Paul Roos - not the messiah

[Island Bomber]

This game style is not a new thing with Roos, he has always coached this way. When you hire Roos or Lyon this is the type of game you are going to get on a regular basis. Melbourne could have Mitch Clark, Hogan, Dunstall and Lockett in their forward line and the coaching would be the same. Roos proved it at Sydney, he had a forward line consisting of players or the calibre of Hall, O'Loughlin, O'Keefe and Goodes and the game plan was the same in 2005 as it is now.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Lots of people saying coaches should coach for the interest of the game and not be so defensive because it's a bad spectacle etc.

Okay. Your club first. Go on.

 

[Theprofessional]

You do realize Footy only exists as a form of entertainment for the fans?

If the Footy isn't entertaining whats the ******* point to play the game? Coaches have a responsibility to their code to not make the game hideous

Melbourne Demons footy wants to be entertaining to it's members. I doubt they would've been entertained if they got smashed by 80+

And Collingwood were awful, Melbourne holding the ball a lot sure limited the scoring. But Buckley clearly sent numbers behind the ball and let Melbourne have more at the contest.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

One of the most boring games I've ever seen - perfect weather, 68000 strong crowd and they dish up that crap. The rules committee have just been given all the ammunition they need to change the rules - there will be at least six players required in one half of the ground next year. Thanks Roos!

 

[syl]

One of the most boring games I've ever seen - perfect weather, 68000 strong crowd and they dish up that crap. The rules committee have just been given all the ammunition they need to change the rules - there will be at least six players required in one half of the ground next year. Thanks Roos!

You have the footy IQ of a peanut.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

You have the footy IQ of a peanut.

As opposed to a half a peanut.

 

[Trav 20]

Last week the game-plan was executed better and we kicked 11 goals against Port, who didn't combat our structures as well as Collingwood.

This week Collingwood's mids were well drilled and pushed up on Melbourne's mids and defended our style well. This caused us to be static and second guess our decision making. As Roos said, we were slow when we should have been fast and fast when we should have been slow. Clearly we're still a work in progress despite obvious improvement.

So many clueless and reactionary flogs on here.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I don't get it, I thought the constant pushing back and forth yesterday was great. What's more it was so tightly contested that every time a player broke away, a lot of the time they couldn't make it out without getting mown down. I found it pretty tense watching a player come loose and not know if he was going to get away or be reeled in. There were manic plays at the ball all game (which is something that Melbourne fans have missed), hell, even Watts was busting tackles. There's a lot more the game then just chain passing.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Pies planned well for that game. We knew we would barely need ten goals to win the game and played it accordingly. As it turned out we only needed 8.

 

[Theo X]

Yep Cloke was laughable, nearly single handedly kicked more goals then these 22 blokes who put there body's on the line.

their bodies

 

[Adam H]

Pies planned well for that game. We knew we would barely need ten goals to win the game and played it accordingly. As it turned out we only needed 8.

Yes of course.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yes of course.

Indeed. It was never going to be a shootout. We were just better at their game then they were. Win the armwrestle then kick away.

 

[Adam H]

Indeed. It was never going to be a shootout. We were just better at their game then they were. Win the armwrestle then kick away.

Four points up with a minute to go in the third if the umpire hadnt made a mistake and not allowed Vinces goal. Sounds like nobody had control.

 

[Sttew]

So many clueless and reactionary flogs on here.

Nice retort, not.

3 goals on a perfect afternoon is utterly and inescapably pathetic. You can't massage the facts any other way!

 

[Adam H]

Nice retort, not.

3 goals on a perfect afternoon is utterly and inescapably pathetic. You can't massage the facts any other way!

In 2010 the side that won the premiership kicked 3 goals in round three against StKilda at Ethiad. Didnt hurt them did it?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Four points up with a minute to go in the third if the umpire hadnt made a mistake and not allowed Vinces goal. Sounds like nobody had control.

Good 6 goal win. Call it 5 if it makes you feel better.

Pies monstered them for most of the second half. Melbourne kicked 2 goals in 99 and a half minutes after kicking one early.

 

[Lockyer24]

If Vince's goal had stood and the Melbourne defence didn't have 3 brain explosions in the last minute of the 3rd quarter, they would have been a chance to pinch it in the last. As it was, they had to open up more than they would have liked in the last quarter which afforded Collingwood the space they didn't have in the first 3 quarters.

The structure was there, the game plan was excellent for the cattle he had at his disposal. Those Melbourne fans grumbling about today have very short memories.

The Vince goal is a moot point - the umpire had blown the whistle, our players had stopped, it was not a valid play.

 

[Adam H]

The Vince goal is a moot point - the umpire had blown the whistle, our players had stopped, it was not a valid play.

It was a goal in every game we have seen this year and before that. The umpire would have awarded 50 if a player had have tackled him.

 

[Lockyer24]

It was a goal in every game we have seen this year and before that. The umpire would have awarded 50 if a player had have tackled him.

You are wrong as usual.

 

[golazo]

I guess people see the game differently (assuming you were at the ground and not watching on TV which shows almost nothing of the tactics employed).

Yes, Collingwood took the game on from their +3 but it wasn't because Melbourne had 17 camped in the back 50 constantly that they couldn't score much themselves. Melbourne pressure was very good in the middle of the ground, and Collingwood's execution wasn't great as a result.

That changed in the last quarter, Melbourne pressure dropped off significantly and Collingwood were nailing their foot skills consistently.

Having not watched on TV not sure how it looked, but at the ground when Vince kicked the forward stoppage 50 goal in the 3rd Collingwood had almost their entire team in the defensive 50. I remember thinking the only genuine way to score would be exactly what Vince did given the sheer number of extra defenders around the ball defensive side.

I don't get how one is a flood, but the other is brave and taking the game on?

That's just wrong. Melbourne were chipping the ball around for minutes before attempting to go inside 50, this gives Collingwood time to set up their defence appropriately. They were waiting for us to pressure the midfield so they could find loose men inside 50. If Collingwood didn't sit back it would have been an incredibly naive way to approach the game. Roos played into Buckley's hands

 

[d33my]

I posted this on our board but might be worth replicating here, RE Vince's shot on goal.

I looked up the rule this morning (I'm in full on procrastination mode) and as long as the player is behind the mark, then if he's off line there is no obligation for the umpire to straighten him up--he should just call play on.

Just watched the replay. Jetta definitely went behind his mark, so no issue there.

This particular situation was complicated by the proximity to goal. Jetta takes his mark, looks around, then goes back as if he's gonna have a shot. The umpire, seeing this, decides to blow time off in order to put him on the correct angle for goal. This is common, and IMO the right call.
See here:
16.3.1
Where a Player is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded
a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a
direct line from the mark to the centre of the Goal Line

Basically while the umpire is blowing his whistle for time off Jetta plays on. So really, from what I can tell, the umpire made the right call in all regards. It was just unbelievably unlucky timing. If Jetta had played on seriously one second earlier the whole thing would have been avoided.

 

[Adam H]

You are wrong as usual.

In no way am I wrong. The player is behind his mark and is entitled to play on.

 

[Lockyer24]

In no way am I wrong. The player is behind his mark and is entitled to play on.

Off his line after the ump had called time on.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You are wrong as usual.

And off topic.

 

[Adam H]

Off his line after the ump had called time on.

As soon as he goes to handball it is play on.