deelusions from afar

To try and give myself some comfort for this miserable situation, I checked what GWS got for the Jeremy Cameron trade (something like pick 15, 20 and 25). After all they have managed to bouce back pretty well since then so it would make sense that that trade was pivotal to it. Well in turns out they didn't get anyone of note (which maybe a bit unfair and early on Connor Stone) - including missing Holmes at 15 who the cats got and one of those picks Tanner Bruhn (pick 20) who ended up at the Cattery anyway! 😭 Everyone says this draft is deep and even so maybe it would be different for this one... but if the relationship is irreplably damaged I can't see us getting fair value. I'm still holding out hope that the people required (surely a bit on both sides) come to their senses and find a way forward.

I think Pert said what he could. Clearly there are issues that need addressing and he can't go into all the details about that. It doesn't mean its being handled well or poorly but there's not a lot he could say. He can't say everything is fine with Petracca when they're still working through things and some of that might have to happen after the season is over. The more concerning part is his reference to the ongoing legal battles (which we can't talk about here for good reason) and other "distractions" that he has no control over. From the journalists perspective, we've heard similar statements from him before and then these distractions have got in the way. If I was a player being courted by Melbourne, I wouldn't be convinced that these distractions are not going to continue to plague the club.

I don't think we're that bad in this regard. We were playing with the most under 22 players most of the year and they're lacking in both experience and strength. Generally our wins in the second half of the year are because we were "too tough" and that included our tackling.

I find Roffey often comes across in the media as patronising and arrogant. Maybe its good for the club but would be painful for non-Melbourne people. I've heard a number of media commentators in the media go on about the sorts of things Roffey was saying to them about a Demon Dynasty on the eve of the 2022 season. It seemed to really rub them up the wrong way and I think put a bit of a target on our back (as these people in the media run the AFL news cycle). Obviously this wasn't isolated to Roffey but she was the one they went on about. I'm pretty happy for her not to come out making big media statements as I don't think that's her strength and don't see what it would add.

Anyone know Pittonet's situation? Carlton seem to prefer the one ruck and De Konig is on the rise whereas Max is in the twilight of his career. Surely more opportunities with us than them.

I had a look on the Port bigfooty board to see if they were treating this like us with Clarry (just clickbait with no substance) but they seem resigned to leaving him (though expecting significant comp). However they were more concerned about the rumors of Butters wanting to come back to Melbourne (the City). Apparently Hawthorn and Essendon are the front runners. I do remember we were VERY keen on Butters in his draft year and with Brayshaw's $ being somewhat freed up along with a number of other well paid players contracts finishing (BBB, TMac etc?) could we make an offer?

I can't remember which player said it in an interview in the last week or so (maybe Melksham or Rivers or ANB?) - but they said the bye allowed us to make some tweaks to the game plan that has made a difference. Obviously it's a lot more than that - the agression we started v Brisbane and WCE with that we had for much of the bombers game seemed so different from what we'd seen in recent times... and that seemed more effort based than system / game plan.

Now normally I don't pay too much attention to Chris Scott - partly because I hate Geelong with a passion and partly because of the way the football media fawn over him - BUT I did happen to catch a bit of his interview on 360 where he was asked about the rebuilding on the run / throwing the magnets around. I found it interesting when applying what he said to our team eg Building a forwardline is all about cohesion - more than any other part of the ground. It's all about knowing your team mates / intuition. This can't be coached - it takes time. Building a backline is different - it is more role / system based and so it allows you to slot in new people into a particular role much easier. Through injury / personel etc we haven't had cohesion in the forward half for a very long time. Despite Petty rarely reaching the highs he is capable of this year, the stability of playing him, JVR and Turner forward almost every week the last 3 months might be starting to come off. Goodwin has talked endlessly about the stability / cohesion in the forward half so it was interesting to hear another coach saying similar things. Other than Melksham, most of the players in our forward half are quite young so there is reason to suggest they will continue to grow and get better collectively if they can stick together.

