Let's have a constructive discussion about the Melbourne Football Club

Following tonight's loss, I was truly lost for words at the commentary on the radio and television: they were all talking about on-field issues, and why the club couldn't win games.

That's all fair and good, but unless someone, somewhere, talks about why the club is the way it is, nothing will change.

It frustrates me that the biggest issues on the minds of commentators was the lack of effort and urgency coming Melbourne players.

I thought, "Well, obviously the players lack urgency, you idiots! The question is WHY!?"

It just seems to me that talking about on-field football fundamentals seems secondary as to what is actually wrong with the club.

I think it's about time the club came out and told its fans the utmost truth about Geelong 186, why the club lost that game the way it did, and why the players are playing the way they're playing.

The Foxsports commentary summed it up perfertly for me tonight:

"On paper, they seem to have the answers, so what the hell is wrong?" said one commentator, deep into the last quarter.

The fans -- the long-suffering, frustrated fans -- want...no...NEED...an answer to that question.

Sylvia, Moloney, Jones, Davey, Rivers, Jurrah, Clark, Frawley, Grimes, Watts.

You only think they're shit because they play for Melbourne. Look at them from an individualistic standpoint, and they're not bad players: they would ALL have a place in a top side, in some capacity.

SO...


WHAT

THE

HELL

IS

WRONG!?

This has got nothing to do with rebuilding, nothing to do with the players not being good enough, and nothing to do with the coaching team.

This is a CLUB, ORGANISATION, BUSINESS issue, and has been evident ever since the Geelong match.

This group of players has already cost one man his job.

They are now on the brink of costing another man's reputation, and it pisses me off to no ends

I am so utterly sick of Melbourne supporters sticking up for this club. This is not about the playing group. It's about the CLUB. The CLUB. The ORGANISATION.

It is quite clear, and if you can't see it you're an idiot, that the playing group simply has issues with the club.

But this is me as a fan.

I need to see what outsiders think. I want to hear from fans that watch football, watch Melbourne games, and can see what they see and make a judgement.

Melbourne supporters: please don't post. I want to read what outsiders think of this CLUB, and what they THINK is wrong.

I need to know whether or not I'm alone in thinking this is a CLUB issue, and not a gameplan, coaching or player issue.

All clubs have a tough breaking in period when they get a new coach who is bringing a whole new approach.

From what I've seen of the Dees, the players seem to have very, very little idea of what they're meant to be doing. Either the game plan has been communicated very, very poorly, or the players are all thick as bricks. Or meet in the middle (a little of the former, a little of the latter).

It all started when you sacked Daniher , when Daniher was coach, Melbourne were competative and playing any other way was unexcepable.
Tanking came in, losing was accetable to gain top draft picks therefore the " culture" changed and thats what i beleive what the problem is "culture"

Your then comittee and coach thought, just gaining top draft picks will solve your problems but at the same time they ruined the fabric and culture of he club.

It's pretty hard to tell what's going on from the outside looking in. The problem seems to be just inconsistency of effort. The Dees weren't horrible at Geelong - perhaps looking to make up for the ignominy of last year? Then in the first quarter against the Hawks, I thought they looked pretty good, but then completely fell to pieces. Why was that? They must have been encouraged with the way they stuck around, but it seems like after that point they lost the will to compete.

It's really awful for Dees fans, some of whom are family members I love and respect. They must be sick to the guts to see what the club puts out each week.

My view is that Cameron Schwab and Chris Connoly should have shouldered the responsibility along with Dean Bailey. They were at least partly responsible for the disunity and resultant poor performances at MFC last year. Both have medocre records. I would be looking at them first.

They overreacted to the Geelong loss and this spread since. Geelong were phenomenal that day. It was probably the most perfect display of football I have seen. Let's not forget Geelong beat Colingwood a few weeks later by a 100 points as well.

They never should have sacked Bailey. They were on track until the Geelong game and even beat teams by 15 goals.

The entire episode is very strange.

