Straight Sets Simon

"including developing a five year football plan" The bar has been set even lower...

Agreed.

Although Garland directly cost Melbourne with two bad mistakes last week he will be sorely missed. Buckley is a gun and despite what people think he is a beautiful kick of the ball. Twice his long kicking into the forward line lead to Melbourne goals last week.

I can understand why Brayshaw says it that wasy, because it's how they pronounce it in South Australia.

The issue isn't about bombing it long, the issue is having enough forwards there in the first place. Because despite what the Underpants Gnomes think, kicking it long to the top of the square with tall forwards and crumbers at their feet is still an extremely effective tactic and when I get a chance to watch the game again I would like to see how many goals were the result of long kicks into the forward line.

I just don't understand why a player must come off after kicking a goal as Green did. You obviously sit down low in the stand Jaded, so do yourself a favour and sit up high next time. I sit up the top in the Northern stand and from there you can get a far better overall picture of what is happening, in particular with the structure being used. It's like trying to gauge structure from watching a game on TV, almost impossible to do because you can't see the full picture.

Did anyone expect the forwards (in particular) to take contested marks when they were continually outnumbered?

Unfortunately Rogue the same problems have been occurring since round 1, 2007 when I first pointed this out. Nothing has changed and the same problems keep occurring. Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The most frustrating thing was that when Melbourne did do something right (such as kick the ball long into a forward line to forwards who were no out-numbered which results in a goal) they would then change that by again dropping an extra player into defence or dragging the player who kicked the goal. No, no one has been able to argue against what I have been saying, or argue successfully for the tactics and structure that Bailey has implemented. Instead they are pulling out irrelevant excuses such as the lack of "experienced players" argument that I proved wrong, because it doesn't take 150 games experience to know how to start on the goal line at a centre bounce. I have not seen a single person come and out and say "well I'm sure glad Melbourne didn't put any anyone in their forward line, it worked really well".

The funny thing is that no one has actually addressed any of the issues that I have pointed out. Instead they have just talked about another issue.

Worst on ground easily for me, then Miller.

At this stage. OUT: Frawley, Miller IN: Martin, Sylvia/Dunn/Newton

Only experienced players can start a centre bounce on the goal line with space to lead into? Only experienced players can lead up the ground and not to a pocket? Only experienced players can start at the centre bounce with five to six forwards making sure that they are not so grossly out-numbered that the ball will just rebound out again? Only experienced players can not be put on the bench after every time they do something good, such as kick a goal? Without a solid structure, no game plan can be implemented no matter how good or the team or the plan is. The structure comes directly from the coaches box as they tell the players where they are playing, what position, where on the ground and who they are playing on.

You are all completely missing the point. The problem was not the quality of forwards but the quantity. Often there were no options. None. Brand Green should have been left in the forward line for the whole game because he at least provided a target. Jaded, no backline is going to leave their forward opponents completely om their own in their forward line. The Melbourne forwards were the ones pushing up the ground. That's great, as they might help win the ball in the middle, but when the Melbourne gets the ball, what next? There's no one to kick it it. All you modern football/possession football folk have the Underpants Gnome way of thinking. Phase 1: Get possession of the ball Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Kick goals

- No players (or never enough) players in the forward line. The game was lost at the very start of the third quarter when Melbourne had three forwards to North’s five defenders. How often would a player have the ball in the middle and look up to see an outnumbered forward or no forwards at all? - Overuse of the handball. Again, this can be linked back to the poor forward structure where players were often forced to fiddle around with the ball while they waited for an option to present itself up forward. The first option of any player should be to see if there is a player free long up ahead, if not then go short. At one stage McLean had the ball - Buckley as a defender. His long penetrating kick set up a goal and created opportunities early in the game, why not play him where he can do it more often? Moloney too set up a good goal with his long kicking. - Leading to the boundary. If a player is leading to the boundary, then that’s the sign to put them on the bench. It achieves nothing as we saw when Paul Johnson kicked the ball on the full trying to hit Miller (the boundary specialist) who was running to the pocket. Even if Miller did mark the ball he would have been kicking from an impossible angle and passing it off would have been far more difficult as North would have had that extra time to flood back, man-up and fill in space. - Players starting 20 metres out. Why oh why were Melbourne’s forwards starting each centre bounce 20-30 metres out from goal with no one on the goal line? All that happens is that when they lead for the ball, instead of marking it 20-30 metres out they are marking it 50-60 metres out. Straight away they are losing all that space to lead into. Why do it? - Too many rotations. Twice, Brad Green was dragged straight after kicking a goal. Why? If something is working don’t change it. This leads into the next point. - If it ain’t broke. When Melbourne was playing well today, too often the structure would then change. They would stop what they were doing that was working (kicking the ball long and direct to four or five players in the forward line that weren’t out-numbered which created opportunities) and go defensive, chipping the ball around and go back to having a loose man in defence. At no time today when Melbourne played a loose man in defence were they on top or played well. There are a lot of people who will come out and say “the skills were poor” and they were just weren’t “competitive” and that is all true. However, the root of the problem was the structure and the mindset that it gave the players. A poor structure meant that players were continually unnecessarily under pressure through a lack of options in the front half of the ground. Yes, they had “possession” (remember that in “modern football” possession is king), but that all counts for nothing if they don’t do anything with the ball and they can’t do anything with the ball if there is no one to do it with! Like I said, the game was lost at the very start of the third quarter when Melbourne started with three forwards to North’s five defenders.

100% correct.

I'm pumped. Footy at the MCG on a glorious day, watching the greatest football club in history run around. Does it get any better? Bring it on!

No it's not.

I'd like to see the bench consist of Jones, Bennell, Martin and Jetta.

Does anyone know when the 2009 jumpers with the new sponsors will be available to buy from the merchandise department?

Number of wins: 9 Average losing margin: 34 Average winning margin: 26 B&F top 3: 1. Green 2. McLean 3. Davey Leading goal-kicker: Bate (53) All Australian representatives: Davey Top votes at the Brownlow: McLean Best first year player: Bennell Breakthrough year: Wonaeamirri Disappointment of the year: Miller Biggest area of improvement: Defence Surprise packet of 2009: Valenti Headline of the year: Dees look better with Jetta Best win of the year: Round 2 v Collingwood Worst loss of the year: Round 1 v Kangaroos

I don't think so, even he played for Melbourne and was a first year player I still wouldn't think so.

Agreed.

Terrible name for it.

From what I have seen of Melbourne in the pre-season and with all of the developments off-field (sponsorships, Casey and potentially the MCC) I think all supporters have every right to be optimistic. I would be very surprised if Melbourne finish last again this year.

The amount of awareness, poise and balance Petterd has makes him Rivers or dare I say Bizzell-like. He will kick the occaisional pie floater but his general disposal is good. He looked quite good up forward too, adding another string to his bow.