2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm not sure that's accurate, but even if we assume it was (and there certainly were times when Hawkins pushed up the ground), it doesn't mean OMac played poorly.

We had bigger issues on Sunday than OMac, that's for sure.

And just BTW, Hawkins kicked how many goals on Oscar?

3 hours ago, Hell Bent said:

Many wanting Wagner being dropped , but I just can't see why?  

Was at the game and thought he was more than serviceable,  having watched the replay my mind has not changed.

He shanked a few kicks but he was very hard at the footy whenever it was his turn,  something that Goody insists on all his players.

Was very poor early, like so many team mates,  but came good in the second half.

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think we should drop Oscar as he doesn't fit in with the rest of the side, every time he gets it, he gives it to a team mate.

or shanks it to no one

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

And just BTW, Hawkins kicked how many goals on Oscar?

The other issue is geelong elected to isolate lever. They could have instead dragged lever up the ground and isolated tmac's younger brother one out against the much stronger hawkins. This would have stiil had the effect of limiting levers intercept role. 

But they chose to isolate lever against much smaller opponents than hawkins. Presumably because they thought this option would create more goals.

What does that say about scotts rating of both players one on one ability?

The two reasons we lost: 

1 - Team Defence

2 - Ball use going inside 50

Our entire team defence both in the middle of the ground and forward of the ball was poor on the weekend and our ball use going inside 50 and some field kicking in general was awful. It played right into Geelong's hands.

Those two points allowed Geelong to move the ball from defensive 50 to offensive 50 with ease and under very little pressure, which resulted in our defenders being caught out. Lever had some bad moments but was made to look a lot worse because of the break down further up the field.

Other contributing factors to our loss/problem areas imo were as follows: Playing Maynard, a lack of foot speed through the middle of the ground, playing Hogan in the midfield and his leading patterns when forward and having a number of players underperforming. These things wouldn't have mattered as much if we'd played with a high pressure team defence and if we were efficient going forward.

Selection this week: 

Having initially understood Wagner's inclusion for the reason that it'd release certain players from half-back and allow for more versatility, I'm now firmly in the opposite corner. Wagner was okay. Some poor moments and some good.

Lewis however played his best football as a backman on the weekend and I think Brayshaw needs to come in for Wagner to play through the midfield at this stage and Lewis can stay back. We need natural mids through the middle of the ground with grunt and some run. Brayshaw is quicker than Lewis and can help in that area.

Playing Hogan through the midfield on the weekend was an embarrassment as he made barely any impact at the contest and was next to non-existent in his defensive pressure or understanding of how to run defensively with an opponent. Maynard was just way off the pace and it's clear that Tyson needs to be the like-for-like replacement. 

I like that our side has flexibility and is versatile. But Goody is now flirting with danger playing so many through the middle of the ground who sometimes don't impact. We need synergy, consistency and continuity through that area of the ground. We were almost taking the [censored] on the weekend with how many were running through there.

 

Ins:      Tyson and Brayshaw

Outs:   Wagner and Maynard

 

Hoges has been cleared and will play. Confirmed by Goody.

IN: Tyson, Brayshaw, Bugg

OUT: Maynard, Wagner, Hannan

57 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

The two reasons we lost: 

1 - Team Defence

2 - Ball use going inside 50

Our entire team defence both in the middle of the ground and forward of the ball was poor on the weekend and our ball use going inside 50 and some field kicking in general was awful. It played right into Geelong's hands.

Those two points allowed Geelong to move the ball from defensive 50 to offensive 50 with ease and under very little pressure, which resulted in our defenders being caught out. Lever had some bad moments but was made to look a lot worse because of the break down further up the field.

Other contributing factors to our loss/problem areas imo were as follows: Playing Maynard, a lack of foot speed through the middle of the ground, playing Hogan in the midfield and his leading patterns when forward and having a number of players underperforming. These things wouldn't have mattered as much if we'd played with a high pressure team defence and if we were efficient going forward.

