Autopsy Freo v Melbourne - How many Demons does it take to defeat Freo at the MCG?

[schmuttt]

On the commentators - it doesn't bother me so much, but you need to understand that teams like Melbourne are the protagonists, which doesn't exactly make us 'evil' but we are the necessary villain on some level.

Again, that's going to happen but the annoying thing is we are effectively framed to 'not exist' - the match is about Melbourne's great story, their great drama. We've won three in a row which means we are a 'form team', and one that Melbourne can beat against the odds.

Our own story, such as our worsening injury crisis, the Ross-as-Coach saga, our 3 years of horrific form - doesn't matter because we're not third-dimensional to them.

It's been the case for many years and it's unlikely to change until WA lead our own broadcasting box.

Also no idea why the media loves us so much, the amount of rubbish I’ve read about turning our season around is mind blowing.

 

[Cobbler]

The game was 38-22 for a period of time. Despite Melbourne pushing I felt if we could've gone bang bang at that time, then they would've rolled over.
Instead they went bang bang before half time and from there it was always going to be a grind.

Everyone is knocking Cox, and to some degree fair enough, but he was always outnumbered 2-1. Sure bring the ball to ground, but players are professional enough now to win 2-1 battles when in their favour.

Felt we lost some dare. Well that and Melbourne just obliterated us at the contest in the last.

The difference between Walters and mere mortals is truly astounding. I think it was his kick to Matera along the ground where Matera picked it up brilliantly and did his little snap from the ground and led to Brayshaws goal. No one talks about the Walters purposeful dribbler. It was great understanding that if he puts that in the air we get done. Just a little thing, but it was very noticeable and Matera did brilliantly... but you back Matera with a ball on the ground opposed to one in the air.

Matera and Walters are actually worknig very well together.

 

[Cobbler]

The game was 38-22 for a period of time. Despite Melbourne pushing I felt if we could've gone bang bang at that time, then they would've rolled over.
Instead they went bang bang before half time and from there it was always going to be a grind.

Everyone is knocking Cox, and to some degree fair enough, but he was always outnumbered 2-1. Sure bring the ball to ground, but players are professional enough now to win 2-1 battles when in their favour.

Felt we lost some dare. Well that and Melbourne just obliterated us at the contest in the last.

The difference between Walters and mere mortals is truly astounding. I think it was his kick to Matera along the ground where Matera picked it up brilliantly and did his little snap from the ground and led to Brayshaws goal. No one talks about the Walters purposeful dribbler. It was great understanding that if he puts that in the air we get done. Just a little thing, but it was very noticeable and Matera did brilliantly... but you back Matera with a ball on the ground opposed to one in the air.

Matera and Walters are actually worknig very well together.

 

[PapaJ]

I don’t condone random trolling but Viney isn’t faux tough at all.

**** to see Jesse go down, I wanted him to have a stinker but never like seeing a player get injured like that. Hope he can finally get over this foot ********.

Yeah agree, it was Viney's toughness which went a long way to your win. Anybody who didn't see that wasn't paying attention.

Like I said above, Melbourne might have some shortcomings, but what they do have is a good set of mature strong bodied ball winning midfielders. I'm not sure we (Freo fans) realised that we simply weren't going to get the ball as much as we have in recent weeks, which means, yes we were still good enough, but we needed to be a. reasonably efficient and b. not get six million ******* injuries.

 

[yyou]

Please don't get sucked in

Yeah, just respond with, "tanks for your contribution"


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[mike91]

Vineys toughness? God no. It was a mixture of things, like Gawns dominance, letting them have a free man out the back (usually A. Brayshaw) pathetic inside 50 entries, kicking it to outnumbered forwards, defenders constantly making unforced errors by foot. Also having 2 men down for half the game doesn't help. Losing Hogan was massive, Cox was too scared to fly for the ball, truly embarrassing. We were 2 down, Melbourne had the bye, Gawn against a kid, it was the perfect storm for Melbourne and they still only just won.

Please don't buy into the bs Viney hype, average player who very rarely impacts games.

Yeah agree, it was Viney's toughness which went a long way to your win. Anybody who didn't see that wasn't paying attention.

Like I said above, Melbourne might have some shortcomings, but what they do have is a good set of mature strong bodied ball winning midfielders. I'm not sure we (Freo fans) realised that we simply weren't going to get the ball as much as we have in recent weeks, which means, yes we were still good enough, but we needed to be a. reasonably efficient and b. not get six million ******* injuries.

 

[PapaJ]

Vineys toughness? God no. It was a mixture of things, like Gawns dominance, letting them have a free man out the back (usually A. Brayshaw) pathetic inside 50 entries, kicking it to outnumbered forwards, defenders constantly making unforced errors by foot. Also having 2 men down for half the game doesn't help. Losing Hogan was massive, Cox was too scared to fly for the ball, truly embarrassing. We were 2 down, Melbourne had the bye, Gawn against a kid, it was the perfect storm for Melbourne and they still only just won.

Please don't buy into the bs Viney hype, average player who very rarely impacts games.

Each to their own. Obviously he wasn't the be all end all, you can see my comments above I basically agree with you on everything else - but Viney was prob Melbourne's best player for mine after Gawn. And I'm talking this game only but his capacity around the contest was a major force I thought.

 

[freo1997]

Vineys toughness? God no. It was a mixture of things, like Gawns dominance, letting them have a free man out the back (usually A. Brayshaw) pathetic inside 50 entries, kicking it to outnumbered forwards, defenders constantly making unforced errors by foot. Also having 2 men down for half the game doesn't help. Losing Hogan was massive, Cox was too scared to fly for the ball, truly embarrassing. We were 2 down, Melbourne had the bye, Gawn against a kid, it was the perfect storm for Melbourne and they still only just won.

