On 7/13/2021 at 10:29 AM, Dwight Schrute said:

No change. 

a positional change i'd consder however is giving Jayden Hunt some stints forward at times, 

That’s an interesting one. I have liked (mostly) when Hunt has run into the forward line as a result of link up play. However, I have never thought he’s had much forward craft. So to start him off in the forward half of the ground doesn’t appear to do him favours. 
Just an observation 

1 hour ago, deelusions from afar said:

each would have the ball less than 5% of the total game time - so the pressuring, running etc is more important. 

I remember hearing someone talk about this on the radio a few years ago (and again a few months back).

Specifically they were talking about the crows (maybe Neil Craig) coming to the realization (because someone tracked him?) that even though Ricchiuto was getting the ball 30 plus times a game and was their best player, in 120 minutes of football he only had the ball in his hands for 2 mins.

The comment was that this realization changed football because from that point the crows, and then the rest of the competition, had a much greater emphasis on what was happening for the other 118 minutes.

And this shift ushered in the era of all team defensive running and spread that is a fundamental of today's game.

And key position players, like forwards, staying in the one area all game for that matter. Which in turn has shifted the game away from one on one battles so many people seem to pine for. 

Edited July 14, 20213 yr by binman

43 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The other question is if we will persist with the same tactics if we go behind. Against GWS and Collingwood we abandoned the game plan in Q4 and in both games we got a bit lost with our tactics. It would be good to have a few games in the back end of the year which are not close (preferably winning by a lot) and we look to be a bit more attacking. We don't want to go behind in a final and not know what to do.

Perhaps.

But i reckon in the pies and GWS games the issue was not the forward line, it was that our ball movement from the back half was was too slow and we were not creating any overlap.

And we were also not creating any of that swarm pressure that generates so much of scoring when we are on.

As i have noted before i reckon this was a function of fatigue, rather than abandoning the game as such, that's to say were no physically able to properly implement the game plan  

In the Lions game fatigue wasn't an issue. However we were 20 odd points down at half time, and in trouble, in large part due to the fact that we were not generating enough scoring opportunities. 

A heard a number of players say after that game that we had been too cautious and slow in the first half and Goody had encouraged to get them the ball moving more quickly. It was really noticeable that we did so - we played on more quickly and handballed more aggressively and often. And swamped the Lions.

When we play like that, as we did against port for much of the game, opposition defenses often get all out of shape and we get goals out the back like two of traccs goals (or even friiter's long range goal - they had no one at all inside our 50 metre arc when he marked that ball leaving a completely open goal - and he actually had Spargo running toward goal he could have elected to give it to)  

The other thing i think is worth considering is the idea of what being more attacking. It seems counterintuitive, but perhaps kicking to he pocket IS the more attacking option as it gives us two bites at the shots at goal cherry.

First bite is we either mark it in the pocket, it comes to ground and we crumb it or it goes over the boundary and we score form that stoppage.

Second bite is the opposition desperately try to clear the zone and dump kick it under pressure and we intercept that kick and come back inside (often with a little 20 metre kick to an open player) for another scoring opportunity. 

With kicking it to the hotspot this second bite is less likely as it is harder to defend a dump kick from the corridor. Much easier to defend a dump kick from the pocket as as i noted they really only have one option which is down the line and so we can saturate the likely drop zone with players pushing up. 

39 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I just heard on the news that the MCG is now an exposure site. It seems to be related to the Geelong vs. Carlton match. I can’t find anything online to this effect so I hope I’ve misheard. 

No, you heard right. Level 2, MCC Cats v Blues is a T2 exposure site (get tested & isolate) 

23 minutes ago, binman said:

Perhaps.

But i reckon in the pies and GWS games the issue was not the forward line, it was that our ball movement from the back half was was too slow and we were not creating any overlap.

And we were also not creating any of that swarm pressure that generates so much of scoring when we are on.

As i have noted before i reckon this was a function of fatigue, rather than abandoning the game as such, that's to say were no physically able to properly implement the game plan  

In the Lions game fatigue wasn't an issue. However we were 20 odd points down at half time, and in trouble, in large part due to the fact that we were not generating enough scoring opportunities. 

