General MFC discussion

[d33my]

Roos was weak in the presses, blaming players for not listening when questioned about Collingwoods loose player in defence. He was out coached, plain and simple. You're not the messiah Paul, your just a naughty little boy. And you should have sent Cross to man up on him you flog. Do you think Cross would have said 'no sorry Paul, I think I'll stay here instead'? FFS...

No, he wasn't outcoached. The players were outplayed in their ability to follow a game plan/complete instructions.

 

[Tempy Tiger]

No, he wasn't outcoached. The players were outplayed in their ability to follow a game plan/complete instructions.

Do you seriously think one of the players was instructed to go and man Oxley up and just didn't do it?! Paul needs to accept that it is within the realms of possibility that he can be wrong. You win together and lose together.

 

[d33my]

Do you seriously think one of the players was instructed to go and man Oxley up and just didn't do it?! Paul needs to accept that it is within the realms of possibility that he can be wrong. You win together and lose together.

From what I could tell of the presser, Roos was displeased that there wasn't a body on Oxley when he took those marks. I doubt he coached them to have a direct opponent on Oxley; I think the idea was that one of our mids should be up there with the forwards when the ball is bombed in, so that there are even numbers at the contest. I'm actually not that surprised that our players weren't able to do it -- there are plenty of times they get lost on field.

The solution suggested -- put a dedicated man on Oxley (most likely our loose defender) -- is fine in principle but it has problems of its own -- there is no-one to fill the space in a defensive 50 where a key forward is killing us, and there is one less player to generate run off half back. I think Roos plan was fine if our players had been able to execute it.

 

[Dez!]

Roos wasn't out-coached, the only reason we lost this game is because of our simple turnovers.

Our own stupidity cost us that game.

 

[wowlace]

Roos doesn't coach to get ~11 goals from turnovers kicked on us.

 

[Cannon82]

From what I could tell of the presser, Roos was displeased that there wasn't a body on Oxley when he took those marks. I doubt he coached them to have a direct opponent on Oxley; I think the idea was that one of our mids should be up there with the forwards when the ball is bombed in, so that there are even numbers at the contest. I'm actually not that surprised that our players weren't able to do it -- there are plenty of times they get lost on field.

The solution suggested -- put a dedicated man on Oxley (most likely our loose defender) -- is fine in principle but it has problems of its own -- there is no-one to fill the space in a defensive 50 where a key forward is killing us, and there is one less player to generate run off half back. I think Roos plan was fine if our players had been able to execute it.

Some of those forward 50 entries were in the air for an age, and Oxley still marked most of them. I'm baffled that not one of our forwards could get to the ball drop to contest or at least 'make him earn it'. Our forward structure is a bit scattergun.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

Roos wasn't out-coached, the only reason we lost this game is because of our simple turnovers.

Our own stupidity cost us that game.

The positive is that we only let them score like 5 goals in general play

Now how to stop them scoring 13 from turnovers

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Roos was weak in the presses, blaming players for not listening when questioned about Collingwoods loose player in defence. He was out coached, plain and simple. You're not the messiah Paul, your just a naughty little boy. And you should have sent Cross to man up on him you flog. Do you think Cross would have said 'no sorry Paul, I think I'll stay here instead'? FFS...

That's rubbish mate, I've coached sport and it is no given that your players will do what you ask consistently.

 

[rhaz]

4 of our next 6 games are very winnable.

Saints, Cats (no), BYE, WCE (no), Bombers, Brisbane, Saints again

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

4 of our next 6 games are very winnable.

Saints, Cats (no), BYE, WCE (no), Bombers, Brisbane, Saints again

We need 2 minimum in that stretch.

 

[schmuttt]

4 of our next 6 games are very winnable.

Saints, Cats (no), BYE, WCE (no), Bombers, Brisbane, Saints again

Going to go on the record here and say we will win all 4 of those games you've highlighted.

 

[The Dr]

I know it's completely illogical but I have a weird feeling we can beat the Cats, even down there, but have an awful feeling we'll stink it up against the Saints, especially at Etihad.

 

[Topkent]

Watching on tv I could see that we needed to man up oxley
I'm sure between roos, goodwin an McCartney someone else would have picked up on it

The fact is we couldn't find a balance between running it out of defence when the pies pressure was manic an going long down the line to pedo an hogan who marked nothing

 

[Djcjdees]

I can see both sides., and I'm the first one to make sure Roos gets questioned properly. The only reason we got ourselves back in the game was via Roos making the switch on Cloke and Cross/Harry doing a Rivers impersonation. This was at the expense of leaving Oxley unmanned. Roos' instructions were probably 'work hard to get there and make a contest for the long kick forward.' Nothing wrong with that imo.

