THE DEMON'S IN THE DEETAIL

There's been plenty of good press for Melbourne this year. Afterall, 5 wins last year up to 14 this time round with a surprise ladder lead after round 18 has been generally deemed "a good effort". Conversely, from club insiders, for instance Essendon assistant coach Robert Shaw, it's been possible to detect a subtle thread of "not too sure about the Dees". Dermott Brereton before the Melbourne v Esssendon final was less diplomatic, "They'll get behind, start dreaming of the off-season and shut up shop."

So just where DO the Demons sit in the scheme of things? Are they, as is sometimes contended, a developing side looking at premiership contention in two or three years? Or are they, as is otherwise suggested, pretenders? Physically, if not mentally, weak when confronted by aggressive sides able to unsettle them and deny them the running room needed to employ their game plan.

How do those 14 wins hold up under analysis?

Round 1 - Hawthorn.

I confidently tipped the Hawks to finish bottom in 2004 and when they pumped the Dees first up, hot on the heels of an optimistic spruiking campaign from Neil Daniher, I was belled every Melbourne fan I know wanting to know what the hell was going on. I spent virtually the whole last quarter on the phone. My answer was along the lines of "we're gone". If Melbourne could lose like that to crap like Hawthorn -- not only lose, but get spanked without even getting hands on the agate -- then they were in for a very, very, very ...  very ... grim year. It could easily have been a 20 goal shellacking.

Round 2 - Richmond.

Over recent years Melbourne have struggled against the Tiggers and yet, during the same period, I've  rated them about as highly as Hawthorn. To be frank, a rabble. This time I needn't have feared. Five minutes in I felt Melbourne were going to win comfortably. The Tiges were rubbish with virtually no idea about how to cover Melbourne's running strengths. Gaspar, in a personal recurring nightmare for 2004, was embarressed by Nietz.

Round 3 - Bulldogs.

The Doggies are a light side marshalled by a handful of senior players and were always going to struggle this year. Watching them at stop plays I was amazed they never seemed to know where to stand. Plus, unlike Terry Wallace, who likes to assign tags, Peter Rohde seems to prefer a shoot out which was always going to prove problematic against bigger, more talented sides. On this Easter Sunday, the Dogs had their chances going forward and the Dees struggled to shrug them off, however, if Melbourne had kicked straight early they would have buried the Dogs by at least ten goals. Chris Grant was also injured early which meant the Dogs were further unsettled.

Round 4 - Port Adelaide.

Port lost Pickett and Chad Cornes late, what's more Port always seem to allow Melbourne room to run the footy and prefer to get it back as a result of a turnover. Because of Port's reactive style Melbourne are always a chance against the Power, in fact, Melbourne ALWAYS beat them in Melbourne. This day Melbourne worked hard to pressure Port who still managed to stay in the game until late in the third quarter when the Dees blew them away.

Round 5 - Sydney.

The Pinks, as everyone is aware, are a close checking side keen to bottle the game up and on this night they always looked in control. However, Melbourne kept nipping at their heels and when Sydney blew numerous second half chances, the Dees were able to pinch their best win for the season. Neitz kicked a bag, but Andrew Shauble was missing. As was Michael O'Loughlan.

Round 6 - Carlton.

The Blues, in spite of some Pagan steel, were always going to suffer some bad losses because they've got too many pedestrian players and this day one of their few stars, Kouta, was missing. This was a bad loss for Carlton. Melbourne spanked a dispirited and disorganised by Blooeys by 100 points.

Round 7 - West Coast.

The early season stop-start Toasters lost the prolific Chad Fletcher before the game and were trying to bed down an ordinary forward line. At the MCG, where they've never been convincing (bar early premiership success), they were always going to find it difficult to cover Melbourne's running power. The Toasters don't play a negative style of play and despite Darren Glass (underated in my opinion) keeping Nietz to a couple of sausages, the Dees comfortably won a game they would have expected to win.

Round 8 - Geelong.

