18 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

Good perspective.

We are fumbling around trying to find a FF. A good way to think about this, along your lines is: if we added a Kennedy, Hawkins, Walker, Cameron (etc) type FF to our forward line would we be better or worse.*

* Rhetorical question.

This could have some mileage - this could turn into a Saty-like "Gaff is an accumulator" thread with just the right dash of trolling.

Weird how we've wasted our time going after duds like Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Langdon, Lever, May etc when we could have just signed Kennedy and instantly won a flag...

39 minutes ago, sue said:

Edit:  By "more big key forwards" I mean 2 in form, not more than the number we have used to date.

Just replying again as my initial one was before your edit. Agree with this mate! I think TMac and then one of Brown or Weid will be the setup eventually, but I reckon the problem is neither have been able to get a run on yet for different reasons.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

The current top 8 and their average scores:

Melbourne - 88.5
Bulldogs - 98.8
Geelong - 88.3
Brisbane - 93.7
Port - 87.3
Sydney - 86.3
Eagles - 90.1
Richmond - 86.9

I think the 'goal kicking power' point is being oversold and it's pretty lazy analysis by the media at the moment to be focusing on our forward line.

On current averages we are ahead of Geelong (Hawkins and Cameron), Port (Dixon), Sydney (Buddy, Papley) and Richmond (Riewoldt, Lynch).

We're also ahead of other 'goal kicking power' teams like Adelaide (Walker) 79.8, Carlton (Mackay) 84.7, Gold Coast (King) 71.6 and St Kilda (King) 70.6.

We sit 5th in terms of average points scored. I really don't think this is a panic like it's being made out.

 

We are not down a great deal but we rely on Fritta and Tmac more than we should. What happens when they both have a bad day.

We lose to a side like cwood.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

The current top 8 and their average scores:

Melbourne - 88.5
Bulldogs - 98.8
Geelong - 88.3
Brisbane - 93.7
Port - 87.3
Sydney - 86.3
Eagles - 90.1
Richmond - 86.9

I think the 'goal kicking power' point is being oversold and it's pretty lazy analysis by the media at the moment to be focusing on our forward line.

On current averages we are ahead of Geelong (Hawkins and Cameron), Port (Dixon), Sydney (Buddy, Papley) and Richmond (Riewoldt, Lynch).

We're also ahead of other 'goal kicking power' teams like Adelaide (Walker) 79.8, Carlton (Mackay) 84.7, Gold Coast (King) 71.6 and St Kilda (King) 70.6.

We sit 5th in terms of average points scored. I really don't think this is a panic like it's being made out.

 

Interestingly, if you take out the Dogs' beltings of St Kilda (by 111) and North (by 128), their average score in their remaining games comes down to 87.4.

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

It's funny because the winning team has kept their opponents to 50, 25, 74, 60, 67, 61, 74, 62, 81, 81, 52, 68, 89, 44, 84, 54, 73, 84, 66, 82 and 75 since the year 2000. Even when footy was higher scoring in the early 2000s, no team has kicked 90 points and lost a Grand Final. The average score of a defeated grand finalist since 1999 is 67 points, and since 2013 is 59 points.

Defence wins premierships because it can survive under the highest intensity. That's why we've comfortably beaten every other team at the top end of the ladder because our game stands up when both teams are bringing the heat. 

We beat both Geelong and Brisbane, with their 'goal kicking firepower'. Brisbane kicked 3 goals after half time. Geelong kicked 5 straight in the 3rd quarter, but only 9 for the match. Geelong and Brisbane are both defensive teams like us because defence wins premierships. 

Ignoring all that .... we've still kicked the 3rd most points of any team this year.

Edit: Lord Nev put up averages, which is better. Our numbers actually look less flattering because we haven't run up the scoreboard against the poorer teams like some other teams have .... but doing that doesn't mean anything in finals.

I agree with you, but I think it's a bit dangerous to refer to the Geelong game: they didn't have Cameron, Rohan or Dangerfield that day.

12 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

We are not down a great deal but we rely on Fritta and Tmac more than we should. What happens when they both have a bad day.

We lose to a side like cwood.

I don't think we lost to Collingwood because TMac and Fritta had down days.

37 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

That's like asking if we would be better off replacing Tom Sparrow with Dustin Martin. Of course we are better off replacing a role player with one of the best players in the league, but it's not a useful comparison.

Geelong paid 3 first round picks for Jeremy Cameron. West Coast, in part, gave up Chris Judd for Kennedy. There are trade offs for all the decisions. I'm sure that if we spent 3 first round picks and a chunk of our salary cap, we would have a superstar key forward to pair with TMac ..... but our team would be worse off overall. 

I should have been clearer - I didnt mean replacing with these players. I meant someone of their aptitude. 

31 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Weird how we've wasted our time going after duds like Jackson, Pickett, Rivers, Langdon, Lever, May etc when we could have just signed Kennedy and instantly won a flag...

