3 hours ago, binman said:

Agree. We are definitely struggling to run our games relative to our opposition at the moment.

In the last half of q4 the blues and the pies were winning the critical contests and looked the stronger sides. And the real tell was our inability to get overlap run and waves of players to transition the ball and create scoring chains 

Which is one reason I thought our win against the blues was so meritorious.

But if you support the concept of the dees having implemented a carefully calibrated periodisation program, then we are still on the upward trajectory physically and weeks away from our peak.

Whereas the pies and the blues are probably close to their peak. Which was helpful for them against us as both games were at finals like intensity levels.

I'm of the belief the crowd gave Collingwood and Carlton a little leg up in the last quarter of each game. It's not like they get any fitter or stronger but psychologically it definitely helps them push a little longer, faster, harder etc. Even a 'huge' Melbourne crowd is still fairly reserved compared to any of the big Victorian clubs.

Obviously that is shifting away from the metrics supplied so bringing things back to that, I think we are still a very good team and very hard to play against, we are just not quite getting things to gel 100%. Given how even things are this year and with the metrics all showing we are still going well, there's every chance we can find another gear over the next 4-5 weeks and repeat last years blitz.

21 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

But, the part I under-estimated during our loading period, is some of the game style issues that were evident at the time, unfortunately won’t be resolved from fitness alone. 

 

I actually disagree with this.

The game style Goody has developed is for one thing and for one thing only - to win a flag. 

And it is a game style that to work optimally needs optimal physical readiness.

This can be really frustrating because Goody sticks to the game style (albeit there have been some tweaks of late) even when we are not at optimal physical readiness. And therefore the game plan can look creaky or ineffective at times. 

Many of the issues people are highlighting are the very same ones that were highlighted last season at this point in time.

They were not issues come finals, and i would contend that was in large part due to being close to, or at, optimal physical readiness.

Just one example - your point about kicking out to the one spot. That was super predictable to oppo teams last year too, so they all would have had plans to combat it - yet we continued to do it right through the finals.

In the home and away season that conservative repetition may have contributed to some difficulty in say going coast to coast, but come finals players were fitter and stronger. Meaning we could get more players to the fall of the ball, win a higher percentage of those ground ball contests and then have the all team energy to run the ball in waves  up the ground.

Suddenly a tactic that look boring and predictable becomes an offensive threat - doubly so because when we run in waves and create overlap, we move the ball super fast and get it inside 50 before the defence has set up so there are more one on ones, and indeed more free players inside 50 as those involved in the wave push up inside 50.

And suddenly we look as if we have more players on the ground. And our issues with forward connection have disappeared. 

We can't get that wave going at the moment late in games, so it is very frustrating to watch them repeat the kicking to the one spot over and over - doubly so when we are needing quick goals and switching seem the logical way to generate scoring opportunities (but of course represent a significant risk in terms of potentially conceding a turnover goal). 

But if they have got the periodization program right we will be getting that wave going and be able to maintain it right to the end of the match when hopefully the other team is starting to flag. Stronger for longer

No one mentioned how predictable kicking to the one spot was in the post grand final reviews, despite the fact we did so all game. 

5 minutes ago, binman said:

I actually disagree with this.

The game style Goody has developed is for one thing and for one thing only - to win a flag. 

And it is a game style that to work optimally needs optimal physical readiness.

This can be really frustrating because Goody sticks to the game style (albeit there have been some tweaks of late) even when we are not at optimal physical readiness. And therefore the game plan can look creaky or ineffective at times. 

Many of the issues people are highlighting are the very same ones that were highlighted last season at this point in time.

They were not issues come finals, and i would contend that was in large part due to being close to, or at, optimal physical readiness.

Just one example - your point about kicking out to the one spot. That was super predictable to oppo teams last year too, so they all would have had plans to combat it - yet we continued to do it right through the finals.

In the home and away season that conservative repetition may have contributed to some difficulty in say going coast to coast, but come finals players were fitter and stronger. Meaning we could get more players to the fall of the ball, win a higher percentage of those ground ball contests and then have the all team energy to run the ball in waves  up the ground.

Suddenly a tactic that look boring and predictable becomes an offensive threat - doubly so because when we run in waves and create overlap, we move the ball super fast and get it inside 50 before the defence has set up so there are more one on ones, and indeed more free players inside 50 as those involved in the wave push up inside 50.

And suddenly we look as if we have more players on the ground. And our issues with forward connection have disappeared. 

We can't get that wave going at the moment late in games, so it is very frustrating to watch them repeat the kicking to the one spot over and over - doubly so when we are needing quick goals and switching seem the logical way to generate scoring opportunities (but of course represent a significant risk in terms of potentially conceding a turnover goal). 

