Richmond vs Melbourne (spoiler warning)

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:43 pm

Richmond 10.7.67
Melbourne 2.4.16

25 minute mark.

God I love melbourne, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least they have been getting good snow.

bombers_rock · Post by **bombers_rock** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:45 pm

It's a concern actually. We play them next week, it's not going to be all smooth sailing. They're going to want to forget tonight (if they do lose).

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:55 pm

bombers_rock wrote:It's a concern actually. We play them next week, it's not going to be all smooth sailing. They're going to want to forget tonight (if they do lose).

Melbourne have no stones. It will be too cold under the roof at the dome for their fans to venture out. Would be very surprised if they have more than 5,000 turn up. It should be an atmosphere similar to the West Coke game a couple of weeks back.

bombers_rock · Post by **bombers_rock** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:57 pm

2 goals to half time. That's a disgrace. I think I'd say thats worse than us last week. Going to take a big effort for 'em to come back from here.

Lloyd is King · Post by **Lloyd is King** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:01 pm

Can't believe we have to play those tossers next week.

Media is gonna give them a tongue-lashing... same as what happened to Port Adelaide last week....

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:02 pm

They better hope Neitz comes back next week because we are hard to beat at the dome, with or without Hille. While Neitz has a piss poor record against us he can still inspirse that rabble sometimes. Hopefully Travis Johnson is still out with the hammy injury, that will help our poor midfield.

To explain how bad they are going, Pettifer has had 12 touches. Pettifer for god's sake.

lozza89 · Post by **lozza89** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:51 pm

Good to see that Nathan Brown has had a good return to footy.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:14 pm

lozza89 wrote:Good to see that Nathan Brown has had a good return to footy.

yeah i agree, he is good to watch

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:35 pm

Melbourne's first half was that f****** bad that i can't put words to it. To give up a 64 point lead to half time to the bottom team in the competition boggles the mind.

nomolos · Post by **nomolos** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:38 am

jimmyc1985 wrote:Melbourne's first half was that f****** bad that i can't put words to it. To give up a 64 point lead to half time to the bottom team in the competition boggles the mind.

Yeah but they are second bottom themselves. Not as if they're in the 8.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:50 am

Neitz is Fletcher's lap dog. Always has been and always will be.

However, Richmond ran us to the line a few weeks ago. We were pretty scheizenhausen for 3Q's last week as well. Nothing's a certainty in this comp, but we should have enough talent to beat Melbourne next week.

spikefan · Post by **spikefan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:09 am

We have the talent to beat Melbourne, but the key is in our coaches and players head.
Hopefully both the players and the coaching staff step up and make us forget the first three quarters against Port.
No game is given in the AFL and I always worry when we play against teams that we should beat.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:36 pm

nomolos wrote:
jimmyc1985 wrote:Melbourne's first half was that f****** bad that i can't put words to it. To give up a 64 point lead to half time to the bottom team in the competition boggles the mind.
Yeah but they are second bottom themselves. Not as if they're in the 8.

So? I don't see how that mitigates Melbourne's loss. I'd like to know the last time any team, be they 15th or 1st, conceded 11 goals more than they scored in a half of football against the team that is firmly entrenched as the bottom team after 11 rounds. Melbourne's first half was a f****** disgrace irrespective of where they are on the ladder.

And this is why i scratch my head at people who are so keen for Daniher to take over after Sheedy. Melbourne have had 3 or 4 inexplicably bad seasons (i.e. 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2007) under Daniher's tenure, littered with performances such as that of last night. Some of the responsibility for Melbourne's inexplicable shitness over those 3 or 4 seasons has to be imputed upon the coach.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:02 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
And this is why i scratch my head at people who are so keen for Daniher to take over after Sheedy. Melbourne have had 3 or 4 inexplicably bad seasons (i.e. 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2007) under Daniher's tenure, littered with performances such as that of last night. Some of the responsibility for Melbourne's inexplicable shitness over those 3 or 4 seasons has to be imputed upon the coach.

