Slartibartfast

Would explain both Pedersen and Frost playing.

It's moot of course but I'd say that Stretch, Grimes, ANB, Garland and even Petracca/Trengove (yes, I know) are ahead of Wagner and Hunt. My view is that we'd have a greater chance of winning with a combination of these players than Wagner/Hunt. I know many will disagree, but if we were playing a GF tomorrow this team wouldn't have been picked. We are therefore sacrificing wins for development.

You're looking at it in a similar way to me. I've been around AFL footy people enough to know that they have forgotten more than I know about the game and I assume they get things right. They can make mistakes (Brayshaw) but in the main they get things right given their philosophy. So the challenge is to look at what's happening and reverse engineer their philosophy. Hunt and Wagner in the same team says a couple of things to me but the main thing is they are not intent on winning at all costs. This is not a "win" year, this is a year where development of players, game style and attributes are also very important and will be weighted against the sole objective of winning. Of course this is against the stated philosophy of winning as many games as possible but unlike many I've no problems with that. I'm certainly not in the "members and fans deserve to know" group. Tomorrow we have Wagner who played 63% game time (GT) last week Hunt who was far from our best last week and only performed against witches hats, Harmes GT 64, 75, 71; Oliver GT 58, 67, 65 Brayshaw GT 58 Tyson GT 76, 74, 68 That's six players who can't really play enought GY which puts tremendous pressure on the rest of the team. I'm not confident. Playing all these youngsters seems to be placing a premium on development, not winning. For supporters that's a hard pill to swallow given the last 10 years.

No further than having discussions with Bates and exchanges with Dunn as presented on the 7.30 report some time ago. I'm sure there is more information available if you go looking but frankly I can't be bothered. He was "around". That's enough to make me very weary.

Dank is not to be trusted or liked. He's also suspected of dealing illegal supplements. He was engaged in some capacity at MFC. It's a highly uncomfortable situation.

I think it's naive to dismiss this. I'm not saying there is substance to it but I'd much rather it hadn't been raised. If WADA do reopen the case it's because of meaningful information. With everything that went on in the latter Bailey years and the Neeld years I'm unable to dismiss it as easily as most.

What if he's right?

I haven't read the thread but is there any merit in leaving both Pedersen and Frost out of the team? Against the Saints the Collingwood defence was pulled apart after half time when both McCartin and Roo were off injured. Neither Frost or Pedersen are up to it, it's why we swap them each week hoping for a miracle. But it's the definition of idiocy, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Hogan and Watts to play forward, McDonald and Dunn back and a stop gap in the ruck when Max needs a rest. Perhaps Hogan in the forward line and T Mac in the back line. Only then exposed if a goal is scored. It's far from ideal but I think we may get more value out of a competent AFL footballer on the field than either Frost or Pedersen. If that doesn't work then I'd bring in O Mac and fiddle around somehow - at least he can play. Pedersen and Frost just aren't up to it IMO.

Your argument is based around Wagner's kicking ability but I'd make two points. Wagner's DE was less than 40% in his two games that were "outdoor" - PA and WB. Grimes was > 75% on both those days with conditions against the Dogs very similar to Tassi. For kicking to be an issue you've got to get it. Wagner did 3 times on Sunday going at 62.5% DE. Let's assume that all his kicks were good. That's three good kicks in a match. I can't imagine you're happy with that. And to suggest "can you imagine what Grimes would have done in those conditions - yes I can - exactly what he did against the Dogs in the NAB Cup, 75% disposal efficiency. I'd seen it a few weeks before. As I've said stats are not definitive but they are indicative. I'd suggest that Grimes offered significantly more AFL IP than Wagner. He'd understand the tricks of Harvey better, he's proven to be a very good third man up. If we'd lost by 2 or 3 goals I wouldn't have been so concerned but we lost by one kick. I think it's far from silly to suggest Grimes would make us a one goal better team when 21 goals were kicked against us compared to a rookie who has never proven himself in any serious footy. MFC were one and one going into the game. It was a pivotal game. Wagner was a big gamble that didn't come off, Grimes the value bet that could well have got us across the line. Like Brayshaw against Essendon it was a baffling selection. It's two fails for the selection committee and it might have a profound effect on our season.