But if they have got the periodization program right we will be getting that wave going and be able to maintain it right to the end of the match when hopefully the other team is starting to flag. Stronger for longer

No one mentioned how predictable kicking to the one spot was in the post grand final reviews, despite the fact we did so all game. 

I don’t recall last year the oppo setting up with extra numbers on the one side at defensive kick-in’s, like they have been in recent times. Also many other examples of opposition strategies this year that we didn’t have to contend with last year. 

On the topic of fitness I am very much hoping you are correct, and I understand what you are saying with how it can work better at peak fitness. You are working from the assumption that we are at ~75% fitness, where as I am thinking we are somewhere around 90%. But again, very much hope you are correct, and we have many more levels to rise to in finals. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

I don’t recall last year the oppo setting up with extra numbers on the one side at defensive kick-in’s, like they have been in recent times. Also many other examples of opposition strategies this year that we didn’t have to contend with last year. 

On the topic of fitness I am very much hoping you are correct, and I understand what you are saying with how it can work better at peak fitness. You are working from the assumption that we are at ~75% fitness, where as I am thinking we are somewhere around 90%. But again, very much hope you are correct, and we have many more levels to rise to in finals. 
 

 

To be clear I'm not working from the assumption that we are at ~75% fitness.

It could be 95%.

But of course there is no exact number.

Let's say for the sake of argument, in a game of such margins, a 5% increase in power ans abilty to keep up the running right to the end of the game might be the difference between getting rolled in the prelim and winning a premiership.

It's tbat extra percentage that scott has made clear the cats need to find to go all the way.

Lots of good analysis on this thread.

I thought the answer to the thread question was that they all won the flag.

3 minutes ago, binman said:

To be clear I'm not working from the assumption that we are at ~75% fitness.

It could be 95%.

But of course there is no exact number.

Let's say for the sake of argument, in a game of such margins, a 5% increase in power ans abilty to keep up the running right to the end of the game might be the difference between getting rolled in the prelim and winning a premiership.

It's tbat extra percentage that scott has made clear the cats need to find to go all the way.

Yep, understand. Given we are dealing in assumptions, and we don’t know the impact of 1% of fitness it’s probably not the best way of talking about it. 

My assumption is that the idea of the loading program is to maintain somewhere near peak fitness for a prolonged period. And from that perspective, given they know the value of winning form heading into finals (and the tough run home with 4 top 6 teams), I have assumed that we are somewhere near the peak now, with the aim of maintaining the level through the finals. But again hope I am wrong, and there is significant levels of upside to come.

 

6 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

Yep, understand. Given we are dealing in assumptions, and we don’t know the impact of 1% of fitness it’s probably not the best way of talking about it. 

My assumption is that the idea of the loading program is to maintain somewhere near peak fitness for a prolonged period. And from that perspective, given they know the value of winning form heading into finals (and the tough run home with 4 top 6 teams), I have assumed that we are somewhere near the peak now, with the aim of maintaining the level through the finals. But again hope I am wrong, and there is significant levels of upside to come.

 

No offence meant, but I think your assumption is wrong.

Tbe point of any periodisation program is to peak at a particular point in time, not maintain peak fitness for a block of time, which in this case would mean 7 odd weeks.

Which if I understand what I have researched on this topic and what coach and others have posted it is not possible to maintain peak fitness for that long. 

8 minutes ago, binman said:

No offence meant, but I think your assumption is wrong.

Tbe point of any periodisation program is to peak at a particular point in time, not maintain peak fitness for a block of time, which in this case would mean 7 odd weeks.

Which if I understand what I have researched on this topic and what coach and others have posted it is not possible to maintain peak fitness for that long. 

No offense taken, and not trying to be right or wrong. Just wanting to understand. 

Be great to hear from coach and some of the others on this as well. 

Can understand the idea of targeting say prelim or grand final day as your absolute peak, and I guess what we are discussing is the relative difference 1 / 2 / 6 weeks from this day (when we are no longer in a heaving loading training phase)  vs 2 months ago (while heavy loading) where it was visible that the players had heavy legs and just couldn’t run the game out. 
 

Edited August 15, 20222 yr by 1964_2

1 hour ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

This is great! Thanks for putting it together @WheeloRatings :-)

On a similar vein, I came across this 'Equity Ladder' from BenCameron23 on Twitter.

It's what the ladder would look like if everybody faced each other just once. For any teams anyone plays twice, only the first result is taken into account. 

Very interesting! Basically, Richmond and the Saint swap places, and Sydney swaps with the Lions. 