Melbourne haven't won at Geelong since 1988 and I don't know one Dees supporter who thought we were going to win this one. We started alright, but Geelong are another close checking side who were able to pressure Melbourne into mistakes and hit back on the break. As it turned out, Aaron Davey got Melbourne back into the game after half time and the Dees probably should have ended up winning, but misses to Armstrong and Yze, then a mistake by Whelan cost Melbourne the late-game momentum and Geelong held on despite Melbourne coming at them again.

Round 9 - North Melbourne.

The Kangas have been sporadic this year, combining some fine wins with some disappointing losses. Their impact players are in the veteran age group, and Dean Laidley would be concerned about the lack of progress of a few younger players. Generally, the Kangas lack firepower and Melbourne would have expected to win this game and they did. They could have won by a greater margin but a typically dogged North hung in there -- the umps helped out  -- until Aaron Davey sealed the game late in the fourth.

Round 10 - Brisbane.

Up to this point in the season it was suggested Melbourne had enjoyed an easy draw and that the coming few weeks would seriously test them. With Brown and Lynch missing for the Boobs, it was also suggested that this might be a great chance for Melbourne to stamp themselves as a contender. As it was the Brisbane onballers monstered the Melbourne onballers and comfortably roved to Jeff White -- Was it here that Simon Godfrey, who as a tagger, seemed to ignore Michael Voss and had his cards marked "For Use In Emergencies Only"? -- to continually send the ball into an unbalanced Melbourne backline. A classic example of the bigger, badder player able to push the lighter, nicer players aside.

Round 11 - Fremantle.

The Dockers are another side to have had disappointed this year. Some judicious match ups from Neil Daniher and Melbourne taking their chances, meant the Dees stormed over the top of a tiring Freo in the House of Rain. A good win for the Dees, but as it turned out, Freo spent the year treading water and never really looked a serious player in this years premiership race.

Round 12 - Collingwood.

A confident Melbourne started well and jumped the Pies, however, numerous missed chances meant the Dees were only marginally ahead at quarter time by which point Mick Malthouse had organised his matchups and closed down the Dees space and running game. Collingwood missing Tarrant and Rocca and with Buckley, Presti and Brodie Holland all resuming from injury ran out of legs late in the third quarter, and Melbourne finally taking their chances, nailed a tight Queens Birthday holiday win.

Round 13 - Essendon.

The Bombres, missing Wellman (always a thorn in Melbourne's side) and Fletcher (a late withdrawl) came up against Melbourne who had the luxury of sitting David Nietz at full forward against the under-equipped Aaron Henneman. In the end, Melbourne's running strength was able to overcome a lethargic Essendon. Which was a relief because Essendon, more than any other side in recent years, have been able to combine aggression and pressure to upset the Demons attacking game plan.

The Essendon game also marked an important point in Melbourne's season. Scott Thompson, the nuggety, fiesty onballer who "knows how to get it" was lost for the season with a foot injury. A loss Melbourne never managed to adequately cover. NB: This was written before Thompson's mooted move back to South Aussie.

Round 14 - Adelaide.

The "new coach syndrome" meant the Dees were always on a hiding to nothing, but the reinvigorated and aggressive Adelaide virtually never let Melbourne near the footy and spanked them all over the ground. It was over when Scott Welsh jagged a bendy bouncer five minutes in. Another example, like Brisbane and Hawthorn, of the Dees looking hopeless when the other side gets first hands on the ball to deny Melbourne the application of their attacking game plan. My second umpire complaint for the year. The maggots were heavily involved with a bucket load of shocking "Adelaide" decisions.

Round 15 - St Kilda.

The Saints missing Gehrig, Hudgston and Hammill, plus losing McGuire and Penny during the game were always going to struggle against the faster Dees. I'm of the opinion St Kilda's weakness is Melbourne's strength. Namely they're slow around the ball and have no ruck. And so it turned out. Melbourne shut down "quarterback" Aussie Jones with a tight tag from Peter Walsh and with the Saints lacking their attacking big men were well shy of their early season best and the Dees enjoyed a good win. If it wasn't for Nick Riewoldt kicking a bag, the Sainters would have been embarrassed.

