19 minutes ago, binman said:

King is totally random. Mixes some genuinely interesting points with bizarre bulltish.

I don't rate King at all. He does stats because that's what the American sports shows do but AFL football is much harder to define with stats because the game is so chaotic. Sports like baseball, basketall etc are far easier because there are fewer moving parts. King tries to shoehorn stats into his analysis but he usually misses the point of them. It's really frustrating to watch because most of the time he just doesn't understand what's actually happening, despite the resources and statistics that are thrown at him.

Montagna is far more interesting and insightful. He looks at things that are actually interesting about the game and you can learn a lot from him. It must be hard for him to sit there sometimes as King talks about Geelong chipping the ball around, as they have for many years, like it's the most groundbreaking analysis of all time. 

Get Daisy on. Get her on all the shows. 

Agree with every comment.

Reciting ststs isn't analysis. Lazy

Montagna uses them to stats to illustrate an observation he is making. 

I rarely watch any of the afl video shows. But watched the round previrw daisy does this week. She was talking about the dogs decline. Fantastic. Intersting. And above all informative. Which is what you want.

Cant delete post

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by binman
Weird accidental quote

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree with every comment.

Reciting ststs isn't analysis. Lazy

Montagna uses them to stats to illustrate an observation he is making. 

I rarely watch any of the afl video shows. But watched the round previrw daisy does this week. She was talking about the dogs decline. Fantastic. Intersting. And above all informative. Which is what you want.

I assume you are talking about Daisy Pierce and not DaisyThomas?

She is a gun and breath of fresh air in the over crowded commentary circles.

Someone worth listening to.

16 minutes ago, Wrecker46 said:

I assume you are talking about Daisy Pierce and not DaisyThomas?

She is a gun and breath of fresh air in the over crowded commentary circles.

Someone worth listening to.

Decidedly yes.

10 minutes ago, binman said:

Decidedly yes.

My young daughter who has number 6 on her jumper can't understand why people ask if it was for Jordan Lewis.

She responds back in disgust it's for daisy.

I don't think people understand yet what an impact she has had and is having on this club

When the inaugural women's draft happened she said she wouldn't play unless it was for Melbourne. It reminded me of the famous clip of Norm Smith saying he is Melbourne and won't go anywhere else.

 

3 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

It was a bit weird.

Montagna was saying that we had the better of general play, aside from about 5 minutes of chaos where everything Geelong touched turned to gold. This was exactly what most people would say. King then was trying to say that Chris Scott is a tactical mastermind because they play keepings off and that their golden run was a result of that because Dangerfield and Selwood exist. It was hard to follow his point but he seemed to argue that Geelong was better tactically because they chipped the ball around. The fact that they kicked 4 goals in 3 quarters of footy wasn't important.

Montagna pushed back on that and King was flustered. Montagna eventually just moved on for the sake of the segment. It was weird and pretty hard to follow, but King certainly wasn't particularly full of praise.

Not that it means much, but what I found interesting was now all three hosts have us as their pegs for flag favourite. Montagna has been on us all year. King switched to us last week from the Dogs if I recall correctly, and Morris switched this week to us from Geelong.

I think those in the media are a bit like most AFL fans, including some Melbourne fans (like me). Despite all the overwhelming evidence that says we should win it this year, the fact that people aren't riding Melbourne as the best team all year is simply because it is Melbourne. If it were almost any other side bar maybe St Kilda, Fremantle or one of the other expansion teams, I think all the commentary would be that given our stars, given our system, it's ours to lose.

But that's not really the rhetoric. Instead, there's a nervous favouritism towards us. This will only be broken and impact on future rhetoric if we can break through this year.

2 hours ago, Pates said:

I had a listen to King then, and while I don’t agree with his sentiments I think he was more taking the viewpoint of being positive towards Scott and his tactics rather than not rating Melbourne. It was a strange position though because if you look at the course of the game that majority is played on terms that suit us, it was a period where we lost our heads and Geelong just had everything at the centre bounce work for them (as well as a touch of luck a couple of times). The better teams are then able to manage that game, but the cats sat back on their efforts of 10 minutes and allowed us to get back into it bit by bit.

