1 hour ago, deelusions from afar said:

Don't know if I agree.  I think the cats (this year), pies and swans are all far more aggressive (and skilful) in how they move the ball than we are (this year or last year).  Other than when winning a centre clearance or on turnover, we move the ball slowly and predictably - long to Gawn from the kickout to the non-Langdon side and get it as far up the field as we can until we bomb it to the pocket or it goes out of bounds.  it is based around our contested mids winning more contests than they lose.

The other teams are prepared to switch more and go up the fat side or even the corridor - I don't think we ever do this unless on turnover?

The difference for us this year (to me) seems to be our ability to hold other teams' foot skills at bay for a full game.  If they're prepared to take us on and not just go down the line, our pressure doesn't seem to be able to be high enough to stop this for 4 quarters.

Good points, and i don't disagree with them.

By similar game plans i mean the philosophy of forward half, territory football. Get it inside 50. Trap it inside 50. Win contested ball and in post clearance contested ball. Turn it over with pressure and score. 

The Cats have basically acknowledged their chip and hold style that West Coast perfected will no longer cut it and have gone all out territory.

Same for the pies - which is not surprising given McRae's' time at the tigers. 

I'm not quite sure about the Swans, but they definitely look to get territory, as do Freo 

 

One of the stats I would like to see is a metric which accounts the number of attacking and defending players inside 50 for each entry. The most valuable inside 50 is one with attacking players and no defenders, while an inside 50 with 17 vs 17 is much less valuable.

This combined with expected score for each shot at goal are the most crucial stats in football IMO.

20 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

Don't know if I agree.  I think the cats (this year), pies and swans are all far more aggressive (and skilful) in how they move the ball than we are (this year or last year).  Other than when winning a centre clearance or on turnover, we move the ball slowly and predictably - long to Gawn from the kickout to the non-Langdon side and get it as far up the field as we can until we bomb it to the pocket or it goes out of bounds.  it is based around our contested mids winning more contests than they lose.

The other teams are prepared to switch more and go up the fat side or even the corridor - I don't think we ever do this unless on turnover?

The difference for us this year (to me) seems to be our ability to hold other teams' foot skills at bay for a full game.  If they're prepared to take us on and not just go down the line, our pressure doesn't seem to be able to be high enough to stop this for 4 quarters.

I disagree that we don't switch. We do look to switch, but if it's not on, we go long down the line.

I don't care if it's because we are playing the percentages, but the stupid i50 entries and the left side kick-in to the pack has to stop! It's infuriating!

It was pinballing back and forth in and out of our d50 in the 2nd half. We simply couldn't win the 50/50 contest when it went to ground or it was intercepted. It puts our defence under unnecessary pressure.

So many times there was a short kick option to Hunt on the right side. Why not run the ball out of 50 or chip kick it to the wing? It baffles me. It's just as ridiculous as our kicks inside 50.

Viney won a clearance in the last 2min of the game and kicked it over the head of ANB who was leading with no-one on him in the 50. It went to a pack with 2-3 CFC defenders. This stupid kick could well have cost us the game.

It's so frustrating because it seems like such simple fix (especially use forward of centre). 1 in every 3 kick-ins should be to the right side, it would add a touch of unpredictability for a change. 

Edited August 13, 20222 yr by Deenooos_

Goodwin, Yze, every Melbourne player, every Melbourne supporter, every opposition player and every opposition coach knows where our kick ins are going to go. 

It is obviously done by design but I would like to see us mix it up a little bit in the finals and try for a few coast to coast goals through the centre or the opposite wing. Fritch is a really good mark for his size perhaps we could isolate him as a target on the other wing.

I also don't like Viney and Sparrow at the same centre bounces. We give away too much height. 

7 minutes ago, Wrecker46 said:

Goodwin, Yze, every Melbourne player, every Melbourne supporter, every opposition player and every opposition coach knows where our kick ins are going to go. 

It is obviously done by design but I would like to see us mix it up a little bit in the finals and try for a few coast to coast goals through the centre or the opposite wing. Fritch is a really good mark for his size perhaps we could isolate him as a target on the other wing.

I also don't like Viney and Sparrow at the same centre bounces. We give away too much height. 

I've been thinking maybe Goodwin will pull the short straw on this in the finals as a tactical advantage as it's become obvious and predictable to our opponents. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

Every long bomb we look a 2nd tall short 

2 hours ago, Deenooos_ said:

I don't care if it's because we are playing the percentages, but the stupid i50 entries and the left side kick-in to the pack has to stop! It's infuriating!

It was pinballing back and forth in and out of our d50 in the 2nd half. We simply couldn't win the 50/50 contest when it went to ground or it was intercepted. It puts our defence under unnecessary pressure.

So many times there was a short kick option to Hunt on the right side. Why not run the ball out of 50 or chip kick it to the wing? It baffles me. It's just as ridiculous as our kicks inside 50.

Viney won a clearance in the last 2min of the game and kicked it over the head of ANB who was leading with no-one on him in the 50. It went to a pack with 2-3 CFC defenders. This stupid kick could well have cost us the game.

