Straight Sets Simon

Ken Oath.

Finish 15th.

Because apparently "the game is changing"...

Not necessarily. It may just mean that Melbourne have another option / more depth when selecting teams or even that it gives the the player that little bit more incentive and hope to make his senior debut. It may even put a little bit of pressure on someone like Jones or McLean that if their form drops off over the next 3-6 weeks that there is someone waiting in the wings to make the most of their opportunities. I believe that Valenti would be considered for the Brisbane game, but he may not be selected until one or two games after it.

It's highly unlikely that this situation will occur. But if it did...

It's round 22, Melbourne v Richmond and David Neitz is about to run out on to the MCG in Melbourne colours for the last time. By this stage, Melbourne are 4-17 as are Richmond. What would you prefer? 1) Melbourne lose and gain a priority pick, which also means that Richmond are not eligible for the priority pick. 2) Melbourne win with Neitz kicking a bag in a final game to remember.

The thing to realise too is that in most major sporting leagues (NFL, EPL, MLB etc.) it's all about TV revenue. Gate receipts are good, but the big bucks are in the TV rights deals and that's where the teams make their money. The problem for Melbourne (and the AFL in general) is that they are still reliant on bums on seats. Not that getting people to games is a bad thing.

I do a "Business of Sport" subject at uni and today we were analysing the NFL. Pretty much all the NFL games are played on a Sunday and one game is played on a Monday night. Anyway, I was thinking that maybe Melbourne could try and embark on the Monday night football as North Melbourne did with Friday night football. The logistics of it all with TV rights etc. I don't know, but just a thought.

McLean needs to focus solely on his footy right now, the less distractions for him the better.

Rivers.

You lot underrate the value of a small or crumbing forward. By all means give him a run in the middle every now and then but Brad Green can have half the number of possessions in the forward line as opposed to the backline/midfield and yet be twice as damaging.

I noticed it as well. In the first quarter Whelan ran faster and further to the bench than he had during the game and Bell ran fifty metres on to the ground before being turned back.

Off the ball, Judd killed him and he was probably only running at about 70-80%. McLean wasn't bad, but Judd is in a league of his own.

I like the idea of him being a forward, rotated through the midfield if he isn't getting his hands on the pill or the midfield is struggling.

No I'm the guy who screams "Kick it sideways!", "Hit the boundary line!" and "Handpass for the the sake of handpassing!".

Well said, even for an old man...

The natural instinct of the game is to get the ball though the big sticks at the end. How do you want to do that? As quickly and efficiently as possible. One thing I noticed about Judd today, he always looks to move the ball forward at all costs. Never looks sideways, always tries to get the ball moving quickly to the forward line.

I agree with much of what you say Hards, but I hated Daniher as much as anyone. What really annoyed me was they way that he would change tactics mid-season and even mid-game, usually when Melbourne were doing well and playing good football. More often than not, the reason Melbourne lost over '04-'06 was because they weren't using the dame tactics or the same plan that they were when winning. The perfect example was against Adelaide in round 22, 2006 when we got our first glimpse of "runs and curry". All this shiite about "the game is changing" is utter crap. It is implying that there is one way to play, one way to win. The game is still the same, how teams choose to play is changing but there is not one set best formula. The good teams are the ones that play to their strengths. Brisbane '01-'03, hard, tough, uncompromising direct football. Sydney '05, ruthless, meticulous skills and precision. West Coast '06, hard running with a team full of hard bodies and great skills. Geelong '07 Brisbane '01-'03 + West Coast '06. I'm all for Melbourne trying to fix certain areas, but the basics that the team play best should not change as a result. We saw how Melbourne completely changed when they got the runs and curry last year and how it ruined the very fabric of the team.

See my "What's a forward line?" thread.

1) Well Melbourne can be paranoid about the opposition all they want, or they can back their defenders and worry about scoring goals themselves. I know what I would prefer. 2) Again, the opposition are not going to allow a whole forward line to stay on unmanned, becuase it would only take a short run and one long kick from a Melbourne defender to get the ball to their unmarked forwards. 3) Forward line consisted of Neitz/Jamar, Robertson and Aussie for much of the game as Dunn and Davey were predominantly up the ground and not in the tradition forward positions.

NFI. Watch Geelong play. Watch how they kick the ball long, even if it is to a contest they still do it becuase in their forward fifty the opposition is under the most pressure. Moreover, if their leading forward (i.e. Hawkins) doesn't mark they have the like of Stoke and Johnson at his feet. They play the percentages. They back their forwards (who play forward) and the move the ball in there quickly, often through long kicking that isn't always precise but doesn't need to be.

1) There shouldn't be a loose man in defense, it's a negative tactic. 2) By all means players would follow their opponents up the ground if need be, but not all six of them. If Melbourne were to turn the ball over I can guarantee that Carlton's defenders would have been benched had they left Melbourne's forwards on their own. 3) Melbourne had about a three man forward line at the centre bounce. Not good enough.

I loved it even more when Melbourne players would chip the ball around and handpass unnecessarily before opposition defenders cleared the ball with ease. Net Foreign Investment.

His long kicking was one of the few highlights today.

I think the problem is that there weren't the options there in the first place, and if they were there they were outnumbered and leading to a pocket. Yes, the delivery was poor but even the most skilled players would have trouble kicking it to the advantage of a player with two or three opponents on him.