Demon Dynasty

Yep. Not like we can afford another injury to a 22 either

Hopefully he lay a coathanger on him.... i want to see Spencil talk some smack and a few face downs! like this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqxQdTx2hI

I hear you OD but need to keep in mind he's only played 2 games. I'm more basing this on his last season. But he is ranked 6th overall for contested marks. Not enough games to really judge this by i realise but on last year's performance where he had 9 games he was ranked No.1 for general contested marks! Inside 50 you are correct. My statement again pertains mostly to last year. I did say a "few" and he was ranked equal 9th there. You haven't seen it because he hasn't yet Jumbo lol. So my statement is more pertaining to the 9 games last year vs the 2 played this year (see above). Still think he is better than Spencil for marking i50 albeit at least Spencil has 1 mark i50 lol (but from twice as many games as Gawn...so far). My understanding is that expecting tall ruckman to rest or drift forward nowadays and clunk a heap of contested marks is considered pretty much old school by current day coaches anyways. They are mostly just after their ability to get to a contest and bring the ball to ground, then compete once it hits the deck. Any contested marks (by today's ruckman) are considered a bit of a bonus as they have so much work to do at stoppages around the ground now as well as the bounce.

I'm taking a wild stab in the dark and guessing you're reasonably young Moneider. This is what 40+ years of barracking for the MFC does to you!

Couldn't be bothered trying to place them into positions nor do a full on review but this is my best 22 based on weighted average of stats so far this season (ranked on averages so it's fair vs games played). This may include too many talls etc due to the fact it's purely based on stats. Yes i know it's a horrid way of ranking but frankly i CBB going in depth this season given it's all over already (again). 1 Nathan Jones 2 Bernie Vince 3 Tom McDonald 4 Daniel Cross 5 Jack Grimes 6 Jack Viney 7 Dom Tyson 8 Lynden Dunn 9 Jeremy Howe 10 Jesse Hogan 11 Heritier Lumumba 12 Colin Garland 13 Jimmy Toumpas 14 Ben Newton 15 Aaron Vandenberg 16 Angus Brayshaw 17 Jack Watts 18 Cameron Pedersen 19 Christian Salem 20 Jake Spencer 21 Jeff Garlett 22 Max Gawn Outside the 22 are.... 23 Neville Jetta 24 Aiden Riley 25 Jack Fitzpatrick 26 Viv Michie 27 Chris Dawes 28 Jay Kennedy-Harris 29 Matt Jones 30 Mark Jamar 31 Billy Stretch 32 Dean Kent 33 Rohan Bail 34 Sam Frost 35 Alex Neil-Bullen Out of those i would persevere with Jetta, JKH, Stretch, Kent, Frost and ANB.

I've seen enough after 40 plus years to write a short novel Lamash. Only wish it was mostly the former but alas. I'm now following the lead of some on here and instead focussing my efforts on JD & other stuff.... like Bailey's Luxe. Great for warming the heart during the cold of winter!

Gawn can clunk a few contested marks i50 but can't hit the side of a barn door unless 10 metres out directly in front. Spencil can kick a goal (within 30/40 metres) and can hit leading targets but rarely marks, let alone marking i50 to get a shot at goal. The only diff between the two for me is that Spencil loves to tackle and is presently the leading tackler (tackle averages) in the team! The other 2 talls under discussion here up forward are Gawn, ranked equal last in tackle averages (34th behind Hogan at 33rd!), and Dawes ranked 21st. In the match last night, apart from being generally better in their one on ones (quality) and effective ball use (with a DE% about the AFL average @ 71.8% vs the Crows @ 67.4), the Hawks only other big advantage last night was their ferocious tackling inside 50 and IMO a more effective forward press. The Hawks had 22 tackles i50 versus the Crows lousey 7! Pressure acts inside 50 were also massive for the Hawks, lead by Cyril, Puopolo and Roughead. So if it's a choice of Gawn or Spencil resting up forward i know who i would prefer in order to improve our pressure i50 (which is generally horrid), but it's a "just". P.S. that's if it ever gets in there vs the Cats!

That's Roosey's fault for not playing him up forward. At least he would have added to the scoreboard!