Please don't buy into the bs Viney hype, average player who very rarely impacts games.

Cox needed to pull his finger out and he couldn’t. I was right behind the goals in that last qtr...he was putrid. If he managed to make a contest and at least bring the ball to ground. We win. He didn’t even lead.

 

[Outshined]

I thought Darcy Tucker's goal half way through the third was really interesting, an uncharacteristically methodical, slow build up punctuated by some excellent kicking. It made total sense given the game situation and it was pleasantly surprising to see the boys execute so well, but aside from that brief moment we couldn't control the ball enough to really implement a slower gameplan and give ourselves some breathing space. When we did get our hands on it in the last quarter, we didn't have enough left in the tank to spread out wide and provide an easier option and to their credit, Melbourne's pressure meant we almost always had to escape with a long kick to a contest. Cox is getting a lot of flack but he had virtually no chance with the kind of service he was getting against May/Frost. At one stage we had Brayshaw as our FF, which shows how desperate things were.

It was a good lesson for the team. Unlike the GC/Essendon losses I'm not ropeable about this one, you could really see them throwing everything at it trying to hold on, but the fact that Walters was cramping for a good minute before his goal early in the last quarter shows how cooked they were. We might have been able to pinch it if we'd won more ball in the last quarter, but again, credit to Melbourne's mids for getting the job done.

In saying that, any Dees supporters crowing after that performance are kidding themselves. I can see why they're 4-9.

 

[PapaJ]

I thought Darcy Tucker's goal half way through the third was really interesting, an uncharacteristically methodical, slow build up punctuated by some excellent kicking. It made total sense given the game situation and it was pleasantly surprising to see the boys execute so well, but aside from that brief moment we couldn't control the ball enough to really implement a slower gameplan and give ourselves some breathing space. When we did get our hands on it in the last quarter, we didn't have enough left in the tank to spread out wide and provide an easier option and to their credit, Melbourne's pressure meant we almost always had to escape with a long kick to a contest. Cox is getting a lot of flack but he had virtually no chance with the kind of service he was getting against May/Frost. At one stage we had Brayshaw as our FF, which shows how desperate things were.

It was a good lesson for team. Unlike the GC/Essendon losses I'm not ropeable about this one, you could really see them throwing everything at it trying to hold on, but the fact that Walters was cramping for a good minute before his goal early in the last quarter shows how cooked they were. We might have been able to pinch it if we'd won more ball in the last quarter, but again, credit to Melbourne's mids for getting the job done.

In saying that, any Dees supporters crowing after that performance are kidding themselves. I can see why they're 4-9.

I'm with you. I can't put my finger on how to explain it, but it feels very different to the GC or Dons losses. They were games where we only had to lift to a half decent level and we win, and so felt like we were able always to win it, just never did ... if that makes sense. This game seemed the opposite, we were giving our all, but we were never really in a position to control it from about the mid 3rdQ. We were just hanging on really.

And couldn't agree more. If I was a Melbourne fan I would not be all that convinced. We were cooked and it took something like their best shot to knock us off and then only just. They can win the ball and that squeezed them a win. Nothing has changed with that, but they still looked like a group that can't get on top of team with pace or good defensive set-ups.

 

[Outshined]

I'm with you. I can't put my finger on how to explain it, but it feels very different to the GC or Dons losses. They were games where we only had to lift to a half decent level and we win, and so felt like we were able always to win it, just never did ... if that makes sense. This game seemed the opposite, we were giving our all, but we were never really in a position to control it from about the mid 3rdQ. We were just hanging on really.

And couldn't agree more. If I was a Melbourne fan I would not be all that convinced. We were cooked and it took something like their best shot to knock us off and then only just. They can win the ball and that squeezed them a win. Nothing has changed with that, but they still looked like a group that can't get on top of team with pace or good defensive set-ups.

Agreed, it was a very different game. It's just one of those matches you have to review and then quickly forget about. Once Hill went down and Wilson was limping around we were on borrowed time.

Yes, if we'd been cleaner/more efficient in the second quarter we might have had another couple of goals to hold on too but I really can't fault the endeavor. The relentless kicking to a 2 on 1 at the top of the 50/failure to take control of the game was less infuriating than usual, even at the time, given it was all we could do. There was just no run left in their legs. I'd be fuming if we'd had a full team and played out the second half like that, but for a young team, it's forgivable.

 

[dockerfemme]

I sort of saw more positives than negatives in this. I think the ribs for big Sean was the turning point. Gawn just got increasingly dominant after that. It is refreshing to say we had better spread and outside run. This is a Melbourne problem of course.

Logue, Matera and big Sean are real positives.

We need to get over Carlton to keep finals hopes alive. Unfortunately we won’t be at our best for the derby, but such is life. I would rest anyone who needs it for the derby (big Sean?), and accept a loss. Put our best foot forward against the Hawks, with hopefully at least one of Lobb or Hogan back.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Gutted for the result. Overall happy with the performance.

I know we crow about effort, but this was one game where we would absolutely be happy to use as a source for games where effort in a loss is "brave" or "honourable". We were under the pump from very early on and it it slowly turned in Melbourne's favour from quarter time onwards.

We threw everything at them and I am convinced if we had Hill and Hogan uninjured for the entirety of the game, we would have held on and won, without issue. We don't need to take a good, hard look at ourselves like some us thought after the final siren - just a few individuals will need to lift for the Carlton game.

We bring that kind of intensity, pressure and effort to the Carlton game - despite it being a dangerous game - I think we win.

Logue, Matera, B.Hill, Braywahaw and Darcy all massive positives. Matera in particular is playing with confidence and freedom in the forward line with fairly limited support in terms of talls or smalls. He is two goals shy of the top 10 for the comp and that's with missing a few games