Then I bet you Goody and the team set themselves for that first 3-5 minutes to say let’s try to get a quick 2-3 goals and see how they react. I’ll be honest I’m a bit surprised at how much Geelong collectively [censored] themselves. For a team with so much experience (and plenty of quality) they had no answer. 

To get away with a win when we'd been exposed at centre stoppages like we were for that patch in the second is a massive win, because what I'm hoping is that that's the reality check vis a vis defending from centre clearance and ensuring post clearance pressure is there.

For all of Viney's defensiveness at stoppage, he was in there being beaten when Geelong walked out the front stoppage repeatedly in the second.

Our inability to stem the flow of momentum and set up defensively to ensure that if clearance was lost we weren't exposed out the front of stoppage, was alarming and I'd love to know what the coaches and players put it down to. It was the first time this season we failed to react to a momentum shift.

Surely, when they kick one or two in a row, we revert to a more defensive set up and protect the front of stoppage more heavily? Maybe even go two defensive mids into the centre stoppage. Instead, if anything, we became more aggressive and tried to win it down to Oliver for aggressive clearance take aways, when it was clear that wasn't working. It was quite 2018 all or nothing for that small patch, I thought.

Whereas, in the last quarter, Max seemed to tap it to space, rather than go for taps down the throat to advantage like he was trying in the second.

It'll be interesting to see our response at centre stoppage next week and if we encounter Geelong again.

Incidentally, like the narrowness of Kardinia, isn't the Adelaide Oval a similar dimension? In which case, I wonder if we'll try and roll up our half backs to the contest again to squeeze Brisbane and force territory from stoppage or whether we'll go with the structure that has got us to the top, ie the spare off the back of the stoppage in Salem.

I liked Montagna's analysis and wonder if we got a little cute in the first half. If that was a genuine tactical shift at half time, I love that we've responded in game to that. It's not just a mental shift by the players, it's a tactical shift by our coaching team. You love to see it.

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by A F

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

One of the examples King used was how the chip kicking resulted in the soccer goal to Hawkins (12 minutes in) because Lever was playing on Close. However the kick came in from a turnover in the Geelong attacking half, with a switch kick and then a bomb from 80m out .... to an 8 vs 5 with Max Gawn standing under it. Geelong somehow scrubbed it through because Max got body pressure from the small Parfitt and let the ball over the back, whilst Hawkins and Cameron were worked out of the contest. This is how we want to defend, but a series of weird mishaps resulted in a goal. King, instead, thought this was a coaching masterclass.

I don't have a problem with being bullish on Scott's plan to nurse a slow, old team to a final crack at a premiership. It's smart coaching. But he's started with a conclusion in mind and then went really looking for evidence to support it even when it wasn't there, which made the whole thing look really weird.

I also found it odd that King said categorically that Oliver couldn't be tagged and that he'd tag Petracca instead.

It's been shown in 2021 that you can definitely reduce the effectiveness of our midfield if you tag Oliver. I just don't think O'Connor is good enough to tag Oliver. De Boer on the other hand...

4 minutes ago, A F said:

Not that it means much, but what I found interesting was now all three hosts have us as their pegs for flag favourite. Montagna has been on us all year. King switched to us last week from the Dogs if I recall correctly, and Morris switched this week to us from Geelong.

I think those in the media are a bit like most AFL fans, including some Melbourne fans (like me). Despite all the overwhelming evidence that says we should win it this year, the fact that people aren't riding Melbourne as the best team all year is simply because it is Melbourne. If it were almost any other side bar maybe St Kilda, Fremantle or one of the other expansion teams, I think all the commentary would be that given our stars, given our system, it's ours to lose.

But that's not really the rhetoric. Instead, there's a nervous favouritism towards us. This will only be broken and impact on future rhetoric if we can break through this year.

To get away with a win when we'd been exposed at centre stoppages like we were for that patch in the second is a massive win, because what I'm hoping is that that's the reality check vis a vis defending from centre clearance and ensuring post clearance pressure is there.

For all of Viney's defensiveness at stoppage, he was in there being beaten when Geelong walked out the front stoppage repeatedly in the second.

Our inability to stem the flow of momentum and set up defensively to ensure that if clearance was lost we weren't exposed out the front of stoppage, was alarming and I'd love to know what the coaches and players put it down to. It was the first time this season we failed to react to a moment shift.