That is not what I said at all - that is a misrepresentation. 

if you would like to change this into a general conversation about recruitment wins then you’ll brook no argument from me. ????‍?️??☠️
 

For the pedants - what type of logical fallacy is this please?

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by Superunknown

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

That is not what I said at all - that is a misrepresentation. But that’s on me for not being so clear as to dispel ambiguity/facilitating misunderstanding. 
 

For the pedants - what type of logical fallacy is this please?9

There's give and take mate. You can't just 'add someone like Kennedy'.

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

There's give and take mate. You can't just 'add someone like Kennedy'.

I would agree with you had I said “and a quality backline and replacement ruck utility and pocket and wingman” - but i didn’t say that.

None of what you have said invalidates Sue’s original point. 

Don’t be offended if I don’t respond further - I have limited bandwidth 

Let's hope TMac stays fit and firing. Probably our most important player at the moment because we don't have an adequate replacement (SW struggling badly for form and BB struggling for fitness). 

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

I would agree with you had I said “and a quality backline and replacement ruck utility and pocket and wingman” - but i didn’t say that.

 

54 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

Good perspective.

We are fumbling around trying to find a FF. A good way to think about this, along your lines is: if we added a Kennedy, Hawkins, Walker, Cameron (etc) type FF to our forward line would we be better or worse.*

Not sure why you're jumping around between different points and other peoples posts.

Here is a reminder of what you said.

Again, you can't just 'add a Kennedy, Hawkins, Walker...etc' You must give things up to get them.

43 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

More key forwards doesn't automatically mean more goals from them though. Out of our top 5 goal kickers this year only one is a key forward and we're top of the ladder.

Weid and Brown played together, against Carlton and we kicked a higher than average score for us. Neither Weid or Brown kicked a goal though. That was the end of the 3 permanent tall forwards experiment it seems. In that game we had only 7 tackles inside 50, fairly below our average of 11.3.

Bulldogs and Brisbane are the two highest scoring teams this year, we beat both of them.

As far as inside 50s go, we're 3rd for average inside 50s and 5th for average score. Seems fairly balanced. Dogs are number 1 in both categories, Lions number 2 in both.

We play a fairly fast rebounding style this year, in which forward pressure is very important, IMO playing more key forwards hurts us in that area. Personally, I'd go back to the setup we had at the start of the year with TMac, Fritsch and then Gawn/Jackson rotating forward. During that time we averaged 89.5 points per game, compared to 88.0 the rest of the year. So we actually averaged slightly more with less key forwards.

I later  clarified by an edit what I meant by 'more'.  I didn't mean more than now I meant 2 who put fear into the hearts of opponents. So far we have only had one.  So I agree 3 is too many. But 2 (in form) is what is wanted IMO.    Even if the second key forward produced less forward line pressure than a smaller player did or even than Sam has done, I think it would improve the team.  I presume you are not saying we should replace Sam with a small bloke.

So do we need a replacement for BB and Weid or not?

My view is we should already have one in training its unfortunate we didn't a few years ago

Another chance in the mid season draft ! Did we look at any possibles?

45 minutes ago, Kent said:

So do we need a replacement for BB and Weid or not?

My view is we should already have one in training its unfortunate we didn't a few years ago

Another chance in the mid season draft ! Did we look at any possibles?

If Petty wasn’t required to defend he would I believe make a decent forward. 

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

I don't think we lost to Collingwood because TMac and Fritta had down days.

Wasnt all Weids fault. 

I forgot to include Kozzie.

I think we lost because we didnt kick  enough goals. 

Our three leading scorers kicked ONE goal between them.

I think its probably a part of it ?

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by leave it to deever

10 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Wasnt all Weids fault. 

I forgot to include Kozzie.

I think we lost because we didnt kick  enough goals. 

Our three leading scorers kicked ONE goal between them.

I think its probably a part of it ?

Haha yes true, kicking more goals might have given us a better chance!

I'm not putting the blame for the loss on the forwards. The delivery was absolutely horrendous and meant Pies players were able to either intercept easily or be in best position to rebound. Hard to apply effective pressure in that situation let alone try and mark the ball.

Would actually be keen to hear from people at the game. We only get to see the positioning once the ball is already inside 50, could potentially be that's why we bombed, but from watching on TV, and seeing how much we bombed it all over the ground, it just looked like a bunch of tired players trying to deal with the pressure Collingwood brought.

Noticed on the broadcast, pretty sure the last quarter, Gus yelling out the players to talk more out on the ground, to me that's another sign of a flat team.

Sure there were loads of reasons we played so badly and didn't kick enough goals - not all Sam's fault.  But unfortunately I don't think Sam ever strikes fear into the opposition.  He needs to go to the VFL until he can.  In the meantime let's hope BB, MJ, or MB can.  If BB is fit enough, he has the runs on the board to be given the first chance.