I hope the bill wasn't as high as Geelong's score that day dees

Correct. I found the error. Had allocated him to the Hulk against the Power instead of himself for the extra mark lol. He is sitting 14th just below Dawes/Vince on equal 12th for marks i50. So given he hasn't played a big role up forward if we use contested instead of marks i50 to compare, this is the rankings we get out of the 4 mentioned.... 1. Hogan (Ranked 1st); 2. Pederson (Ranked 2nd); 3. T-Mac (Ranked 3rd) 3. Fitzpatrick (Ranked equal 9th); and 4. Dawes (Ranked 12) Which leads me back to the point why i posted. Let's give the best "tall" contested marks a chance at playing CHF and see if we can up our marks i50 given we have very few inside 50 opportunities versus most of our opponents. We've seen what Dawes tries to bring and it isn't very pretty so far. Time to look beyond Dawes. The answer may not lay with Pedo, T-Mac or Fitzy but i still think we should give each of them a fair crack at it (ie., 3 to 4 matches) before seasons end IF available, provided they've shown something in each (ie., not a complete disastor) AND can kick straight (hitting a lead up target/shooting at goal). No point having a a good mark i50 if he can't kick straight or hit the occasional lead up target if playing higher outside the arc on occasions. I agree Dawes should be considered at CHF (for now), given we have so many of the tall options above either injured or carrying injuries. My theory assumes most are available which is of course pretty rare at the MFC! Wherever Michie is played, just let him play most of the match. If the match committe are thinking of making him sub then don't play him at all. He may have had 4 matches but has so far only been given 2.5 matches of actual time on the ground. And all of that was spasmodic coming on as sub or much of it on the bench. Like i said we aren't making finals and some, like Michie, have their career potentially on the line. I'd hate to think a career was decided on a match where they are brought on by Roos as the sub (who hates the idea of a sub and according to some d'landers does it pretty poorly).

Jumbo you do realise this is a blog site for the Melbourne Demons yes?

Sorry, what i meant is... stat is correct in terms of considering the genuine options for a KPF that i was highlighting. That is, you wouldn't put Garlett/JKH etc in as a KPF in at CHF. So out of the options considered as "possibles" we have Pedo as No.1 for Marks i50 (ranked 2nd behind Hogan), Fitzy as No.2 (ranked 6), Dawes is 3rd (ranked 12) and then T-Mac 4th (ranked 18 as you would expect as a backman). So i'm not necessarily endorsing Fitzy as THE option. I was saying we roll through each of those 3.... Fitzy (1st because Pedo is out injured), Pedo on return and even T-Mac for a game or 2 in the dead rubbers against mediocre opposition later in the year just to see if he can give us something and change things up a little. Did the same with Garland last year and did get something from it for a few games so worth a try IMO. We haven't really seen how Fitzy goes as a permanent forward as for 1. he hasn't been able to hold down a regular game; 2. He has only played 3 matches so far this year, and 3. He has played a reasonable amount of that time switching between forward/back roles. What i'm saying is don't switch him. Let him settle for a few games at CHF and see how he and the forward line as a whole perform with him in it. It might be a disaster. But we wont know unless we try. Just my opinion but I wouldn't put michie into a HBF role to replace grimes. Way too slow IMO. We need some run as we are already slow by foot off HB apart from T-Mac and H. Much more suited in the clinches and pushing forward occasionaly. And i think that's michie's problem. Might have some skills but struggles to get run both ways. Bail is an alternative as suggested but he is yet another NQR and we know what we are getting here. Michie really hasn't had a credible consistant run at it so far. If Bail and M Jones have been gifted so many games and really been non-performers in many of those then there's no reason why Michie shouldn't be given that chance for at least 2 to 3 as well before axing. Not sure where your JKH reference is coming from as i certainly didn't suggest him as an "IN" at any point. I presently have him outside our top 22 along with Dawes. As mentioned, i don't believe Dawes offers us any value up forward from here. I would try him only at CHB for the remainder of this year (assuming he makes it back) and look at alternatives if no success. I've seen enough to suggest he is a yard or 2 too slow for the pace of AFL now and unable to make enough contests to impact the game. He was a reasonable decoy at the Pies but that was 4 to 5 years ago now and they were absolutely flying.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at training this week OD I have visions of Roos dusting off an old VHS of Plough's doggies win against Essendrug circa 2000!

