Straight Sets Simon

My point exactly. People like old55 and Rhino Richards constantly use the argument that my point is not "valid" or that the FD know more about what is going on, therefore if I disagree with them, I must be wrong. I was just throwing it back at him. Judging someone's argument based on who they are is pretty pointless isn't it. Especially when most arguments are based on opinion or interpretation and cannot be proved right or wrong.

The spine looks much stronger with Neitz back.

Cool.

Ouch... The thing is, Rhino and I have a common aim. And that is to see the Melbourne Football Club play good footy and hopefully win a flag. The thing is, we tend to disagree on how they should go about it. And that's what this forum is all about. Discussing ideas and expressing opinions about the one thing we all love, the MFC. By offering an opinion and creating discussing I'm not "baiting" anyone. I try to argue the point and not the person. Other people don't do this and that's when things get messy. Imagine how boring this site would be if everyone just agreed with each other.

Cheers again Jarka.

The only conclusion being drawn is that Russell Robertson believes that kicking the ball "long into the forward line ... is how you win games". No, he didn't say that "I wish my club did the same thing". But I'm pretty sure that he wishes his club would "win games".

See Hards' post. I think that summed it up pretty nicely. Yes, it was a passing comment that was in the context of another team but he did say "that is how you win games" which was not specific to the Pies. Not only that, the ever slight hint of frustration in Robbo's voice spoke volumes.

Sorry, I accidentally posted half way through when I was writing. I've got a new computer and some of the keys are different. When I talk about this tactic, I'm not just talking about this year. In fact the only game this year that it has been an issue for me was the Saints game where there were far less injuries. I have been saying the same thing for a couple of years now, before injuries were a major problem.

If for example Melbourne have a forward line consisting of Neitz, Robertson, Pickett, Davey, Dunn, possibly Bruce, possibly Green, possibly Yze, possibly Sylvia and or a resting ruckman, then why wouldn't you want to get the ball quickly down to them? The thing about kicking to a contest is that someone doesn't have to take a mark for it to be an effective move. With the likes of Davey, Pickett and Bruce running around the base of the pack, odds are that they will win back possession. Not only that, all of these guys know where the goals are more than capable of kicking a bag on their day. Like you said Maurie, when the ball is moved down quickly, opposition sides don't have time to get back and flood Melbourne's forward line. Not only that, the opposition's defenders are under FAR GREATER pressure than they would otherwise be under if there was time for their teammates to get back, man-up any free Melbourne forwards and clog up space. Do I need to explain why? There will be occasions when the ball is turned over. But again, now the opposition have the ball deep in their defense and any mistake they do make will have much worse consequences, thus the pressure is right on them. To add to this, I am far more happier to see the ball turned over in Melbourne's defense than in the middle of the ground. Because like it or not, Melbourne turn the ball over a hell of a lot when they chip it around. In essence, defeating the purpose of the tactic.

Cheers Jarka. It's just interesting to hear Russell Robertson come out and say what he did. Especially in the frustrated manner that he did so.

Well I'm going with Robbo on this one. He is after all in the position to make such a "valid" comment.

I know exactly why I asked old55 that question. Because as soon as someone (Russell Robertson) with far more football knowledge than he says something which I (and others) have been advocating for a couple of years now, he tries to dodge the issue by having a go at Robertson. Are Robbo's views "discredited"?

So you think that Robbo has got it wrong when he says it "is how you win games"?

He never said anything about kicking the ball to a contest... old55, do agree with Robertson's statement that kicking it long to the forward line "is how you win games"?

It's just what Russell Robertson said. If you have an issue with what he said, go talk to him. deanox said that Melbourne hasn't had a forward line to kick it to because they have all been injured. And in recent weeks that has been true. But I was just pointing out that even before Neitz and Robbo were injured, Melbourne had this problem.

http://demonland.nozzs.org/forum/index.php...ic=4981&hl= This was written after the St Kilda game. Before Robbo and Neitz were injured.

There was a hint of frustration in his voice when he said it.

"...they just pump it long into the forward line and funnily enough that is how you win games..."

I would have loved to have seen Newton in the team.

The only person who writes on this public forum who is able to offer any "valid judgment" about anything is Craig Cameron.

Try and keep the same side that got thrashed by Sydney?

Do you think that Melbourne will sign Daniher up for another year?

I never saw "tempo football" as being more accountable football. I saw it as holding the ball up, to essentially slow the (tempo of the) game down. I think that teams can still be accountable while playing attacking football. It's all about applying pressure and marking the opposition when they have the ball. However, one thing that must be conceded with this attacking style is that teams probably will concede more goals than if they try and shut the game right down. Having said that, a team like Melbourne kicks far more goals themselves and thus it is a risk worth taking. It's not the fact that Melbourne are 0-5 that annoys. It's the way in which they have lost (even with injuries). Particularly against St Kilda when Melbourne only had a couple of out-numbered players in their own forward line.

I think that you make some valid points. I agree that the loss of Neitz (and Whelan) certainly didn't help Melbourne in the finals, but the problem that Melbourne has faced recently has been their form running into the finals. The late season fade outs have been well publicised. My biggest concern with Daniher has been his game day coaching and his negative tactics. What really frustrates me is that under Daniher I have seen Melbourne play some of the best attacking football you will just about ever see. Funnily enough Melbourne tend to win those games. It's frustrating because Daniher then seems to suddenly change course with his tactics after so much success with something that clearly works best (often for a tactic made successful by the reigning premiers). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking a risk and trying something new, but not when when you're trying to change something that doesn't need changing. I guess that's my major concern with ND as a coach in a nutshell.

When have I been conservative? I know you have written a lot about "run and carry" but you have not addressed why it is that the players went so over-the-top with it during the pre-season and early in the H&A season. I have never denied not seeing them train, however you haven't exactly dismissed what I have said to be wrong. Did Melbourne mainly focus on "run and carry" at training?