Round 16 - Bulldogs.

Once again, attrotious kicking robbed the Dees of a percentage booster against one of the season's strugglers. Losing Aaron Davey to a hammy on the Telsta rink didn't help either.

Round 17 - Richmond.

Tiggers still a rabble. Richmond tried hard, but were never really going to trouble the hard running but wasteful Melbourne.

Round 18 - Hawthorn.

The Hawks closed down the game under Donald McDonald and were in it until the third quarter, but they are a poor, poor side never going anywhere this year and the Dees ran out comfortable, if, unconvincing, winners.

Note: Behind me and to the side there were a group of band-wagoning Melbourne fans who knew next to nothing about football and kept moaning every time a Melbourne player did something wrong. They were lucky I was feeling off colour because I was only an instant away from thumping about five of them. Cunts! As it was, I very politely told them to "shut the fuck up, you fuckin' morons" and went and sat somewhere else.

Round 19 - Port Adelaide.

In the past I've always thought Port were a good side, but not good enough. Why? One word; Melbourne. No matter how poorly the Dees were travelling, they always managed to give Port a good run for their money. This, of course, excludes the extraordinary 1997 Balme Game where an injury ravaged Melbourne had to start Jeff Farmer and Sean Charles as their key forwards and didn't score a goal until Leigh Newton dobbed a couple after half time. As it happens, newly appointed Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson was Melbourne's top ball winner that night and Melbourne lost thier coach. Balmey sacked on the Monday. Anyhoo, Melbourne have always gone well against Port -- until this game. The Dees, as is too often the case, missed early chances and allowed the Power to steamroll them like never before which leads me to think Port may be a better chance this year than ever before. Watch out Wicky. Those feral swamp monsters may yet run amok in the city of churches.

Round 20 - Sydney.

Amazingly Sydney started this game as $2:35 outsiders. A tidy bet I quickly jumped on board to the tune of $100. Melbourne hadn't travelled particularly well since St Kilda and were always going to have problems with the Pink's clog-n-go. It was no great surprise to see David Nietz drop a chest mark at the top of the goal square early in the first and it quickly became apparent Melbourne were going to struggle. The worst game of the year, leavened only by the fact I scooped $235 from the Footy Bet subdivision of the Victorian Totalisator Agency Board.

Round 21 - Carlton.

After two losses where we failed to excite the scoreboard operators I was apprehensive going to Optus Oval. Melbourne needed to get away to a good start to settle their nerves, however 3 goals 7 in the first quarter including some howling misses meant the door left open for Carlton. Through the match Melbourne kept going forward, but a virtually disfuntional forward line meant that no matter how many times they banged it in there, Nick Stevens an co were always going to run it out and into a forward line that DIDN'T miss their chances.

Round 22 - West Coast.

Melbourne lacking confidence up against the Toasters running hot (in Perth) was always going to be tough. As it happens, the Dees went well early but, you guessed it, blew early chances. An absolute must when playing interstate. At this point in the season the Dees were stuck in fifth so Daniher released the tags after half time and allowed the game to coast to a bland conclusion. I'd suggest Melbourne and West Coast are evenly matched going into 2005. Perhaps Steven Armstrong could be swapped for one of the Toaster big men. Or Chris Judd. We live in hope.

Elimination Final - Essendon.

Coming off four losses in a row was hardly good preparation for a final's appearance. In spite of that, the Melbourne hierarchy were putting it about that the Dees, certain of making the finals, had stepped up training in much the same way Adelaide were reputed to have done in 1997-98. This in anticipation of a timed tapering similar to the freshening strategy employed in athletics and setting them up for an energetic and vigorous finals campaign.