Selection this week: 

Having initially understood Wagner's inclusion for the reason that it'd release certain players from half-back and allow for more versatility, I'm now firmly in the opposite corner. Wagner was okay. Some poor moments and some good.

Lewis however played his best football as a backman on the weekend and I think Brayshaw needs to come in for Wagner to play through the midfield at this stage and Lewis can stay back. We need natural mids through the middle of the ground with grunt and some run. Brayshaw is quicker than Lewis and can help in that area.

Playing Hogan through the midfield on the weekend was an embarrassment as he made barely any impact at the contest and was next to non-existent in his defensive pressure or understanding of how to run defensively with an opponent. Maynard was just way off the pace and it's clear that Tyson needs to be the like-for-like replacement. 

I like that our side has flexibility and is versatile. But Goody is now flirting with danger playing so many through the middle of the ground who sometimes don't impact. We need synergy, consistency and continuity through that area of the ground. We were almost taking the [censored] on the weekend with how many were running through there.

 

Ins:      Tyson and Brayshaw

Outs:   Wagner and Maynard

 

Have we ever had a quicker mid field (fleet of foot) Steve?  Apart from Clarry who has evasive skills and Viney who can steamroll occasionaly, we are not exactly very quick across the ground even with Viney in for Maynard. Are you saying the Maynard over Tyson selection resulted in us being slower?  Playing Hulk through the mid-field also makes us even shorter up forward unless Max is dropping back....and huge win for the Cats in the air, and a double win given the way we bomb it in most of the time!

I actually thought Hulk did ok offensively through the mid (ie., when he had it) but yes we got exposed when the Cats were running it up the ground off HB.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

The two reasons we lost: 

1 - Team Defence

2 - Ball use going inside 50

Our entire team defence both in the middle of the ground and forward of the ball was poor on the weekend and our ball use going inside 50 and some field kicking in general was awful. It played right into Geelong's hands.

Those two points allowed Geelong to move the ball from defensive 50 to offensive 50 with ease and under very little pressure, which resulted in our defenders being caught out. Lever had some bad moments but was made to look a lot worse because of the break down further up the field.

 

Agree with all comments above. Lever did have some bad moments but that happens but pretty hard to defend perfect kicks to your forwards advantage. As i have previously posted i don't reckon Goodwin did him any favours either, 

The two factors you  note raise two serious concerns. 

One our game plan is entirely dependent on manic pressure and as Webber has pointed out it is near impossible to maintain such pressure (for a whole game let alone across a season). If it drops of at all we get exposed. How often do we give up bags of goals in short periods (which is exacerbated by the kicking issue)?

Two we have a lot of very average kicks, a handful of really good kicks and one, maybe two elite kicks (salem and Lewis - though both miss their fair share of targets. Fritta looks promising) 

 

Any word on Nev? There was a suggestion he was carrying and injury. I like Frost in as a key back as I think teams will continue to isolate Lever in a key defensive role. he didn't play that in Adelaide and it is a new role for him. Brisbane have key marking targets as we found out last year.

Brisbane will be without Rich and Robinson which will be to our advantage.

Would consider only one change:  Frost for Fritsch or Hannan.  Lack an extra tall and can play a high HF role on the lead, allowing Hulk to stay around i30.  Just putting it out there.  Would need convincing myself 

Hibberd & Melk with no tackles and little impact would want to step up big time this week.

Garlett & ANB one more chance for redemption.

Nev also had a mare (by his standards) but has a few credits.

I get the critics on Maynard but has only had a handful of games and his replacements aren't any quicker across the ground and should be sent one more message that they aren't automatic shoe-ins.  We have depth (kind of !).  Might help free up Maynard's mental state and performance also knowing that the coach is backing him.  Confidence is an amazing tonic and one more look couldn't hurt.  His second half on Ablett wasn't too shabby either.  Not great but played his role when asked.