Agreed, the Geelong loss was a big alarm bell that something was not right. Melbourne looked alright before that. You might get beaten by 100 points when another team is on song, but not 200 points, I don't care how bad you are. The cattle on the park, whilst not great, is good enough to perform much better than it has. Something is really wrong behind the scenes. Culture? I don't know, but they're not going anywhere until it's addressed.

sir_jaycee said:

It all started when you sacked Daniher , when Daniher was coach, Melbourne were competative and playing any other way was unexcepable.
Tanking came in, losing was accetable to gain top draft picks therefore the " culture" changed and thats what i beleive what the problem is "culture"

Your then comittee and coach thought, just gaining top draft picks will solve your problems but at the same time they ruined the fabric and culture of he club.

Click to expand...

Beat me to it mate, I thought Daniher was a good coach and could never understand why he got the flick to begin with.

Meh not my problem anymore but seriously Dees go back to a few years ago when you were playing consectuve finals and try and see what's different from now.

Definite over reaction to the sacking of Bailey. Once done though they should have sought out an experienced coach who could make big picture decisions.

Yeah basically Melbourne unashamadely went down the draft pick route, from there it's a mixture of poor drafting and poor player development (from a lack of leadership). The draftees came into an environment where it was acceptable to lose and where flashy inconsistent players were rewarded by Bailey. Neeld has come in and gone with a polar opposite blueprint, which is great in theory, but 1) he doesn't have the right players with the right mindset, 2) the players have been getting away with flashy bruise free football and now they have to play the opposite. Thats why it seems they have gone to another level of shitness this year, but tbh I think it's a case of having to go backwards before you go forwards.

And it seriously worries me about all this hype about Jack Viney. He's expected to go around the top 6 or 7 picks, but has been talked up massively for a couple of years, sorry, but what makes everyone think he is going to be any different to all their other top draft picks, in such a difficult environment?

I think the delisting of experienced players has done 2 things, it had not allowed the younger guys to mature quick enough. This is both in skills and also "culturally" in other words none of them seem to have a genuine "playing for the jumper" type motto.

I know the OP has requested no Melbourne supporters post, but I'm going to anyway.

Just a quick comment re: Bailey. It was not an overreaction sacking him. It was completely justified. Losing by 186 points in this day and age is completely unacceptable. But it wasn't just that. We took a step backwards in 2011 from 2010 in terms of conpetitiveness and I believe the trend would have continued if Bailey remained at the helm. I personally wanted hin gone from about Round 5 onwards and other supporters were of the same view. There were several reasons for that but I cbf expanding on those since I'm using my iPhone. But I don't recall many people saying at the time that we overreacted.

This topic has been done to death and it always ends in a shit slinging contest. I expected this topic to be opened by a supporter of another club but of course Cudi might as well be.

So no, let's not have a constructive discussion about the MFC because this forum has shown time and time again that it can't.

Bluelegs said:

This topic has been done to death and it always ends in a shit slinging contest. I expected this topic to be opened by a supporter of another club but of course Cudi might as well be.

So no, let's not have a constructive discussion about the MFC because this forum has shown time and time again that it can't.

Click to expand...

the thing is, on here and the media I dont think the real issue has been touched enough at all.

Everybody harping on about a poor list, Jack Watts, senior players playing poorly, they sacked McDonald a couple years ago etc.

Hold on a sec - there is an elephant in the room here. Last year, Melourne were fairly competitive. Won 8.5 games, beat some good teams and whilst they didnt set the world on fire, they werent exactly a laughing stock.

What has happened since last year for that team to now become seemingly as bad as a start up team?

This has NOTHING to do with personnel, or who was drafted #1 3 years ago, or which former captain was shown the door etc.

None of this explains how a team can go from being competitive, to an absolute rabble! We are talking the relative implosion from merely months ago being a competitive unit to one which looks like it belongs in the VFL.

There is a massive off-field issue going on at Melbourne, HUGE. I have no idea who or what it is but they better work it out.

The situation absolutely reminds me of Essendon's end of the Knights era - it was absolutely clear as dogs balls there was something wrong inside the club as the on field performances quickly deteriorated to levels not explained by the personnel or general ability of the team.

Organisational and list management failure.