TL; DR, we're doing OK, despite wobbles against the Pies/Cats/Freo/Sydney. 

 

On this, here is each top 8 side's five return match opponents:

1. Melbourne: Brisbane, Collingwood, Fremantle, Bulldogs, Port Adelaide (3 or 4 top 8 sides)
2. Brisbane: Melbourne, St Kilda, Gold Coast, GWS, Essendon (1 top 8 side)
3. Geelong: Bulldogs, St Kilda, Port Adelaide, West Coast, North Melbourne (0 or 1)
4. Sydney: Bulldogs, St Kilda, GWS, Essendon, St Kilda (0 or 1)
5. Fremantle: Melbourne, Carlton, St Kilda, GWS, West Coast (1 or 2)
6. Collingwood: Melbourne, Carlton, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Essendon (1 or 2)
7. Richmond: Carlton, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, Essendon, West Coast (0 or 1)
8. Carlton: Collingwood, Fremantle, Richmond, Adelaide, GWS (3)
9. Bulldogs: Geelong, Melbourne, Sydney, Hawthorn, GWS (3)

Our true competitors (i.e. not including Carlton/the Dogs, one of whom isn't going to make finals anyway) have had significantly easier return matches in their fixtures than us. If the Dogs make it, Richmond won't have had a single return match against any finalist. Meanwhile if the Dogs don't make it, both Geelong and Sydney will have had zero return matches against finalists.

It's not 100% coincidence, but I think it's a contributing factor that three sides who are right now being labelled "in form", "premiership contenders" or "you wouldn't want to get them in a final" are Geelong, Sydney and Richmond.

2 hours ago, 1964_2 said:

No offense taken, and not trying to be right or wrong. Just wanting to understand. 

Be great to hear from coach and some of the others on this as well. 

Can understand the idea of targeting say prelim or grand final day as your absolute peak, and I guess what we are discussing is the relative difference 1 / 2 / 6 weeks from this day (when we are no longer in a heaving loading training phase)  vs 2 months ago (while heavy loading) where it was visible that the players had heavy legs and just couldn’t run the game out. 
 

Went back and found a post coach put up on this topic.

From that post, I've got it wrong in terms of being too specific about peaking on prelim day and maintaining that through to Grand Final day.

In this post, -coach- notes that such specificity is possible in an elite individual sport (eg Olympic swimming) but not in a team sport like the AFL (which is complex, Australia only, has lots of variables and involves so many participants).

From the post (my highlight):

'The standard of refinement in yearly team sports (competing weekly) and AFL (a one country sport) is miles lower and not designed for a one one event peak. Rather its designed to have the majority of your group in season best readiness for a block of around 4-5 weeks depending on what your final goal is. For example, for us, it would be to be hitting our straps before and throughout finals, whereas Collingwood will be in peak fitness now in a bid to make finals and then hold on as best they can (Kinda like us in 2018, when we just ran out of legs before the GF).'

From that i take we will aim to be close to our peak at the start of finals then do our best to maintain that through to GF day, should we make it.

Or even close to our peak this Friday night.

Friday night is 4  weeks out from the prelim and 5 weeks  out from the GF.

The last 15 minutes of the game quarter will tell the tale. If we are near our peak we should be running out this game powerfully.

As should the lions for that matter as they would have pretty similar program to us in terms of timing of readiness. 

 

Edited August 15, 20222 yr by binman

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

On this, here is each top 8 side's five return match opponents:

1. Melbourne: Brisbane, Collingwood, Fremantle, Bulldogs, Port Adelaide (3 or 4 top 8 sides)
2. Brisbane: Melbourne, St Kilda, Gold Coast, GWS, Essendon (1 top 8 side)
3. Geelong: Bulldogs, St Kilda, Port Adelaide, West Coast, North Melbourne (0 or 1)
4. Sydney: Bulldogs, St Kilda, GWS, Essendon, St Kilda (0 or 1)
5. Fremantle: Melbourne, Carlton, St Kilda, GWS, West Coast (1 or 2)
6. Collingwood: Melbourne, Carlton, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Essendon (1 or 2)
7. Richmond: Carlton, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, Essendon, West Coast (0 or 1)
8. Carlton: Collingwood, Fremantle, Richmond, Adelaide, GWS (3)
9. Bulldogs: Geelong, Melbourne, Sydney, Hawthorn, GWS (3)

Our true competitors (i.e. not including Carlton/the Dogs, one of whom isn't going to make finals anyway) have had significantly easier return matches in their fixtures than us. If the Dogs make it, Richmond won't have had a single return match against any finalist. Meanwhile if the Dogs don't make it, both Geelong and Sydney will have had zero return matches against finalists.

