves in order to survive, otherwise just like fitzroy all our good players will be bought out.

Do not think it won't happen...it will. The Free Agency decision has changed the Rules.

Whoever decided that we did not need to start the"Big Rebuild" after the 2006 season can maybe take a piece of blame for what it is worth, that's a major reason for the average age and game time of our current list.

But if this club is to survive because of what is now ocuring, The list has to play above itself & the Football Department has to coach better than it has ever done before- who cared how old the Fitzroy list was at the end of 1996? Nobody.

Excuses will not cut it-we must get used to that.

Yes the post was interesting for the Stats - it tells us what we already know - we are a young side, and given our access to early draft picks over the last three years, we should be closer to the Hawthorn example than the Cats. But we are not because of how we have recruited. Hawthorn recruited in their early drafts two dominant tall forwards - Roughhead and Franklin, both dominated the GF 08. They also had a number one draft pick from 5 years before, Luke Hodge, a medium sized player with superb skills who complemented those two talls superbly. We traded our only older no. 1 draft pick, Travis Johnstone, who in many ways plays a similar role to Hodge, with wonderful delivery and skills. We have no-one equivalent to Johnstone on our list of similar age and skill.

As far as dominant forwards are concerned we have Watts who I am sure will develop into a superstar but not yet, and may well be better than either of the Hawks. But we don't have two of them. Fitzpatrick is young and raw, and Jurrah is an entirely different sort of player who in my opinion would be very important as a third mobile tall like say Robbo, except faster and possibly more skillful.In the meantime, our best option is to rest the Russian and PJ up forward as tall marking targets.

As you can see from my name, I believe a flag in 2014 is our destiny, so who am i to question the thrust of these entries. But I do take counsel from the warnings we may not have that time. We need to show continuous progress and be competing for the 8 in one to two years. My alarm about our first two outings this year is that we seemed weaker than any MFC team I have ever watched, and i've been watching them for 40 years. My faith in progress to 2014 has taken a severe pounding over the last two weeks.

March 3, 2010

Having watched the intra-club prac. match and the Essendon match live, and the Freo match on Foxtel, I can safely say you are wrong.

These games have given me a lot of hope, and I question what you think the aim of these matches is?

Some people seem to look at these NAB Cup/Challenge matches and think the sole aim is to chalk up a win as if they were a part of the home and away season.

This is a short-sighted view and you would be wrong.

Frankly, I do not put much importance on WINNING these games. I was more talking about what I saw on the field, and what I saw on the field in both games to put it mildly was a worry. We have gone backwards from last year, and i'm not talking about our youth. The areas we should expect improvement in (3-6 year players) are simply not stepping up with a few exceptions (eg Jamar, Grimes,Frawley, Pettard). The others are going backwards (Miller, Jones, Maloney, Morton, Jurrah,Bell, Cheney,Maric, Warnock) and the reasons they are going backwards is that their skill levels aren't improving. Missing targets, running, pressure, kicking for goal were all appauling in those two games, and unfortunately the middle tier were the major culprits.

I'm also becoming increasingly worried about the young brigade. I cannot remember in the last 30 years watching the Demons closely when our side was knocked out of the game so easily. We simply got brushed aside in both games with no fight or spirit. You can blame young bodies to some extent, although you might expect them to chase which in the main they did not,and certainly when they got the ball they seemed to have very little idea how to use it, with the singular exception of Trengove who will be a star. Scully was a real disappointment - constantly getting caught, missing targets most of the time, and kicking either off target or simply not long enough for a first grade footballer. His goal kicking from set shots is particularly weak.

Hopefully Jack Watts will correct some of this because from what we hear things outstanding in his game are his skills and his smarts - the two things singularly lacking in the sides I have seen coached by Bailey.

I hope I am wrong in all this. I too was greatly looking forward to the Demon new area. Unfortunately I think it will be more Barrasi like than Daniher like

March 3, 2010

Based on a few glimpses of what our players are capable of.

Here is my best 22 list, with a view of playing young guns to get more games into them.

B Cheney Warnock Frawley

HB Rivers Garland MacDonald

C Bruce Moloney Morton

HF Davey Bate Green

F Sylvia Watts Jurrah

FOL Jamar Jones Grimes

After last weekend, and the weekend before, there is no way known i would have Jones in my best 22. Just get cought far too often.

INT Petterd McDonald Trengove Strauss

Emg Johnson Scully Wonaeamirri

wow. it's hard to fit everyone you want in

March 3, 2010

We are almost too the start of the season proper and I would like the opinions of all who post here as to how they believe Melbourne will perform for the first six games of the season

Because I believe these first six games will basically determine how the Melbourne Faithfull will respond for the rest of the year

You will see the first 5 out of 6 games will be at the MCG; supposedly this should give us a home ground advantage. But that will depend on how the players respond

Below is the fixture for the first six games

ROUND ONE:

Saturday, Mar 27

Melbourne v Hawthorn MCG 2:10 pm

ROUND TWO:

Saturday, Apr 3

Collingwood v Melbourne MCG 2:10 pm

ROUND THREE

Sunday, Apr 11

Melbourne v Adelaide MCG 1:10 pm

ROUND FOUR:

Sunday, Apr 18

Richmond v Melbourne MCG 1:10 pm

ROUND FIVE:

Melbourne v Brisbane Lions MCG 7:10 pm

ROUND SIX:

Saturday, May 1

North Melbourne v Melbourne Etihad 2:10 pm

So what’s your take?