A chance for redemption from a last minute shanked kick FTW and send a small message to those in waiting that they will need to bust the door down (depending on this week's performance!)

2 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

The two reasons we lost: 

1 - Team Defence

2 - Ball use going inside 50

Our entire team defence both in the middle of the ground and forward of the ball was poor on the weekend and our ball use going inside 50 and some field kicking in general was awful. It played right into Geelong's hands.

Those two points allowed Geelong to move the ball from defensive 50 to offensive 50 with ease and under very little pressure, which resulted in our defenders being caught out. Lever had some bad moments but was made to look a lot worse because of the break down further up the field.

Other contributing factors to our loss/problem areas imo were as follows: Playing Maynard, a lack of foot speed through the middle of the ground, playing Hogan in the midfield and his leading patterns when forward and having a number of players underperforming. These things wouldn't have mattered as much if we'd played with a high pressure team defence and if we were efficient going forward.

Selection this week: 

Having initially understood Wagner's inclusion for the reason that it'd release certain players from half-back and allow for more versatility, I'm now firmly in the opposite corner. Wagner was okay. Some poor moments and some good.

Lewis however played his best football as a backman on the weekend and I think Brayshaw needs to come in for Wagner to play through the midfield at this stage and Lewis can stay back. We need natural mids through the middle of the ground with grunt and some run. Brayshaw is quicker than Lewis and can help in that area.

Playing Hogan through the midfield on the weekend was an embarrassment as he made barely any impact at the contest and was next to non-existent in his defensive pressure or understanding of how to run defensively with an opponent. Maynard was just way off the pace and it's clear that Tyson needs to be the like-for-like replacement. 

I like that our side has flexibility and is versatile. But Goody is now flirting with danger playing so many through the middle of the ground who sometimes don't impact. We need synergy, consistency and continuity through that area of the ground. We were almost taking the [censored] on the weekend with how many were running through there.

 

Ins:      Tyson and Brayshaw

Outs:   Wagner and Maynard

 

Not sure if you are trolling by picking Tyson.  You are his biggest critic on here, so wondering what your agenda is?

10 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Would consider only one change:  Frost for Fritsch or Hannan.  Lack an extra tall and can play a high HF role on the lead, allowing Hulk to stay around i30.  Just putting it out there.  Would need convincing myself 

Hibberd & Melk with no tackles and little impact would want to step up big time this week.

Garlett & ANB one more chance for redemption.

Nev also had a mare (by his standards) but has a few credits.

I get the critics on Maynard but has only had a handful of games and his replacements aren't any quicker across the ground and should be sent one more message that they aren't automatic shoe-ins.  We have depth (kind of !).  Might help free up Maynard's mental state and performance also knowing that the coach is backing him.  Confidence is an amazing tonic and one more look couldn't hurt.  His second half on Ablett wasn't too shabby either.  Not great but played his role when asked.

A chance for redemption from a last minute shanked kick FTW and send a small message to those in waiting that they will need to bust the door down (depending on this week's performance!)

I'm not averse to Frost playing, but I can't see him playing as a forward. That's been trialled and didn't work before, so I see it as unlikely to happen again. However, he could come in for Wagner who could be described as the "third tall" given the roles that he and the other defenders (ie, Hunt, Jetta, Hibberd and Vince) play. My preference is still to bring in Brayshaw and Tyson before him, though.

1 hour ago, Rusty Nails said:

Have we ever had a quicker mid field (fleet of foot) Steve?  Apart from Clarry who has evasive skills and Viney who can steamroll occasionaly, we are not exactly very quick across the ground even with Viney in for Maynard. Are you saying the Maynard over Tyson selection resulted in us being slower?  Playing Hulk through the mid-field also makes us even shorter up forward unless Max is dropping back....and huge win for the Cats in the air, and a double win given the way we bomb it in most of the time!

