1 hour ago, Swooper1987 said:

Absolutely. Petracca had (and has had all year) a great impact on Saturday night but he was the third best player in the Melbourne side against GC. NicNat at best drew level with O'Brien yet picked up 5 votes for 7 disposals and one goal.  Go figure!  As I said previously, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Nic Nat dominated O'Brien in the hitouts and the clearance stats in the first half show the result of that and set up the Eagles win. 

Clearances alone aren't worth  much but clean centre clearances in particular are incredibly valuable and that's where Nic Nat remains the dominant tap ruckman in the comp. O'Brien could've had 8 marks and 20 touches and probably still have been beaten by Nic Nat given the value the Eagles receive from his ruck dominance.

I thought Viney played a slightly better game than Petracca with better decision making and ball use but even if he's using the ball well Viney won't hurt you all that much, you can still keep your structure. 

Petracca repeatedly broke down the integrity of the Suns stoppage game or gathered the ball at half forward which then makes a mess of their backline structure. This is overly simplistic but Viney gets it and hopefully hits a target or puts it to a good spot in a contest, the game carries on. Petracca gets it and comes bursting out of a pack or takes a grab across half forward and suddenly there's a lot of open team mates. Even if he misses most of his kicks the opposition are scrambling.

On 7/11/2020 at 8:55 PM, Earl Hood said:

But gee they played well and will be a force to be reckoned with in the next few years. 

Gold Coast $uns indeed. With high compensatory and priority picks. The 'Franchise' has loaded up with draft talent from the 2018 and 2019 drafts. With 25% of the available top ten of those drafts going their way,  the ☀️ is shining out of a very dark place.

Edited July 14, 20205 yr by Tarax Club
clarity

2 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

Yes, you do have a rampant Omac confirmation bias but I think your observations are spot on. Also liked his repeat efforts

Oscar played well. Lets hope he has turned the corner.

6 hours ago, dieter said:

I also loved the fact that whenever Bennell had or went near the ball the 'Class' barometer went through the roof. He is a very, very gifted footballer.

 

yes and it stands out. we haven't recrutied for 'class' but now I think the penny has dropped. the last two kicks of the match but be snippet of whats tocome who knows.. Let hope he even just continues as is, as he is smooth as silk with beautiful skills. As they said on the replay at one stage on the gold coast he was also racking up the numbers averaging 25 possessions and a goal per game. which is elite. not hard to believe considering he gets a fair bit of it in a new team after 4 years of injury.

found free replay

Big Footy > Melbourne Forum > Search "Melbourne replays" > last page

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

Some of that is on the talls. Lever is dropping marks (or getting spoiled or spoiling his own team mates) and May just doesn't take enough marks, he loves to body spoil his opponent under the ball and his marking technique is poor. The best way to take out the smalls is to mark it to begin with.

 

That's a really good point. And you can include omac in that mix as well as a justifiable criticism is that he doesnt take enough marks. 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nic Nat dominated O'Brien in the hitouts and the clearance stats in the first half show the result of that and set up the Eagles win. 

Clearances alone aren't worth  much but clean centre clearances in particular are incredibly valuable and that's where Nic Nat remains the dominant tap ruckman in the comp. O'Brien could've had 8 marks and 20 touches and probably still have been beaten by Nic Nat given the value the Eagles receive from his ruck dominance.

I thought Viney played a slightly better game than Petracca with better decision making and ball use but even if he's using the ball well Viney won't hurt you all that much, you can still keep your structure. 

Petracca repeatedly broke down the integrity of the Suns stoppage game or gathered the ball at half forward which then makes a mess of their backline structure. This is overly simplistic but Viney gets it and hopefully hits a target or puts it to a good spot in a contest, the game carries on. Petracca gets it and comes bursting out of a pack or takes a grab across half forward and suddenly there's a lot of open team mates. Even if he misses most of his kicks the opposition are scrambling.

Had Petracca not had a bad dose of the kicking yips we would have won by a much greater margin. Like I've said, I like the boy, he is an ace.

I love the behind the scenes stuff the Dees post.  Goody telling the boys to enjoy with win but include their families, players at home abc supporters is absolutely brilliant.  A great insight into him I think.  

27 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

I love the behind the scenes stuff the Dees post.  Goody telling the boys to enjoy with win but include their families, players at home abc supporters is absolutely brilliant.  A great insight into him I think.  

can't coach though.

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

can't coach though.

?