My opinion, (based on current indicators)

Round 1 probable loss

Round 2 probable loss

Round 3 probable loss

Round 4 possible win

Round 5 probable loss

Round 6 probable loss

So I see maybe 1 out of 6 wins

I honestly hope I’m wrong and I hope that the Melbourne players can truly shake me to the core

and drag me out of this lethargy that I am in.

But my main concern is not the win loss ratio but rather their competitiveness I will become more positive (even if unfortunately I am right in my opinion) as long as the Melbourne football club is competitive and no loss is by more than 24 - 30 points

Any thrashings in these first 6 games will be a nightmare and even though the coaches may term such a loss as "character building"

To me it means a long, long season and an even longer wait before I can even hope to see Melbourne as a finals contender

and unfortunately I am not getting any younger

After supporting the Melbourne Football club for 49 years my window of opportunity is getting smaller every year that passes.

But even though I am being cold hearted with my opinion believe me I have never wanted to be proven so wrong as badly as I do now.

Unfortunately, having watched both games so far live, we will not win any of these games, and frankly I doubt whether we will win any games this year.

I know in my last posts I got bagged for knocking the effort, but frankly I doubt whether my critics really looked at these games dispassionately. I hope i'm wrong but i fear our much hyped new breed will not deliver, and owing to the fact that we have got rid of our experienced legacy, we will wilt under pressure.

Time will tell. If I am right, it will be a disaster for the MFC.

February 27, 2010

Today's game was better than last week for the Dees - but not much. I think both the Bombers and the Dockers are going to end up in the in the bottom four, and so will we if we don't improve rapidly. Although i previously predicted a top 8 finish for us, there is no way this is possible on these two performances. We are simply too insipid and too easily knocked off the ball, as well as a basic lack of intensity particulalry in allowing the ball to come out of our attacking area. There are several individuals which this particularly applies to, of which more later. So what did we learn today?

The Good

1. Jamar absolutely dominated the ruck and gave our on-ballers an arm chair ride. Unfortunately they did not have the skill to capitalise on it.

2. Pettard and Grimes played blinders, and for medium sized players, capitalised on every opportunity, particularly Grimes who not only crumbed well up forward but took some very good pack marks. Outstanding games by both of them, particularly Grimes

3. Scully showed glimpses as to why he was no.1 draft pick. Is a ball magnet, but at the moment too often gets caught with the ball. He is also not a long kick. Had a free kick about 45 metres out in the third quarter and did not even make the goal square. Was also often astray in delivery down field, but is very quick and accurate with hand-passing.

4. Trengove I though was good on the wing in the first half but hardly sighted after half time - perhaps he was injured. At times showed the sublime skills for which he is known, but early days and lacks consistency which is understandable for one so young.

5. I thought our tackling was pretty good all day, and in that respect at least the intensity was good.

6. Colin Sylvia, after an ordinary start last week is getting back to his top form. Faded in the second half.

The Not So Good

1. Lacked intensity, particularly our of attack. Jurrah in particular hardly chased at all, and seemed to be continually out of position.

2. The skills continue to be a concern: dropping easy marks, missing targets, and pathetic kicking for goal. We could easily have lead at half time if they had in any way kicked straight in the first quarter.

3. The defense was loose. I'm not as enthusiastic about our Defence as some others on this site. I think their decision making is often poor, particularly as demonstrated by their ability to lose possession while kicking in. To me this is just lacking discipline and frankly poor coaching. I'm afraid it may signal deficiencies in other coaching areas which may not be so obvious. It can't be blamed on youth, on lack of experience. It is simply a sign of a poorly drilled side, and this was demonstrated time and again at Visy today.

4. Liam Jurrah had another shocker. it was not so much he spilled marks, or was out of position, it was more he seemed to lack interest. Maybe he needs to be played up the field, or even on the ball to get his confidence back, but at this rate he will not be playing round one.

5. Much of our side seems to lack strength. we were continually beaten in one on one contests. This is particularly so of some of our newer players eg Gysberts and Fitzpatrick, even Morton and Scully.

Here are my comments on each player

44. Bail - little to enthuse, did one or two nice things, but mostly a fringe player

3. Bartram - seems to drift in and out, and has lost much of that running play which made such an impact in his first couple of years

21. Bell - better than expected and often took Watson on and won. Maybe can build from here, but still gets caught with the ball far too often

43. Bennell - provided some run out of defence particularly in the second half but also was loose and fumbled. Has potential though, particularly if he could tighten his defensive skills

45. Cheney - was rarely sighted, and had little impact

48. Fitzpatrick - had no possessions. Reminds me a little bit of Nick Smith.

6. Frawley - some uncharacteristic clangers, but still got his usual share of possession.

16. Grimes - great game up forward, both as a crumber and marking forward. Also about the only one who can consistently kick straight. Roll on Jack Watts.