Melbournre: Lost at selection. The selection of Wagner, and I hold nothing against him, lost us the game in my opinion. Grimes would have been a far better selection. We were told at the beginning of the year that players wouldn't be gifted games and that consistent performances would be the only thing that would get you selected. Wagner is a rookie. He joined preseason training late because of the timing of the rookie draft and he played in all three of the NAB Cup game, as did Grimes. In the first two games he played 32% and 39% game time compared to Grimes 77% and 75%. He had 10 disposals combined in those games compared to Grimes 29. In the game against Saints Wagner played 68% for 14 disposals at 50% disposal efficiency. Grimes played 59% for 13 disposals at 92%. The stats are not definitive but they are indicative. Wagner hardly banged the door down and at best knocked very quietly. Grimes is fitter, bigger, stronger and much more AFL ready than Wagner and he performed better in preseason. The only attribute that Wagner is better than Grimes at the moment is his kicking skills but if you don't get it that doesn't matter. Wagner kicked it 3 times on Sunday. Grimes is not without his faults and I know many here use him as a whipping boy but whichever way you cut it he's a better player at the moment. If Grimes had been selected and played the game Wagner did on Sunday this site would be in meltdown over his performance. I like Wagner, he's tough but he's not AFL ready. On Saturday he came up against a forward line of Waite, Petrie, Brown, Thomas and Harvey. He didn't have the tools to play that game, he doesn't have the experience and for all he may end up being a good player he is not there yet. Wagner had 8 possessions on Sunday, 62% efficiency. He "did some nice things" but was far from AFL ready. It was a terrible selection. Grimes papers may be marked, he may not have a future but he is at this stage a significant upgrade on Wagner. Where is the "earning games" ethos? This kid hadn't earned them. The FD said one thing and did another. Just dumb. After all this time we should not be gifting players game to develop them, we should be putting our best team on the field to win the game. We didn't do that on Sunday and it's bitterly disappointing.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-04-12/vfl-player-review-round-1

Just some quick observations taking into account I left at 3/4 time. I went to see Petracca and Trengove. Didn't see Trenners at all as I was getting a burger at the beginning of the first. Petracca must have played most of his game on the grandstand side as my view differs from many here. I thought he was prolific, I must have just seen all of his possessions! Was on and off the ground three or four times a quarter and whenever he was on he had an influence. He was clean, made good decisions and executed very well. He played both inside and out and just did all things well without doing anything spectacular. For a kid playing his second game in 20 months it was a very good showing. When he's fit he'll just walk into the team and have an influence from day one I'd reckon. The other players have been covered pretty much but I was impressed with Mitch before he did his knee. Took a very good contested mark in front of us and moved and kicked well. Let's just hope for the best. And a quick work on Joel Smith. He did a couple of things in front of me that really impressed. He seemed very quick and strong with fantastic athletic ability and very good hands. Took a difficult half volley very cleanly and seemed really hard at the ball. He's a really interesting prospect and just needs to learn to find the ball and his kicking seemed suspect. Others to really impress me were Oscar Mac and ANB. I'm not as sold on ANB as many but he was our best last night along with Brayshaw I thought. Michie was better than others thought IMO. Frankston were pretty awful so all must be taken with a grain of salt. I've said it before and I'll say it again (to give perspective to those who are reading these reports). It's a terrible viewing ground and it's difficult to pick players up anywhere over the other side of the ground from the centre onwards. If a player played 4 quarters on the other side of the ground to where you were sitting you'd miss 80% of his output. It was particularly difficult given the lights are sub standard and I really don't understand why they play night games there.

Came to see Petracca. Finds it easily, uses it, makes good decisions, clean, playing both inside and out. Pretty exciting.

Went to a night game there once, think I left at half time because as well a being an awful viewing ground the lights are not all that great. I'm going again tomorrow, never seen Petracca play and want to cheer Jack on. Will probably leave at half time and hope someone with 20 20 vision can enlighten me on what happens.

Many thanks for the reports. A little bit of good news in an otherwise depressing weekend of footy.

Without wanting to sound ungrateful for the information I'm wondering if those there could offer more. Here are some questions that may help: 1. What position did Petracca play? What sort of possessions did he get - contested, marks, handball receives. Did he look a class above with plenty of time or did he seem a little rushed given it was his first game for the club. How much game time did he get do you think? Did he run with the ball and take players on or did he hand it of quickly. What was his kicking like? I'm trying to get a picture of what he was like. 2. Same sort of questions for Trenners. 3. Where did Grimes play? How did he go? 4. Any observations on Stretch, King or King beyond the brief sketches provided so far. 5. ABN. How was his delivery by hand and foot. Did he run and spread? 6. What was the opposition like. They were beaten by 100+ points last week by Sandy. Did they play many Hawk players and if so who. Thanks for any information that can be provided.

