Trust In This Team

[binman 43,813]

2 hours ago, Demonsone said:

David King on 360 pretty spot on, numbers don’t lie, we have dropped away 

So he was wrong the previous week having us as favourites to win the flag?

A week's a long time in top end football analysis.

Edited May 25, 2023 by binman

[beelzebub 23,383]

6 minutes ago, binman said:

So he was wrong the previous week having us as favourites to win the flag?

A week's a long time in top end football analysis.

A fortnight even longer....and a month an eternity.

King predicated his thinking about our Premiership likelihood based most probably on what he had seen to date...

And then it changed. 

His analysis of our woe .... correct or not ?

I suspect it's pretty close.  Now some may argue whatever, but perhaps he epitomises the maxim even a stopped clock is right twice a day.   In this instance he was pretty well on the money irrespective of how he got there or what day it was.

 

[Doug Reemer 1,197]

On 5/23/2023 at 9:55 PM, Kieren from Canberra said:

I rang in to Demonland tonight & was thankful Andy & Binman gave me some time to share my thoughts on this great team we barrack for. Here's what I said & what I feel.

I'd like to share my thoughts on the Redlegs as a whole circa 2023. As a club, we're in rarefied air; a men's, women's & VFL Premiership all within the last 2 years. A recruiting, administrative & conditioning team that made impeccable decisions for almost 10 years. The highest paid up memberships in the history of the club. A pool of generational talent signed to long term deals. A strong list of youngsters pushing our best 22 for team selection. A destination club that has attracted All Australians, Best & Fairest's and previous club captains. A team of A list assistant coaches. A coach that tasted the highest success in his playing career & now also as a head coach, that not only learnt from a genius & passionate Demon fan in Paul Roos, but is young enough to relate to his players, young enough to grow with his players & young enough to be around for another decade which creates an environment of trust & cohesion.

If you think back to your amateur team sports days, be it AFL footy, local cricket or even indoor soccer, when did you, as a team, create success? When you had consistency & cohesion & trust. When you had the same 22 fellas running out to kick the sherrin, the same 11 blokes going out to field, the same 5 friends putting on shingaurds. Why, because you built patterns, game plans and trust in their abilities. You could anticipate what your team mates were going to do & when they needed your help.
The Dees finally have this. Stability, trust & importantly genuine class.

What we don't have is a recent history of it. They're learning to be successful.
Just as we as a supporter base are learning with them. We're not used to this success, being the favourites to win every game, being in every game, no longer being thrashed each week. But what I consistently see when I read frustrated fans' posts on various platforms is that we should be better. And it's this word I'd like to analyse. 'Better than what' is what I would like to ask.
Is it possible to win every game? Of course not. Is it possible to only lose 4 games in a season. History would suggest not often.
It's been decades since we've had this kind of heat. Teams need to play at their very best to beat us. So each week, we are playing the very best the opposition has to give, week in, week out. This takes its toll on the boys; you simply cannot be up every week. You simply cannot be 'better' all the time.

This not an excuse, or a defeatist attitude, it's a fact. We all know the cliches; you don't win flags in 'insert any month except September', you have to peak at the right time, you must finish top 4 to win a flag. They're cliches for a reason, because the better teams have fulfilled these cliches better than other teams.

As Binman says, if you have all the pieces in place as we do (talent, good governance etc), the key determinant is injuries & increasingly suspensions. These are the things to concern yourself of. Not the team itself.

In the cut & thrust of battle ie the home & away season, it can be hard to pull back & see the bigger picture. What is it? The future has never been better.
It's ok to be angry at losses but let's get behind them rather than walk away. Let's be that club that turns the umps whistles our way with our own noise of affirmation. Let's continue to pay our membership, to buy whatever merch we can afford from the Demon shop to assist the club to find a spiritual home for us congregate; not Casey or Gosch but a real home. Let's not feed into the collective anxiety that if we don't win a flag in the next few years, we never will again, but rather strive for sustained prolonged success. Because then the flags are inevitable.