40. Jamar - terrific game from the Russian, absolutely dominated the ruck and even took a brilliant pack mark, even though it was at the wrong end! I think he is the short term answer to our strong marking forward problem, he has done it before and could be invaluable when resting.At least would provide a strong contest, and is a very good pack mark. Can be better used, but at the moment our on-ballers don't know how to take advantage of his ruck dominance (another coaching deficiency?)

2. Jones - gets good possession but so often either gets caught with the ball, or poorly disposes of it. In the third quarter, he grabbed the ball on the half back line, and finding no-one coming at him ran and bounced it to the half forward line but when he was on the wing Jamar was by himself in the goal square. Instead of looking for a target, he blazed away and of course kicked a point. A candidate for a trade a years end. Is not the answer to our on ball problems.

24. Jurrah - has worrying 2nd year blues. as i said before, maybe a role up the ground to restore confidence may be what is needed.

19. Maric - has some skills, but accurate goal kicking is not one of them, neither is consistency.

34. Martin - didn't play a bad game. Took some marks up forward, and held his own in the ruck. Too often fumbles though.

7 Miller - at least provided a target, and was hard at the ball. At the moment is our most effective forward.

22. Moloney - very quiet game, lacks consistency, and does not provide the drive from someone so senior and well respected should be.

10. Morton - for him, had little impact before injury. Was played mostly in defence, where he is wasted. Better either in attach or in the midfield.

15. Petterd - great game from Ricky, whether down back or on the HF line.

27. Rivers - is an effective back with great skills, but at the moment doesn't seem to be making the impact he should

31. Scully - showed class, but needs to improve on some key skills. Taking a while to adjust to the pace of the game

47. Strauss - has some strengths, but far too inconsistent and worryingly was beaten a number of times one on one

12. Sylvia - wonderful first half, but faded. Looks though to be returning to top form

9. Trengove - good first half. Can see the potential, rarely makes skills errors, is a great mark for his size, and has some pace. will be a star

1. Warnock - often too loose, and was worryingly beaten in the air on a number of occasions.also shown up for lack of pace by a class forward

5. Gysberts - had no impact in his first game. very light framed and often just knocked out of the way. Impossible to tell his skills cos he hardly got the ball

28. Macdonald - I think this guy is an ordinary pick up. He was a number of times beaten for pace today, and also in the air. I do not think he will make our best 22, but i guess at least he has experience

Finally, I was sitting three rows down from all the non playing Demon players today, and for such a young group it struck me as though they were singularly detatched from what was going on on the field. Maybe they have seen too many games, but there seemed to be very little passion there.

This was not a good day for the MFC

February 27, 2010

Today's game was better than last week for the Dees - but not much. I think both the Bombers and the Dockers are going to end up in the in the bottom four, and so will we if we don't improve rapidly. Although i previously predicted a top 8 finish for us, there is no way this is possible on these two performances. We are simply too insipid and too easily knocked off the ball, as well as a basic lack of intensity particulalry in allowing the ball to come out of our attacking area. There are several individuals which this particularly applies to, of which more later. So what did we learn today?

The Good

1. Jamar absolutely dominated the ruck and gave our on-ballers an arm chair ride. Unfortunately they did not have the skill to capitalise on it.

2. Pettard and Grimes played blinders, and for medium sized players, capitalised on every opportunity, particularly Grimes who not only crumbed well up forward but took some very good pack marks. Outstanding games by both of them, particularly Grimes

3. Scully showed glimpses as to why he was no.1 draft pick. Is a ball magnet, but at the moment too often gets caught with the ball. He is also not a long kick. Had a free kick about 45 metres out in the third quarter and did not even make the goal square. Was also often astray in delivery down field, but is very quick and accurate with hand-passing.

4. Trengove I though was good on the wing in the first half but hardly sighted after half time - perhaps he was injured. At time showed the sublime skills for which he is known, but early days and lacks consistency which is understandable for one so young.

5. I thought our tackling was pretty good all day, and in that respect at least the intensity was good.

6. Colin Sylvia, after an ordinary start last week is getting back to his top form. Faded in the second half.

The Not So Good

1. Lacked intensity, particularly our of attack. Jurrah in particular hardly chased at all, and seemed to be continually out of position.

2. The skills continue to be a concern: dropping easy marks, missing targets, and pathetic kicking for goal. We could easily have lead at half time if they had in any way kicked straight in the first quarter.

3. The defense was loose. I'm not as enthusiastic about our Defence as some other on this site. I think their decision making is often poor, particularly as demonstrated by their ability to lose possession while kicking in. To me this is just lacking discipline and frankly poor coaching. I'm afraid it may signal deficiencies in other coaching areas which may not be so obvious. It can't be blamed on youth, on lack of experience. It is simply a sign of a poorly drilled side, and this was demonstrated time and again at Visy today.