Dees v Dockers - Round 5

[rjay 24,067]

Tyson jarred his knee, but played the game out as a forward with strapping, I think it's very much a case of wait and see but will probably be conservative because it's the same knee he's had issues with previously

In other news jimmy had 28 touches and 7 tackles, it's a shame he hasn't used those as well as we know he can, id love to see him run and take it on himself to set up a play rather than looking to give it to

The closest person

He needs to get that dinky give and get style out of his game, he's still playing SA kids Footy...

[Akum 2,660]

If we can nullify their strengths, we could be in with a good show.

In the recent past, we've been taken apart by Pav, Fyfe (or Mundy if we cover Fyfe) & Sandi.

With Vince, Cross, vdB & Newton, I'm more confident that we can do better against their big-bodied mids. VdB had some great quarters in the first 3 games, because he's an unknown quantity and oppositions can't plan for him, and he's such a difficult match-up. He still struggles to stay in the game over 4 quarters, but he's getting better at that every week. Newton seems to have the tools to be Tyson Mark II, if he's given Tyson's role he could do OK, given that Tyson hasn't been at his best.

Pav is going to be a problem. He's a difficult match-up for TMac, and we'll miss some drive out of defence because Tom won't be able to run off him. It will fall back to either Garland (who's started the season in great form, but he'd have to be right at the top of his game) or Dunn. On the other hand, McPharlin will have his hands full with Hoges, and like Rance, peeling off Hoges to try to run off him or to go third man up is too much of a risk, so they'll lose a lot of drive.

Sandi & Clarke are the big problem. We saw what happened against GWS when Jamar has to battle alone against a top-class ruckman who can go all game. And Sandi also has a very good back-up in Clarke. No way we can rely on Jamar & Dawes to do the job, we'll have to bring in another ruck, even if it's Spencer or Gawn, just to provide a physical contest.

For the first time for years, I think we can cover Pav and the big mids, and match up with them fairly well elsewhere. But there's a massive danger of Sandi getting hold of the game and being the difference.

[CityDee 738]

If we can nullify their strengths, we could be in with a good show.

In the recent past, we've been taken apart by Pav, Fyfe (or Mundy if we cover Fyfe) & Sandi.

With Vince, Cross, vdB & Newton, I'm more confident that we can do better against their big-bodied mids. VdB had some great quarters in the first 3 games, because he's an unknown quantity and oppositions can't plan for him, and he's such a difficult match-up. He still struggles to stay in the game over 4 quarters, but he's getting better at that every week. Newton seems to have the tools to be Tyson Mark II, if he's given Tyson's role he could do OK, given that Tyson hasn't been at his best.

Pav is going to be a problem. He's a difficult match-up for TMac, and we'll miss some drive out of defence because Tom won't be able to run off him. It will fall back to either Garland (who's started the season in great form, but he'd have to be right at the top of his game) or Dunn. On the other hand, McPharlin will have his hands full with Hoges, and like Rance, peeling off Hoges to try to run off him or to go third man up is too much of a risk, so they'll lose a lot of drive.

Sandi & Clarke are the big problem. We saw what happened against GWS when Jamar has to battle alone against a top-class ruckman who can go all game. And Sandi also has a very good back-up in Clarke. No way we can rely on Jamar & Dawes to do the job, we'll have to bring in another ruck, even if it's Spencer or Gawn, just to provide a physical contest.

For the first time for years, I think we can cover Pav and the big mids, and match up with them fairly well elsewhere. But there's a massive danger of Sandi getting hold of the game and being the difference.

I agree that Sandi could be a match winner but reckon we will go with a running player / 1 ruck . Freo are dangerous outside and in and we will need to match the inside first so rotations through the middle will be vital . Hoping it rains and we bring our A game we are a chance .

[praha 10,372]

They average 50 more disposals but we average 20 more contested possessions.

They're the worst rebounding team in the comp, whereas we're ranked 6th.

We're second with tackles at 77 whereas they're last with 53 per game.

They average 9 more inside 50s than us. We both average 3.8 entries per goal, but they kick more goals per game.

This is very winnable.

Much like Richmond, they thrive in space and go forward quickly. They have more talent up forward than the Toiges so we need to play a slow, stoppage-based game again.

We need to hit them hard and stop their run. It's going to be another slog for 2-3 quarters before opening up for one team in the last. Bookmark it.

We're a chance. Get numbers around the ball. We're pretty even on stoppages (we average 2 more per game) and we're pretty even in center clearances and clearances around the ground.

Nullify their run. If Fyfe and the like are getting clearances across our half-forward, that's fine: let them bomb it forward like Richmond did on Friday. Our backline will chop them up again. But we need to keep this down to a bog, and be similarly efficient going forward. I think Richmond started the game with like 15 inside-50s for 1 goals, whereas we had 3 for like 6 inside-50s. That sort of efficiency both forward and back over the course of a game will mark down a win.

Edited April 27, 2015 by praha

[rpfc 27,646]

They average 50 more disposals but we average 20 more contested possessions.

They're the worst rebounding team in the comp, whereas we're ranked 6th.