FWIW, I believe Melbourne have also over achieved in other years under Daniher. I never thought Melbourne of 2000 was ever capable of making a Grand Final, but he got them there. Not many coaches have since 1964. The club struggles for members, money, facilities and general support within the board and club itself. He's done a very good job there considering the lack of resources at his disposal IMO. If we just gauge a coaches real ability by the ladder position of the club they are coaching then what do we make of Denis Pagan? His Carlton record is so abysmal that it ranks with the worst coaches in history. But you look at what he did at the Roos and you'd have to conclude they he has what it takes as a coach. Daniher is stuck at a club that will struggle to have real success no matter who is the coach. I doubt Worsfold, Roos, Sheedy or Matthews could get them anywhere either. At least Neale got them within reach of a premiership, but he ran into the biggest juggernaut the competition has ever seen.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:56 pm

BenDoolan wrote:
jimmyc1985 wrote:
And this is why i scratch my head at people who are so keen for Daniher to take over after Sheedy. Melbourne have had 3 or 4 inexplicably bad seasons (i.e. 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2007) under Daniher's tenure, littered with performances such as that of last night. Some of the responsibility for Melbourne's inexplicable shitness over those 3 or 4 seasons has to be imputed upon the coach.
FWIW, I believe Melbourne have also over achieved in other years under Daniher. I never thought Melbourne of 2000 was ever capable of making a Grand Final, but he got them there. Not many coaches have since 1964. The club struggles for members, money, facilities and general support within the board and club itself. He's done a very good job there considering the lack of resources at his disposal IMO. If we just gauge a coaches real ability by the ladder position of the club they are coaching then what do we make of Denis Pagan? His Carlton record is so abysmal that it ranks with the worst coaches in history. But you look at what he did at the Roos and you'd have to conclude they he has what it takes as a coach. Daniher is stuck at a club that will struggle to have real success no matter who is the coach. I doubt Worsfold, Roos, Sheedy or Matthews could get them anywhere either. At least Neale got them within reach of a premiership, but he ran into the biggest juggernaut the competition has ever seen.

'Over achieving' is really a matter of perspective, though. Had the Demons done well in 2001 instead of slumping to 11th, you wouldn't be saying they'd over-achieved. Take a look at Sydney circa 2005 - many people thought they over-achieved to win the GF that year. However, a successive GF appearance last year has seemingly changed most people's perspective that the Swans of 2005 were over-achievers.

To say that Melbourne over achieved in 2000 is to say that they weren't as good as they really were and should never have made a GF. I don't see how it enhances Daniher's credentials to say that the team he presided over over-achieved one year - the reason is because the implied converse of that argument is that Melbourne should've been mediocre in 2000 as well. Therefore, but for one year of over-achievement, Daniher has presided over a decade of mediocrity.

The whole concept of labelling a team as over-achieving, to mind, is really a back-handed compliment to a coach. On the one hand, it's a compliment that the coach got a team to achieve more than what he should have. On the other, it implies that the team that coach built was really pretty mediocre and had a good dose of luck and timing in getting to where it was.

It depends on how you frame your perspective. I don't think Melbourne's mediocrity in 99, 01, 03 or 07 can simply be explained away by the fact that they might have over-achieved in 00, 02, 04 or 06.

As for Carlton, their mistakes were made in 2003-04 when they temporarily inflated their ladder position by bringing in mature aged duds instead of recognising the predicament they were in and drafting whatever they could. Most Carlton supporters i speak to reckon Pagan's approach in 03-04 set them back a couple years in the scheme of things, but don't kid themselves in recognising that any coach in Pagan's position would not have done much better.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:23 pm

'Over achieving' is really a matter of perspective, though. Had the Demons done well in 2001 instead of slumping to 11th, you wouldn't be saying they'd over-achieved. Take a look at Sydney circa 2005 - many people thought they over-achieved to win the GF that year. However, a successive GF appearance last year has seemingly changed most people's perspective that the Swans of 2005 were over-achievers.

That's fair, but compare the two clubs, what did Sydney have that the Demons obviously haven't? A good administration, supporter base, money and the salary cap assistance for many years. I reckon Roos is a good coach, by the way.

To say that Melbourne over achieved in 2000 is to say that they weren't as good as they really were and should never have made a GF. I don't see how it enhances Daniher's credentials to say that the team he presided over over-achieved one year - the reason is because the implied converse of that argument is that Melbourne should've been mediocre in 2000 as well. Therefore, but for one year of over-achievement, Daniher has presided over a decade of mediocrity.

I simply believe Daniher did extrememly well to get the Demons into a GF with the list he had. Again, I will point to the poor administration, lack of facilities, funds, supporters and say he did an extrememly good job considering those factors. I believe they are just a middle of the road team unless they get their entire club into a position of success. Mediocrity? What would you call Malthouse at Collingwood during his reign? And he has all the money, facilities, high profile president, supporters at his disposal. That's mediocrity, and he is a premiership coach at another club who had assistance from the AFL salary cap, huge supporter base, heaps of cash, one town team (at that stage) etc.

IMO, both Neale Daniher & Mark Thompson are very good coaches who have had to contend with enormous battles within their respective clubs, yet they have got teams right "up there" and near enough to suggest they can coach.

