GRAND FINAL: Melbourne vs Western Bulldogs

[binman 37,765]

4 minutes ago, A F said:

RE Bailey Smith, he's all offence and no defence. Very much like most of their midfield (minus Libba).

I like @Dwight Schrute's match up of Harmes to Smith. He'll negate his offensive influence and then exploit him going the other way.

I think the North Smith will likely come from an unusual source. We shall see.

That match up hs a lot of merit.

Defensively harmes has the discipline to wear him like a glove. 

And as you say AF, harmes can exploit him offensively and drag smith out of his comfort zone.

The other benefit is harmes would physically monster Smith, which I suspect would really mess with Smith mentally.

Also Iots of players struggle being tagged, particularly when they are not used to it. And I don't think smith has been tagged much, if at all, this season. Or ever. 

That match up would probably mean viney goes head to head with libba, which would be brilliant to watch. And as good as libba is, I'd back Jack to take tbe honours.

Will be intersting to see how they look to negate Daniel's influence, which I'm sure they will. Though I doubt they will run a hard tag on him.

I suspect they will use similar tactics to those used to negate rich x 2 and Tuhoy, which involved having a focus on applying pressure on every possession, so they had no time, and making sure they had no space ahead of them to run into.

They didn't tag them, but kozzie was important with his pace and all forwards were focused on getting accross to them.

And mids, defenders and wingers worked hard to push up and deny them space to run and carry into. 

And of course the other piece of the puzzle is shutting down options for Daniels to kick too. But that is part of defensive DNA as Geelong discovered so brutally. The cats could not buy an uncontested mark. And nor will the dogs.

Daniels is obviously a big part of the way the dogs transitionthe ball and create scoring opportunities.

But he is also key to their defensive system. Setting up uncontested marks is one of  Daniel's biggest weapons as it allows the dogs to get out of jail when under siege by maintaining possession and control. Minimising his ability to do so goes a long way to minimising his impact.

I think it is very instructive we didn't look to negate Daniels at all in rbe round 19 game. We basically let him run free. No chance we do so again.

[Dwight Schrute 16,722]

2 minutes ago, binman said:

That match up hs a lot of merit.

Defensively harmes has the discipline to wear him like a glove. 

And as you say AF, harmes can exploit him offensively and drag smith out of his comfort zone.

The other benefit is harmes would physically monster Smith, which I suspect would really mess with Smith mentally.

Also Iots of players struggle being tagged, particularly when they are not used to it. And I don't think smith has been tagged much, if at all, this season. Or ever. 

That match up would probably mean viney goes head to head with libba, which would be brilliant to watch. And as good as libba is, I'd back Jack to take tbe honours.

Will be intersting to see how they look to negate Daniel's influence, which I'm sure they will. Though I doubt they will run a hard tag on him.

I suspect they will use similar tactics to those used to negate rich x 2 and Tuhoy, which involved having a focus on applying pressure on every possession, so they had no time, and making sure they had no space ahead of them to run into.

They didn't tag them, but kozzie was important with his pace and all forwards were focused on getting accross to them.

And mids, defenders and wingers worked hard to push up and deny them space to run and carry into. 

And of course the other piece of the puzzle is shutting down options for Daniels to kick too. But that is part of defensive DNA as Geelong discovered so brutally. The cats could not buy an uncontested mark. And nor will the dogs.

Daniels is obviously a big part of the way the dogs transitionthe ball and create scoring opportunities.

But he is also key to their defensive system. Setting up uncontested marks is one of  Daniel's biggest weapons as it allows the dogs to get out of jail when under siege by maintaining possession and control. Minimising his ability to do so goes a long way to minimising his impact.

I think it is very instructive we didn't look to negate Daniels at all in rbe round 19 game. We basically let him run free. No chance we do so again.

Round 19 was a really interesting game for us imo, i think we did a few things that would probably qualify as experimental, i guess you can be a bit like that in the position we were in. 

I am really torn on Libba because while i think all their centre work starts with him, Viney, Oliver and Petracca are in such good form i'd be really tempted to back them in. 