We're second with tackles at 77 whereas they're last with 53 per game.

They average 9 more inside 50s than us. We both average 3.8 entries per goal, but they kick more goals per game.

I read the following as we have played two games in the wet, we have to rebound more as our backs see it more, and Freo tackle less because they have the footy more.

Hawthorn laid the least tackles last year IIRC.

Sorry to burst the bubble - just wanted to give some peripheral critiques of those numbers...

[Samael 560]

He had his knee heavily strapped and was obviously limited in mobility - hence sent to full forward line.

I suspect he has been struggling for two weeks now - maybe patella tendonitis, but really I am only guessing.

It can't be too serious or else he wouldn't have gone back on at all.

The others to watch as I said in my match report on Friday night are Tom Mc (tightness in hammy), the skipper (hurt his shoulder again but too courageous to let it get to him) and Viv Michie, who was hobbling for much of the last quarter (he may just be tight after two games in five days). The nine day break will help.

Michie has a corked hip he copped about 10 minutes before the end. He played pretty much the entire last two quarters with no rotation. He will be fine.

[poita 3,710]

Kent and Jetta had seven touches between them on Friday, so their continued absence is hardly going to leave us worse off. Tyson clearly would be a massive loss.

Grimes should be a certainty, and unfortunately Bail looks to be next cab off the rank. Maybe Terlich if we need a third inclusion, and Grimes can play midfield instead of defence. I want to see Toumpas in the side, but the timing is not right,

At some point this season we are going to have to play Spencer and/or Gawn. Firstly, we can't expect Jamar to consistently ruck with next to no assistance like he did on Friday. Secondly, we have to work out whether those guys can play before year end. Spencer hasn't played first ruck since round 5 last year, Gawn since round 18 2013. If we're not going to play them, there is no point keeping them on the list.

[Bossdog 2,002]

poita, on 27 Apr 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

Kent and Jetta had seven touches between them on Friday, so their continued absence is hardly going to leave us worse off. Tyson clearly would be a massive loss.

Grimes should be a certainty, and unfortunately Bail looks to be next cab off the rank. Maybe Terlich if we need a third inclusion, and Grimes can play midfield instead of defence. I want to see Toumpas in the side, but the timing is not right,

At some point this season we are going to have to play Spencer and/or Gawn. Firstly, we can't expect Jamar to consistently ruck with next to no assistance like he did on Friday. Secondly, we have to work out whether those guys can play before year end. Spencer hasn't played first ruck since round 5 last year, Gawn since round 18 2013. If we're not going to play them, there is no point keeping them on the list.

Ruckmen take years to develop.........Sandiland took years to get where he is now.........Give them time

[Ouch! 2,075]

Dunno why, but I give us a chance this week.

I think the competition this year seems more even than it has in the past. I thought we put in a fair effort against the Dockers in the NAB Challenge.

Freo coming off a pretty tough game against the swans, and they faded pretty fast in the second half. We have an extra day up our sleeve to recover than they do, and there is still the travel factor for them.

I am not going to tip us to beat Freo, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we cause an upset. However losing Jetta is going to hurt as we have to cover Ballintyne and Walters, as well as losing Kent who I thought looked our best player and was in for a special night prior to doing his hammy. Not sure if we have anyone with similar pace, skills and aggression to cover his loss at the moment.

[Wunders 392]

Kent and Jetta had seven touches between them on Friday, so their continued absence is hardly going to leave us worse off. Tyson clearly would be a massive loss.

Grimes should be a certainty, and unfortunately Bail looks to be next cab off the rank. Maybe Terlich if we need a third inclusion, and Grimes can play midfield instead of defence. I want to see Toumpas in the side, but the timing is not right,

At some point this season we are going to have to play Spencer and/or Gawn. Firstly, we can't expect Jamar to consistently ruck with next to no assistance like he did on Friday. Secondly, we have to work out whether those guys can play before year end. Spencer hasn't played first ruck since round 5 last year, Gawn since round 18 2013. If we're not going to play them, there is no point keeping them on the list.

One went down in the first, the other in the second. So average that to 28 disposals for the game (averages out to one quarter played) = quite a loss when you give 28 disposals to those you selected to play (below afl kicking efficiency). Plus you will be bringing in inferior players. None of the vfl guys have Kents speed. None of the vfl guys lockdown as well as Jetta (nearly AA last year don't forget - a lot on here wanted him to get it).

Be interesting to see who they pick.

[Samael 560]

I agree that Sandi could be a match winner but reckon we will go with a running player / 1 ruck . Freo are dangerous outside and in and we will need to match the inside first so rotations through the middle will be vital . Hoping it rains and we bring our A game we are a chance .

I hope they study the Dogs v Crows game. The Dogs got absolutely belted in the ruck but they had an obvious plan that negated this dominance. Third man up in the stoppages seemed to be part of it. These 3rd up players got more hitouts than Cordy.