I think you are referring to UP differentials for a match or maybe total UPs for the season deano which is what RP is doing I believe.I was looking at average UPs for the league vs us and the % difference is effectively the UP differential you are referring to vs the league for the season so far. Coming from a long way back at nearly 20% down vs the average and down approx 25 UPs per match which is the average differential. It would seem we need to add some serious outside run and players who can bring a full on quality run/spread/carry game, among other issues of course. Anyone criticising H really needs to have another rethink as he is exactly the style of player required to catch the rest of the league in this area. Might not be the greatest but he is certainly "required".

After the final 40 second debacle at Etihad, Roos has asked the players to get back to basics for its next match against the Cats this weekend. When asked if he could expand on what his instructions to the players were for the upcoming clash Roos replied. .. "yes my instructions for this week were very simple, straight after the opening bounce... get back you idiots and FLOOD!"

Good advice. I haven't had any luck "listening" to our games down there in the past. In fact the same could probably be said of any "away" games I've listened to in the past 20 years or more

Not bad HH. We are pretty good inside with clearances and contested (we are close to the league average on both) but lack run and spread versus most other teams if using UP as an indicator (down 19% vs the league ave so far this season). As a result of the spread problem we don't get into the clear as often as other teams (on average) giving us sufficient space/time to deliver very accurately or in fact deliver as often inside 50, down 19% on the league average here. We are probably therefore bombing it (both short & deep) most of the time under pressure i50. Too me this calls for a strong marking tall at CHF playing the arc and higher as needed to bring the short kicks to ground or hopefully mark it and hold it inside our 50 for longer/take a shot on goal if within range. This is in addition to the Hulk playing a shallower pattern inside say 40 metres. The rest (apart from Jeffy who should be getting front and square or reading off the packs) are decoys, clearing out the 50 area for whoever plays the CHF role and the Hulk. The reason i'm keen on this is that with limited i50 entries versus most other clubs, we need to make the most of them! Having an ineffective player at CHF can't be helping our cause. SO who do we use in the CHF role? Do we have someone suitable and effective? Probably not right now obviously. But... who could we try there? Your suggestion of Fitzy i think is the best alternative right now considering the following..... Dawes has been tried and tested here without much success at all Pedo is injured atm so cant be considered (but would like to see him try to hold down this role for most of a match at some point later this year given he averages the most marks i50 behind Hogan) Fitzy is 3rd in marks i50 (averages) behind Hogan and Pedo, which is quite a feat given he has spent much of his time down back! Fitzy has a 90% DE%. Extremely high for a tall but possibly due to the roll down back for significant time during his 3 matches so far. Does this mean he can kick fairly straight, hit other targets on the lead i50? Who knows. But i'd like to give him a a go as a permanent CHF at least for a few matches to see how he rolls. Rotate Pedo and T-Mac through here later on as well. Not expecting T-Mac will be the man here but hey what's to lose. We aren't making finals anytime soon. So who do we play down back to cover for Garland and Pedo being out as well?One option to me is Dawes. Ineffective up forward personally we have nothing to lose. Can't clunk a mark but surely he can punch from behind and kill balls. He can also see what's happening up the ground at CHB and marshall the troops.... you know like yelling at them to get back and flood! Stuff like that! Dawes can also relieve Gawn (or whoever it is...Spencil maybe) in the ruck when resting. So for me it's Out: Pedo (inj), Grimes (inj) and ANB (omit) In: Dawes (to cover Pedo at CHB and as back up ruckman). Fitzy (to take the CHF role...this time around. I would also try Pedo and T-Mac here at some point in other matches) and Bail (or keep Michie for one more role of the die but NOT as sub...lets see if he can play if keeping him in). And no i'm not endorsing Bail or Michie as the future of the club nor in our best 22 right now. Just saying that's our options ...for this particular match.

