Jaded No More

Are you comparing going out to a restaurant with going to watch your team play football?? That's like comparing being sick with a cold and choosing to miss a movie or choosing to miss an exam (except even Melbourne playing football is not as bad as exams )

Oh please, I started this thread as a bit of fun. Given all the bloody complaining on this site about everything (which I happily take part in mind you), isn't it nice to sometimes just have a bit of fun? Footy is afterall about entertainment, is it not? Of course I'll be there on Sunday cheering us on, and I hope the players have every belief in themselves that they can give Geelong a run for their money. But come on, we are no chance of winning, and realistically we will all be there on Sunday just looking for signs of improvement as opposed to an end result that spells victory. So all you gentlemen guarding the moral high ground, I suggest you step down. Being realistic and being defeatists are two very different things. By the way, I don't think that I have ever shown anything but complete passion and support for this club, so I don't understand how anyone could possibly see this thread as tasteless, or defeatist or as attacking our club.

Wow. Just wow. That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on Demonland... and I have read a lot of crap written by Yze_Magic. Amazing.

I think we haven't missed Garland because we haven't played a team yet who has really good quality medium forwards (Nathan Brown is now average at best). I think this week, Steve Johnson is going to give us some problems. Although, if Frawley continue to nullify those types of players, then Garland may well end up playing as a forward. However, you underestimate the importance of Garland structurally. For one, Garland playing in defence gives us the option of playing Rivers as a true "quarterback" (for a lack of better description), and he and Garland can both alternate. That means we have one more player who can actually use the ball and drive us forward, which of course allows Davey to play further up the field. Amazing how one player can cause such a massive chain reaction. Alternatively, Martin could be the man to take that spare KP forward spot. He is a better contested mark, but Garland has better disposal.

It's not even enough to be considered capable... or a forward... or an AFL player come to think of it. Putting aside his terrible performance in front of goal, he does absolutely nothing else too. Lets stop concentrating on how bad he is when the ball is in his hands, and talk about how terrible he is when the ball is not in his hands. Mind you, Bate isn't far off the mark either, but at least Bate can run all day. Didn't Newton confess to running out of gas in the last quarter last week?? He ran about 2meters FFS!

At least you weren't moved to jump the fence and kick him in the head, which was my primary thought process last night (it's all about killing two birds with one stone; getting kicked out of the G' thereby not having to watch the game and of course inflicting the same pain on Newton as he inflicts on us).

Can we not turn up and just say we did? The result is the same, we lose the 4 points, but at least we don't have to suffer. I guess we'll either put up a good fight for 3 quarters and they'll run all over us in the last, or it'll be on for young and old from the first bounce. To be fair, they really should rest Ablett, Selwood and Johnson this week... I hear they are all suffering from the debilitating Wintoomuch condition

If Bock can be a tough man and hit a woman, he should also be tough enough to cope with the booing... which he did very well yesterday while racking up a million possessions While I didn't boo because frankly I just don't care to indulge the behaviour of moronic footballers, it seems to me like it is more appropriate to boo someone who hit a woman, than to boo someone who wanted to return home 5 years ago. I honestly can't believe people are still giving Scott Thompson [censored]. Get over it people!

Football is a winter sport, and the majority of the MCG is undercover anyway. Seriously, I know we haven't had a real winter in about 5 years, but when did people get so soft? It's just rain/wind. Players are on the ground in shorts and a singlet, and not a single one of them has dropped dead yet (although I'm sure we wish some would ). People with young kids and the like may have rightfully chosen to stay home, which is fair enough. But what about those who could have come on their own, who didn't have anything better to do on such a cold, windy Sunday night, and instead of turning up chose to stay at home and watch the game on Foxtel? I think most of us are talking about those types of fans who only ever turn up when the circumstances suit them completely. When you think about being in a relationship (and I would say that most paid-up members are in a 'relationship' with the MFC), it's about give and take. We are not always going to win, we are not always going to play when it's warm, sunny or when the calendar says Saturday, so the club cannot financially rely on supporters who only turn up when we do. If supporters don't feel that they should sacrifice just a bit of comfort in order to cheer the team on, it's a real shame, especially given that we have a young team that is working extremely hard (watching our senior players cruise around in 07/08 was a lot harder than watching our kids turn the ball over IMO) and would definitely enjoy the support of the crowd... particularly when we play an interstate side. Remember the days when the G' was our fortress? It had as much to do with the support the boys had on that ground, than anything else. Maybe I'm a sucker for pain, and I'm not suggesting that everyone does stupid [censored] like I do and go to games while extremely sick or on crutches, but I can't imagine missing a game of footy because it's cold or wet. Big deal.

