Post Match Discussion - Round 18

[mattjm]

18 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Yep, screw 160 years of tradition. 

cause they haven't changed once since then have they?

[jnrmac]

Anyone know why that spud Dixon was giving it to Nev on the ground?

[mattjm]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Anyone know why that spud Dixon was giving it to Nev on the ground?

i suspect coz he was ducking

[Stretch Johnson]

When a poster labels criticism of a player as confirmation bias because of a fixed view of a player isn't that confirmation bias because of a fixed view of that poster.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Stretch Johnson

[BigFez]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Anyone know why that spud Dixon was giving it to Nev on the ground?

From my bad lip reading skills I think I saw the word "duck' thrown in there.  Can only assume he thought Nev ducked, which he didn't.  And even if he did duck I wouldn't have noticed and maintained that he didn't duck because I love him so much.

Can see it at the 1:30 mark of this video if you missed it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-22/highlights-melbourne-v-port-adelaide

[Demon trucker]

On 22/07/2017 at 5:18 PM, Mickey said:

I don't think Jack will wait for his old man to open the door. He'll smash straight through it!

Jack Is all grunt and power.

 

8 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

It's not just contests. It's many areas for his game, which is the main worry.

I'll do a report of the first half and get back to you. 

I'll count the good vs bad in all facets.

You are so bias that your post are unbelievable, never a good word about anyone, gee OMAC has played less the 50 games, this point of his career, and big men take time, what he is showing at the moment is unbelievable, he is already showing improvement just from round 1, he is playing like a 80 game player, his upside is huge, and if you can't see that then you know nothing about footy

[jnrmac]

3 hours ago, binman said:

Top post VP, with a number of excellent points.

As you say the defensive unit is playing brilliantly together - the synergy is obvious. Synergy for the back half has always been critical, but now more than ever with  the zone defence being the key defensive strategy. And Melbourne play an incredibly aggressive zone, a real hallmark of Goody's philosophy.

Yesterdays game the back six just seemed to know where each other were at all times and had total trust, as you must do with a zone defence. So may times they worked the ball out in that triangle they use and there were so many examples of teammates coming to contests to help each other out and killing marking contest as the third man. Great stuff.

A player marking by themselves in the back half can look like just a poor kick from the opposing team but is often the result of the zone working really well, something i like watching from the top of the Ponsford and can be easy to miss on TV or from the wing live. Building a great zone takes a huge amount of time and effort and we have it working beautifully as the results reflect. 

I find confirmation bias really fascinating. Players like Tyson and Watts seem to polarise views, with some disliking aspects of their game a great deal. For some their errors seem to be like a flashing light and rarely seem to be mitigated by their good work. Whereas other players are universally loved and seem to get a pass with their errors and only praised for all their good work. Hunt is a good example. Everyone loves his dash and run yet i have not read a single criticism of his disposal in yesterday's game. It was woeful, going at a terrible 50%, with 5 clangers compared to the much maligned Tyon's 58.6% and 6 respectively.

Hunt's first two kicks were 20 metre kicks under little pressure straight to a Port player and third was a poor kick to a contest resulting in another turnover. Add to the fact that on a number of occasions he bombed it long into our forward line to our forwards disadvantage or straight to a port player and watched it go straight back out. And this was not an isolated performance. His disposal has always been average but quite poor in the last few weeks. Yet barely a harsh word is said about him. Don't get me wrong he was great yesterday and really important for us despite his poor disposal. Like Tyson.

In terms of confirmation bias a pet hate of mine is when commentators make a point about a player or a specific incident and it gets amplified here on DL and despite most saying how poor footy commentators are becomes almost a statement of fact. And conveniently reinforces the bias.

 

I watched the game with a mate a we specifically watched the back six. They kept their structure for nearly all of the game and were brilliant. When Port got a fast break our buys ran back pretty much in formation and were rarely penetrated. They have trust in each other, know when to run off and in most instances didn't over-commit to a contest. If one of their team mates was there they hung back to provide an option having full faith that thier team mate would win or halve the contest.