Because we are seriously in the hunt for flag this season we need to put the best available 22 on the park. BB and MB have not been given enough opportunity to make their case that they belong at the pointy end for the remainder of the season. Weid had had his chance and come up short by a long margin and now back to development. Whether he remains on our list to be decided at end of season.

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

42 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Wasnt all Weids fault. 

I forgot to include Kozzie.

I think we lost because we didnt kick  enough goals. 

Our three leading scorers kicked ONE goal between them.

I think its probably a part of it ?

Yep if Tmac, Kozzie and Weid kicked a modest 1 goal each we might have won. We were way below our points average. 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Haha yes true, kicking more goals might have given us a better chance!

I'm not putting the blame for the loss on the forwards. The delivery was absolutely horrendous and meant Pies players were able to either intercept easily or be in best position to rebound. Hard to apply effective pressure in that situation let alone try and mark the ball.

Would actually be keen to hear from people at the game. We only get to see the positioning once the ball is already inside 50, could potentially be that's why we bombed, but from watching on TV, and seeing how much we bombed it all over the ground, it just looked like a bunch of tired players trying to deal with the pressure Collingwood brought.

Noticed on the broadcast, pretty sure the last quarter, Gus yelling out the players to talk more out on the ground, to me that's another sign of a flat team.

Was there on the wing. There was a moment when Max marked in front of me about sixty out from goal.

All our talls were miles behind him in the centre. 

Yes delivery was poor but our forwards were all over the place. 

And when delivery was reasonable we were simply out marked or out positioned. There was also little strategy bw them.

But on the whole, you are correct about delivery. Pies showed us how it was done with precision inside fifties.

Having said that some forwards go and create their own luck so to speak and thats what makes them champions.

Our forwards except for Jackson were Im sad to say lazy this game gone by .

Maybe they were thinking it was a cake walk...But for some reason they just didnt fight like they previously have. 

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by leave it to deever

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

Was there on the wing. There was a moment when Max marked in front of me about sixty out from goal.

All our talls were miles behind him in the centre. 

Yes delivery was poor but our forwards were all over the place. 

And when delivery was reasonable we were simply out marked or out positioned.

But on the whole, you are correct about delivery. Pies showed us how it was done with precision inside fifties.

Having said that some forwards go and create their own luck so to speak and thats what makes them champions.

Our forwards except for Jackson were Im sad to say lazy this game gone by .

Maybe they were thinking it was a cake walk...But for some reason they just didnt fight like they previously have. 

Thanks mate! Appreciate the insights from someone actually there.

The bye came a week late for us I reckon, just looked flat from the start and not able to recover.

Also was there on the day, and the two big things that were most clear were:

- giving Collingwood lots of time to break away from and through congestion and kick cleanly to their talls who were presenting hard and in front.

- failing to break away from and through congestion and then kicking loosely to our forwards who were either still trying to get to our forward line or giving half-intensity leads step-to-step or even behind their opponent.

It all broke down very badly. I was interested in a few people suggesting that our scoring firepower isn't so much a problem because we've got a pretty good 'for' total overall. I think the trouble is the vulnerability of our forward line to severe droughts.

Fristch, McDonald and Pickett are our leading goalkickers, combining for almost half our total goals, but all three of them can have very quiet games. On Monday each one of them had close to their worst individual game for the season.

On Monday we kicked nine goals. Three from the ruckmen, 4 from the midfield/wingers, one from Nibbler and one from Fritsch.

That'll won't cut it.  But also... if we do get the forwards functioning consistently we will become truly terrifying.

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Thanks mate! Appreciate the insights from someone actually there.

The bye came a week late for us I reckon, just looked flat from the start and not able to recover.

Thanks Lord.

The upside I guess is we are half way through the season and we still have time to get our forward line tweaked. Tmac and Fritta had shockers but they still feature high on the Afl goal kickers. And Kozzie apart from pies game has been kicking goals at long last. Max has become more accurate as has Anb. (Oliver really needs to work on his kicking and as much as he is a star misses some truly easy shots on goal.) Langdon and Spargo ususlly chip in with a goal each but were strangely quiet.

Interestingly if you look at the 2018 dees goal scorers we had a plethora.

But if we can get one of the Browns firing in place of Weid before the finals then it will make a huge difference. Luke Jackson has improved immensley so everything could click and we may start kicking 100 points plus.

We have lost this week looking like we wanted the break, and very much we might have needed it. 
 

my worry is that, from my memory we do not return after a break very well.  How have we gone in the last few years, does any one know ?

19 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Gee first olisik clogs up the board, now Half Forward Flank is back?

From memory he was going on during last year's trade period about Brown prioritising money or other off-field, hence why he turned his back on North and whatever contract they'd offered him.

So the contradiction is on your mate here. I called it with BB last year when we were not having success. So did not wait until we had one average game to say it. Also called the president was a flim flam man who would never get us a home ground.  Called Goody needed help and he got it and it has made an enormous difference. Happy with new president, coaching panel and how the team are playing.  

Edited June 16, 20214 yr by Half forward flank