If Denis Pagan and Mick Malthouse are the super coaches as they were once lauded, then they should be able to lift their current clubs no matter what happens behind the scenes. The fact that they haven't either suggests they can't coach, or they are simply struggling with the very things that Daniher has had to contend with his entire time at Melbourne. But that's not the case with Malthouse, especially.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 3:48 pm

If we're comparing Daniher and Malthouse in terms of pure coaching ability, i have absolutely no doubt Malthouse is the superior coach. None whatsoever. I'm aware of the fact that he's got all the facilities in the world at his disposal, but what it really comes down to as regards coaching ability is this: which coach has been consistently able to get the most out of the players at their disposal and thus make a better team? Answer: Malthouse. He made 2 GFs with a motley crew of nobodies that were no better than what Daniher's ever had, finished 5th last year and the Maggots are doing well again this year in spite of most people saying they were headed for the doldrums. Simply: it is my firmly held belief that if Daniher and Malthouse were to switch positions today, Melbourne would be better for the move and Collingwood would be worse for the move.

If it's a choice between Malthouse and Daniher, i'd take Malthouse in a heartbeat. The fact that Malthouse is a f****** wanker and Neale Daniher is a lovely bloke is of secondary importance.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:22 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:If we're comparing Daniher and Malthouse in terms of pure coaching ability, i have absolutely no doubt Malthouse is the superior coach. None whatsoever. I'm aware of the fact that he's got all the facilities in the world at his disposal, but what it really comes down to as regards coaching ability is this: which coach has been consistently able to get the most out of the players at their disposal and thus make a better team? Answer: Malthouse. He made 2 GFs with a motley crew of nobodies that were no better than what Daniher's ever had, finished 5th last year and the Maggots are doing well again this year in spite of most people saying they were headed for the doldrums. Simply: it is my firmly held belief that if Daniher and Malthouse were to switch positions today, Melbourne would be better for the move and Collingwood would be worse for the move.

If it's a choice between Malthouse and Daniher, i'd take Malthouse in a heartbeat. The fact that Malthouse is a f****** wanker and Neale Daniher is a lovely bloke is of secondary importance.

Of course there is no way of ever finding out, but I wonder how well Neale would done at Collingwood given the same set of circumstances Malthouse has had, and of course, seeing how Malthouse would have fared at Melbourne....

Neale won't be coaching the Demons next year. That is alomost a certainty. Malthouse, as far as I'm concerned, has benefitted from coaching two well to do clubs, and has only been successful at one.

But we are naturally only talking about opinions and perceptions here.

CameronClayton · Post by **CameronClayton** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:59 pm

BD, my biggest question mark over Rowdy has always been those unforgivable shit years they had in between good years. While they can use injuries as an excuse this year, I think if you check, you will find in those other years they had just a normal run of injuries like every other team gets. So what went wrong? Why are the Dees so topsy-turvy?

To me a sign of a good coach (like Bomber) is to start a side from scratch at the bottom & slowly build them up year after year until they are finally serious contenders. If you check Geelongs years under Bomber, besides last year when they were decimated with injury, they have been slowly building & building year after year - none of this up & down like a yo-yo shit.

Sure Rowdy did well in 2000, but he can't keep hanging his hat on that one good year 7 years down the track. Maybe there will be an assistant coaches spot at the Bomber's next year? That would suit him better, I think, as the top job looks like it is taking too much of a toll on him.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:45 pm

CameronClayton wrote:BD, my biggest question mark over Rowdy has always been those unforgivable shit years they had in between good years. While they can use injuries as an excuse this year, I think if you check, you will find in those other years they had just a normal run of injuries like every other team gets. So what went wrong? Why are the Dees so topsy-turvy?

To me a sign of a good coach (like Bomber) is to start a side from scratch at the bottom & slowly build them up year after year until they are finally serious contenders. If you check Geelongs years under Bomber, besides last year when they were decimated with injury, they have been slowly building & building year after year - none of this up & down like a yo-yo shit.

Sure Rowdy did well in 2000, but he can't keep hanging his hat on that one good year 7 years down the track. Maybe there will be an assistant coaches spot at the Bomber's next year? That would suit him better, I think, as the top job looks like it is taking too much of a toll on him.

That's a pretty fair assessment CC.

I don't think anyone can explain the schizophrenic perfomances of the Demons. I don't just think it's about Neale waking up one season being a very good coach, then lapsing into a coma and being a dud the next. The culture (if it exists) is part of it, and maybe that is Neale's role to develop as well, I don't know. Rowdy spent his years as Sheed's assistant....not sure if he will again. I'm a big fan of Bomber Thompson's as well.....as I pointed out in a previous post.

Well, I guess we'll have to see who the next Demon's coach will be. But I don't reckon anyone can lift that club to any sustained success that will lead to any premiership.