It was a very impressive performance. The one blight came from Oscar who otherwise had a terrific game; on a number of occasions he went to spoil and missed completely or he spoilt the ball into a very dangerous location in the corridor or into the goal square. I have seen Frost do that regularly but not so this week. Oscar need to clean that up. It didn't actually hurt us this week but had the potential to do a fair amount of scoreboard damage. If you are committing to a contest them make sure you hit the ball and kill it to a spot that won't bite the team on the backside.

The first half dominance was incredible but we should have been 7-10 goals up. The game should have been over at half time but for our inability to really put our foot on their throats.

But coming out of the blocks like they did it was one of the most satisfying and enjoyable wins I have seen, particularly given the circumstances of the week after Darwin, the number of players that were coming back into the side and the quality of the opposition. 

 

[jnrmac]

34 minutes ago, mattjm said:

i suspect coz he was ducking

 

30 minutes ago, BigFez said:

From my bad lip reading skills I think I saw the word "duck' thrown in there.  Can only assume he thought Nev ducked, which he didn't.  And even if he did duck I wouldn't have noticed and maintained that he didn't duck because I love him so much.

Can see it at the 1:30 mark of this video if you missed it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-22/highlights-melbourne-v-port-adelaide

Thanks for that.

[Roger Mellie]

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

It sounds to me like you're volunteering to go back and look at all his other disposals, brfe. I look forward to the comprehensive report

Speaking of volunteering, I look forward to your comprehensive reports this week in Hobart. Kick off with training, then the match report after the game. You could surprise us with a BOG player interview if time permits.

Thanks in advance!

Go Dees

 

[mattjm]

35 minutes ago, BigFez said:

From my bad lip reading skills I think I saw the word "duck' thrown in there.  Can only assume he thought Nev ducked, which he didn't.  And even if he did duck I wouldn't have noticed and maintained that he didn't duck because I love him so much.

Can see it at the 1:30 mark of this video if you missed it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-22/highlights-melbourne-v-port-adelaide

i actually thought he clearly ducked... he does shrug and duck sometimes.... not a bad thing and when he does he doesn't get caught or gets a free if taken high

[BigFez]

4 minutes ago, mattjm said:

i actually thought he clearly ducked... he does shrug and duck sometimes.... not a bad thing and when he does he doesn't get caught or gets a free if taken high

Might have been the J Selwood- style shoulder shrug involved,  But it was Nev.  One way to get the MFC faithful offside is to rip Nev's head off then give him a spray.  Like someone picking on your first born.

[binman]

25 minutes ago, mattjm said:

i actually thought he clearly ducked... he does shrug and duck sometimes.... not a bad thing and when he does he doesn't get caught or gets a free if taken high

No way he ducked. Strange you think so to be honest because the video evidence that he didn't duck is incontrovertible. It's not one of those scenarios where opinion comes much into play.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

This ‘confirmation bias’ fallback is the new, ‘Well, I trust the coach's opinion better than that of some bloke on the internet’ argument. It’s not confirmation bias, but the illogical defense against criticism toward a particular common aspect of a player’s game which in turn frustrates the critical party and makes it a greater focal point, leading to an increasingly exaggerated cycle of sharper and less-balanced criticisms and ever-more hysterical defences.

 

You just described the internet

[Young Blood]

7 minutes ago, binman said:

No way he ducked. Strange you think so to be honest because the video evidence that he didn't duck is incontrovertible. It's not one of those scenarios where opinion comes much into play.

Looks to me like Charlie Dixon is 22cm taller and just grabbed to high. It's possible Nev might have ever so slightly dipped his shoulder at the last minute before he went to ground (I've seen him do it before) making it look worse then it was but either way a clear free kick with no obvious duck.

[chook fowler]

1 hour ago, Stretch Johnson said:

When a poster labels criticism of a player as confirmation bias because of a fixed view of a player isn't that confirmation bias because of a fixed view of that poster.

