35 minutes ago, GS_1905 said:

Having Lindsay and Windsor generate our transition from half back will be key IMV. They need a few partners in crime i.e Rivers, McVee to win defensive ball.

It may not come all together this year, but i have seen enough of Lindsay to know he will be a good player. Paired with Windsor and hopefully Langford and Riv, will be the future of our midfield. Oliver and Trac will give us another 5 years of footy as well. So i think we can start focusing on plugging other areas of the team.

Yep, I feel the same way about Lindsay as I did about Clarry after his first game, against the Giants, where they both picked up the same amount of disposals on debut. Unfortunately, in Clarry's debut we won by 2 points. 

Lindsay is gonna be a gun.

6 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Yep, I feel the same way about Lindsay as I did about Clarry after his first game, against the Giants, where they both picked up the same amount of disposals on debut. Unfortunately, in Clarry's debut we won by 2 points. 

Lindsay is gonna be a gun.

Super impressed by Lindsay 

I don’t know if this makes sense but I said to a fellow supporter that he just looks like an MCG player - using the width of the ground and his sublime kicking skills to open up the play and set us up 

And 22 touches and a stack of tackles! I reckon we got him for an absolute steal at pick 11

We scored a lot from stoppage vs GWS and I don't think we were that good at transitioning the ball from defence and I thought we struggled a bit when they escaped our forward half press. We really missed the pressure of Kossie and the cool head of McVee in defence when they were in the open, so I reserve judgement about the defensive method.

I know we can't just kick it long to Max with Petracca at his feet all the time, but I still think it needs to be part of our gameplan. We have the best contested marker and best front and square crumber. This tactic also means, if we win the contest, we get more one on ones with slippery forwards ahead of the ball (Frisch, Kossie, Turner, Melksham).

I also think it is an error not to play Lindsay on the left wing when kicking to the City end. I understand Langdon does not come off, but the transition game is much smoother when they are both having their kicking legs on the outside.

12 hours ago, rpfc said:

When we shared with hands and went quick we looked damaging.

12 hours ago, rpfc said:

73 points against that team in those conditions is a fair effort with the above.

I agree.

It was fun to watch us go forward with hands in a way we really haven't for a long while. I'd have loved to see Windsor get onto the end of a couple more chains. 

I honestly expected them to beat us comfortably and probably carve us up in the same way they went past Collingwood last week (I know this is precisely how they kicked the winning goal, but we seemed knackered). Kicking 11 was pretty good. Keeping them to 11 was excellent. 

 

Edited March 17Mar 17 by The Taciturn Demon

The concern is how much we're still relying on score from stoppage and Max monstering in the ruck. The proof of the pudding with the evolving ganeplan will be if the scores from transition increase.

I think yesterday with the weather and personel out is a tough one to be critical on the gameplan and really needs a few weeks  Guys like Xavier Lindsay are very much going to help this area and I'm going to be watching how this area develops closely.

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

The concern is how much we're still relying on score from stoppage and Max monstering in the ruck. The proof of the pudding with the evolving ganeplan will be if the scores from transition increase.

I think yesterday with the weather and personel out is a tough one to be critical on the gameplan and really needs a few weeks  Guys like Xavier Lindsay are very much going to help this area and I'm going to be watching how this area develops closely.

Agree with this. While it was great to score heavily from stoppage, we didn't get bang for buck on transition, and the modern game is all about scoring off turnover. It was pleasing to see us chipping it around and maintaining possession in the first half. It worked well for the most part, and with greater chemistry amongst our young forward line it would've been unstoppable. Let's see how it pans out over the year and against stronger defensive sides like Geelong.

Lindsay was brilliant and looks like he'll be a key driver for us long term both off half back and wing. His defensive efforts were also far better than expected considering his size and inexperience. We've drafted a ripper there.

Windsor was sublime when he got the ball and was able to charge through the corridor and either hit the scoreboard and kick inside 50. He might wind up our barometer for offence this year. Coaches will start playing a forward tag on him. 