Surely, when they kick one or two in a row, we revert to a more defensive set up and protect the front of stoppage more heavily? Maybe even go two defensive mids into the centre stoppage. Instead, if anything, we became more aggressive and tried to win it down to Oliver for aggressive clearance take aways, when it was clear that wasn't working. It was quite 2018 all or nothing for thst small patch, I thought.

Whereas, in the last quarter, Max seemed to tap it to space, rather than go for taps to advantage like he was trying in the second.

It'll be interesting to see our response at centre stoppage next week and if we encounter Geelong again.

Incidentally, like the narrowness of Kardinia, isn't the Adelaide Oval a similar dimension? In which case, I wonder if we'll try and roll up our half backs to the contest again to squeeze Brisbane and force territory from stoppage or whether we'll go with the system that has got us to the top, ie the spare off the back of the stoppage in Salem.

I liked Montagna's analysis and wonder if we got a little cute in the first half. If that was a genuine tactical shift at half time, I love that we've responded in game to that. It's not just a mental shift by the players, it's a tactical shift by our coaching team. You love to see it.

I think we have been happy to concede shallow clearances all year as long as they are rushed clearances. May and Lever generally mark it and repel.

Selwood and Dangerfield had a 15 minute burst and we were destroyed. They both got centre clearances where they got deeper F50!entries. It helps on shorter grounds.

We won't fall for that again.

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Agree with every comment.

Reciting ststs isn't analysis. Lazy

Montagna uses them to stats to illustrate an observation he is making. 

I rarely watch any of the afl video shows. But watched the round previrw daisy does this week. She was talking about the dogs decline. Fantastic. Intersting. And above all informative. Which is what you want.

Is this on the AFL site mate? Would love to watch it.

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by A F

4 minutes ago, A F said:

I also found it odd that King said categorically that Oliver couldn't be tagged and that he'd tag Petracca instead.

It's been shown in 2021 that you can definitely reduce the effectiveness of our midfield if you tag Oliver. I just don't think O'Connor is good enough to tag Oliver. De Boer on the other hand...

There is nothing more than I love seeing than Petracca bring tagged. He just sits back at centre bounces and lets the best opposition deensive player stand back with him, Oliver can beat the rest of them by himself.

4 minutes ago, Wrecker46 said:

I think we have been happy to concede shallow clearances all year as long as they are rushed clearances. May and Lever generally mark it and repel.

Selwood and Dangerfield had a 15 minute burst and we were destroyed. They both got centre clearances where they got deeper F50!entries. It helps on shorter grounds.

We won't fall for that again.

 

Absolutely, we're happy to lose clearance provided the post clearance pressure is there and that's what I mean was alarming about that patch of football in the second. Not only was the post pressure not there so they walked out the front of stoppage, it happened at multiple centre bounces in a row and we failed to set up to cover properly after it was clear momentum was going against us.

2 minutes ago, Wrecker46 said:

There is nothing more than I love seeing than Petracca bring tagged. He just sits back at centre bounces and lets the best opposition deensive player stand back with him, Oliver can beat the rest of them by himself.

I'd also argue that due to Petracca's body size, he's harder to tag than Oliver. Just a really strange piece of commentary from King.

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by A F

How the he'll did they sneak a cam into Old Dee's den / bunker!!??

When will Max be named All Australian Captain?

Old mate Kingy thinks the AA captain will or should be Toby Greene. 🤣

8 minutes ago, A F said:

Old mate Kingy thinks the AA captain will or should be Toby Greene. 🤣

Only just got a chance to watch First Crack. Either he is being given contentious lines to say by a producer or he is doing lines of something out the back.

4 hours ago, A F said:

I'd also argue that due to Petracca's body size, he's harder to tag than Oliver. Just a really strange piece of commentary from King.

Not really, I think due to Oliver’s ability to grab and disposal of the ball so quickly by hand he is harder to nullify where it really matters. Trac does more damage on the spread so you have a chance to curtail his influence by not allowing him the space. But easier said than done. 
King was simply saying and iirc did say Oliver can’t be tagged. 

Can anyone please show us the difference of Geelong's ground compared to the MCG. Not really IT savvy.