It's not 100% coincidence, but I think it's a contributing factor that three sides who are right now being labelled "in form", "premiership contenders" or "you wouldn't want to get them in a final" are Geelong, Sydney and Richmond.

Thanks for this. Completely agree!!

If we can tidy up some of our deficiencies, and it wouldn't take a lot - it's not rocket science - we expose those 'contenders' pretty quickly. 

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

On this, here is each top 8 side's five return match opponents:

1. Melbourne: Brisbane, Collingwood, Fremantle, Bulldogs, Port Adelaide (3 or 4 top 8 sides)
2. Brisbane: Melbourne, St Kilda, Gold Coast, GWS, Essendon (1 top 8 side)
3. Geelong: Bulldogs, St Kilda, Port Adelaide, West Coast, North Melbourne (0 or 1)
4. Sydney: Bulldogs, St Kilda, GWS, Essendon, St Kilda (0 or 1)
5. Fremantle: Melbourne, Carlton, St Kilda, GWS, West Coast (1 or 2)
6. Collingwood: Melbourne, Carlton, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Essendon (1 or 2)
7. Richmond: Carlton, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn, Essendon, West Coast (0 or 1)
8. Carlton: Collingwood, Fremantle, Richmond, Adelaide, GWS (3)
9. Bulldogs: Geelong, Melbourne, Sydney, Hawthorn, GWS (3)

Our true competitors (i.e. not including Carlton/the Dogs, one of whom isn't going to make finals anyway) have had significantly easier return matches in their fixtures than us. If the Dogs make it, Richmond won't have had a single return match against any finalist. Meanwhile if the Dogs don't make it, both Geelong and Sydney will have had zero return matches against finalists.

It's not 100% coincidence, but I think it's a contributing factor that three sides who are right now being labelled "in form", "premiership contenders" or "you wouldn't want to get them in a final" are Geelong, Sydney and Richmond.

Yes I'm going off the train tracks here, but why don't they schedule everyone to play everyone else once, and then have the last 5 games scheduled with top 6 sides playing each other, middle 6 sides playing each other and bottom 6 sides playing each other.

18 minutes ago, binman said:

Went back and found a post coach put up on this topic.

From that post, I've got it wrong in terms of being too specific about peaking on prelim day and maintaining that through to Grand Final day.

In this post, -coach- notes that such specificity is possible in an elite individual sport (eg Olympic swimming) but not in a team sport like the AFL (which is complex, Australia only, has lots of variables and involves so many participants).

From the post (my highlight):

'The standard of refinement in yearly team sports (competing weekly) and AFL (a one country sport) is miles lower and not designed for a one one event peak. Rather its designed to have the majority of your group in season best readiness for a block of around 4-5 weeks depending on what your final goal is. For example, for us, it would be to be hitting our straps before and throughout finals, whereas Collingwood will be in peak fitness now in a bid to make finals and then hold on as best they can (Kinda like us in 2018, when we just ran out of legs before the GF).'

From that i take we will aim to be close to our peak at the start of finals then do our best to maintain that through to GF day, should we make it.

Or even close to our peak this Friday night.

Friday night is 4  weeks out from the prelim and 5 weeks  out from the GF.

The last 15 minutes of the game quarter will tell the tale. If we are near our peak we should be running out this game powerfully.

As should the lions for that matter as they would have pretty similar program to us in terms of timing of readiness. 

 

Excellent thanks for this, makes sense. Will be watching closely Q4 vs lions to see how we run out the game. 
 

Maybe do these ratings with the last 8 weeks or something.

Don’t know how valuable the first half of the season is…

On reflection after being pretty disappointed with our last few weeks, i like the way we're starting to win the i50 battle. It means our mids are starting to win more ball, which is our biggest strength. Even if our forward line isn't humming, the pure weight of numbers of entries will give us a shot. 

However, i do question whether we have been physically hard enough this season. We 100% have been timid in the air, though that was present at times last year too. I wonder if other teams are coming off the ground hurting from the way we've hit their bodies around the contest. It hasn't looked like it. I'm not saying we haven't been trying, but to be the best means digging deeper and going harder than you maybe thought you could for longer than your opponent. If we switch that on, we are in it up to our necks. If we can't lift it, we will struggle with the sides that are unconditionally hard like Syd and Coll and even Rich.

Despite all the MFCSS and trash talking know-it-alls, we are up to our eyeballs in this. And Goody knows it. He knew it in March 2021 as well. 