I can confirm that I am biased 

[binman]

41 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I watched the game with a mate a we specifically watched the back six. They kept their structure for nearly all of the game and were brilliant. When Port got a fast break our buys ran back pretty much in formation and were rarely penetrated. They have trust in each other, know when to run off and in most instances didn't over-commit to a contest. If one of their team mates was there they hung back to provide an option having full faith that thier team mate would win or halve the contest.

It was a very impressive performance. The one blight came from Oscar who otherwise had a terrific game; on a number of occasions he went to spoil and missed completely or he spoilt the ball into a very dangerous location in the corridor or into the goal square. I have seen Frost do that regularly but not so this week. Oscar need to clean that up. It didn't actually hurt us this week but had the potential to do a fair amount of scoreboard damage. If you are committing to a contest them make sure you hit the ball and kill it to a spot that won't bite the team on the backside.

The first half dominance was incredible but we should have been 7-10 goals up. The game should have been over at half time but for our inability to really put our foot on their throats.

But coming out of the blocks like they did it was one of the most satisfying and enjoyable wins I have seen, particularly given the circumstances of the week after Darwin, the number of players that were coming back into the side and the quality of the opposition. 

 

Agree on all points, particularly in regard to keeping their structure. Good point about them running back in formation and also not having too many go to the contest. Our defensive unit have really improved these elements in the last 6-8 games and one of the obvious outcomes has been the quite dramatic reduction in the easy out the back goals we have given up (with the Darwin game being the exception that proves the rule - though the easy goals were not really the fault of the defensive unit).

I agree that Oscar and Frosty needs to clean up their spoiling but it is actually interesting watching a zone versus man on man defence structure. I watched the pies game today and whilst, like all AFL clubs, they play a zone defence it leans much more to man on man than ours. Which allows someone like Dunn to be spoiling when they are physically right next to their opponent. Dunn is good at this as he can use his strength and skill in reading the flight of the ball. He can also enage his opponent alowing a player like Howe to come in as third man up. But he is not as good running to a contest and struggles playing the zone. Which is why we traded him. 

Our talls (indeed all our back six) don't really have a direct opponent and often give a player like Dixon quite a lot of space, with a player in front, behind and to the side. Something you can really see from up high behind the goals. This means that when spoiling they often are coming to the contest at speed and have to time their jump and have less opportunity to use their body to bump the player. Tricky to do but critical in a zone defence. Dixon's first goal was a great example of this with Frost having to slightly come back with the flight and OMac from the side to effect the spoil, which neither did obviously.  

It is worth noting in this context that our biggest defensive worry this week was getting smashed in the air up forward by one of the highest scoring sides in the AFL with one of the dominant marking forwards going around. That didn't happen, in large part due to our ability to spoil their marking attempts. We went withing a whisker - and a couple of dodgy free kick - of keeping the Port side from scoring a goals in a the first half of a game, something that has never happened. As you say a very impressive defensive performance. 

[Dees2014]

3 hours ago, Webber said:

It's the 'happen too often' part of your assessment that is entirely subjective, and potential evidence of bias, particularly when put up against your stating the obvious that you 'want him to fix them and become a better player'. Of course we all want every player to be as good as they can be, it's the repetitive lack of apparent objectivity in judging their performance (relative to other players) that binman is highlighting. His seems a rock solid argument and yours just isn't. 

Yes the other consideration is that Hunt more often than not kicks when he is running at top speed, a feature of his game we all love, especially the coaches. It opens the game up and is to our great advantage even if it is sometimes a bit wayward. It is not easy to kick accurately when you are running at top speed. I think we should give him a bit of slack - he is young and will get it right. Right now though I would put him in our ten most important players, and his game breaking will help take us well into the finals. Very very difficult to match up on particularly considering he is also so hard at it. 