1 hour ago, demoncat said:

Super impressed by Lindsay 

I don’t know if this makes sense but I said to a fellow supporter that he just looks like an MCG player - using the width of the ground and his sublime kicking skills to open up the play and set us up 

And 22 touches and a stack of tackles! I reckon we got him for an absolute steal at pick 11

and here's the clincher. He was Essendons first rounder !!

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Max monstering in the ruck

I'm not a big fan of using stats to make solid determinations about gamea, but if I was going to mention one it would be Max yet again absolutely dominating the taps and Melbourne once again getting comfortably beaten in clearances. I thought the centre square stuff was mostly good - better than a lot of last year from what I saw. The rest wasn't. 

13 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

I'm not a big fan of using stats to make solid determinations about gamea, but if I was going to mention one it would be Max yet again absolutely dominating the taps and Melbourne once again getting comfortably beaten in clearances. I thought the centre square stuff was mostly good - better than a lot of last year from what I saw. The rest wasn't. 

GWS are a very good clearance side, but I think the stat that the FD will focus on is scores from clearance, which we won quite comfortably with fewer clearances. 

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

GWS are a very good clearance side, but I think the stat that the FD will focus on is scores from clearance, which we won quite comfortably with fewer clearances. 

Indeed -

Raw clearance numbers are important in the sense that teams get territory winning clearances.

As goody noted (in his post match presser or vid from kitchen) that was a key factor in the last quarter as giants dominated territory.

But the key clearance related stat, particularly for us, is scores from clearances.

We won it overall by 18, but goody won't be thrilled we were -1 from clearances from around the ground stoppages (including 2 in the last quarter I think).

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	0.0 0	1.0 6	-6
Centre Bounce	4.2 26	1.1 7	+19
Stoppage (Other)	3.1 19	3.2 20	-1
Turnover	4.5 29	6.8 44	-15

More generally, adding strategies to our game like short kicks to hold possession, having Windsor come off half-back, and hopefully scoring 2-3 goals more from turnover, all gives opposition teams a lot more to worry about. Ultimately, what we're good at we're REALLY good at, and teams have worked out how to beat us if that's all we do. Adding other ways we can play makes teams adapt, and not just focus on one game plan to beat us. We don't have to become the best transition team, and score the most from turnover, but if we can add a little bit it can be enough to allow us to get the game on our terms because teams are off balance having to adapt.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Stu

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

More generally, adding strategies to our game like short kicks to hold possession, having Windsor come off half-back, and hopefully scoring 2-3 goals more from turnover, all gives opposition teams a lot more to worry about. Ultimately, what we're good at we're REALLY good at, and teams have worked out how to beat us if that's all we do. Adding other ways we can play makes teams adapt, and not just focus on one game plan to beat us. We don't have to become the best transition team, and score the most from turnover, but if we can add a little bit it can be enough to allow us to get the game on our terms because teams are off balance having to adapt.

100% agree stu.

Our improvements are in the margins, not some wholesale changes.

The best teams play to their strengths. Ours is winning contests and pressure. 

Which doesn't mean not being good at the transition game, just that we don't have to be the best at it. 

We will always turn the ball over - my frustration this year wll be listening to fans complaining about us doing so whilst simultaneously bemoaning us nor being an elite transition side. 

You can't bake a cake without cracking some eggs.

For me the key is reducing, even marginally, the number of times we give the ball back to the opposition. 

And for that we need our best kicks playing most games - we aren't at skilled at some of the best teams (but few are as good at winning rhe contest as us) so can't afford to lose any of our elite kicks.