Agree with that - which is why Verral, BBB and Gawn in the one team makes me nervous. BBB can't play ruck and Verral can't (as far as I know) play forward (curently). The idea of Gawn and BBB in the same forward line will make it easy for any defence to rebound / switch the ball. So essentially we will need one of the 3 on the bench at all times.

Fair enough. Given BBB doesn't ruck and I haven't seen Verral being touted as a forward option at this stage you're probably right. However, if all players were uninjured (including not coming back from injury) then I suspect McAdam (who's a medium) might have come in for Turner. I'm not convinced they would operate a forwardline (including bench space) of Petty, JVR, Turner, Fritsch and McAdam - i don't think we'd have enough forward pressure (noting that McAdam can kind of do it all). So if that's the case, then we wouldn't necessarily bring in like for like. I think it'll be a Verral debut and a likely BBB recall. If not BBB potentially they could look to throw Max forward more for a rest and if Petracca also goes forward then Tholstrup or more likely Laurie may get some midfield minutes.

I wonder whether Tholstrup will be given another go this week. He's a WA boy and had a tough debut (not his fault) against a rampaging Brisbane when we were flat / off. I wonder what his focus is for the VFL - ie what he has been told to work on to make it back into the team.

Whether Goody is or isn't a clever coach isn't really my point - there are enough threads on that already. My point was more that we saw some different moves that worked: Trac is an obvious one that has been used before (but robs the midfield). But the use of ANB was a big change. If you listen to Sam Mitchell speak on Melbourne he seems ANB as our most important player in terms of link up play / score involvements. I wonder if it is also due to his ability to cover trac running forward? Maybe releasing ANB into the midfield can't really happen unless trac is forward? Langdon was used differently last night (seemed to be more forward) Use of extra man behind play (I think) was put away when we needed to score - I wonder if we could tinker with that during game and not just when we're trying to run a team down at the end. My main point is, the coaches (it's not just Goody after all) are experimenting more than usual (admittedly being down by 7 goals gives them no other option) and it is working. Which I suspect gives them reason and confidence to continue to tinker and experiment in future. I hope anyway. You make some interesting points. I don't agree on TMac - he's been very good and is prone to make the occasional error / howler. His fitness is his strength - I don't think starting him as the sub makes the difference in terms of the errors. Our defence was under a lot of pressure! And I certainly don't think he has the agility to play forward anymore. I think if we wanted more run they could put Petty / Turner back and sub T Mac as you say but I think they knew that he wasn't going that bad - our midfield were getting done at centre clearance and that's how they were scoring. Clearly Petty was well beaten last night and so arguably a change should have been made. Having said that he did take a big pack mark in the last. If he had of kicked that straight (was a pretty easy one) we would have won the game. So we weren't far off. I get the sense they know Petty 'has it'. They just have to continue to play him and he'll get there.

I agree. Having said that, Geelong are one of the lowest ranked teams for clearance etc - it's all about the slingshot on the rebound. So if we have players in there that are prepared to win it if they can but their first priority is to ensure the other team doesn't get a clean centre clearance, then maybe it's less of a loss (he's obviously going to play a mix). What I did like is that Goody the last few weeks has shown an ability to shake things up a bit to get the right mix. Petracca forward is an obvious one. But also getting ANB in the middle (maybe no one else has the tank to go with Walsh?) and his use of Langdon was different also. Last week I noticed Fritsch was much higher up the ground for parts of the game. This was probably about dragging his player away from being third man up - but it also meant that Fritsch delivered some kicks into the forward line and that is a strength you miss when he is playing deep (not saying he shouldn't play deep but it's good to be a bit less predictable).