[monoccular]

22 hours ago, faultydet said:

I think I'm one of a minority who feel that half hearted efforts from any player in our guernsey is unacceptable.

He is extremely talented.

He was also pathetic today, first game back or not.

Let me put it another way. We look headed for finals. Jacks game today would fail in a final.

How many times have you made this point, basil?  Getting rather tedious, frankly. 

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Anyone know why that spud Dixon was giving it to Nev on the ground?

 

2 hours ago, mattjm said:

i suspect coz he was ducking

 

2 hours ago, BigFez said:

From my bad lip reading skills I think I saw the word "duck' thrown in there.  Can only assume he thought Nev ducked, which he didn't.  And even if he did duck I wouldn't have noticed and maintained that he didn't duck because I love him so much.

Can see it at the 1:30 mark of this video if you missed it.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-22/highlights-melbourne-v-port-adelaide

Didn't look like a duck to me - a clumsy tackle.

And I hope he carries on the same way when Selwood, or his new disciple in ducking, Paddy, does it in his tackle. 

[Skuit]

Defensive structures looked good down back vs Port.

Has Simon made a small concession to his kamikaze game-plan? I had mostly come to accept that goals leaked out the back would be a part of the Goodwin parcel, but for a couple matches after the bye I felt we'd eased off on the high press a fraction and set the zone a little deeper. Just a small tweak. Then we got wiped out by Adelaide. 

Is Trenners the new compromise?

Dunn, Grimes, and pretty much Garland have all been shown the door for not fitting the fast, attacking mold down back, and in the off-season some were even questioning Jetta's place going forward due to a similar assessment. On this criteria, and based on the tiny tiny sample size with all due caveats, it looks like Trenners still won't make it.

Yet, while Jack doesn't have the exceptional dash and attacking flair (and at times, his chosen options took me back to another era), he was solid and reliable, and I was much happier with him there in defence than Bernie. As others have said, he had also taken on a marshaling role.

The question I suppose is; is it possible that Trenners is taking up a new role in the team, a stabaliser of sorts alongside Nev? A small compromise to our gung-ho game-plan? And then should he be judged on different criteria?

 

 

[Dante]

Excellent win, lots of pressure and we held firm, kicking two of the last three goals, I'm not sure why we have to bicker about the performance of certain players when it was such a great team effort. 

We will get better and both Jack and Dom will be improved by the run, all players make mistakes in these sort of games, if they didn't we would be overwhelming flag favourites and we're not. 

After he start we got I never thought we'd lose, even when they got close in the last, it was a solid team effort and all players had a hand in it including the ones that seem to cop criticism week after week. 

[DEE fence]

Just asking but does anyone think we managed the trip to Darwin, while not tanking, but being a little bit conservative with an eye towards the bigger picture, i.e. September? I thought the difference in the week was amazing as was the efforts, and I don't think we are flukey any more, just good.

[mattjm]

3 hours ago, BigFez said:

Might have been the J Selwood- style shoulder shrug involved,  But it was Nev.  One way to get the MFC faithful offside is to rip Nev's head off then give him a spray.  Like someone picking on your first born.

agree. well said. i love Nev big time 

[monoccular]

3 minutes ago, DaisyDeeciple said:

Just asking but does anyone think we managed the trip to Darwin, while not tanking, but being a little bit conservative with an eye towards the bigger picture, i.e. September? I thought the difference in the week was amazing as was the efforts, and I don't think we are flukey any more, just good.

Shhhhhhh!

Despite the glaring 'evidence' re North, Carlton (yet again) this's year  and Freo last year and this the AFL "Integrity Unit" ????will no doubt fine us and take away draft pics from us but ignore those other breaches. 

[mattjm]

he ducked mate... live at the game....but who cares?

im sure it didn't look like a duck to you from that angle on your tv screen or mobile device

[Wadda We Sing]

23 hours ago, The Sailing Demon said:

That indigenous gurnsey is so slick too!
I will be purchasing one I think!

.....should be our away jumper.