RP are we spreading that well vs the League if basing this on UPs? I'm not so sure. Did some quick numbers. Average UPs per game for the season to Rnd 11, 2015 are *League 225 MFC 200 That's a gap of 11% on the rest of the league Looking at where we were at around the same time last season.... Average UPs per game for the season to Rnd 12, 2014 were *League 213 MFC 223 We were up 4.6% on the rest of the league at that point. The only team below us to this point of the year is Gold Coast on 187 Other teams just above us include the Doggies on 201, the Blues on 204, Brisbane on 209 and the Pies on 215 In addition i've quickly looked at the inside 50 stat averages versus approx same time last year as above. Not great on either count i50s 2015 *League 51 MFC 42 Down 19% vs the League ave. i50s 2014 *League 48 MFC 42 Down 12% *exclusive of MFC data Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Just a quick look at some of the key stats from Sunday's game against the Saints that are "Champion Data" exclusive... Note: there were areas on the day that we won such as contested/uncontested but I've left them out seeing as they're readily available on a number of football sites. Areas we came out on top > Hit outs to Adv 21/10 Areas we were behind > Metres gained - 386 > Intercepts -9 > Intercept marks -10 > % time in forward half 59/41 > Tackles i50 18/8 > Pressure Acts 324/222 Our top 5 metres gained exponents were... 1. Mr Vince 506 2. The Jones boy 503 3. Dunny 376 4. The Toump 353 5. Crossy 344 Bottom 5 were.... 1. Gawn -23 2. Pedo 7 3. Michie 41 4. Garlett 58 5. ANB 97

I did pit forward the idea of Hells Bells a few years back with the Demonettes dragging out the Bell (hey us old fellas need something to get us going!) followed by a Demon mascot who hammers the bell with his pitchfork as the song starts. Seems someone may have liked the bell bit. For me I actually dont like it as all they do is keep replaying the start of Hells Bells (ie, the bells) until the team runs out. Too orchestrated and trying to be too "on cue". Just let the song play out (for the most part) a few minutes before the boys hit the gates. Who cares if the bells arent ringing at that point. The rest of the song rocks and fans will love it. Alternatively your idea is great Fish... play the club song then hit em with Hells Bells after. Hec they could even put some lightning & thunder on the boundary screens to go with it.

We might not be at the bottom but we were still beaten by a lowly team that finished on the bottom last year. You have also taken me out of context by excluding my first paragraph which refers to "team" progress and where I was specifically responding to someone's claim that we were better than Brisbane. If we lost to one of last year's finalists, or even better, one of last year's Grand Finalists I can understand people using that to say "hey look we did things in that game that were big progress on past year vs a rated opponent". You can throw in Reiwoldt or a marginally better list as an excuse as to why we lost but regardless we still lost. If we had won against a finalist from last year then i have no doubts many on here would be running around saying "hey we beat a rated opponent". Same goes the other way. We lost to a lowly opponent who might be on the improve list wise, but isn't rated and were officially the worst team in the AFL last season. If we beat them on the G in a few weeks time I will happily agree with you and some others here and say we are progressing against them "as a team" on the G! As for shityhad? Well that's another massive hurdle altogether. ..and has now become a mountain.

They MAY have a deeper reserve overall, "list wise" , but this wasn't the case with the team fielded yesterday. Average games experience was only about 5.6 higher than us. Not significant, plus they had 2 extra players at sub 50 games. They had only 1 more experienced player than us at 100 plus games and we had 3 more players than them in the 50 to 100 game category. The Saints were carrying more rookies than us on the day.

Jones and at least one other forward should have been rolling a plus 2 in the middle ie, 1 running off the square to the side Jones wasn't... Plus an extra sitting in the hole between FF/CHF and another in the goal square (at least 3 from our forward half.... Not a standard plus one as if there were 5 minutes plus left!). If the leader and other players cant see the security Konga being wheeled out with 5 minutes left (as a bare minimum SIGN that the game is close to finishing) then they should all visit Dr. Frankenstein who I'm sure will be more than happy to provide them with a frontal lobotomy for a reasonable fee.

We are only better than Brisbane if we beat them in a few weeks time Chris. Until then we are worse than the Saints (until we meet them at the G) and possibly better than the Lions. Maybe better than the Blues. But again we won't know until we play them as well. Until we start winning games we should be winning we are effectively going nowhere as a club, no matter how warm and fuzzy some of us supporters might feel about signs of "progress". Progress is just a nice word that easily rolls off the tongue until you start winning games against clubs ranked within reach of where you are at or lower.

Mate they fear failure and go into their shells even when we are losing anyway like through much of the last quarter. There was nothing to lose so play with daring abandon when you get the ball not like you're protecting a 2 or 3 goal lead with a few minutes to go! Too many players in this team have serious mental issues with winning and shyte thier panties. They then start playing sideays/backwards footy with virtually no one willing to take the game or their opponents on, take risks/responsibility and go out an win the fricken thing through effort and attacking/daring play a la Geelong. Club needs to employ a hypnotist pronto our it wont survive this lot.