6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nic Nat dominated O'Brien in the hitouts and the clearance stats in the first half show the result of that and set up the Eagles win. 

Clearances alone aren't worth  much but clean centre clearances in particular are incredibly valuable and that's where Nic Nat remains the dominant tap ruckman in the comp. O'Brien could've had 8 marks and 20 touches and probably still have been beaten by Nic Nat given the value the Eagles receive from his ruck dominance.

I thought Viney played a slightly better game than Petracca with better decision making and ball use but even if he's using the ball well Viney won't hurt you all that much, you can still keep your structure. 

Petracca repeatedly broke down the integrity of the Suns stoppage game or gathered the ball at half forward which then makes a mess of their backline structure. This is overly simplistic but Viney gets it and hopefully hits a target or puts it to a good spot in a contest, the game carries on. Petracca gets it and comes bursting out of a pack or takes a grab across half forward and suddenly there's a lot of open team mates. Even if he misses most of his kicks the opposition are scrambling.

He had 19 possies, 9 marks (4 contested) and 7 tackles. That's a very decent game for a ruckman.  12 hitouts but as you say Nic is one of the top 2 tap ruckmen in the game (our bloke is as good as him). It's an interesting observation and obviously the coaches view is the one that counts. Still it must have been one hell of a 7 possession game.  I watched it and other than his goal and his post match handing over of the phone there weren't too many other highlights that I picked up.  It was a good duel and O'Brien can hold his head high.

And agree with everything you say about Petracca.  A credit to his improved professionalism this season.

14 hours ago, dieter said:

Had Petracca not had a bad dose of the kicking yips we would have won by a much greater margin.

That is like saying we would have won by a greater margin if:

• Lever and May hadn't spoilt each for the mark GCS wouldn't have got the goal out the back (2nd qtr I think).
• Max hadn't tapped the ball into Rankine's lap in the last he wouldn't have got his third goal.
• Max didn't turn the ball over with a OOB around their 50m arc King wouldn't have received the kick-in to run into an easy goal.

So Max's mishaps directly cost us two goals.  Not criticising him; he was mighty.  Just saying lots of players make mistakes; some directly cost us goals and some don't.

I could pull various other examples that cost us a 'much greater margin'.  Every week there are moments that cost us a game or the margin.

 

Not yourself, but others on here have questioned Petracca's coaches votes on the basis of his mishaps.  If coaches used that in their assessment then Max would not have got 5/4 as he directly cost us two goals and had a few other clangers. 

Edited July 14, 20205 yr by Lucifer's Hero

17 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is like saying we would have won by a greater margin if:

• Lever and May hadn't spoilt each for the mark GCS wouldn't have got the goal out the back (2nd qtr I think).
• Max hadn't tapped the ball into Rankine's lap in the last he wouldn't have got his third goal.
• Max didn't turn the ball over with a OOB around their 50m arc King wouldn't have received the kick-in to run into an easy goal.

So Max's mishaps directly cost us two goals.

I could pull various other examples that cost us a 'much greater margin'.  Every week there are moments that cost us a game or the margin.

 

Not yourself, but others on here have questioned Petracca's coaches votes on the basis of his mishaps.  If coaches used that in their assessment then Max would not have got 5/4 as he directly cost us two goals. 

Agree LH. We could have won by 100 points had we only kicked about 15 more goals. 

You can't make a sliding doors projection based on what-ifs. If the first behind of the game had been a goal, everything that happened after that will be different to what happened in the real game, because the ball will be back in the middle rather than being kicked out. The outcome becomes undefined and unknown. The only valid scenario to ponder is the one that actually happened.

Only the Dees can beat a team and the result is their coach re-signing.

 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is like saying we would have won by a greater margin if:

• Lever and May hadn't spoilt each for the mark GCS wouldn't have got the goal out the back (2nd qtr I think).
• Max hadn't tapped the ball into Rankine's lap in the last he wouldn't have got his third goal.
• Max didn't turn the ball over with a OOB around their 50m arc King wouldn't have received the kick-in to run into an easy goal.

So Max's mishaps directly cost us two goals.  Not criticising him; he was mighty.  Just saying lots of players make mistakes; some directly cost us goals and some don't.

I could pull various other examples that cost us a 'much greater margin'.  Every week there are moments that cost us a game or the margin.

 

Not yourself, but others on here have questioned Petracca's coaches votes on the basis of his mishaps.  If coaches used that in their assessment then Max would not have got 5/4 as he directly cost us two goals and had a few other clangers. 