On that front I reckon our 10 best kicks, in order, are:

Mcvee 

Koz

LIndsay

Melksham

Tmac

Bowey

Spargo

Salem

JVR

Kolt

(With apologies to Billings and Laurie)

46 minutes ago, binman said:

 

On that front I reckon our 10 best kicks, in order, are:

Mcvee 

Koz

LIndsay

Melksham

Tmac

Bowey

Spargo

Salem

JVR

Kolt

(With apologies to Billings and Laurie)

You forgot May!

I gather you're likely referring to the most common straight line precision kicks in which yes I'd say Tmac is definitely in there. But in terms of overall kicking including under pressure/around the body/creativity I would have to have him out and Fritta in. Other than that I agree.

Edit: Probably Rivers too, he just often kicks longer and more daring kicks but his shorter precision stuff is great as is Windsor and Langford looks a great kick too.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Young Blood

3 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

I gather you're likely referring to the most common straight line precision kicks in which yes I'd say Tmac is definitely in there. But in terms of overall kicking including under pressure/around the body/creativity I would have to have him out and Fritta in. Other than that I agree.

Edit: Probably Rivers too, he just often kicks longer and more daring kicks but his shorter precision stuff is great as is Windsor and Langford looks a great kick too.

Yep, that's a fair call. 

I knew I'd forgotten someone and I'd def have fritter in my top 10, probably top 5. 

I'll drop kolt. And maybe tmac further down the list as I agree with your assessment of his kicking.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by binman

1 hour ago, Stu said:

GWS are a very good clearance side, but I think the stat that the FD will focus on is scores from clearance, which we won quite comfortably with fewer clearances. 

Yeah that and post-clearance possession 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Indeed -

Raw clearance numbers are important in the sense that teams get territory winning clearances.

As goody noted (in his post match presser or vid from kitchen) that was a key factor in the last quarter as giants dominated territory.

But the key clearance related stat, particularly for us, is scores from clearances.

We won it overall by 18, but goody won't be thrilled we were -1 from clearances from around the ground stoppages (including 2 in the last quarter I think).

Summary

Score Source	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	0.0 0	1.0 6	-6
Centre Bounce	4.2 26	1.1 7	+19
Stoppage (Other)	3.1 19	3.2 20	-1
Turnover	4.5 29	6.8 44	-15

Yep, I'm fine with us losing clearance numbers, if we're winning scores from stoppages.

It then means we're defending from our back half and enables us to slingshot back in behind the opposition to a less congested forwardline.

Likewise, potent clearances (out the front ideally), lead to 1v1s as the ball gets in quicker to our forwards.

1 hour ago, binman said:

100% agree stu.

Our improvements are in the margins, not some wholesale changes.

The best teams play to their strengths. Ours is winning contests and pressure. 

Which doesn't mean not being good at the transition game, just that we don't have to be the best at it. 

We will always turn the ball over - my frustration this year wll be listening to fans complaining about us doing so whilst simultaneously bemoaning us nor being an elite transition side. 

You can't bake a cake without cracking some eggs.

For me the key is reducing, even marginally, the number of times we give the ball back to the opposition. 

And for that we need our best kicks playing most games - we aren't at skilled at some of the best teams (but few are as good at winning rhe contest as us) so can't afford to lose any of our elite kicks.

On that front I reckon our 10 best kicks, in order, are:

Mcvee 

Koz

LIndsay

Melksham

Tmac

Bowey

Spargo

Salem

JVR

Kolt

(With apologies to Billings and Laurie)

Didn’t Lindsay Rocket up that list!

45 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

You forgot May!

I gather you're likely referring to the most common straight line precision kicks in which yes I'd say Tmac is definitely in there. But in terms of overall kicking including under pressure/around the body/creativity I would have to have him out and Fritta in. Other than that I agree.

Edit: Probably Rivers too, he just often kicks longer and more daring kicks but his shorter precision stuff is great as is Windsor and Langford looks a great kick too.

I'm sorry but Rivers is not a good kick. Love him, but a very hit and miss kick.

26 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I'm sorry but Rivers is not a good kick. Love him, but a very hit and miss kick.