As it turns out, the Dees were full of running. However, they were empty of forward power. Missing the injured David Nietz, replaced by an ineffective Holland, meant that every time Melbourne went forward they couldn't decide whether to kick it to a tightly shackled Holland, or go short to a smaller target. This in turn meant Melbourne's surfeit of possession didn't translate into goals. Worse, the Bombers rope-a-doped Melbourne, continually sweeping the ball back down the ground with an over-committed Melbourne running brigade streaming forward and caught out on the break. A common problem for Melbourne when things go wrong.

Essendon were also more effective around the contested footy with the two Johnsons and especially Solomon, continually able to work the ball clear, regardless of whether they had clear possession of the ball.

Overall, Melbourne had plenty of opportunities to win the game, but a malfunctioning forward line, a problem since the injuries to Davey and Vardy sent the attack back to the one dimensional stagnancy of 2003, meant they were always going to be at odds to win the game against a hardened finals performer like Essendon.

So,where does that leave the Dees?

Of the fourteen wins six were against rabble, Richmond and the Bulldogs twice each, Hawthorn and Carlton once.  Four were against teams that at various times struggled to get their seasons going, North, Fremantle, Collingwood and Essendon. The win against Wet Toast was achieved in Melbourne before the Toast got their season (and their forward line) going. The win over the Paps was to be expected against a side Melbourne always beat at the MCG. And both St Kilda and the Sydney Pinks were in the middle of stagger fits.

Numerous of those wins were less praiseworthy when you consider they were achieved against opponents missing key players. Anthony Rocca, Chris Tarrant, Chad Cornes, Roger James, Byron Pickett, Max Hudgston, Justin Koschitzke, Aaron Hammill, Dustin Fletcher, Sean Wellman, Michael O'Loughlin and Andrew Schauble.

Of Melbourne's nine losses two could/should have been pinched, those against Geelong and Essendon. Of the other seven, the Dees were embarrassed by Hawthorn -- HAWTHORN?!? -- Brisbane, Adelaide and Port, and a disfunctional forwardline meant they couldn't capitalise against Carlton, Sydney's bullshit style was unwatchable but effective (great to see the Saints open them up) and the Dees shut up shop after half-time against Wet Toast in round 22.

Mostly those losses were disgraceful and Melbourne got pumped. The Demon weaknesses ruthlessly exposed by sides capable of stopping Melbourne getting it's hand's on the footy around the ground, or crowding out the Melbourne forward line and biting them on transition.

So that's Melbourne in a flattering 2004, but how is it placed for 2005 and beyond?

Firstly, the coach. I've been picking up some strange vibes lately. Neil Daniher was lucky to hang on to his job for this year, yet now, on the basis of a positive, but hardly exemplary year, he's been remarkably non-committal over whether or not he will resign (sign again, Tim Webster) for next year. And although he's been maintaining a sanguine demeanour, you'd think he would approach his coaching future with a deal more zest. Or maybe he's merely confident his future's secure at Melbourne.

As far as his football situation is concerned, he's often criticised for not being game-day savvy, but never criticised for his dedication to his game plan.

Daniher's philosophy is, in the words of Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest, "Get there first with the most".

That's all very well, but if when you get there, you're only toting pop guns, it doesn't matter how many you get there.

I've always believed it's the stronger, harder teams that win premierships. Since Carlton beat Richmond in 1982 the dominant teams have been Essendon, Hawthorn, West Coast, North and Brisbane. All of these teams were steered by coaches who adhere to the theory that to win big games you must be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with your opponent and just get the ball. No slick plays, no trickery, just man-on-man accountability, vigour and determination.

Even Carlton who won in 1987 and 1995, Collingwood who won in 1990 (curses) and Adelaide 1997 and 98 all had their share of big, bulky players capable of denying their opponent the footy, but were topped up by players of rare ability capable of winning a game. Kernahan, Greg Williams, Daicos, Millane, Jarman and McLeod to name some salient examples.

