Straight Sets Simon

Understood.

This is the best post I've seen on here for a long time. One question. Who is the "really good" coach?

I have to agree. I thought Bell was good. His disposal under pressure really impressed me and I also see him as more of a midfielder.

Spot on Wrathchild. Champion team > Team of champions. Moreover, during on in the season Melbourne can't draft or recruit anyone so saying that they need better players is a cop out. You've got to use what you've got and Melbourne does have a lot of talent.

Doesn't surprise me one bit...

That's because Melbourne gave away those six free kicks / 50 metres.

I thought Bell was good. Miller showed some good signs.

He proved me wrong. Still not good enough mind you.

Ward can play on a wing (people always complain that he is unaccountable). Bell can play in the midfield (even if only just to give other players a break). Brown can play on a wing (see Ward). Wheatley can play on a wing. These players don't all have to play in the backline. That leaves Whelan, Rivers, Carroll and Bizzell as the four main defenders.

That's such a negative attitude. Why put in a player like Godfrey to tag when he is just going to get murdered anyway? Yes, Hawthorn have Mitchell, Hodge and Crawford. But Melbourne have Bruce, Moloney, McDonald, Jones, Green and Johnstone. ND needs to show some faith in these guys and say: "You know what, Hawthorn do have a strong midfield, but we've also got a number of players who are bloody good. Let's not worry about trying to shut them out, instead let's put them on the back foot and make them accountable for our guys by going out and playing positive football." I’d much prefer to see Bizzell in the team, who is cool under pressure, has good skills and can create run off halfback instead of Godfrey who is just used in a negative tagging role which will see him get murdered anyway. Essentially, bringing in Godfrey is like playing with 21 players in the side. He’s going to offer very little when (if) he does get the ball and like I’ve mentioned earlier he’s not even that good at tagging. I'll just add to that IF a Hodge or a Mitchell is tearing Melbourne a new one then Bruce, Mcdonald or Jones can be used to tag if worst comes to worst. Moreover, when they do get the ball they will offer much more than what Godfrey does.

Bizzell is a better footballer than Godfrey and considering Bartram was named in the back pocket (and not the midfield) why not play Bizzell?

Valenti really impressed me yesterday.

Great read. Love your work, Oracle.

Well said.

I remember Ling last year on The Footy Show talking about how he thought Read was unlucky to be dropped at one stage. It would make sense if they are mates.

This comment pleases me: "McLean said the Demons had to get back to the one-on-one style that helped resurrect the club's 2006 season after a 0-3 start" I just find it strange that they didn't opt for the tactic that they know brings them success in the first place.

The forward line I would like to see against the Hawks. (Not just where their name is on the team sheet but where they will play on the ground.) HF: Pickett PJ Green / Bruce FF: Davey Neitz Robertson A lot of people complain about how PJ can't mark, and it's true that it's a big weakness of his. The thing to remember is that Miller can't mark either. If Yze does get a game then I would like to see him only in the forward half of the ground. Green and Bruce can both kick bags of goals and I would like to see them rotated between the forward line and the midfield. Not used in negative tagging roles. IMO, there should be no less than four Melbourne forwards in their forward line at one time.

Couldn't agree more.

He said it as a joke. Get over it.

Cheers.

Off the topic. Why is Franklin known as "Buddy"?

I've already explained why there were so few entries into the forward fifty. Why kick it there if there is no one to kick it to? This is a valid observation by me too. Just as it was for about 20 or 30 people sitting around me at the game. Both St Kilda and Melbourne supporters.

But Melbourne only had the ball 22 times less than the Saints. Yet they had more possessions per goal. That means they weren't using the ball effectively which was clearly the case on Friday night. IMO, all of those problems you mentioned can all be linked back to Melbourne not having the options up the ground when they looked to move the ball forward.

You've got the wrong person...

Melbourne only had 22 less possessions than St Kilda. Yet they had more disposals per goal than the Saints. That is, there disposal was inefficient and just plain crap (as you've mentioned). Obviously Melbourne could have improved by winning more of the ball. Again, it's all very well getting a lot of the ball, but what you do with it is what really matters. So why, in your opinion was their disposal so bad?