Simply my point is, trust in this team, this collective organisation. The club has never been in a better position. If we can't enjoy this now, when can we enjoy this team?

I couldn’t agree more!

I just wanna see one at the G!

[Watson11 2,243]

23 hours ago, A F said:

So all we've got to go by so far is that we're top 4 for scores from all the major routes (stoppages, turnovers and kick outs), we're the highest scoring team in the comp and the 4th best defensive side.

Points against is not the best way to track the defensive side (if that’s what you used). If you look at recent history how well you defend i50s is one of the best measures of potential premiers.

I’ve done a quick check and of the last 14 grand finalists 10 were ranked top 3 in this stat, and only one outside top 5 (Sydney last year - did not turn out well).

This year so far we are ranked 8th (Collingwood are 10th), and we have had the benefit of playing the bottom 3.

There is still a lot of the season left to play, but we just have to start getting better at defending i50s.  I think it’s mostly our pressure and structures upfield that are the problem. Hopefully it can get sorted. 

[Adam The God 30,421]

19 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Points against is not the best way to track the defensive side (if that’s what you used). If you look at recent history how well you defend i50s is one of the best measures of potential premiers.

I’ve done a quick check and of the last 14 grand finalists 10 were ranked top 3 in this stat, and only one outside top 5 (Sydney last year - did not turn out well).

This year so far we are ranked 8th (Collingwood are 10th), and we have had the benefit of playing the bottom 3.

There is still a lot of the season left to play, but we just have to start getting better at defending i50s.  I think it’s mostly our pressure and structures upfield that are the problem. Hopefully it can get sorted. 

I was using points against, yeah. And fair enough, more complex than that. It was a slightly crude evaluation, but suggests we're doing a lot right defensively. 

As I just mentioned in the stats thread, we're 4th for ground ball gets and we're 4th for defensive tackles inside 50.

I can't seem to find the 'defending inside 50s' stat that you're referring to, but given we're top 4 for ground ball gets and defensive tackles inside 50, I'm not sure how the 'defending inside 50s' stat is calculated.

Given our around the ground stoppage work isn't as strong (we're 17th), perhaps this is where/why our 'defending inside 50s' percentage is suffering, but the around the ground stoppage percentage doesn't outline whether we're losing the majority of these clearances, say in the forward half, or the back half. That would be interesting to know. You wouldn't happen to have a break down of which part of the ground stoppage clearances are won and lost would you, @WheeloRatings?

But even if we are losing more stoppages in the back half / inside defensive 50, that may be the trade off we make to score more (commit less players to block space, enabling swifter exits when we do win the ball ourselves), or it may simply be a factor of rolling different personnel through the around the ground stoppages. As the season progresses and our elite players spend more time in there, that stat could naturally improve itself.

I guess it's a bit of a wait and see, because there are a few variables in those scenarios.

Edited May 25, 2023 by A F

[dee-tox 4,835]

9 hours ago, binman said:

So he was wrong the previous week having us as favourites to win the flag?

A week's a long time in top end football analysis.

This is true as well. Its a week by week proposition. I'd love to see that manic, uncompromising attack on the ball and the man return.

[Roost it far 8,627]

1 hour ago, dee-tox said:

This is true as well. Its a week by week proposition. I'd love to see that manic, uncompromising attack on the ball and the man return.

Interestingly I thought we showed it in the first half against the hawks, particularly in the first quarter. I thought to my self at the time that they must be preparing to step up a notch. Was PA just one of those games where the opposition was just "ON" and they'd beat anyone? The next 2 weeks will answer that.

[layzie 34,013]

13 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Interestingly I thought we showed it in the first half against the hawks, particularly in the first quarter. I thought to my self at the time that they must be preparing to step up a notch. Was PA just one of those games where the opposition was just "ON" and they'd beat anyone? The next 2 weeks will answer that.

