Straight Sets Simon

Because there wasn't anyone to kick it to in the forward half of the ground. ND forgot about the need for a forward line. Ward looked like the villian because he was taking risks and actually trying to create something.

Look at the options Ward had to kick to. He was one of the few players who was actually trying to create some drive forward with his pace and long kicking.

You're right, I've since re-considered my selection and after seeing the changes that dees_rule_4eva suggested I had to agree with him.

Wrong again old. Melbourne, if lucky had no more than three players in their forward line for most of the game. Moreover, Melbourne did have a loose man in defense (it wasn't a 7 on 7 situation like you said) and it didn't work. St Kilda had loose men everywhere in Melbourne's forward line. But Daniher refused to move extra players up forward. Instead he had potential match-winners like Davey and Bruce playing negative defensive roles in their own back line. Ward turned it over because he had no one to kick it to in the first place. He managed to hit Neitz on the chest in a two on one situation in the first quarter but even TJ struggles to make pin-point passes to forwards who are out-numbered two, three or four on one. You're pleased that "[Melbourne] were trying something new"? What was that pre-season that just ended for then? Yes, St Kilda are talented, but so are Melbourne. How about they try something that works. For example, what they did in the first quarter (until McDonald waved his white flag in the air for all to see). Melbourne had no forward line which meant they had to use "runs and curry" and "tempo football". That is why they lost.

By personnel you mean the coaching staff, right?

I agree. It was a clash of heads. The fact that Whelan had a cut to his head proves this. Surely they can't suspend someone over a clash of heads.

At one point Davey was playing at full back last night. Stick him in the forward pocket / half forward flank and leave him there.

100% agree. White has stated that before the game even starts, he and Jamar know when they will rotate. The problem is, like you mentioned earlier with Moloney, what if one of them is playing great and doesn't even need to be rested?

Good point. My changes were probably a little over the top. I agree with those changes.

6 - Moloney 5 - Jones 4 - Holland 3 - Robertson 2 - Neitz 1 - Ward

Good point about PJ. I forgot about him.

That's because their first game is always against Daniher.

Ward was one of Melbourne's best IMO. At least he tried to create some run and move the ball forward quickly. Bell wasn't great but still deserves his spot. My changes ATM: OUT: McLean (injured), Whelan (injured), Miller, Yze, Bartram IN: Brown, Wheatley, Bizzell, Pickett, Rivers

No forward line! We have all known (except for those conservative few) for over a month now that "runs and curry" doesn't work. Last night however, the players were forced to use this stupid tactic because there were no options up forward. Either there was literally no one within the forward 50, or the forwards were out-numbered. old55 would have been very "happy" with last nights game. "I'll be happy if we have 17-15 in your forward 50 and my FF against your 3 defenders in mine." Neitz was out-numbered three on one on many occaisions last night. It worked well...

I was just wondering if anyone else saw the article in the Footy Record last night which talked about all the stats and pieces of information coaches use before and during games. Basically, it talked about how coaches now have a whole system of computers they use which records how long players run, walk etc amongst other things. I'd be interested to know what people thought of the article if they did read it.

What really gives me the "runs and curry" is that at the start of the game when Melbourne were leading, they weren't using this stupid tactic. They had a forward line and they were kicking the ball long and direct. As a result, they were leading. Then at the end of the first quarter, McDonald waved his arm to signal to the Melbourne players and the St Kilda players that they were going to stop trying. What happened? The ball was chipped around the back line four or five times and in that time no progress was made up the ground. St Kilda then got an easy interception in their forward line, but lucky for Melbourne Goddard sprayed his kick wide. And people talk about how good "tempo football" is. From that point on Melbourne never went back to the tactics that were winning them the game early on. Here's the equation: Forward line + long, direct, fast moving footy = good football = win (First quarter) No forward line + "tempo football" + "runs and curry" = bad football = loss (Last three quarters) Personally, I don't know which one is better. Because after all I'm just an "uninformed" spectator. If anyone comes out with "there was nothing wrong with the plan, it was just poorly executed" then I suggest they take a very long cold shower.

Welcome to the dark side Jaded. Many of us have this have been arguing this now for almost three years now. Was anyone else frustrated by the lack of forwards? Moreover, Bruce and Davey playing in defence? Of course the players are going to over-use the ball and look to hand pass, when they have no one to kick it to!

A couple of quick observations. Bruce: Why tag Blake?! Davey: In wrong position Ward: Positive ball movement Holland: Unfortunately Melbourne's best Jones: Positive ball movement Moloney: Positive ball movement Miller: Not AFL standard Neitz: Had no crumbers Robertson: Had no crumbers Green: Leave him forward! Jamar: Did he play? Yze: Was not worst

I would just like to add how pleasing it was to see Bruce, Yze and Davey in the back line during the second half. That really put Melbourne in a match-winning position! Melbourne not having a forward line and allowing St Kilda to play a loose man in defence was the reason that Melbourne lost. I don't even blame "runs and curry" because to be honest the players were forced to play that way. Why? Because Melbourne moved most of it's team (including match-winners like Davey and Bruce) to the back half of the ground, even if the ball was in the centre. Therefore, as we all saw last night when a Melbourne player got the ball and looked up, all he saw was one, two or if he was lucky three forwards to kick it too. However, there were always more St Kilda defenders there to pick off the easy pass. Because of this, the Melbourne players were forced to hand pass (in an attempt to move the ball forward) amongst themselves but as many of us have been saying for the past month now, it doesn't work! At the start of the game when Melbourne were leading when they had a forward line. At the end of the game they didn't. "Runs and curry", over-possessing the ball and kicking sideways were only the symptoms on this occasion. Not having a forward line was the cause.

I thought "run and carry" worked really well tonight. It was executed perfectly. So did the loose man in defence. But that's another topic.

Too bad he won't be around long enough to see them.

If anyone knows the whereabouts of Melbourne's forward line could they please contact the MFC football department ASAP. Key features: - It consists of at least six players - It is most effective when entered long and directly Reward: - Four premiership points each week Please help!

McLean a natural-born leader "It's going to be hell for leather when that ball goes down."

Make Hayes tag Bruce. Put the Saints on the back foot.

CJ is NOT a natural defender.