At Melbourne, Daniher has few of either. Scott Thompson is the sole hard-case and the so-called stars are all mentally light. Nietz, Yze, Bruce, to name but a few, often go missing, or miss a crucial goal when the heat is on. I'm convinced Daniher knows this and is trying to blend in players who'll provide the necessary hard edge, the question is whether he'll be given the time.

What sort of players does he need?

There's no doubt over the last few years Melbourne's biggest problem is getting hold of the footy when the going's hot. Daniher has realised the need to correct this problem. Jamar, Bell, Sylvia and McLean are some of the young players on Melbourne's list and all are heavyweight bodies. The hope is they'll develop into "franchise players" (Apologies, I hate that phrase) who can steer the course of a game by consistently winning contested ball. I know he's much maligned, but Todd Viney was fantastic in this area and that's the style of player Melbourne desperately need.

Someone like Jamar, in particular, is necessary to help Jeff White who as a light, jumping ruckman is often negated by bulkier aggressive ruckmen. And White is often beaten to the tap by Matthew Clarke. It's one of the main reasons Adelaide has thumped Melbourne at the last two meetings. Then there's the situation against Brisbane (Collingwood do the same thing) where White easily wins the ruck, but Voss and co comprehensively won the clearances by buffeting the Melbourne on-ballers out of the way.

The forward line is a problem. Early in the season Melbourne were getting plenty out of their runners and quickly moving the ball quickly into the forward line so that options were opening up other than Nietz. Bruce, Yze, Davey, Vardy, Holland were all among the goals, but as other teams closed these options down, naturally, Melbourne's scoring dried up.

I also suspect Nietz, who despite 69 goals for the season, injured his back in the last Wizard Cup game against Geelong and never fully recovered. Whether or not he was injured, he had a poor season.

Simply put, the plan is to move the ball as often (naturally) and as quickly (duh!) into the forward line and if David Nietz doesn't mark it, sweep up the crumbs for goals. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, afterall, it's precisely what Brisbane do, but it breaks down when Melbourne can't get their hands on the ball via tagging and better work around clearances, or the opposition play behind the ball and fill up space to deny Melbourne the space to work in. Melbourne's goal is to get it in there before the opposition can fill the spaces. If Melbourne can't open it out, usually they get beaten.

One of the things I'd like to see at Melbourne is the clever forward who, rather than always leading hard and toward the ball, like Robbo or Miller, is capable of finding space by moving backwards and closer to goal. Another effective big forward capable of pulling down a contested mark is also a priority. I'd love to snag Brad Ottens.

As far as the back line is concerned, Melbourne need that one big mobile player capable of shutting down opponents' big forwards. The style of player you can build a backline around. Nicholson is better than is generally credited, in fact he's had a fine year, but Melbourne need a satisfactory alternative for when he's ill-suited to a job. Rivers is good, although still very young and light, and hopefully will develop into a Chris Mew type of player. Ferguson, who spent the year injured, is similar to Rivers. Whelan, Wheatley, Brown and Yze are all fantastic attacking backs, but aren't big. Hopefully someone like Bell, who has grunt and, as a bonus, looks like a natural footballer, will develop into a strong, long-term defender. My pick for full-back would be Brad Miller who kept Barry Hall to one goal at the SCG in 2003 and has all the makings of a 200 game key defender. Daniher, though, seems to want him at centre half-forward. However, I doubt he has the innate smarts or is a good enough kick to hold down CHF full time. So it's the lack of that one key Fletcher-style big backman that's dogging the Dees defence at the moment.

On ball is where it all starts and it's here Melbourne have plenty of depth. White is a terrific player, but lacks the ability to grab a game that's not going well. Jamar and Jolly are able back-up. There's also a fleet of runners, Johnstone is all class but needs to do more, McDonald is seriously under-rated, Heffernan and Thompson are grunt (if he leaves Melbourne desperately need a replacement), Bruce polished, Green is a great user, hopefully Davey will become a wingman. The thing is, they're being asked to play a game similar to Brisbane, but without the body size. Melbourne simply must increase the power in their engine room or no matter how well drilled they are to drive the ball forward and keep running, running, running, will never win a premiership against stronger bodied sides.