I just re-watched the last ~15min of Q2. A few observations:

- Hawkins first two goals (in that 15min period) were critical and I think started to give the Cats some confidence after a gruelling 45min of football.  Both goals were probably on May who didn’t seem to read the ball’s flight allowing Hawkins to get in a better position. 
 

- The subsequent run of goals from the centre seemed driven by their pace. Dangerfield was key. The first goal was probably on Harmes and to some degree Gawn. Harmes started next to Dangerfield on their offensive side but lost him. Dangerfield subsequently just waltzed past Gawn and ran almost up to 50m arc. 
 

- Clarry started next to Dangerfield at the next bounce, also their offensive side.  Cats got a bit lucky getting this ball out of the centre but then they just waltzed forward. It seemed like our backs were just not set up. Can’t see on TV but maybe their forwards had dragged our backs out of position. Rivers seemed to have slipped over or perhaps was pushed off the ball, which opened up the space for Dangerfield. Bowey also got sucked toward Dangerfield, opening up the space behind him. 

- the third goal out of the centre could have been a Cats set play in terms of how their forwards worked together. Hawkins kept May out of the contest, and Cameron grappled with Smith effectively blocking Lever and creating a space for Rohan to get across for the mark. At the centre bounce, Dangerfield was again on their offensive side this time Viney was on him. But Oliver and Harmes both got sucked into focusing on Dangerfield, which then allowed Selwood and their #9 (I think) to clear the ball with pace. 

Some overall observations:

- their pace was key

- not clear who was on dangerfield, and we got sucked towards him a few times (did Dangerfield have a tag?)

- Cats were quite clever at blocking our pathways to create space for the ball carrier

- May was not at his best in this period 

I also wondered whether the extra space between the goal square and the 50m arc threw us off a bit.  GMHBA is longer than the MCG by 10m so there must be an extra 5m on either side of the goal square. They exploited that space. 

9 minutes ago, MT64 said:

Can anyone please show us the difference of Geelong's ground compared to the MCG. Not really IT savvy.

I was wondering about this and found this online:

8 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

One of the examples King used was how the chip kicking resulted in the soccer goal to Hawkins (12 minutes in) because Lever was playing on Close. However the kick came in from a turnover in the Geelong attacking half, with a switch kick and then a bomb from 80m out .... to an 8 vs 5 with Max Gawn standing under it. Geelong somehow scrubbed it through because Max got body pressure from the small Parfitt and let the ball over the back, whilst Hawkins and Cameron were worked out of the contest. This is how we want to defend, but a series of weird mishaps resulted in a goal. King, instead, thought this was a coaching masterclass.

I don't have a problem with being bullish on Scott's plan to nurse a slow, old team to a final crack at a premiership. It's smart coaching. But he's started with a conclusion in mind and then went really looking for evidence to support it even when it wasn't there, which made the whole thing look really weird.

Agree, it was just odd. I am all for insight but King just has to mainline counter intuition - his body language whenever Montagna is talking has always being quite funny to me - King rates himself the doyen of the brains on the fox slate but Riewoldt and Montagna are more stuns than he is.

I actually thought his analysis had more to do with King than Scott. 

And Scott certainly has the team doing what he wants them to do but if Port or us or BL don’t put this team of geriatrics on borrowed time out of their misery i would be surprised, and violently ill.

I was thinking in those last ten minutes in particular about how the AFL bleat on and on about “the look of the game” and just how ugly the backwards and criss cross chipping looks.  Boring really. 
Wasn’t going to raise it at the time as I thought it would be seen as sour grapes had we lost (as looked likely) but since we won I thought I would. 
But seriously with the AFL seeming to want to change rules every year “for the look of the game and higher scoring” should they have a good look at “no mark from a backward kick in defensive half of the ground”?  I would extend it even to anywhere outside forward 50.   
IIRC VFL tried it a few years ago but abandoned it. 

https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/geelongs-joel-selwood-under-fire-for-blatant-throw-in-loss-to-melbourne-c-3748015

Never understand why the media doesn't call out Selwood. (Well, other than the The West - see link.) He's a genuine s@#t bloke.

2 hours ago, MT64 said:

Can anyone please show us the difference of Geelong's ground compared to the MCG. Not really IT savvy.

Here we see in one picture, the  MCG, and in the other, Kardinia Park. To scale.

 

Edited August 22, 20213 yr by Mazer Rackham