Here's the most damning stat for the Melbourne back office: the last time these two teams met at the SCG was in 2007. From that side, six players were in the side last night. From the Swans side that played that night, five were in the side last night. Now granted, our five is much better (Bolton, McVeigh, Malceski, Richards, O'Keefe), but it shows that both clubs have effectively done as much of a clean out and rebuild. One side has made the finals the last couple of years and is an outside chance for the flag this year, and the other seems to be worse than ever and is a chance for the spoon.

That's the danger of a bottom-out rebuild strategy. Yes, the potential benefit is huge if you can really nail a draft or two. But if you fail, the downside is immense if you make the wrong picks or have an environment which makes it hard for the picks to thrive, as we can see with what's happening with Melbourne.

It's easier to clean out the football department than it is to clean out the playing list all over again, so I'd suggest that's where Melbourne start.

They looked at Hawthorn and seemed to think, oh, you just ditch some older blokes and stack up some draft picks and stick it in the oven for 45 minutes and when you come back, there's a flag.

They forgot that Hawthorn already had the guts of the side in Hodge, Mitchell and Sewell before they went draft happy and they also forgot that for the draft wins like Franklin, Roughead and Lewis and Cyril, there were also Beau Mustons and Mitch Thorps.

Aren't Melbourne supporters falling for the old trick again of blaming the older players and letting the young players off the hook.

We saw it three years ago with Bailey and seemingly the same process is being repeated again.

The player development program at Melbourne is appalling. Its about the only club that can turn a top 5 pick into a second rounder in 5 years.

Time for a few home truths on their supposed 'young guns'.

Watts: All been said before. Four years in the system and has done one tenth of bugger all. Floats through matches, turns it on when he wants to and doesn't know the meaning of consistent effort. By all accounts he was dynamite as a junior. Pity its yet to be seen at AFL level.

Trengove: Honest trier in my opinion. Doesn't have that many tricks, looks a shade undersized, disposal is questionable and hence goes for the handball too often. Would get a game at any club but is not a game changer and you need that from a no 2 pick.

Frawley: Looks to have gone backwards a little but can hardly blame him given he is playing a role where he is constantly under siege. Needs a refresh up forward or even on-ball before his confidence completely goes.

Grimes: Can't see the appeal here to be honest. A dime a dozen half back flanker with no tricks. Has heart and tries hard. Not sure on his footy IQ.

McKenzie: plodding, negating midfielder. Average at best.

Blease: played okay last night by all reports but that was first decent game for the club. Prepared to give hima leave pass as he has been injured.

Jurrah: An absolute liability defensively and in today's modern game that is criminal. Would not get a game at a top 8 club.

Gysberts: The little I've seen of him indicates more of an accumulator than a player with any outstanding attributes.

Howe: Great mark. Ineffective everywhere else. Needs to be played in defence.

Tapscott: Seems to be a Grimes clone.

Strauss: Ditto Grimes and Tapscott.

Lucas Cook: Who? No 12 selection from 2010 who has done nothing.

Gawn: Shows something for a young ruck and should be given every opportunity to play. Probably the best of Melbourne's young players if you had to look 5 years iinto the future.

Some of the recruiting has been questionable. They seem to have gone for the same half back flanker clones in recent drafts and none of their key position players have done anything at all.

Most of their midfielders are one paced types - you wouldn;t say any of them have breakaway speed which is a concern.

I note too that young Viney is a lock for Melbourne. But isn't he exactly the same sort of midfielder as Trengove, Jones, Moloney etc.

Not sure if he's the best fit to be honest.

legend166 said:

It's easier to clean out the football department than it is to clean out the playing list all over again, so I'd suggest that's where Melbourne start.

Click to expand...

They also focused on paying off their debt when in reality they should have funded the footy department first to develop the draft picks.

Where do you start.

They sacked a guy like James McDonald who loved the club, led the club with pride and passion and worked his ass off for the club at every oppurtunity, then replaced him with brad green, who can be brave and can show courage, however doesn't really show a willingness to work hard and get his hands dirty.

Then, when they gave him the ass, they put in two kids with about 50 games experience between them, over looking guys like Moloney and Jones who have runs on the board and work bloody hard during games. neither are as talented as the two Jack's, but seem genuinly proud to wear the jumper. I'm not saying the Jacks aren't worthy leaders, but they are kids and should maybe have been made Vice Captains and developed from there.

