bing181

No it shows that we have players going out injured who we need to cover, as well as players coming back from injury who we need to find a place for. The other 2 changes - which constitute just under 1/10 of the team - are form/performance related, though even there, they're largely part of juggling players as a consequence of others who are out injured - JKH wouldn't have been in the team in the first place without injuries to Viney and Stretch (and perhaps Maynard). But heh, the sky is falling.

Sure, they don't define the year in themselves, but they're an important element to be taken into consideration when looking at outcomes. (Though you also missed Tom McD, absent for the first 5 games.)

Actually, the team we're putting on the park is quite a bit younger than Hawthorn's. But heh, facts.

No, but it does dictate consistency - and that's where we're falling down, both across games and within games. For the moment.

Physiologically speaking, these players are measured, analysed and spreadsheeted to within an inch of their lives. If there's any underlying fatigue, above and beyond what could be expected at this stage of the year, it would be known. Presumably he's right to go. And yes, while Spargo has had a long season as a first year player, his load is already being managed within games, where he has one of the lowest game times (only 69% against the Swans).

Happy to see Spargo backed in, and not surprised to see it. He made some poor decisions last week - but won't make them again. It's called development.

This, a thousand times this. THIS is why we lose matches we "should" win, and why teams like Richmond don't. FWIW, the full image:

Yes, but Oscar, Lever, Hogan are only a year or two ahead of that group. And Gawn is still very "young" for a ruck. Equally though, I think it says something about the time it takes for KP's to develop.

Ah, some perspective, with a reasoned argument to back it up. Rare around these parts at the moment. Thank you.

BAYLEY Fritsch, Alex Neal-Bullen, Angus Brayshaw, James Harmes, Clayton Oliver and Christian Petracca have all been named in the 40-man 22Under22 squad selected by the AFL Players Association. With six players selected in the squad, Melbourne has the most of any team in the league this season. Fans can now visit 22under22.com.au to cast their vote, before the final team is revealed at the AFL Players’ MVP Awards on Thursday, August 30. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-08-14/five-demons-in-22under22-squad

If you find you're getting too knocked around by following a football team - which be definition and like all sporting teams will be up and down, even often down - then perhaps it's not for you. Seriously.

I'll disagree with you on that (while of course, agreeing as well ...), because I don't believe these things ever come down to one match, one decision, one player. It's a cumulation of events, in this case, an accumulation of losses, in particular those against Geelong x2 and St Kilda. Sydney were *always* going to be difficult to beat, the other 3 matches were more achievable wins. Though even in those, players out (Viney, McDonald, Lever etc.) contributed IMHO.

If it was just Hogan, maybe. But it's not. You cannot take 3 of your key players (Hogan, Viney, Lever are about as "key" as it gets) out of the team and expect to get anything like the same level of performance. If that was the case, then you could argue that Carlton should be in the 8. I'm as optimistic as they come, but I'm also a realist, and this is just a bridge too far.

The mind boggles.

Or maybe he's not doing what you think he should because he knows more about footy than you. Just a thought.

Sums it up really. Coaches' votes: MELBOURNE v SYDNEY 10 Isaac Heeney (SYD) 7 Jake Lloyd (SYD) 4 Aliir Aliir (SYD) 3 Angus Brayshaw (MELB) 3 George Hewett (SYD) 2 Tom Papley (SYD) 1 Lance Franklin (SYD)

Yes. But the other point about that, is look at how much finals experience there are in those players: it's not just the > 150 game players, even the younger players have the kind of big-game experience that ours are severely lacking. The bulk of Sunday's team is the same as the one that finished top of the ladder in 2016 and played in the GF. And then there's the class: look at how many Swans players have been AA compared to us.

All we need to know at the moment. The problem isn't kicking winning scores, it's keeping the opposition from kicking winning scores. The Access All Areas video shows a few examples of why/where we're falling short in that regard. Still got a massively inexperienced list, and while players may be strong in one area, they're still either not strong across the board, or making poor decisions on what they need to be prioritising. The Salem/Papley was a classic case, where Salem is trying to juggle his role as clearance/disposal conduit (standing off the play, waiting for the ball to come out of a stoppage), with his role as a defender. He got it wrong, and it won't be the first time, but give him another season or two and he'll get better at that kind of decision-making.

Oh for god's sake.

You forgot James Harmes' post-game interview. Definitely a major factor in Jesse's foot issues.

Nice theory. If it were true. We've been beaten this year by teams who scored lower than what we did on Sunday. We've also kicked a winnable score (over +/- 12 goals) in the majority of matches we've lost. For some ideas on where we *are* losing games, watch the Access All Areas video on the AFL site, starting at about 3:25. They're not talking about the forward line.

Go on then ... how many games have we thrown away with bad (= inaccurate) goal kicking?

Interview is fine. Of course.

That's not what most were saying Thursday night.

This is where it all goes wrong around here.