Straight Sets Simon

Best Commentators: Gerard Whateley (ABC), Anthony Hudson (Ten), Dennis Cometti (Seven), Glenn Mitchell (ABC - WA only) Best Special Comments: Stan Alves (ABC), Paul Roos (Fox), Tim Watson (Seven), David Parkin (ABC) Worst Commentators: Stephen Quartermain (Ten), Michael Christian (Ten), Dwayne Russell (Fox) Worst Special Comments: Tony Shaw (Fox), Danny Frawley (Fox), Alastair Lynch (Fox), Liam Pickering (Fox), Robert Walls (Ten), Malcolm Blight (Ten), Luke Darcy (Ten), Dermott Brereton (SEN), Glen Jakovich (Fox)

IN: Bail OUT: Morton

Morton hasn't gained nearly enough muscle and his Accountant hair cut doesn't make him look any tougher.

Martin is easily the pick of the draft right now. This may change, but right now he is out in front.

I can't wait to see Rohan Bail back in the team.

Spot on, I wasn't at the game today so Morton didn't look that bad on TV, but he frustrates me to no end. Danny Frawley ripped into him during the coverage, rightly so. He is a fringe player, no longer best 22.

Great play by Jones, took a hit as he kicked it and drill Howe on the chest, Howe misses the goal.

I agree, he is playing with ferocity and looks very classy.

Well done Max Gawn, one out against two, brought the ball to ground then laid a tackle, turnover and Trengove kicks a goal.

Agree, too many players are getting caught ball watching, thankfully McKenzie doesn't watch, he does.

Jurrah is struggling, needs a run at Casey or a week off.

Danny Frawley is ripping into Morton on the TV commentary and rightly so. Morton, Jones and Bartram all have D grade decision making.

Fremantle look physically much bigger, not too confident about today. Go Dees!

You're right, that was exaggerated, but from all the football I have seen this year live and on TV it isn't used as much as a few years ago.

1) Defenders would not leave Liam Jurrah, Jack Watts, Brad Green or anyone else on their own, completely unguarded in their own forward line. Even if they do run off the forwards, the advantage isn't that great as it would be a 16 or 17 on 18 in half a football ground. 2) No idea what you are on about. 3) There is a difference between being negative and being defensive. Pushing all players up the ground and therefore taking away any chance of moving forward (remember if you don't have any one to kick it to, you can't attack forward) is negative (what happened when Jack Watts was played as a loose man in defence against Carlton?). A defensive side of the game comes from tackling, playing close to opponents (not letting players get away) and always applying pressure no matter where the ball is on the ground. 4) The ball isn't going into the forward line because there isn't anyone there to kick it to, so congestion is the least of Melbourne's concerns. On top of this there is an unhealthy obsession with looking for dinky little passes to players on the lead when the forward line is crowded. Watching Collingwood it was amazing how often they would just put the ball deep into the forward line (with long penetrating kicks), bring the ball to ground and rely on their crumbing players to pounce. This has a tactic that has been and always will be extremely effective, no matter which tactical fad is in vogue. 5) Loose defenders? Again see Jack Watts against Carlton. You rob Peter to pay Paul, I was critical of this tactic many years ago when it was in fashion, but because back then wasn't part of "modern football". Well, very few teams use this tactic these days so I was obviously three years ahead of everyone else.

Players being rewarded, not punished for getting the ball. Forwards playing in the forward line.

The problem is that when the forwards push up, 99% of the time they have no influence on the contest anyway. They just run up to the middle, wait for the ball to get to half back then run back again. Therefore, instead having to worry about having forwards leading away from the ball carrier, they can stay forward and lead at the ball carrier which is much more effective. Again, no team would leave Jurrah on his own in the forward fifty (funnily enough Rivers did it with Cloke last week and didn't that work well), because even if Jurrah's opponent did push up the ground and leave him, that means there is now a 17 on 18 situation. It's only one extra player in half a football ground, hardly a massive advantage, yet Melbourne would have a huge advantage with a loose player in their own forward line! With all the forwards pushing up the ground, we have seen on countless times players look up, see no option then proceed to chip sideways and backwards which most of the time leads to a turnover and scoring shot for the opposition. Against Carlton, Melbourne started with Watts as a loose player in defence. What was the result? Melbourne were getting plenty the ball across the half back line but getting it forward of centre was almost impossible because there were no options forward of the ball. If the structure is there in the first place there is no need to spread back to the forward line if they are already there. There needs to be a reason to move the ball inside the forward fifty, even without a "Gorilla" there is no excuse to not to have players forward of the ball at all times, especially players as explosive as Watts and Jurrah.

Very disappointed to hear Bailey dodge the question on why the forwards push so far up the ground (prompted by my message to SEN thirty seconds earlier requesting they ask the very question). Basically he blamed the fact that we didn't have a "Gorilla" forward, or words to that effect. He also blamed out lack of inside fifties. However, as I have argued for many years now, not having any forwards in the forward line (Gorilla or not) is a major contributing factor to a lack of inside fifties. As we have seen countless times this year, when a player has the ball in the middle of the ground even the half back and they look up to only opposition players in front of them they are forced to chip sideways, handball and hold up play until an option ahead presents itself. If there was forward options ahead of the ball in the forward line, leading towards to player with the ball then there would be no need to stuff around with the ball. The result, being more inside fifties because the players then have a reason to put the ball in the forward fifty. On top of this, very few kicks to forwards are done with the ball already in the forward fifty, again reiterating the point that blaming the lack of inside fifties on not having any forward targets (not playing forwards in the forward line) is just plain stupid.

The frustrating thing about Jurrah is that he has the potential to be a top ten player in the AFL but through injury or otherwise just does not take the game on enough or get involved nearly enough.

Round 1, 2007.

I was surprised he only had 39, he was everywhere, not always effective but certainly prolific.

I agree, but you would think that even players with the lowest IQ would be able to follow an instruction as simple as "don't leave the forward fifty".

It's the main feature of the club each year, they do more than enough to promote it. As has been mentioned, it is still just worth four points, if the club carries on too much then they can look stupid for treating like "their Grand Final".

Rubbish. Gawn is a long term prospect, most of his development in the next couple of years will be at Casey, that isn't a criticism, just the reality of a 19 year old giant coming off a knee reconstruction. Three ruckmen is a possibility of Jamar plays mainly as a forward, but I would prefer two ruckmen.

Bailey still needs to keep payers in the forward line at all times, that comes down to him, if he does that the team will be better.