It's so frustrating because it seems like such simple fix (especially use forward of centre). 1 in every 3 kick-ins should be to the right side, it would add a touch of unpredictability for a change. 

I posted on another thread how the may kicks to packs in on the left side of the ground in the last qtr after doing it all game/year was nearly the death of me. Must have done it 5-6 times in 5 minutes and it just kept coming back in. What infuriated me was not only the fact we often had 1-2 players alone on the right side. It was the fact we didn't even glance to that side to see them and just went with ol reliable despite being behind 

Where were our last two goals of last night’s game kicked from?

5 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

I posted on another thread how the may kicks to packs in on the left side of the ground in the last qtr after doing it all game/year was nearly the death of me. Must have done it 5-6 times in 5 minutes and it just kept coming back in. What infuriated me was not only the fact we often had 1-2 players alone on the right side. It was the fact we didn't even glance to that side to see them and just went with ol reliable despite being behind 

Agree totally. Was at the game and one instance Sparrow was completely on his own 20 m clear of anyone at CHB and didn't even think of calling for it, let alone May looking for him. It is frustrating. 

Petty on his own on the right side in the last but again no call and no look from May.

Plan B is not an option for kick outs.

9 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

I posted on another thread how the may kicks to packs in on the left side of the ground in the last qtr after doing it all game/year was nearly the death of me. Must have done it 5-6 times in 5 minutes and it just kept coming back in. What infuriated me was not only the fact we often had 1-2 players alone on the right side. It was the fact we didn't even glance to that side to see them and just went with ol reliable despite being behind 

If it was working I wouldn't be questioning it but we aren't/weren't winning ground balls or 50/50 contests in order to prevent a turnover and d50 re-entry. So why continue to do it? Surely Goody would tell May to switch it up if we aren't on top of the contest during that patch of play, but no reaction at all during that patch in the last qtr.

There's too many ridiculous parts to our gameplan that just continue to be repeated even if there is enough evidence by now to suggest they aren't working. 

The thing is teams are only barely able to beat us and they play out of their skins, that just shows we are a seriously good team.

Just imagine how good we'd be with a bit more zappy HB ball movement and more directed f50 entries....

8 minutes ago, Apocalypse XXXI said:

Where were our last two goals of last night’s game kicked from?

Plan C. Kick to the top of the square. In both cases, Carlton had the numbers but panicked. 

1 hour ago, Wrecker46 said:

Goodwin, Yze, every Melbourne player, every Melbourne supporter, every opposition player and every opposition coach knows where our kick ins are going to go. 

It is obviously done by design but I would like to see us mix it up a little bit in the finals and try for a few coast to coast goals through the centre or the opposite wing. Fritch is a really good mark for his size perhaps we could isolate him as a target on the other wing.

I also don't like Viney and Sparrow at the same centre bounces. We give away too much height. 

particularly v Cripps and Settlefiled who are very tall

BTW Oliver was held the entire night and blocked received 1 free from memory

On 8/14/2022 at 8:04 AM, Deenooos_ said:

I've been thinking maybe Goodwin will pull the short straw on this in the finals as a tactical advantage as it's become obvious and predictable to our opponents. Maybe that's just wishful thinking though.

I'm hoping this too.  But it would have to be unlikely

It's not about 'don't bomb it at all' it's about 'don't always bomb it'. The long bomb can be useful, we know this. It's when it is being used at the expense of other possibly better choices that is a problem. 

For anyone interested in David king's updated assessment of the state of our game, have a listen to the podcast. Discussion on Melbourne starts at the "29min".  https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=1032250

I for one find him a good analyst.

We were ranked 1st for moving the ball end to end from r1-10. Since r16 we are ranked 17th in the comp.

We are poor at defending the ball once it gets inside 50 which has seen a massive drop-off  over the last 6-7 weeks.

Given how so much of our game is "lacking" key match winning components, it's remarkable how we are still winning according to him, basically just on sheer talent, brilliance and coaching. 

If you listen to how our game has changed since the beginning of the year it's hard to attribute that solely to how teams are playing against us. Much of the elements we are lacking or have dropped off in have nothing to do with being "worked out" and more to do with us not doing them. I just hope we can improve our stoppage game and our i50 defence game on Friday.

On 8/14/2022 at 9:14 AM, Kent said:

particularly v Cripps and Settlefiled who are very tall

BTW Oliver was held the entire night and blocked received 1 free from memory

Yes.  I watched the replay and Sellerfield actually held arms around Oliver in many stoppages, let alone blocking and punching him in the guts,  and was ignored by the maggots (who of course we are supposed to respect - well, guys, earn respect)

1 hour ago, Deenooos_ said:

I for one find him a good analyst.

We were ranked 1st for moving the ball end to end from r1-10. Since r16 we are ranked 17th in the comp.

We are poor at defending the ball once it gets inside 50 which has seen a massive drop-off  over the last 6-7 weeks.