I actually thought Hulk did ok offensively through the mid (ie., when he had it) but yes we got exposed when the Cats were running it up the ground off HB.

 

10 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

Not sure if you are trolling by picking Tyson.  You are his biggest critic on here, so wondering what your agenda is?

 

To both points, no I'm not trolling.

I understand that Goodwin and co selected a team based on the form, performance and fitness of players over the entire pre-season. I was willing to back him in with both the Wagner and Maynard selections.

But having seen Maynard's game in the flesh and being extremely underwhelmed at his lack of impact in all facets of the game but especially his contested work in close which is supposed to be his strength, they must pick Tyson this week. Tyson at the very least has him covered for impact around the ball. Kicking, spread/speed and defensive accountability are still question marks with Tyson imo but he is more experienced than Maynard and has runs on the board due to the fact that when he's on, he's a very good player. We just don't see it enough. And I understand why he was left out.

To @Rusty Nails, depending on who is in that starting group, sometimes our speed is okay. Maynard doesn't cover the ground well and neither does Tyson but Brayshaw isn't slow and I'd like to see Melksham and Harmes play through there more this week rather than Hogan. Speed isn't always an issue if our ball use is clean in tight and we're on. Clearly we're a contested footy team so if our touch isn't right in close, opposition teams can really rip us open if they have a midfield with strong  runners which Geelong do. Duncan, Guthrie, Menegola etc. 

 

Mitch Hannan's inability to kick clutch goals is starting to worry me

18 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Largely because Hawkins was a decoy dragging OMac up the ground and leaving Lever on the last line in one on one contests. 

Don't get carried away...

 

Finally someone worked out Hawkins was the decoy that we got sucked into defending so as to leave Lever and Nev mis-matched on their opponents.

It's not hard too hard for any player to cover a clayton's forward, but shameful that our brains trust we were unable to counter the move.  Or we just didn't have the right players for the job?

 

Don't know this journo, but she's spot on. 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/how-geelong-exposed-melbournes-focus-on-the-contested-ball-in-the-second-quarter-of-their-round-1-win/news-story/73810e31bcae19690211d0f0ddf77ce7

1 minute ago, Hot as Hell said:

 

Finally someone worked out Hawkins was the decoy that we got sucked into defending so as to leave Lever and Nev mis-matched on their opponents.

It's not hard too hard for any player to cover a clayton's forward, but shameful that our brains trust we were unable to counter the move.  

 

It's pretty damning that the mis-matches we're referring to though are aerial contests between our marquee KPD and under-sized medium forwards.  Lever is a gun, but he should not be beaten in the air one-on-one against Menzel or resting mid-fielders.

19 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

The most important in this week is Frost. Forget the midfield. Frost is the direct replacement for McDonald. When we drafted our best 22 it would have included McDonald at one end of the ground. There is no way Oscar nor Lever are the tall key backs. I know OMac did well on the weekend, but Lever was awful. He is not designed to play on an opponent 1 on 1. The entire football world knows this. So, get Frost in.  Either Hannan goes out as we have too many of his kind, Wagner...as he was part of the back 6...Salem as he was shot after half time..Maynard. I don't really mind...but not playing frost would be a massive error. Goodwin seems to have marked hi papers. I am not sure why. Happy to have either Tyson or Brayshaw in but not before Frost. 

We made adjustments at half time with our defensive structure which didn't include Frost. The reshuffle worked so I would think with Cameron, Christensen, Taylor, Zorko all rotating through the forward line we're best not to go in top heavy

7 minutes ago, Hot as Hell said:

 

Finally someone worked out Hawkins was the decoy that we got sucked into defending so as to leave Lever and Nev mis-matched on their opponents.

It's not hard too hard for any player to cover a clayton's forward, but shameful that our brains trust we were unable to counter the move.  Or we just didn't have the right players for the job?