I suspect you're right and we will attempt to put on extreme pressure to blunt the effectiveness of Dale/Daniel, but i also think a key is going to be Spargo/Neal-Bullen being offensively potent and making them defend. 

[Demon Dynasty 15,203]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CTyT78VhrPW/?utm_medium=copy_link

[DeezNuts 624]

47 minutes ago, A F said:

RE Bailey Smith, he's all offence and no defence. Very much like most of their midfield (minus Libba).

I like @Dwight Schrute's match up of Harmes to Smith. He'll negate his offensive influence and then exploit him going the other way.

I think the North Smith will likely come from an unusual source. We shall see.

Yeah maybe Salem

[picket fence 15,046]

On 9/12/2021 at 9:28 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

This will be one of the great grand finals we'll see. Star factor on show from both clubs.

Here's my analysis on the dogs from watching game from start to finish.

I thought it was one of the most softest performances I've seen from an AFL club in a long time. Seeing the likes of Rozer, Motlop, Fantasia, Amon and Dursmma shirk or pull out of contests was unbelievable first hand. They just failed to apply any pressure throughout the game and dogs was just able to waltz through traffic with such ease.

[censored] poor effort by Port, and it gives me great confidence that Melbourne won't allow this to happen.

Midfield 

Doggies won the game last night through sheer midfield dominance. Like completely slaughtered them. They were +30 in contested possession, +7 in stoppage clearance and +6 in general clearances. Port rely so much on Boak and Wines that it became too overwhelming for them when you're coming up against Bontempelli, Libratore, McRea, Smith, Treloar, Hunter etc. 

After Bosk and Wines, there's a considerable drop in midfield depth for Port. Again, Doggies are coming up against Gawn, Jackson, Petracca, Oliver, Viney, Harmes, Langdon, Brayshaw and Sparrow. 

To me this is where I think the game will be won. Last time the doggies beat us, they didn't have Treloar or Dunkley.  So they definitely bat a bit deeper then us, but we're better defensively. 

Defence 

Their defence is interesting. They've got some good honest defenders in Wood, Cordy and Gardiner as key talls with Keath to come back in as well. They're not stars,  but they get the job done and are good honest players.

They don't worry me. What worries me is Bailey Dale and Caleb Daniel. Their run and carry along with their elite kicking is exactly what sets them up off half back and create scoring opportunities. They put themselves in a position where they're able to receive and execute length and metres gain.

The stark contrast with both games this year was we were able to negate their influence first time around and put enormous amount of forward pressure on both players. They weren't able to provide the metres gain like usually would and this played an important part in us winning. 

Second time around Daniel and Dale were just given too much freedom to do what they did. Daniel especially was dominant, and Dale was able to piece through our defensive wall as well.

Last night Daniel had 7 rebound 50s and Dale had 8. That's far too much space and freedom that Port gave them and it worked in the doggies favour.

The difference again? Both Daniel and Dale combined for a total of 5 rebound 50s when we beat them earlier.

Stop these two and it'll go a long way to us winning.

Forward

Ports defence is a shambles. To give you a reason why, they had a guy by the name of Trent McKenzie playing on Naughton. Same guy that was picked up as a delisted free agent. Naughton got completely hold of McKenzie last night. Naugjton had a total of 9 marks in which 6 were contested.

He simply does get that luxury against Steven May.

They had Schache play a defensive role on Alir Alir and played it really well. He was able to not only curtail his influence, but also engage in the one on one contests. Look for them to do the exact same on Lever.

Rivers takes Weightman which is a given.

Hibberd could take Hannan who has been inconsistent this year except his past 4 games where he's played a good role up forward.

With Martin back in, expect English to play more minutes up forward. Petty will obviously get the job and needs to watch him in the air because he can be quite dangerous when he gets a good run and job at it. 

If May can negate Naughton, and we stop the likes of Weightman and Bailey Smith who is good up forward, then I think it'll play another element to us winning this game.

In summary, expect this game to go down to the wire. They do scare me to some degree, but I also back our system against theirs.

The only concern for me is the fitness of Steven May. If there was a guy that you want putting all his heart and body on the line for the biggest game of the year it's Steven May. 