Given how so much of our game is "lacking" key match winning components, it's remarkable how we are still winning according to him, basically just on sheer talent, brilliance and coaching. 

Not really getting by as we are 5-6 since round 11. The defensive drop is stark. In 38 games prior to rd 11, we conceded shots at goal from >50% of opponents i50s just twice.  Since rd 11, it’s been 6 times and we lost every time except Carlton.

I would not say we are getting by on coaching.  If we fix it the coaches will be geniuses, but on the last 11 weeks it is looking like a fail. I think they can fix it.

This was a terrific thread early on, but it seems to have descended into people complaining about our predictability.

I don't really care whether you find it frustrating or too predictable. As @binman said on the podcast on Monday, these are percentage plays.

As a result of this predictability, we're third. Our players need to win contests. That's what our game is based on. The predictability puts the onus on our players to get the job done.

I'd also suggest it shows why the media treat the supporters the way they do.

People either don't care or can't understand the complexities of modern football

Totally understand the percentage play and it is part of the reason our defence is so good.

I would like to see us maybe 15% of the time try a different option, especially if the other team has had repeat entries and we are bogged down.

Maybe it is a Jayden Hunt running 10-15 metres and launching it to space on the opposite wing. If the players know what is going to happen then they can have runners ready.

The other option is to setup for that May kick but instead look to hit up a player at around the 40 metre mark. The players on the wing can then break across the ground and look to get a mark through the centre square.

I think these little tweaks could really help us when we are a bit stuck and the other team has repeat entries.

1 minute ago, Action Jackson said:

Totally understand the percentage play and it is part of the reason our defence is so good.

I would like to see us maybe 15% of the time try a different option, especially if the other team has had repeat entries and we are bogged down.

Maybe it is a Jayden Hunt running 10-15 metres and launching it to space on the opposite wing. If the players know what is going to happen then they can have runners ready.

The other option is to setup for that May kick but instead look to hit up a player at around the 40 metre mark. The players on the wing can then break across the ground and look to get a mark through the centre square.

I think these little tweaks could really help us when we are a bit stuck and the other team has repeat entries.

The question then becomes when would you like this change?

I'd prefer we don't show our hand until an elimination or qualifying final.

Not saying we will change things up, but if we did, there's not a whole lot of use trying it in Round 23.

On 8/14/2022 at 5:46 AM, Deenooos_ said:

 

Viney won a clearance in the last 2min of the game and kicked it over the head of ANB who was leading with no-one on him in the 50. It went to a pack with 2-3 CFC defenders. This stupid kick could well have cost us the 

Now I thought this kick was heading to Spargo who was clear. Hand in the air, but it dropped short he changed direction and made a tackle ball up. But if it had carried to him….

yes  your aunties an uncle

but we won

A big factor in the change to those inside 50 scoring ratio numbers is fatigue related to loading.

Makes sense  because our defensive sytem is completely reliant on all team defensive running. If that is off even a little bit our abilty to get back inside D 50 in numbers is compromised.

But even more significantly, our abilty to put pressure on the final kick inside 50 is compromised and that makes it much easier for the opposition to kick to their forwards advantage.

Fatigue wasn't an issue in the first half of the seaon, which is a factor in our better numbers in that period.

Fatigue is not the only factor of course.

For one thing, we have played some really good teams since Round 16. 

Other teams know tbey have no chance to beat us playing slow and therefore fast ball movement is critical. That is risk reward, and the reward is a higher inside 50 to score ratio.

We also elected to play high tempo, aggressive footy against the dogs, never seemingly trying to slow the tempo.  We did the same in the first half against the pies.

That style risks giving up lots of uncharacteristic slingshot, rebound goals.

And that is exacctly what happened against tbe dogs and the pies, particularly in the first half (at half time, the pies had 8 goals 2 from only 17 entries).

That's two games from kings seven game sample where we elected to play a different, more aggressive, high tempo model than our normal method. Shoot outs.

So a nearly a third of his sample size could be considered outliers, or at the very least factored into the analysis.

That's exactly what annoys me so much about kings shallow analysis. He doesn't consider or give any context to the data he speaks to.

Or try and understand what might be behind the numbers. The numbers are symptoms and indicators of a problem not the  cause of the problem.

Misunderstand the symptoms and you can't give a proper diagnosis, or more importantly land on an effective solution.

And leaving aside ignoring loading as a factor, any dees fans watching our last seven games would concede the opposition have been running out games better.

So at the very least king should be suggesting fitness levels and fatigue relative to our opposition are possible factors in the numbers.

Which would be well worth pointing out, because relative fitness levels are obviously going to be a key determinant in who wins the flag and are if we are not as fit as our finals opponents we are in trouble.

 

Edited August 16, 20222 yr by binman

23 minutes ago, A F said:

The question then becomes when would you like this change?

I'd prefer we don't show our hand until an elimination or qualifying final.

Not saying we will change things up, but if we did, there's not a whole lot of use trying it in Round 23.

Well probably first week of finals (hopefully a qualifying final).