4 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Yes I'm going off the train tracks here, but why don't they schedule everyone to play everyone else once, and then have the last 5 games scheduled with top 6 sides playing each other, middle 6 sides playing each other and bottom 6 sides playing each other.

In an ideal world ….. but AFL is a dollar driven business, not a sport as such.  So “blockbusters”, “derbys” and of course not ever having “big clubs” play at KITTYLITTER Park rules a fair and equitable schedule out completely.   It would “endanger the integrity of the game”, and Gil’s bonus. 

6 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Yes I'm going off the train tracks here, but why don't they schedule everyone to play everyone else once, and then have the last 5 games scheduled with top 6 sides playing each other, middle 6 sides playing each other and bottom 6 sides playing each other.

Because it creates different problems.

The football world reacted very, very strongly against the floating fixture this year. Under this model the final six weeks aren't just "floating", we literally do not know what games there will be, or where, let alone when.

The lack of knowledge of those final six games throws interstate trips up in the air. What if a Victorian club lands in a group of six with five interstate clubs? Huge amount of travel all backloaded into the last six weeks.

Then there's the motivation for a club to "mini-tank" and try to finish 6th come Round 17 instead of 5th. Get to avoid the entire top 6 and bank wins against inferior sides whilst the side sitting just one spot above you gets the complete opposite.

9 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Despite all the MFCSS and trash talking know-it-alls, we are up to our eyeballs in this. And Goody knows it. He knew it in March 2021 as well. 

100%
 

Whilst there are parallels with 2021, winning a second one is infinitely harder to do. Opposition has another year of watching and learning, the game evolves and new suitors emerge.

Absolutely everything went right in 2021 at the business end and we had a blessed run with injury. This year we are not quite going as well but there’s plenty of signs of life and we know we have the game plan and cattle to do it again.

One thing to remember is that we have now been there and done it, so we know what it feels like and know what it requires. There’s a reason everyone wanted to recruit Hawthorn players after their success as finals experience is worth a lot to a club

On 8/14/2022 at 4:52 PM, WheeloRatings said:

What do the last ten premiership teams have in common? They were all ranked in the top 6 in the following statistical categories in their premiership year:

• Shots at goal differential (all ranked top 4)
• Total points conceded
• Opposition shots at goal
• Opposition goals
• Percentage
• Inside 50s

Following on from the thread H&A % as an indicator of team chances to win Finals, I decided to look at what stats (including percentage) recent premiership teams have in common using a somewhat simplistic methodology.

I have analysed the ranks of the last ten premiership teams against a large number of statistical categories in their premiership year. There are 26 statistical categories in which at least eight of the last ten premiers ranked in the top 6. The list of the 26 categories are in the images at the end of this post.

Nine of the last ten premiers were ranked in the top 6 in at least 21 of these 26 categories (the Western Bulldogs ranked in the top 6 in 18 categories in 2016). Melbourne ranked number 1 in 16 of these categories last year, more than any other premiership team in the last ten years.

There are currently three standout teams this season for these "premiership metrics" - Geelong, Melbourne and Sydney.

"Premiership Metrics" ranked in the top 6 in 2022

• 25: Geelong ⭐
• 24: Melbourne ⭐
• 19: Sydney ⭐
• 14: Brisbane
• 14: Richmond
• 13: Fremantle
• 11: Collingwood
• 10: Western Bulldogs
• 8: Carlton

What are the Premiership Metrics?

 

Where do teams ranks against these metrics in 2022?

Thanks for this WOR! Good to see some data and evidence on how we are going this season rather than the guess-work around our fitness/loading

15 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Yes I'm going off the train tracks here, but why don't they schedule everyone to play everyone else once, and then have the last 5 games scheduled with top 6 sides playing each other, middle 6 sides playing each other and bottom 6 sides playing each other.

I like the idea but I wonder if it would take the gloss off finals a bit with top sides playing each other in every game in the lead up.

Bump

@WheeloRatings any chance of an end of H&A season update? Thanks for your work on this!

24 minutes ago, Hellish Inferno said:

Bump

@WheeloRatings any chance of an end of H&A season update? Thanks for your work on this!

9 hours ago, Hellish Inferno said:

Bump

@WheeloRatings any chance of an end of H&A season update? Thanks for your work on this!

Thanks @Hellish Inferno I will posting an update soon. I will also look at Melbourne's rankings for rounds 1-10, 11-19 and 20-23 for this season and last season, and finals last year.

1 minute ago, WheeloRatings said:

Thanks @Hellish Inferno I will posting an update soon. I will also look at Melbourne's rankings for rounds 1-10, 11-19 and 20-23 for this season and last season, and finals last year.

Can't wait for another episode of Wheel O Ratings!