A heard a number of players say after that game that we had been too cautious and slow in the first half and Goody had encouraged to get them the ball moving more quickly. It was really noticeable that we did so - we played on more quickly and handballed more aggressively and often. And swamped the Lions.

When we play like that, as we did against port for much of the game, opposition defenses often get all out of shape and we get goals out the back like two of traccs goals (or even friiter's long range goal - they had no one at all inside our 50 metre arc when he marked that ball leaving a completely open goal - and he actually had Spargo running toward goal he could have elected to give it to)  

The other thing i think is worth considering is the idea of what being more attacking. It seems counterintuitive, but perhaps kicking to he pocket IS the more attacking option as it gives us two bites at the shots at goal cherry.

First bite is we either mark it in the pocket, it comes to ground and we crumb it or it goes over the boundary and we score form that stoppage.

Second bite is the opposition desperately try to clear the zone and dump kick it under pressure and we intercept that kick and come back inside (often with a little 20 metre kick to an open player) for another scoring opportunity. 

With kicking it to the hotspot this second bite is less likely as it is harder to defend a dump kick from the corridor. Much easier to defend a dump kick from the pocket as as i noted they really only have one option which is down the line and so we can saturate the likely drop zone with players pushing up. 

Great post again. A couple of other points:

I am of the view that the pocket entry does not really suit Ben Brown very much. We are usually kicking to a pack of 4+ and he is rarely going to win those. The best chance he will have to kick goals may be from stoppages.

We have been ultra impressive in getting handball overlap to break the game open at times this year. But IMO keeping 'speed on the game' and 'getting goals over the back' are really a function of winning clean contests on the wing and the opposition having a full press on. I don't think it is really a decision not to do it at times. Rather it is because we have not won enough wing contests or the opposition has set up to have a goal keeper in place.

7 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Great post again. A couple of other points:

I am of the view that the pocket entry does not really suit Ben Brown very much. We are usually kicking to a pack of 4+ and he is rarely going to win those. The best chance he will have to kick goals may be from stoppages.

We have been ultra impressive in getting handball overlap to break the game open at times this year. But IMO keeping 'speed on the game' and 'getting goals over the back' are really a function of winning clean contests on the wing and the opposition having a full press on. I don't think it is really a decision not to do it at times. Rather it is because we have not won enough wing contests or the opposition has set up to have a goal keeper in place.

I was impressed with BBB last week - though he didn't score goals and didn't really hold marks he certainly made a contest and I noticed on multiple occasions that when he knew he was unlikely to mark it he did all he could to ensure it spilled to a dees player.  In some ways it looked strange because I was thinking "why aren't you trying to mark it" but maybe this is how selflessness translates when you're a big key forward.

But in line with what you're saying, I think we should be looking to use Brown as the lead up forward when we win a clear centre clearance.  it doesn't happen often but I hope they are practising this a lot at training.  He's good on the lead and a great kick - if we can get 2 goals from this a game that would be enormous - I also think it is doable.

The rest of the time if he's competing and making a contest then he's doing his job - he doesn't have to kick bags in this team (though I won't be complaining if he does)

21 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

We have been ultra impressive in getting handball overlap to break the game open at times this year. But IMO keeping 'speed on the game' and 'getting goals over the back' are really a function of winning clean contests on the wing and the opposition having a full press on. I don't think it is really a decision not to do it at times. Rather it is because we have not won enough wing contests or the opposition has set up to have a goal keeper in place.

Agree to an extent, particularly in regard to the importance of winning contests (perhaps the key part of our game plan) and the opposition not using a sweeper role, or holding defenders deep (which few do really because it means you are down one player somewhere). 

But they can also create overlap by playing on quickly and either kicking long or having a player run past for a handball. And also by using more handballs to move the ball.

The phrase the players most used in when talking about the first half of the Lions game was they played too safe.

In the second half they played on much more quickly, had a real focus on players running past for a handball and had heaps more many handballs. They were much more aggressive and played much less 'safe'. 