Hopefully the likes of Sylvia, Bell and McLean will become the grunt players Melbourne so desperately need. Hopefully also developing players Green, Bruce, McDonald and Johnstone can better perform when the game is hot against tight checking teams. However, I question how much further Green who lacks genuine pace, Bruce, McDonald and Johnstone who are light and Yze who is far from aggressive can develop.

Generally, Melbourne need to get the balance right between defence and attack. There's no point getting players back, only for them to have no one to kick it to on the way out. On the flip-side, it's all very well racing the ball forward in numbers, but it's not always going to be easy to pinpoint forward options. Defences will collapse on David Nietz if he's the only target and then run it back the other way with over-commited Melbourne runners well out of position. I couldn't count the number of times I've screamed out, "Hit your bloody targets!"

Certainly this is Brisbane's game plan, but with their bigger bodies, they are able to soak up the hits and accurately off-load to an open runner. Two big marking options up front help.

This leads on to Melbourne's biggest problem. Overwhelmingly -- and somewhat oxymoronically -- Melbourne's weakness is strength. No matter how hard the Demons run, premiership ambitions will remain unfulfilled unless they can better account for themselves better against solid, hard checking sides. A touch of the C-word wouldn't go astray either.

So what of next year in particular. Melbourne expects to improve but that would mean finishing somewhere near the top four. If not in it. Any drop in performance will not be viewed favourable by Melbourne fans, and maybe the odd committeeman. Once any criticism starts flying around, after seven years in the job Daniher will struggle to explain away Melbourne as a developing club after a season of elevated expectations.

Easy wins against Richmond and the Bulldogs, both under new and proven coaches -- proven, that is, up to a point -- appear unlikely. Fremantle, West Coast, Sydney, Geelong, St Kilda, Port and Brisbane all look well placed to challenge for a place in the eight. Essendon and Collingwood, both who have had sporadic seasons in 2004 should again be difficult to beat in 2005. That leaves Carlton who I don't see getting much better, North who try hard but lack enough impact players and Adelaide and Hawthorn, both of whom I have no idea about prospectwise.

Unless the Dees develop some steel next season and also improve in a block with a few surprise developments (this year it was Rivers and Davey) rather than in a steady curve, and unless they can also learn how to win against the increased close checking of watchful oppositions who all now know Daniher's tactics down pat, they are likely to finish in the bottom 4.

All that sounds overwhelmingly pessimistic, but I'm convinced Daniher is aware of the teams shortcomings and is intent on doing something about it. I also believe he knows what style of football it takes to win a premiership and I certainly approve of this style. As long as he toughens it up. The question is (and surprisingly given his long tenure, has been for some time) whether he'll be given the time to develop the team to develop the premiership.

And given the tone of Saturday's answers on 3AW, whether he wants to hang around anyway.

Fingers crossed. Very tightly.

Comments

[Richard T]

1.

Go 'mons.

[Tony.T]

2.

Trés 'mon.

[Brett Pee]

3.

None of our big guys are heading East Tony. We need them for our challenge next season- if our midfield remain fit i can envisage a top 6 finish.

[Tony.T]

4.

The Toasters look well placed, Brett. They'll go OK next year. That's a worry. I hate Wet Toast.

[Adam 1.0]

5.

When the official history of this season is written it will start at Round 2 and to Round 17.

People will ask "why was it such a short season? Why weren't there any finals?" And I'll say "no, no. That was the year they gave the Premiership to the team who finished first after the regular season.

[Adam]

6.

Actually tell them it ended after Round 18. Given that we weren't on top after 17.

[Tony.T]

7.

Up until 1967 (20 games introduced for 1968) there WERE 18 game seasons. A bit of revisionism is called for. Demanded, in fact.

[Brett Pee]

8.

You cannot really hate wet toast. I have a rather pet hate for Port Adelaide too, not really sure why though.

[Tony.T]

9.

But I do, Brett. I do.