It's a very fair question.

[leave it to deever 17,517]

11 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Succinctly... the hunger has gone.

It's such an abstract ...it can't be synthesised. 

The team may well be trying as hard...  but it's different.  

Certainly not as effective.  Game has changed... Box hasnt.

Hunger ... not there.

Its a human condition. 

The coaching had to change , redirect and compensate for that which no longer existed...and replaced with some other motive.

Patently...this hasn't occurred. 

 

Confidence definitely lacking as well, compared to 21.

[layzie 34,013]

The magic word trust. 

[Watson11 2,243]

8 hours ago, A F said:

I can't seem to find the 'defending inside 50s' stat that you're referring to, but given we're top 4 for ground ball gets and defensive tackles inside 50, I'm not sure how the 'defending inside 50s' stat is calculated.

It’s thanks to @WheeloRatingswebsite. It’s simply calculated by how often the opposition has a shot on goal after getting it inside 50. If you are not good at this the chance of winning 3 finals in a row is pretty low. 

We have dropped a lot since 2021 where we had the best record since champion data started keeping stats.

It’s a good question as to why we have dropped off so much.  As you point out our defenders are ranked quite high for  tackling and ground balls gets.  I think our pressure upfield has dropped too much. Our ranking for stopping opposition marks i50 is also #8 which implies its upfield pressure as well.

 

[beelzebub 23,383]

1 minute ago, layzie said:

The magic word trust. 

Yes.

Do I trust the team to come out and play to their potential...all guns firing....

Or do I think it's more i want/hope that they do/can ??  🤔🤔🤔

I certainly trust the players to try....     i can only hope the box provides  the manner in which they can.

Not tagging Butters... kills that trust of the Brains Trust ;) 

[Redleg 41,467]

While most would agree we haven’t played our best football lately and our lineup is not settled, especially forward, if the umpire had not paid that 7 metre pass to Lord, or Grundy had punched the ball through the points, in the first few minutes, or any one of 4-5 frees which ended in goals had not been paid, we would be second on the ladder, with the best percentage in the AFL.

We can still trust this team.

[beelzebub 23,383]

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

 

We can still trust this team.

???🤔🤔🤔

Trust to play ...

Or to Win ???

For mine...i can't in all honestly do the latter.

And the game is, like it or not....about winning. 

[binman 43,813]

4 hours ago, dee-tox said:

This is true as well. Its a week by week proposition. I'd love to see that manic, uncompromising attack on the ball and the man return.

But therein lies the challenge - and the folly - of looking at each individual match in isolation as some sort of assessment of our chances of winning a flag.

It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure.

Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals. It is probably this very reason why so few premiers are on top of the ladder at the halfway point in the season. It was definitely a factor for us last year, with so many final like pressure games late in the season.

The pressure Port applied in this game was full on, and definitely finals like. It's simply not sustainable for 23 rounds.

Besides our pressure was good in the Port game - not as good as theirs, but not far off it (keep in mind a score of 180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite):

Melbourne v Port Adelaide

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 182 - 203
Q2: 200 - 203
Q3: 189 - 198
Q4: 205 - 219
Tot: 194 - 205

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by binman

[beelzebub 23,383]

3 minutes ago, binman said:

But therein lies the challenge - and the folly - of looking at each individual match in isolation as some sort of assessment of our chances of winning a flag.

It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure.

Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals. It is probably this very reason why so few premiers are on top of the ladder at the halfway point in the season. It was definitely a factor for us last year, with so many final like pressure games late in the season.

The pressure Port applied in this game was full on, and definitely finals like. It's simply not sustainable for 23 rounds.

Besides our pressure was good in the Port game - not as good as theirs, but not far off it (keep in mind a score of 180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite):

Melbourne v Port Adelaide

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 182 - 203
Q2: 200 - 203
Q3: 189 - 198
Q4: 205 - 219
Tot: 194 - 205

 

Arguably the notion you cant sustain that for 23  rounds is true.

