Straight Sets Simon

I've noticed that deanox likes to use the number of stats that a player has when assessing their performances. Well here's some interesting stats: Daniel Bell - 2007 - A player that many people will agree has had a good season Average kicks: 8.5 Average handballs: 6.0 Average marks: 5.2 Average tackles: 3.6 Clint Bizzell - 2007 - A player that many people still do not rate Average kicks: 7.8 Average handballs: 8.0 Average marks: 4.8 Average tackles: 1.0 What does this tell us? 1) Judging a player purely by their statistics is stupid 2) Clint Bizzell is not getting the credit he deserves

Why stop at one year? Why not another ten? A lot of people seem to be pretty happy with the performance that he has put in over the past ten years, so why wouldn't they want another ten years of it?

Adrian Cox?

I'm not saying that the players aren't to blame as well. What I am saying is that it is hard for a team to perform when they are dealing with poor selection, structure etc.

The best way to get people through the gates, to buy memberships and to sign up new sponsors is by playing good football. In order to do this, a team needs a good coach.

Would you like to see him coach the MFC next year? Personally, yes. People talk about his lack of experience being a major weakness. Daniher has ten years experience and he still can't coach.

I found this quote interesting: "I have a listen to every stakeholder. I'm interested what the sponsors think, I'm interested what Neale thinks, I'm interested in what the football department thinks … and what the board thinks." Now call me crazy, but I didn't know that Primus Telecom are experts when it comes to analysing the performance of a senior AFL coach.

The problem is that when a team goes into a game with a poor team selection, poor structure, poor attitude and poor strategy it's hard for the players to play good football in the first place. As a result, the players lose confidence, because they know that the structure that is in place isn't working which makes their job harder and in turn their performance suffers. All the while the opposition are running over the top and by the time any changes are made, it's too late.

I don't know how anyone can leave Bizzell out of the votes. He took saving marks, was always effective with his disposal, helped set up a goal, was cool in a crisis, dished out a crunching hip-and-shoulder, was accountable for opponent(s) and led by example all night. Jarka, I agree that White did not dominate.

At lease he isn't blaming injuries.

IMO the best way to combat a loose man in defense is to put another player in the forward line and bring it back to a 50-50 contest. People seem to panic about this idea of an overcrowded forward line, but if you have good crumbers in place (i.e. Davey) then I would much rather have some congestion than otherwise allow the opposition to play a loose man like Richmond did with Polak.

Yes, the midfield were ordinary, but it doesn't help when they actually do get the ball and are forced to kick to a forward line that were continually out-numbered. With a forward line that is in a 50-50 situation, the delivery into it doesn't have to be perfect. Yes, the first option should be any players on a lead (but not leading to a pocket), however if there is nothing available then the next option should be to just kick the ball in long, because even if one of the forwards doesn't take a mark, you have crumbers at their feet waiting to pounce.

And Melbourne won the half with their full-back kicking three goals. No, it's nothing to hang their hat on but Melbourne did look better with more players up forward.

No it's not. Melbourne did not have enough options up forward. Just like they did against St Kilda. It was almost identical how Melbourne players looked up, had no options and as a result turned the ball over because the opposition had loose men in their defense. Don't give me this "limited outlook" crap. You have supported Daniher for the past few years and you even supported "run and carry" while the rest of us could see that neither Daniher nor his pathetic attempt at a game plan were any good. You have even been against Melbourne kicking the ball long into their forward which had a good number of forwards in it. Guess what happened when Melbourne did this against the Crows and the Pies? Oh, that's right. They won. And you have the nerve to say that I have a "limited outlook"?

The two goals that he kicked were typical Aaron Davey. I'm all for giving him the occasional run through the middle, just to break things up a bit but he should be spending most of his time in the forward line.

And you attacked me when I talked about Melbourne's lack of forwards against St Kilda...

Melbourne were playing tempo football when they were seven goals down FFS!

Davey can get half the number of possessions playing in the forward line than he would otherwise get playing in the midfield yet be twice as damaging.

The problem wasn't that Melbourne didn't have a Plan B, C or D, they didn't have a Plan A.

Was Petterd on at all in the first quarter?

Bizzell was a positive full stop. He keeps proving most people here wrong. Pure class.

 Melbourne Football Club Senior Coach contract I will not step foot into the coach’s box of the Melbourne Football Club ever again. Sign here _______________ Neale Daniher

It's Leigh Newton right?

Davey has been played out of position. He can get half the number of possessions playing in the forward line than he would otherwise get playing in the midfield yet be twice as damaging.

Bizzell - General in defense Davey - Best up forward Jones - Did right things Petterd - Wasted on bench Johnson - Gave an option