23 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree to an extent, particularly in regard to the importance of winning contests (perhaps the key part of our game plan) and the opposition not using a sweeper role, or holding defenders deep (which few do really because it means you are down one player somewhere). 

But they can also create overlap by playing on quickly and either kicking long or having a player run past for a handball. And also by using more handballs to move the ball.

The phrase the players most used in when talking about the first half of the Lions game was they played too safe.

In the second half they played on much more quickly, had a real focus on players running past for a handball and had heaps more many handballs. They were much more aggressive and played much less 'safe'. 

My gut feel is that 'playing too safe' is a bit of an illusion and that we probably err on being too aggressive rather than too conservative. (Although our balance is very good.) I feel the only times we have been 'too safe' is because: a) we have not won enough clean contests on the wing; b) had to hold up due to being outnumbered ahead; or c) we have made skill errors in trying to break the game open. Jackson and TMac are particularly important to this part of our game because they are so good in the air and on the ground.

I was not at the Lions game (and you can't see the whole ground from watching on TV) but I think they defended much better in the first half and stymied our attempts when we tried to play on and get overlap or got numbers behind the ball so we had to go slow. In the second half, they turned the ball over and even defended poorly on slow plays and we got overlap going. I would put the turnaround on their inability to sustain the defence for the full game and our handball skills being so good. (Plus we won the centre bounces.)

That's all true, however IIRC correctly we doubled our play on rate in the second half, which had to be a conscious reset as playing on can be done even when the opposition is set ahead of the ball.

We played into their hands in the first half by not playing on more often and holding it too often an for too long, meaning the game was played more on their terms.

I can't recall the game, but there was another with an almost identical dynamic.  

Another reason we probably don't play Max in the hot spot and bomb it to him is because that's where he misses them from. I love Max but I hate it when he has a kick directly in front close to goal. We may as well just set up our zone when he gets it there.

The Hawks will try to turn the game into a slog like they did last time.

They will forgo the clearances and their wings will flood back at the first opportunity.

We need to stop them trying to control possession and get the game moving quickly.

On talent and system we win this if we bring our A game. The game will be played in our forward half and it will be a challenge to find a clear pathway to goal.

 

Dees by 48

7 News just said T Mac checked in for scans today. The reason why is coming up shortly. Anyone heard anything?

He's pregnant again?

20 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

7 News just said T Mac checked in for scans today. The reason why is coming up shortly. Anyone heard anything?

They did not in fact give any reason. Just said he went for scans despite completing all the training sessions this week. 
Absolutely useless reporting. 

Just now, Jaded said:

They did not in fact give any reason. Just said he went for scans despite completing all the training sessions this week. 
Absolutely useless reporting. 

Sounds just like most Tom Browne reporting...

1 minute ago, Jaded said:

They did not in fact give any reason. Just said he went for scans despite completing all the training sessions this week. 
Absolutely useless reporting. 

Yep Jaded, had to rewind because I thought I missed hearing as to why. Should have known better than to waste 30 seconds posting what’s on the news these days.

Just now, Dee Zephyr said:

Yep Jaded, had to rewind because I thought I missed hearing as to why. Should have known better than to waste 30 seconds posting what’s on the news these days.

Should have known better than to wait for the sports report after that “teaser” earlier. There’s a reason I only watch ABC news. 

55 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

7 News just said T Mac checked in for scans today. The reason why is coming up shortly. Anyone heard anything?

So...what was the outcome?

9 minutes ago, adonski said:

So...what was the outcome?

Covid negative 

11 minutes ago, adonski said:

So...what was the outcome?

SFA, Jaded mentioned the outcome above.

On 7/13/2021 at 4:46 PM, mauriesy said:

One's number 15 and one's number 29. ?

I know that but when they are side on you cant see the numbers?

no change if possible also need to give whoreforn a bloody good thrashing this week % will be very important 

1 hour ago, BarnDee said:

no change if possible also need to give whoreforn a bloody good thrashing this week % will be very important 

Just a win will do me, the weather will most likely play a big part in scoring opportunities

Edited July 15, 20213 yr by drysdale demon
spelling

No change