If by unfortunate circumstances he doesn't get up, does Tmac go down back? Does Smith come back in?

All intriguing questions. 

BRILLIANT analysis Dazzle as usual. I would place the hardest tag on Daniel with 1 simple instruction...... Do everything in the rules and even twisting some to stop him getting the footy Period🤬

[dazzledavey36 48,643]

1 minute ago, picket fence said:

BRILLIANT analysis Dazzle as usual. I would place the hardest tag on Daniel with 1 simple instruction...... Do everything in the rules and even twisting some to stop him getting the footy Period🤬

I would too. 

Harmes when he's half forward?

[titan_uranus 22,219]

I agree with those who question Smith's defensive efforts. All the examples I've seen in the media in both the semi and prelim were examples of him running into attack.

So I had a look at the pressure acts stat on the AFL website, which also includes defensive half pressure acts.

Smith had 22 pressure acts, 8 of which were in the defensive half (i.e. 36% of his pressure acts were in the defensive half). By comparison, Treloar had 26, 12 in defence (46%), Bontempelli was 25 and 12 (48%), Macrae was 17 and 9 (53%), Dunkley was 26 and 8 (31%), Hunter was 13 and 6 (46%). Libba, interestingly, was 20 and 4 (25%).

In our prelim, Oliver had 27, 14 in defence (52%), Viney was 23 and 15 (65%), Harmes was 21 and 13 (62%), Petracca was 13 and 9 (69%). Langdon was 12 and 8 (67%), Sparrow was 16 and 8 (50%), with Brayshaw 20 and 8 (40%).

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but I read this as our mids working harder into defence (all bar Brayshaw did 50% of their pressure work or more in the back half, whereas for them it was only Macrae doing that).

[picket fence 15,046]

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I would too. 

Harmes when he's half forward?

Good call. BUT  hows this for lunacy... Bowey as Defensive Attache 👀

[dazzledavey36 48,643]

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Good call. BUT  hows this for lunacy... Bowey as Defensive Attache 👀

It's a big ask for a kid. I don't think we can heap that kind of pressure onto him on a significant day.

Look to Alex Neal Bullen or James Harmes i reckon.

[titan_uranus 22,219]

8 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

It’s unbelievable how good they think Bailey Smith is. He’s literally hasn’t had someone play on him for the last 2 weeks. I have seen him play some awful footy this year, especially against the Hawks late in the season. I’m actually not worried about him at all.

I hope Goody watched the Hawks v Dogs game in rnd 21. Clarko did a masterclass on Bevo and there were no free roaming dogs players at any stoppage. I know sometimes Melbourne likes to have someone drop off at the back of the stoppage but it’s imperative we match their numbers otherwise they will roll through them with ease.

The interesting thing about this is I recall Montagna on Fox Footy arguing that we tried this sort of thing in Round 23. In the first half we were sending a player up to the contest, and being beaten and then having no spare in defence. In the second half, we reverted back to having a spare behind the ball. If he's right, we tried it then and we didn't like it.

The test will come in the GF if/when the Dogs send that extra man to the contest.

[BDA 19,978]

6 hours ago, It's Time said:

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and hopefully delivered in the happy spirit we are living in at present and not any less salubrious suggestions.

About time

[OhMyDees 1,321]

Is anyone else sick to death of the media’s narrative that we’re underdone because the Dogs have played 3 games in 4 weeks?

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,100]

4 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Is anyone else sick to death of the media’s narrative that we’re underdone because the Dogs have played 3 games in 4 weeks?

It’s garbage.

If you can’t get yourself up for GF day regardless of your previous month , then you may as well hand over your opportunity to another club.

The break may have advantaged the Dogs as they’ll have Keith back and have a well earned rest but the break will not disadvantage us IMO. 

[OhMyDees 1,321]

3 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

It’s garbage.

If you can’t get yourself up for GF day regardless of your previous month , then you may as well hand over your opportunity to another club.

The break may have advantaged the Dogs as they’ll have Keith back and have a well earned rest but the break will not disadvantage us IMO. 

I in fact think the two weeks suits us. 
We had a successful two week program leading to us putting the Cats in a spliff whereas the Dogs are going to struggle with the two weeks (even if they get more players back)…their momentum is more in doubt than ours. 