Thats ok you're forgiven 😇

20 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Our forward set up at the start of the game saw us push all our smaller forwards up to CHF (Henderson, Chandler, Sparrow and maybe Fritta, whoever the other forward was), and left JVR in the goal square and Jeffo 20m in front of JVR.

It meant when our mids won clearance out the front of the centre stoppage, our mids were kicking to two 1v1s, and each had separation.

The resulting opening centre clearance was an entry to the two deepest forwards, with JVR making the contest and bringing it to ground, and Jeffo crumbing it and finishing.

Our forwardline functioned so much better today. This will be an exciting watch this year. We just need to convert those very gettable shots.

As with everything, we need to do it week on week, but what I saw yesterday was promising enough structurally.

The Sparrow and Sharp set shot misses really hurt though. We just will not make the required progress if we keep missing easier set shots.

44 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I'm sorry but Rivers is not a good kick. Love him, but a very hit and miss kick.

100% Agree.

Good long kick and get depths of one step which is super helpful.

But as you suggest he is very hit and miss on the basic 20 to 30 metre dart kicks that have become so critical in footy. Hit them and scorig chains remain unbrokenb. Miss them  and they get turned over and the oppo has a potential scoring chain.

By basic, i mean the sort of kick most AFL player should hit 85% of the time.

The kicks that really create gilt edged scoring opportunities are the higher risk kicks into the corridor or over the top of zones that open up the oppostions. Ofdten those kiks ahve to be on the nagle and i suspect we only have a handful of players who have the green ligh tot go for them as if they miss, partic the corridor kicks, they almosta laways result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition. And Rivers aint one of those players. 

I reckon Lindsay is though based on some of his kick yesterday. Love how he can can kick on an angle, a skill that Koz has too and probably Salo too. I reckon the players with the green light to take the high risk kicks on are Mcvee, Koz, Lindsay, Melk, Salo and perhaps Bowser. 

5 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

and here's the clincher. He was Essendons first rounder !!

You cannot get excited enough about Lindsay.  It's impossible.

12 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

As with everything, we need to do it week on week, but what I saw yesterday was promising enough structurally.

The Sparrow and Sharp set shot misses really hurt though. We just will not make the required progress if we keep missing easier set shots.

Agree, if Sparrow kicks that early goals and we are up by 2 goals in the first 2 minutes - different game

7 minutes ago, D Rev said:

Agree, if Sparrow kicks that early goals and we are up by 2 goals in the first 2 minutes - different game

I agree, as silly as it might sound given it was 2 minutes into the game, but I reckon the psychological boost of two goals in 2 minutes would have been significant.

4 hours ago, binman said:

100% Agree.

Good long kick and get depths of one step which is super helpful.

But as you suggest he is very hit and miss on the basic 20 to 30 metre dart kicks that have become so critical in footy. Hit them and scorig chains remain unbrokenb. Miss them  and they get turned over and the oppo has a potential scoring chain.

By basic, i mean the sort of kick most AFL player should hit 85% of the time.

The kicks that really create gilt edged scoring opportunities are the higher risk kicks into the corridor or over the top of zones that open up the oppostions. Ofdten those kiks ahve to be on the nagle and i suspect we only have a handful of players who have the green ligh tot go for them as if they miss, partic the corridor kicks, they almosta laways result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition. And Rivers aint one of those players. 

I reckon Lindsay is though based on some of his kick yesterday. Love how he can can kick on an angle, a skill that Koz has too and probably Salo too. I reckon the players with the green light to take the high risk kicks on are Mcvee, Koz, Lindsay, Melk, Salo and perhaps Bowser. 

Lindsay has wheels too, like Windsor, which is super helpful for breaking lines, because I think as others have stated, we were really good with forward handball yesterday. This means we don't have to rely on those angled kicks to shift or break zones.

And our chip game was very similar to the approach Geelong tried unsuccessfully a few years ago.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Adam The God