What a strange and disappointing night! My reflections: We learnt a lot about the team which will be useful going forward this year: Trac's ability going forward ANB playing in the centre square (I assume to nullify and run with Walsh?) Langdon playing more of an attacking role How damaging /dynamic we can be when we need to score. Carlton's ins (Kemp, MccGovern, Hollands and Martin) were all very good particularly early. Carlton jumped us, were harder at the ball and also got us for strategy (Pittonet running forward to make Gawn accountable, not allowing Lever to go third man up) but the most important thing was we were able to adjust this and fix it after the 1st quarter. Beyond quarter time, Carlton were only able to score from stoppage. Our ball movement is definitely getting better - the way we moved the ball around in the last enabled us to create opportunities we couldn't have in previous years. Crucial misses and some umpiring calls (May touching Curnow's kick, the dump tackle) and we would have somehow won. I'm hoping that it doesn't cost us at the end of the year - but also think you learn more from a loss than a win. I hope they go to work on minimising the impact of a Weitering type player. We get a bit more from Petty / van Rooyen / Turner and we win that game.

It's not my preference - more just putting forward ideas to disrupt Geelong. In reality it is more likely to be Neal-Bullen that follows Cameron as Petracca runs forward but he's likely to get exposed in marking contests (hence why I was suggesting Rivers)

Yeah I was wondering that too... he might do it. I just think that Tmac doesn't have the sort of agility and acceleration that Cameron does so could get caught out. But if it's mostly about fitness and marking contests then he's a good fit.

I'm wondering whether he could get the assignment of running with Cameron. It's obviously not his usual role, but he's probably one of the few in the team that has the ability to run with Cameron and have a chance of matching him in the air. I know we (like most teams) don't like to mess with "our system" but most player struggle when you put genuine work into them. I would think if Lever is third man up he is likely to help out in many aerial contests anyway. Alternatively you could roll the dice and put Petracca on him as I don't think either will be overly accountable.

I did find this poll interesting on the Crows Big Footy page (for general AFL chat). It closed about a month ago!

Wouldn't surprise me if Tholstrup is there to soak in the experience with no intention of playing him (as Casey have a bye). I remember them doing this as far back as 2017, taking young squad members who are on the fringe to be part of interstate trips - a good chance to bond with the seniors and also observe the preparation of the senior players in a way you wouldn't get with a match in Melbourne. From all reports, he's not far away! (and I could be wrong too and he plays tomorrow night!)

Haven't been able to watch the match yet and so came on here to see what I've missed. Obviously it would be nice to win everything all the time, but if they're experimenting with paying more aggressive etc (which is costing us goals) then now is the time to do it. Both teams had lots missing so I think we all get sucked into reading too much into preseason form. I do remember getting smashed in the 2021 preseason by the Bulldogs and thinking they were miles ahead of us with so much depth and talent especially in the midfield. We all know how important that preseason match was when it really mattered later that year!

Thanks WCW for clearing it up. Re the bolded bit - it does strike me as odd that if he did have an issue for Burgess as a few have said, why would he come to Melbourne who would likely have the closest fitness approach to Burgess (of any club outside of Adelaide) given the influence and success he had only a few years ago with us.

I know it's more likely to be just part of his program to get back to the main group... but I'm hoping these snippets reflect a focus on building his forward craft. Last year revealed we can survive without him in the midfield and I think (as others have commented) he has enormous upside to pinch hit forward. He's shown signs earlier in his career and has the odd game (often in Adelaide) where he kicks 3 or so. But if he was able to regularly hit the scoreboard (and probably tidy up his disposal consistency) then it would elevate him to the best in the comp (and probably make us the team to beat in the process).

I've thought the same for a number of years. However I think the problem is he isn't particularly quick so if he turns it over up the field (or a team mate does when he's run hard forward) then he becomes a liability. His kicking is ok but I don't think any opposition is going to fear him getting it in the corridor forward of centre like them might with May. If Gawn goes down, he might be a good backup ruckman that could wear down his opponent (most ruckman aren't quick off the mark) though I suspect Fullerton would get first go at this.

Wonder if there's any chance for us to get 15 or 17 from NM and pick 3 rather than pick 2 and 23. My thinking being we seem keener on Duursma who most think will be pick 3 rather than 2 (walters aside). Then at 15 or 17 we seem more likely to get a slider of someone spoken about in the mix for our pick 11

What's the advantage for Brown or MFC in him nominating and us accepting?