What you do need to do I would think is pace the season. When you have to bring it....you better had, lest these 8 point games bite you.

We were tested...scoreboard the ultimate arbiter declared we lost.

We need to fox much cleverer if we are to prevail.

[Roost it far 8,627]

Clubs bring their finals pressure to games against us so we’re constantly needing to be at our best. I love our draw after the bye.

[Adam The God 30,421]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

But therein lies the challenge - and the folly - of looking at each individual match in isolation as some sort of assessment of our chances of winning a flag.

It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure.

Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals. It is probably this very reason why so few premiers are on top of the ladder at the halfway point in the season. It was definitely a factor for us last year, with so many final like pressure games late in the season.

The pressure Port applied in this game was full on, and definitely finals like. It's simply not sustainable for 23 rounds.

Besides our pressure was good in the Port game - not as good as theirs, but not far off it (keep in mind a score of 180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite):

Melbourne v Port Adelaide

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 182 - 203
Q2: 200 - 203
Q3: 189 - 198
Q4: 205 - 219
Tot: 194 - 205

 

It's interesting. It did feel like Port's pressure dropped in the third. And here is the point you're making, it's very hard to sustain that sort of pressure for a whole match, let alone a whole season. 

This is why modern footy is such a game of momentum.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

12 hours ago, Watson11 said:

There is still a lot of the season left to play, but we just have to start getting better at defending i50s.  I think it’s mostly our pressure and structures upfield that are the problem. Hopefully it can get sorted. 

Probably a fair % is this.  Lack of pressure from forwards inside our 50, especially Kozzy & Chandler.

Clarry's contribution at pressuring inside 50 is usually pretty significant from memory.  Harmes in might offset this loss somewhat.

Fairly ordinary at defending the CBs till now.  Some players giving their best here like Viney but one is not enough and he doesn't have the foot speed to pressure the speedsters on exit. 

Others will really need to step up at CB with Clarry out.  Although his defending at CBs (of late) has been ordinary as well, so any step up should see a fair improvement.

Clarry's defending / pressure around the ground has been up there though for mine.

So at CBs and around ground stoppages, we'll need to see better defensive work from the likes of Sparrow & Harmes this week if we're to come away with the chocolates.

Add to this the fact that we still haven't freed Lever up into playing his usual role as our best intercept defender.

See how this week goes but if that back line doesn't click so well i reckon we seriously need to consider getting Disco in, at least until Petty returns, so we can get Lever back to his best role.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

48 minutes ago, binman said:

Melbourne v Port Adelaide

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 182 - 203
Q2: 200 - 203
Q3: 189 - 198

 

*Q4: 205 - 219

Tot: 194 - *205

* Denotes Freo's pressure rating was compromised by Umpiring Bias.  Ex-Bias 190 > Inc. Bias 219 (Added pressure Bias > 29 points)

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Watson11 2,243]

49 minutes ago, binman said:

It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure.

Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals.

Personally, I would rather see us bring the finals like pressure against every top 8 team and contender. I’ll accept 15-20 point wins against North/Hawks/WCE as compensation. 

[bobby1554 1,263]

1 hour ago, binman said:

But therein lies the challenge - and the folly - of looking at each individual match in isolation as some sort of assessment of our chances of winning a flag.

It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure.

Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals. It is probably this very reason why so few premiers are on top of the ladder at the halfway point in the season. It was definitely a factor for us last year, with so many final like pressure games late in the season.

The pressure Port applied in this game was full on, and definitely finals like. It's simply not sustainable for 23 rounds.

Besides our pressure was good in the Port game - not as good as theirs, but not far off it (keep in mind a score of 180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite):

Melbourne v Port Adelaide

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001

Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold.

Pressure

Q1: 182 - 203
Q2: 200 - 203
Q3: 189 - 198
Q4: 205 - 219
Tot: 194 - 205

 

Collingwood seem to be doing a fairly good job at it, Binman. Or do you still not rate them?