I may have not made myself clear. I wasn't 'deducting' points for his mistakes, nor was I blaming him for a smaller winning margin. It came from a sense of amazement that someone who is usually so clear and clean with his disposal could do clanger after clanger, repeatedly. That most players fumble, drop marks, kick to an opponent, get out marked, outsmarted at some time is a given. Petracca, for instance, made three blues in about the first five minutes, including the fresh air miskick in the goal square. I didn't watch the game, only the replay, but I recall the comment 'Petracca having a shocker' early in the Game Day Thread. 

I wonder why the club thinks the words written on the whiteboard behind Goodwin's head around 2:15 are so top secret they need to be smeared in the video below.   The pause button reveals all.  If that is our top secret plan, then we are in trouble.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/743075/rd-6-game-film?videoId=743075&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1594711800001

2 hours ago, sue said:

I wonder why the club thinks the words written on the whiteboard behind Goodwin's head around 2:15 are so top secret they need to be smeared in the video below.   The pause button reveals all.  If that is our top secret plan, then we are in trouble.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/743075/rd-6-game-film?videoId=743075&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1594711800001

I particularly like the coach pre game: 

"we haven't listened to anyone outside our 4 walls this week" "we don't listen to noise"

 

And post match:

'we knew what everyone was saying and we've shut them up for at least a week' 'the heat was really on this week and we responded'

LOL

 

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I particularly like the coach pre game: 

"we haven't listened to anyone outside our 4 walls this week" "we don't listen to noise"

 

And post match:

'we knew what everyone was saying and we've shut them up for at least a week' 'the heat was really on this week and we responded'

LOL

 

There is a large difference between knowing what people are saying and actually listening to it.

On 7/14/2020 at 12:31 PM, Nasher said:

This type of discrepancy would be because the opposing coach will be assessing on different criteria to the coach assessing his own players. The player's coach knows the role the player was supposed to play, how well the player performed it vs prescribed, and how that exact role impacted on the result of the game. The opposition coach doesn't know any of that and will just be determining how much hurt factor the player delivered. Of course, we still don't know which coach is which.

Well said.  IMO I suspect that Goodwin may well have given Jack 4 votes for his game winning inside efforts this week. And rated Christian but just not as much as the often unnoticed Viney never say die approach

22 hours ago, dieter said:

Had Petracca not had a bad dose of the kicking yips we would have won by a much greater margin. Like I've said, I like the boy, he is an ace.

If Ellis didnt kick 2 goals out of his [censored] that he will never kick again we would have won easier and by a greater margin

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

There is a large difference between knowing what people are saying and actually listening to it.

It's clear he listened

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It's clear he listened

You can hear what's being said, but it's clear that the message he was sending to the players was that they didn't listen to it - that being, they didn't make changes based on what was being said or allowed it to affect them or their preparation.  

Thus they heard it, but didn't listen and allow it to change anything.  Big difference.

Just watching the final quarter, in the lead up to Rankine's goal where he sharks Gawns tap (great goal, absolutely give him that) all of the commentators choose to completely ignore the fact that he should've been pinged for a stone cold push in the back from his leap taking May completely out of the contest. Now if the player nabs the mark he is given it, but if he doesn't it is a free kick to the other player. EVERY. DAY. OF. THE. WEEK.

The commentators have every reason to get excited about him but their blind bias around him is infuriating to listen to.

I know we’re almost onto the Hawks, but I think one of the key factors to this win, was the return of some manic tackling pressure. This has coincided with AVB and also Hannan returning into form. I think the key to our game plan working properly (as we often saw in 2018) is manic pressure on the opposition when they are in possession, but then clean and quick ball movement after effecting the turn over. I think a major problem for us has been a manic pressure, followed by manic, chaotic ball movement, which results in us giving the ball back again (or just lumping it into 50). If we can keep applying the tackling pressure and then get the ball out with clean disposals, we should be heading on the right track.

5 hours ago, Pates said:

Just watching the final quarter, in the lead up to Rankine's goal where he sharks Gawns tap (great goal, absolutely give him that) all of the commentators choose to completely ignore the fact that he should've been pinged for a stone cold push in the back from his leap taking May completely out of the contest. Now if the player nabs the mark he is given it, but if he doesn't it is a free kick to the other player. EVERY. DAY. OF. THE. WEEK.

The commentators have every reason to get excited about him but their blind bias around him is infuriating to listen to.

this isn't true. it would be only true if he didn't make contact with the ball. which in this case he did