[sue 8,479]

One went down in the first, the other in the second. So average that to 28 disposals for the game (averages out to one quarter played) = quite a loss when you give 28 disposals to those you selected to play (below afl kicking efficiency). Plus you will be bringing in inferior players. None of the vfl guys have Kents speed. None of the vfl guys lockdown as well as Jetta (nearly AA last year don't forget - a lot on here wanted him to get it).

Be interesting to see who they pick.

While I'm not optimistic about losing Jetta & Kent, your analysis misses polta's point unless I am totally confused by your post.

You can't just extrapolate their 7 disposals in a quarter to 28 disposals for the game and then bemoan those missing 28 disposals. The point was we won without them being there for 3/4 of the game. Other players were there instead - indeed, other tired players who were spending less time resting on the bench. Bringing in 2 'inferior' players is better than 0.

Edited April 27, 2015 by sue

[praha 10,372]

I read the following as we have played two games in the wet, we have to rebound more as our backs see it more, and Freo tackle less because they have the footy more.

Hawthorn laid the least tackles last year IIRC.

Sorry to burst the bubble - just wanted to give some peripheral critiques of those numbers...

WE'RE A CHANCE, DAMMIT!

[Wunders 392]

While I'm not optimistic about losing Jetta & Kent, your analysis misses polta's point unless I am totally confused by your post.

You can't just extrapolate their 7 disposals in a quarter to 28 disposals for the game and then bemoan those missing 28 disposals. The point was we won without them being there for 3/4 of the game. Other players were there instead - indeed, other tired players who were spending less time resting on the bench. Bringing in 2 'interior' players is better than 0.

"So their continued absence is hardly going to leave us worse off" that to me sounds like he was talking about next week (not fri night) & and my reply was in regards to next week too. So I think he was saying that we can cover Kent and Jetta easily (vs freo) because they contributed little, but we can't cover Tyson (if he doesn't play). That's how I read it and I replied in reference to that. I think you think I'm talking about Friday nights game. I'm not. But I see how it can be confused.

Go dees

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

While I'm not optimistic about losing Jetta & Kent, your analysis misses polta's point unless I am totally confused by your post.

You can't just extrapolate their 7 disposals in a quarter to 28 disposals for the game and then bemoan those missing 28 disposals. The point was we won without them being there for 3/4 of the game. Other players were there instead - indeed, other tired players who were spending less time resting on the bench. Bringing in 2 'inferior' players is better than 0.

The point is that it's a strange comment. We would obviously like Kent and Jetta, along with Viney, Frost, Trengove and Petracca to be available for selection as we take on the top side. It is magnified by our terrible depth. The fact that we managed to beat poor old Richmond without those 2 is hardly relevant to this week and the rest of the season.

[WhyAlwaysMe 237]

if we play well next 3 & maybe even win 1, the club will have turned the corner, when was the last time we beat a top 4 side

[Chook 14,616]

The point is that it's a strange comment. We would obviously like Kent and Jetta, along with Viney, Frost, Trengove and Petracca to be available for selection as we take on the top side. It is magnified by our terrible depth. The fact that we managed to beat poor old Richmond without those 2 is hardly relevant to this week and the rest of the season.

It's kind of relevant in that our best performance of the year was had without them.

[sue 8,479]

It's kind of relevant in that our best performance of the year was had without them.

It would be interesting to see what conclusions some here would draw if Watts was injured in Q1 of a game and we went on to win the match.

[Biffen 12,441]

It's kind of relevant in that our best performance of the year was had without them.

they both played well before they went off so what's your point?

[Chook 14,616]

they both played well before they went off so what's your point?

We won without them so maybe our depth isn't so bad.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,349]

I will be focussing for the next three weeks on not whether we win but how we apply our style and application against probably the three best sides in the comp. If we hold it together and crack in 100% we are an outside chance if all goes well but the process is more important than the outcome. Grimes for Jetta is a given. If Tyson plays I would swap Kent for Bail and as far as rucks just work to nullify their ruck stoppage work as best we can do. On our side is the limited recent games Freo have played at the G and the physical and mental toll the Sydney game will have taken on them. They also fell over the line which cannot have them as high on confidence as if they finished off strong. Vince to Fyfe and Cross to Hill and take the rest on man on man.

[binman 39,130]

If Tyson plays I would swap Kent for Bail

Not sure if reported but I was at the Casey game and bail was concussed. Didn't play second half, indeed I don't think he even came back to the bench after going to the rooms

[chook fowler 18,405]

Not sure if reported but I was at the Casey game and bail was concussed. Didn't play second half, indeed I don't think he even came back to the bench after going to the rooms

Not good given his history of head knocks

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,989]

if we play well next 3 & maybe even win 1, the club will have turned the corner, when was the last time we beat a top 4 side

Was Sydney top four when we rolled them under Bailey?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,641]

I read the following as we have played two games in the wet, we have to rebound more as our backs see it more, and Freo tackle less because they have the footy more.

Hawthorn laid the least tackles last year IIRC.

Sorry to burst the bubble - just wanted to give some peripheral critiques of those numbers...

Also Freos played Port, Cats at Skilled and Sydney, we've played Gold Coast, GWS, Crows and Tigers, a bit of discrepancy in opponents.