They panicked last year when they sacked Bailey and he should have seen out the year, however I'm not convinced he had them playing the right style anyway. Like their drafting, Melbourne had developed a style of play that was behind the rest of comp. They drafted for a quick attacking game, and they were attempting to play it. Where everyone else was going defencive, they were going the other way. Neeld has come in to change the game plan to follow the rest of the league, however he does'nt have the players to back it up. When you look at the respective lists, Brad Scott and Mark Neeld are at the wrong clubs with the styles they are attempting to play

I think they need to back Neeld, he has to find the players that are going to do what he wants playing a completely team first game plan, get rid of the guys that aren't prepared to buy in (see Green, Davey, Syliva) who only want to play for themselves and go from there.

There's definitely something else going on. The lack of effort is alarming.

I'm not one for bullshit excuses, but could the death of Jim Stynes on the eve of the season have anything to do with this? They just look completely deflated.

Was the current board the one that appointed Bailey?

If so, they should be under a lot more pressure. That move set the club back years and so far Neeld hasn't shown anything to suggest he can turn it around.

Everyone gets stuck into their drafting blunders, well how about their 'drafting' of coaches? That is the most important recruiting decision a club can make. They sacked Bailey early last year and had the number 1 pick if you like in the draft for new coaches. So far, Watters, Mccartney and Sanderson have all been more impressive despite being overlooked by the Dees.

They've already ****ed up once with Bailey. Neeld has time but the signs aren't good.

The pressure has to come on the board.

they picked the worst time since the inception of the AFl to be poor, because you're going to be poor for a very long time

Franc de Borges said:

I'm not one for bullshit excuses, but could the death of Jim Stynes on the eve of the season have anything to do with this? They just look completely deflated.

Click to expand...

You'd hope not because that is a bullshit excuse. Jim Stynes is a fantastic story and a fantastic bloke who did great things for charity, but if his passing has any lasting significant negative impact on the players then they should question why they are playing in the AFL. Bob Davis who was a Geelong legend died last year, did the Cats stop trying because of that? When Ted Whitten died did the Bulldogs say it's all too hard? No they bloody didn't and that was around the time that they saved their club from being merged.

I am not saying that Jim Stynes is their excuse, but if thats their excuse then their situation is a lot worse than we all thought.

A failure to draft leaders.

For the past decade, it would seem their drafting focus has been on acquiring the best junior football talent at the expense of leadership. It's almost like they've solely looked at the draft camp data and dismissed the psych interviews.

For example at Sydney - Roos, Beatson, Maxfield made character probably the central element when assessing a youngster. The view was that they could teach them how to play football over time, but they could never change their character. And if their character was right, they'd never give up and stop trying to make themselves better players. This would also translate to on field effort and commitment.

What must galling for Melbourne is the premature sacking of there few genuine leaders (McDonald, Bruce etc.). That was such a dumb move. When Goodes, Bolton and O'Keefe are out there on the ground, they're seriously carrying the spirit of Paul Kelly and Brett Kirk. You need these guys to set the standard. Now Parker, Jack and Kennedy are learning for the next generation - that's the on-field culture that Sydney's known for. Unfortunately, that's just not there for Trengove and Grimes, as they have no role models to build their leadership skills. It's really harsh for those guys. They should have given the captaincy to Jones, since you lost Scully - who looks genuine captain material.

I actually, think that Melbourne realised this maybe 2-3 years ago and have tried to address it, but it's such a chasm to bridge for 8-10 years of not drafting leaders. Almost a lost generation.

Talking of Scully, you have to ask why he left? He could see it as plain as day - the middle age / senior players were all clowns. They lack the core professionalism and substance required to be high performers. He could see it would have taken another 5-10 years change that rot.

Melbourne are not unusual in this scenario. It took the recruiting of Judd at Carlton to start to set the tone around the club. That led to the getting rid of ********s like Fevola. Melbourne should forget about chasing Cloke and find a bone fide midfield captain. Someone like Joel or Scott Selwood, Tom Rockcliff, Andrew Swallow etc. But alas, they're so so hard to find and secure. Plus they rarely change clubs.