 

So they used their kpd as a decoy. Ok lets say that is right. Why did that create a mismatch for lever and nev? They're both defenders and they both ended up on players that the coaching staff would have expected them to at the very leadt break even with.one wad a first gamer and the other wad a player the cats shopped because of his lack of intedity.

5 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Don't know this journo, but she's spot on. 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/how-geelong-exposed-melbournes-focus-on-the-contested-ball-in-the-second-quarter-of-their-round-1-win/news-story/73810e31bcae19690211d0f0ddf77ce7

 

Good find stmj. Assessment of the run of play seems quite accurate.

As stated, we have a very focussed (some may say predictable) game plan at stoppages the works either very well or very poorly depending on the opposition.

Scott is not a slouch as a coach, he's learned a thing or 2 over 6-8 years. That does not mean Goody is not his equal, but rather, Goody has much less experience with dealing with a counter attack. Lack of experience in the coaching box can sometimes make a difference. We played a conventional offensive game plan, Geelong played a more defensive but precision based style. They dodged left and right avoiding contested ball in order to make space until they ground opened up for them to consistently score unopposed knockout punches.

It does not always work, but on Sunday it worked just enough for the 19 fit players they had available for most of the game.

Let's hope we don't retain our tunnel vision this Saturday night.

19 minutes ago, Hot as Hell said:

 

Finally someone worked out Hawkins was the decoy that we got sucked into defending so as to leave Lever and Nev mis-matched on their opponents.

It's not hard too hard for any player to cover a clayton's forward, but shameful that our brains trust we were unable to counter the move.  Or we just didn't have the right players for the job?

 

We have a brains trust? 

18 minutes ago, binman said:

So they used their kpd as a decoy. Ok lets say that is right. Why did that create a mismatch for lever and nev? They're both defenders and they both ended up on players that the coaching staff would have expected them to at the very leadt break even with.one wad a first gamer and the other wad a player the cats shopped because of his lack of intedity.

Nasty cold you have there, Binman. Get well soon.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

 

To both points, no I'm not trolling.

I understand that Goodwin and co selected a team based on the form, performance and fitness of players over the entire pre-season. I was willing to back him in with both the Wagner and Maynard selections.

But having seen Maynard's game in the flesh and being extremely underwhelmed at his lack of impact in all facets of the game but especially his contested work in close which is supposed to be his strength, they must pick Tyson this week. Tyson at the very least has him covered for impact around the ball. Kicking, spread/speed and defensive accountability are still question marks with Tyson imo but he is more experienced than Maynard and has runs on the board due to the fact that when he's on, he's a very good player. We just don't see it enough. And I understand why he was left out.

To @Rusty Nails, depending on who is in that starting group, sometimes our speed is okay. Maynard doesn't cover the ground well and neither does Tyson but Brayshaw isn't slow and I'd like to see Melksham and Harmes play through there more this week rather than Hogan. Speed isn't always an issue if our ball use is clean in tight and we're on. Clearly we're a contested footy team so if our touch isn't right in close, opposition teams can really rip us open if they have a midfield with strong  runners which Geelong do. Duncan, Guthrie, Menegola etc. 

 

Fair points Steve.  I also hear you re Frost up forward but sometimes players also need to be flexible if they are to be of value to the team structure, especially when called on to cover a key out like T-Mac.  Im not saying he needs to play the whole match there if its not working and shldnt be swung down back at some stages but wldnt mind seeing him start the match there.

1 hour ago, Hot as Hell said:

 

Finally someone worked out Hawkins was the decoy that we got sucked into defending so as to leave Lever and Nev mis-matched on their opponents.

It's not hard too hard for any player to cover a clayton's forward, but shameful that our brains trust we were unable to counter the move.  Or we just didn't have the right players for the job?

 

It was a good plan, but they would have also thought they'd be getting more out of Hawkins than a solitary point.  Their number one key forward doesn't go out expecting to have a bagel.