First of all, I would drop Bartram and play Dunn as a forward (dropping Bate and Newton and bringing in Maric and Robbo), so that argument is moot. Secondly, I don't see Bartram, Dunn or Bruce being able to stick with Ablett, so we might as well play an attacking player on him. The Davey example will give Davey freedom the other way. It means they won't try to shut him down, which is a win for us. Whether Ablett gets 30 or 40 possessions will matter little in the grand scheme given that he will hurt us regardless, and so will his other mates. I am not advocating a shoot out. Again, we will most likely play an extra man behind the ball (which I think we should), and if Davey happens to be that man, and he's on Ablett, then all of a sudden he can drive the ball down to our attacking end and make Ablett a little accountable too. If we manage to drag Ablett away from the middle, that's even better (although I doubt it'll happen). We saw yesterday that when we create one-on-ones all over the ground, we force a contest. That's 50% more chance of winning the ball (and inevitably turning it over ). You're right, I have conceeded this match, but I want to go on Sunday and at least see us compete one on one. I want to see how our players measure up, I don't want to see a 21 men rolling-zone. The end result will be the same, but the benefit of playing alongside Geelong (as opposed to behind them), will be much greater.

You should know better than to try and patronise me, when you know I don't buy into your whole bravado act. Go bully someone else, I'm bored of this now

I was booing our own players for letting him take 187 running bounces throughout the game. Was anyone planning to man him up?! By the way, Neil Craig needs to stop worrying about his players getting booed, and start worrying about how to play less horrendous football!

Either you've completely missed my point, or you're bored and trying to pick an argument. My solution is to play an ATTACKING player on Ablett. I would love to see Davey play on him, and make him accountable the other way. I rather he gets 42 possessions without a tag and we get Davey attacking the contest (or Moloney or Jones or Morton etc...), than he gets 30 with a tag, and we play one down for most of the game. Each player needs to be accountable for their man, that's a given. As you said, their ruck division is thin, and therefore I want four of our best attacking players at the bottom of each bounce trying to win the ball, instead of worrying "where's Ablett", "where Selwood", because all the worrying in the world would not stop either of those two dominating. I want us to go in with a mindset of, we're going to attack the contest because we believe we can win as many contests as you. We believe that our backline is good enough to shut your forwards down. We believe that our ruckmen can give yours a run for their money. We believe that if we win first ball out of the middle, our forwards can put pressure on the scoreboard. That's the attitude I want us to have, even if all of that isn't true and we end up losing by a bigger margin. Shutting down the game to the point where our midfield is concerned purely about the oppositions' players, and our forwards push up the ground to try and cover our mids, only for us to rebound back to nothing, will not make us win. We're going to lose either way, so at least lets make it a contest about who can win the ball and use it effectively. Obviously if it's quarter time and we're 20 goals down, shut down mode will be well and truly applied. McLean said on radio yesterday that the players like taking risks and playing through the middle of the ground. It was all about risk versus reward. I hope that attitude doesn't change this week just because we're playing Geelong. Would hate to see us play the boundaries, conceeding goals but never actually getting any ourselves. It is only when we back ourselves in that we pressure the scoreboard. We know what happens when we try to play defensively and shut down the contest. Against Geelong especially, if you turn it over, they will make you pay each and every time. In summation, please don't play Dunn or Bruce or Bartram on Ablett. Thanks.

He got 42 in the rain yesterday against the Lion's midfield... and they were tagging him. At the end of the day we ain't got a single player who could match Ablett and effectively shut him down. Obviously you have to man him up, especially at the bounces, but whether someone focuses solely on shutting him down, or whether we play Aaron Davey on him (at least he'll reward us going the other way, and he can match him for pace), he will still get 40 possessions and rip us a new one. Having said that, they'll probably chuck Bruce on him, and not only will he rip us apart, Bruce will manage to turn the ball over when he does beat him. Should be an awesome game!

You do realise that your argument makes no sense. Yes, it is up to MFC supporters, yes it is a good TV timeslot, yes we struggle to get numbers to games... thanks for agreeing with me!

Tagging gonna help us reduce the margin? Has it helped any other team in the AFL? Is it even possible to shut down Ablett + Seldwood + Bartel etc? We play one-on-one, and we at least give ourselves a chance of winning some contests. Yes I'm sure we'll play one extra behind the ball and all that, but I honestly don't see the point of trying to shut down their entire midfield, because all it will do is leave us 3-4 players down and they will still dominate. Ling is still out I believe, so that means their number one tagger is out too. In that case, I rather we play attacking player on attacking player. We know we're going to lose this one. Lets at least use this match to find out a little more about who can and can't cut it against the best of the best. I think the backline's performance will be fascinating against a middle-of-the-road attack that gets the best delivery in the AFL.

They will use anything and everything. They schedule these games for us because they don't care if we fail. It seems a lot of supporters don't care either. I hate that we prove the [censored] at AFL House right.