[Adam The God 30,421]

12 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Collingwood seem to be doing a fairly good job at it, Binman. Or do you still not rate them?

Collingwood have had to come back from deficits in pretty much every game. That would suggest, no, they, like everyone else, are struggling to maintain their intensity for 4 quarters....

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

42 minutes ago, bobby1554 said:

Collingwood seem to be doing a fairly good job at it, Binman. Or do you still not rate them?

I'd be good to get an overall picture of how many quarters won scoring Collingwood (if they are a benchmark) have won.

The same for how many quarters won for pressure vs  opposition

Not that elite pressure equals winning each quarter of course...

Does Wheelo ratings do that @binman - I just checked and may have overlooked it

[binman 43,813]

27 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Personally, I would rather see us bring the finals like pressure against every top 8 team and contender. I’ll accept 15-20 point wins against North/Hawks/WCE as compensation. 

Fair enough - and i think that there is every chance that there is an element of dialling up and dialling down of intensity based on the relevant importance of the match and at what point of the season the game is played. 

(by the by, on this later point, in the DL interview Selwyn Griffith made the point that by half way through the season fatigue becomes a real issue – he didn’t make this point, but it’s reasonable to assume younger players struggle most with fatigue).

But I’d make couple of points. 

If the dees went at finals like pressure against top 8 sides and contenders, that’s maybe 10 teams you go full tilt at, some twice if we play them twice. So maybe 15 games at final like intensity. I doubt that is feasible if being cherry ripe in the finals is the goal. 

Secondly, if a team has targeted a specific match to dial things up, teams must have to plan for that, impacting how hard they can go in the 2-3 games prior. 

So, for example. Let’s say the dees want to be in optimal readiness for the Pies game. Maybe to achieve that, they have to go harder on the track now, increasing fatigue for the Freo and almost certainly the Blues game (on that game, we have a 10 day break before the Kings birthday game and so I suspect they will go hard on the track ahead of the blues game to be in optimal readiness for the Pies – so we might see a scrappy average performance against the blues).

So I agree with you about bringing the finals like heat to specific games, and think that is exactly what they do, but I suspect they limit their focus to genuine top 4 and flag contenders – which personally I think are the Lions Pies, and to lesser extent the Dogs and maybe Port (in that order)

And again, I’d point out that our pressure against Port was good. Not as manic as Port’s, but not far off. 

By the by, if you rate Port as a genuine contender this season you must also rate the dees as a genuine contender.  I mean people can’t have their cake and eat it too on that front (i’m not referring to you here Watson – i mean ‘you’ in the generic sense).

The fact is, Port played fantastic and their pressure was immense. They were the better side on the night and fully deserved the win. But facts are facts. We only got beaten by four points and were in the match right up to the final siren. If not for some extremely dubious frees we may well have won.

But some see the loss as evidence of us perhaps not being a genuine contender. Doesn’t make any sense. Well, not if you rate Port. 

We played a team who had won 6 straight games, is widely considered a genuine finals (maybe even top 4) contender on their home deck, off a six day break, in conditions that favoured their method and who were awarded some very significant home town umpiring decisions. And we really only played one quarter anywhere near our explosive best. And we went down by less than a goal! 

People who are objective are not fooled. Evidence to back that claim up? 

Well, for a start we’re playing a team this week who have won three on end, are coming off smashing the reigning premiers (albeit a weakened one) and if they beat us may end the round in the top 8. Yet the clear eyed punters who are betting real money, have us as prohibitive 1.37 favourites (standard disclaimer here – I understand that doesn’t mean we win). 

For context, the top of the table lions are 1.73 to beat the Crows, who are coming off a crushing loss.

And Port, who are 4th on the ladder with 8 wins (having won seven straight) are playing the tigers who are 14th (with only 3 wins and a draw) and are paying 1.77 for the win.