[John Crow Batty 8,222]

6 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

I in fact think the two weeks suits us. 
We had a successful two week program leading to us putting the Cats in a spliff whereas the Dogs are going to struggle with the two weeks (even if they get more players back)…their momentum is more in doubt than ours. 

The bulldogs are white hot. A break might short circuit it. Then again a break before the GF is uncharted territory. There are no precedents to compare.

[loges 6,002]

31 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Is anyone else sick to death of the media’s narrative that we’re underdone because the Dogs have played 3 games in 4 weeks?

It's total BS, we both played on the weekend and now we both have a 2 week break, we didn't look underdone on the weekend did we ? Both had similar games. We're out of quarantine but they have to spend an extra week in it, might work in our favour.

[Range Rover to the snow 146]

33 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Is anyone else sick to death of the media’s narrative that we’re underdone because the Dogs have played 3 games in 4 weeks?

Yeah - it was the norm in the olden days of the final four and five for the minor premier that won the second semi final to have only played one match in a month.

[Superunknown 3,307]

9 hours ago, Dirts said:

I am finding that the AFL Website has put numerous articles on about Bulldogs; Dunkley, Smith, their recruitment guy and yet nothing on us. Next will be a story on breeds of dogs, featuring Bulldogs.

Not overly phased as it seems the usual AFL beat up of the bulldogs, just hope the headline next Saturday night is simply; Dogs in the dog house and Demon's Delirious. 

Try the myheartbeatstrue website - it’s a Non stop Dees fest!

[loges 6,002]

11 minutes ago, Range Rover to the snow said:

Yeah - it was the norm in the olden days of the final four and five for the minor premier that won the second semi final to have only played one match in a month.

And most of them won the flag

[Superunknown 3,307]

There is some ripping analysis going on here - really interesting to read - chapeau!

[spirit of norm smith 12,836]

7 hours ago, binman said:

Will be intersting to see how they look to negate Daniel's influence, which I'm sure they will.

Daniels is obviously a big part of the way the dogs transitionthe ball and create scoring opportunities.

But he is also key to their defensive system. Setting up uncontested marks is one of  Daniel's biggest weapons as it allows the dogs to get out of jail when under siege by maintaining possession and control. Minimising his ability to do so goes a long way to minimising his impact.

I think it is very instructive we didn't look to negate Daniels at all in rbe round 19 game. We basically let him run free. No chance we do so again.

I screamed at the TV in round 19 as Daniels was let free and gathered 34 possessions (yes 34 possessions) as a half back setting up play and rebounding off half back.  Goodwin seemed to let him run loose.  ANB will be needed to shut him down and make him accountable.  Sparrow should go to Bailey Dale as the other dangerous rebounder who sets up Dogs attacks. 

[BDA 19,978]

It's only Wednesday. Still 10 days to go. A 2 week break to the game is too long. I think we should go back to the traditional 1 week between PF and granny. Way too much time to kill

[John Crow Batty 8,222]

5 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I screamed at the TV in round 19 as Daniels was let free and gathered 34 possessions (yes 34 possessions) as a half back setting up play and rebounding off half back.  Goodwin seemed to let him run loose.  ANB will be needed to shut him down and make him accountable.  Sparrow should go to Bailey Dale as the other dangerous rebounder who sets up Dogs attacks. 

To me and others there was the impression that Goodwin didn't want to show the bulldogs too much tactically in anticipation of meeting in the finals. The Bulldogs had more to play for then and couldn’t hold anything back.

Edited September 15, 2021 by John Crow Batty

[loges 6,002]

15 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

To me and others there was the impression that Goodwin didn't want to show the bulldogs too much tactically in anticipation of meeting in the finals. The Bulldogs had more to play for then and couldn’t hold anything back.

You can't think there would be any other reason you'd let Daniel and Dale just run loose.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

9 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Cant start dreaming about dynasties until we win the first one. 

Yes Gerard Healy talking about dynasties On The Couch and on the Deeluded podcast makes me nervous. Just win this one then we'll see what happens