Everyone has different circumstances, and I wouldn't expect people to drag young kids to these sorts of games. However, you made the effort, and if more supporters were willing to sacrifice a bit of warmth in order to attend matches, we would be a hell of a lot better off. We get the draw very early on, so it's not as if people can't do a bit of advanced planning. Yes twilight games are stupid, and no doubt they'll be abandoned, but in general, our poor crowd numbers do nothing but support the AFL's stance on the club. I wonder what the excuse will be in Rounds 14 and 15, when we play West Coast and Port respectively, but at the usual 2.10 timeslot (we play West Coast on SATURDAY too! ). Would it be too cold? too dark? too sunny? What excuse will people have in July that we haven't already heard? By the way, the excuse of it being a poor game is irrelevant. Nobody would have known that pre-game. In fact, it was within the realms of possibility that we might even win yesterday. But not to worry, I'm sure supporters won't come on Sunday because they know we're going to lose to Geelong, so what's the point? Awesome. Lets not turn up to any games played on Sunday, Sunday evening, Saturday night when it's cold, Saturday afternoon when it's sunny, and maybe then the AFL will schedule us with Friday night matches and nothing else! And what the hell does the scheduling of games have to do with winning a flag? Never heard of a team not winning because they play on Sunday. If people turned up to games, and we weren't forking out $50,000 for poor crowds, we might have more money to put into the footy department, which would only make us a better team and increase our chances of winning. Ever thought of that?

His disposal efficiency was 69%. Not great, but beats Bruce, Morton, Jones, Sylvia, PJ, Jetta, Bate, Meesen, Miller and Newton. He also spent just 71% of time on the ground, and still managed to rack up 29 disposals, 6 marks, 8 tackles, 4 clearances and a great goal. Not his best game by a long shot, but he worked really hard and constantly presented both down and up the field. For what it's worth (which is not a lot I would have thought :D), he was the only Demon to score votes in that games by the Age (given 7 votes).

You actually think you are doing the club a favour by taking some sort of stand against the scheduling of games done by the AFL? Oh dear! The only thing supporters who choose not to turn up do, is cost the club money we simply cannot afford to lose. The AFL is only going to punish us further for [censored] crowds. They are not looking at yesterday's game and saying "oh wow, Melbourne supporters are so angry, we better not give them anymore Twilight games". No, they are rubbing their hands in delight because yesterday's turnout justifies their position on our club and the scheduling of our games.

Yes because we can see light at the end of the tunnel and hope for our team (and yes we only kicked 4 goals, but the opposition only kicked 7, so let's not take things out of context!) There is no hope when it comes to Melbourne supporters. They always have and always will be soft. I'm sick of going to games and feeling like I'm at the G' by myself. The weather was not that bad yesterday, in fact, it didn't rain and the wind was moderate. Yet people chose to stay indoors, where it's warm and comfortable. Say what you like about Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton, but at least their supporters TURN UP TO GAMES. [censored] timeslot or not, to get less than 15,000 to a game is diabolical and it costs us dearly. Sure the draw is once again horribly skewed against us, but instead of turning a bad situation into a manageable one, we just make it worse for the club (which makes it worse for ourselves) by not showing up. I can see development in the team. But in 10 years of being a Melbourne member I am yet to witness development in the attitude of supporters, and their willingness to attend games despite circumstance.

What's the point? He'll rip us a new one anyway. I'd play Davey on him. Might as well hurt Geelong going the other way, since nobody is capable of successfully shutting Ablett down. Basically I would avoid tagging on Sunday. We'll get smashed, we know it. Let's play one on one and properly measure just how far we have come and what we are capable of. Throw the players the challenge of being competitive against the best in the competition (yes that word again). It's the truest test we'll have all season.

Just as we predict the crowd numbers, let us this week predict the following: - Losing Margin 89 point. Backline will save us from losing by over 100. - Gary Ablett Jnr Possessions 45, 3 goals - Number of goals that nuff nuff Hawkins will kick against us (because they all come out and play against us! ) Hopefully Stef/Warnock shut him down. Will still kick 3 by virtue of Geelong being awesome, and us being... well... us - Number of GOOD minutes of footy played by the MFC, and in which quarter 10 good minutes, midway through the 2nd quarter. We'll be down by 6 goals at half time though. At least we can go this week and actually enjoy watching the opposition. Beats the sort of crap Adelaide dished up yesterday.

Bate was recruited as a forward, and now more than ever we are screaming out for one. We do not need another wingman, especially one who cannot bend down. If he can't make it as a tall forward (play him deep, play him on the edge of the arc, play him anywhere within the forward 50), he won't make it at Melbourne. Put simply, it's time to get serious about him being a forward (which he is!), or move him on.

Agreed. At the end of the day Newton is just not a good footballer, and this is magnified by not only his skills but also his application on the field. He won't make it, and at the moment is keeping the spot warm for any of Robbo/Watts/Jurrah/Butcher/Pick 98 in the PSD. Hopefully one of the above 5 will replace him starting next week, but I don't think I could physically stomach watching him at senior level again. Woeful!