However, we aren't fit enough to pull it off. I also blame fitness for our lack of composure which led to those 432 goals from turnovers. Not sure if Roos gets the blame for that but probably some of it. Seems plain to me every time we play a good side that we are a few percent less fit. We get a bit ragged. Still, that second qtr was brilliant. We came out fired up as fk. Now do that every qtr

 

[64 reasons]

A random fact in the Age yesterday, not a single story in the Age about the Queens Birthday game, not 1.
Today, buried in the normal stuff there is 1 match report about the game, I challenge anyone to find a mention of MND, the walk to the G, the slide in today's Age.

C Wilson, (fpulling the strings at the Age) that sanctimonious so and so was sitting at the desk on Footy Classified last night, staring at Nate Jones like a snake.

G Lyon is the softest person to ever pull on a MFC jumper, he would never ever challenge Wilson, his cries on the stretcher sum up his personality well.

 

[Captain Jack]

Really 64 reasons? Neale Daniher was all over the front page of The Age today, and there was a story about the game on the back page. I didn't see FC last night but Caro would be Caro.

 

[LeverPuller]

I know it's completely illogical but I have a weird feeling we can beat the Cats, even down there, but have an awful feeling we'll stink it up against the Saints, especially at Etihad.

Think our strength is Geelong's weakness - hard contested footy. Their outside game is awesome though.

 

[pure demon]

So the bookies have the saints as slight favorites to win this week. It can only be our etihad record that makes this the case. Were on equal wins, and only seperated by 2% points. I think its fair to say we have had the harder draw. We only need to turn up to play, and i see us winning this comfortably...runs for cover, promises not to post again!

 

[wowlace]

Saint Kilda, good or bad, always beat us. Add Etihad to the mix, probably a 3-4 goal loss. I wouldn't back Melbourne at Etihad until we have won like at least 3 games there.

 

[Demon 16]

From what I could tell of the presser, Roos was displeased that there wasn't a body on Oxley when he took those marks. I doubt he coached them to have a direct opponent on Oxley; I think the idea was that one of our mids should be up there with the forwards when the ball is bombed in, so that there are even numbers at the contest. I'm actually not that surprised that our players weren't able to do it -- there are plenty of times they get lost on field.

The solution suggested -- put a dedicated man on Oxley (most likely our loose defender) -- is fine in principle but it has problems of its own -- there is no-one to fill the space in a defensive 50 where a key forward is killing us, and there is one less player to generate run off half back. I think Roos plan was fine if our players had been able to execute it.

That's rubbish mate, I've coached sport and it is no given that your players will do what you ask consistently.

I think d33my has explained it perfectly.

I don't think Roos ever asked a single player to man Oxley, rather he asked the team to be aware of supporting each other defensively in order that we could get someone loose and make body contact - should they throw a lose man back again.

Playing an extra man back, was actually quite a defensive strategy from Collingwood, so Roos wouldn't have wanted to change the successful half back and midfield structures in place at the time.

I think Roos is wary of giving too much away in his interviews - but I would rather he just explained it the way d33my did, than make it out like players were disobeying specific instructions.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Roos was weak in the presses, blaming players for not listening when questioned about Collingwoods loose player in defence. He was out coached, plain and simple. You're not the messiah Paul, your just a naughty little boy. And you should have sent Cross to man up on him you flog. Do you think Cross would have said 'no sorry Paul, I think I'll stay here instead'? FFS...

So, bring back Neeld, or...?

 

[64 reasons]

So the bookies have the saints as slight favorites to win this week. It can only be our etihad record that makes this the case. Were on equal wins, and only seperated by 2% points. I think its fair to say we have had the harder draw. We only need to turn up to play, and i see us winning this comfortably...runs for cover, promises not to post again!

Don't the "real odds" of this game illustrate how damaged the club really is.

 

[64 reasons]

Really 64 reasons? Neale Daniher was all over the front page of The Age today, and there was a story about the game on the back page. I didn't see FC last night but Caro would be Caro.

Apologies, I was referring to theage.com not the one you buy, online it remains zilch, apart from match report - nothing.

 

[Ando727]

Some of those forward 50 entries were in the air for an age, and Oxley still marked most of them. I'm baffled that not one of our forwards could get to the ball drop to contest or at least 'make him earn it'. Our forward structure is a bit scattergun.

+1. And that's why I'm glad they gave Brayshaw the Rising Star nomination this round rather than Oxley. Commentators getting so excited over Oxley, but they were some of the easiest possessions you could ever get. Totally unopposed marks in our forward line - what a joke. That should never happen again. I'd rather we had our guys running into each other than leaving high balls for each other.

 

[djpaulydemon]

A lot of the turnovers were from a lack of composure early in the game, which can't be blamed on fitness. Also Cross was doing his job taking intercept marks so why move him to Oxley.

If you watch Roos' presser there is a good line where he says - we kicked it in the air, the ball hit a boeing 747 and oxley still takes a uncontested mark. He was unhappy about our players inability to contest and also the fact that it was bombed so high to the top of the 50.

He was pretty bemused, so i highly doubt he is undermining the players to make himself look like a better coach. He has been protective of the players so far but i think he is starting to set public expections a little higher now that the effort is becoming (a bit) more consistent.