No Dazzle, apparently the FD have full faith in him. Or are you saying you don't trust Roos any more?

This is a terrific post if you don't want to think about things. Oh, we played badly. That's it. That's all of it. No need to do anything, no need to try and rectify what went wrong, no need to try and improve, it will all just happen. Is that what you're offering? I must have it wrong. Honestly WW, you are so much better than that.

His turnover for Essendon's first goal was interesting. Our game plan all year has been to switch so McDonald switches expecting to see options. When he played on he couldn't see anyone so he baulked a player and saw Bugg on the members wing. Bugg was 80 metres away and on his own. Bugg didn't move expecting McDonald to get it to him. By the time McDonald kicked it Essendon had covered Bugg and more, McDonald bungles the kick and Essendon goal. All that had to happen was for Bugg to lead hard and give McDonald an easy 30 metre kick rather than a 60 metre kick. For the life of me I don't know why he didn't do it and of course while everyone rightly recognizes that McDonald's kick was awful it was Bugg who was mainly responsible.

Yes, you did. Should have mentioned it.

Roos is a premiership coach because the tribunal let Barry Hall off. He may well have been a double premiership coach had WCE not been running on ice in 2006.

I think the discussion on what went wrong yesterday is largely on the wrong track. We have some very good players but yesterday most of them didn't play well. Vince, Jones, Kennedy, Tyson and if you're to believe Roosy Lumumba probably got a pass mark. So what went wrong? Why would 17 or so players play so far below their best and all do it on the one day? I watched yesterday as Essendon beat us to the ball and beat us in the spread. Countless times you'd see them with the ball on one side of the ground and from a switch you'd see a line of them lining up to take the ball along the fat side. We were zoning down the thin sided nowhere to be . And it happened all day. You could call it well before it happened. Many here are suggesting that Roos' game plan is inadequate and we need to go back to Goodwin's plan. Frankly I think it's preposterous to suggest that Roos has reverted to his game plan. The game plan hasn't changed from preseason but our ability to implement it has. Or perhaps we just don't understand it, perhaps we can't do it or perhaps it's no good. Or perhaps the messenger has changed and that has an impact. I suggested during preseason that the messanger shouldn't change and got not one dot of support but interestingly now many are suggesting it should. Frankly I'm not even sure that's the problem and unless you are inside the club it's not possible to know. But it should be looked at. You'd also need to look at training. To suggest our players looked tired was correct but why would that be so? Bar Brayshaw I think all had a week off before the first game. How could they be tired? Did the FD stuff up their training before the first game and then again midweek so they were spent on Saturday before they started. What did the coaching staff do to prepare them for the match? All those things come into it. Why does Roos say we focused on fitness and then go and play AVB who hadn't trained fully until the last session before the GWS match after being injured in the NAB Footscray match? How was he fitter than others? How does Grimes not get a look in but Lumumba does when Grimes is fit and frankly makes far less mistakes than H and is twice as brave. Hogan and Watts were disappointing but I suspect Watts was hampered by his cork from last week and Hogan has an ankle that stopped him running hard. He was in the rooms for sometime after the quarter time break and was probably getting a jab. The trouble is we can't answer most of these questions so it's easier to blame the players because they are the ones we can see. When we played GWS we had a handful of players that didn't perform, that's pretty normal in any team. Yesterday we had about 17. Not only that we didn't seem to know what to do or how to play. We've stopped switching, we've stopped running and we lack confidence. How does that happen after a full preseason and a successful series of games to date. I don't know but the buck stops with Roos and he needs to find the answers. Mike Sheehan stepped in for Robbo on 360 last year and when talking to Roos asked why our starts were so poor and the players so unprepared to "go" from the bounce. Roos sat silent for about 5 seconds with no answer until Buckley got him out of a hole. He hasn't found the answer over the off season. I think it's possible Jackson and Mahoney have a problem. We live in interesting times.

It's not all about you Dazzle.

You are so lucky you're not here.

Thanks. That's helpful.