PODCAST: Rd 22 vs Carlton

[Demonland 73,132]

10 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Gents

Are we back to 4 weeks ago when we first said it was best to finish 4th?

Obviously we need to beat Hawthorn to secure top 4. Then the Sydney game may be inconsequential for us.

Would you use the Sydney game to rest players and maybe experiment with some new game day strategies?

Viney, Trac, Max, May could benefit from some rest before finals.

I'm parking this one for this week. We haven't sewn up a Top 4 berth so it is pointless at the moment to strategize about resting players the following week.

[DemonJack 14 89]

Hi Guys 

Thank for your all your tireless efforts with the podcast again this year ! 
 

Do you think that we have enough marking power up forward and around the ground , this a concern for me in relation to our premiership credentials 

Petty going down will really impact us even potentially next season unless we recruit to address this

Kenn to hear your thoughts ? 

[dee-tox 4,835]

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

But it's a good segway for me to ask the guys this very question and I too have seen very little of the Hawks this season.

Ah the old segway😝

[Demonland 73,132]

[Demonland 73,132]

You can now watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube. Please like the video and subscribe to our channel.

 

[Demonland 73,132]

Your questions and comments form a large part of our podcast.

So thanks to these posters this week that posted questions/comments.

@Clintosaurus @Gunna’s @OhMyDees @Nairobi_Demon @Titus Totty @pewpewpew @Grr-owl @sam6172 @Go Lordie @Skrull @layzie @Travy14 @buck_nekkid @Supreme_Demon @Roost it far @Fromgotowoewodin @BoBo @BW511 @whatwhat say what @smurf @PrestigeDee @Jibroni @monoccular @demoncat @Deeoldfart @Doug Reemer @Bigfoot @Singa @jane02 @Redjacket

Don't forget to leave us a 5 Star Review on Apple Podcasts and write a review and we'll read it out on the show.

 

[Gillies 26]

16 hours ago, Go Lordie said:

My comments about the window closing were based on concerns about Max's longevity. We got Grundy in to help extend Max's career, but he doesn't adequately fill in for Max when he plays. Who could? Max is amazing: ruckman, clearance specialist with his kicks from ruck contests, he's a mid-fielder who wins ground balls, he takes intercepting marks down back and his marks around the ground give us access to the forward line. There's no-one like him and I am worried about how long he can continue. It's my view that we can't win another premiership without Max in best form. 

Our window closes the day Max retires.

[Deeoldfart 8,061]

Another ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ from me.  Insightful and very enjoyable, as always.  Thanks guys.

[dino rover 714]

I’d like your thoughts on this.

with the amount of holding going on dump kicks to. Grundy or a Gawn are unlikely to succeed and rely on crumbing 

Grundy / Gawn can’t get separation they don’t have the pace and repeat efforts that petty fritter and smith have

the Grundy Gawn fwd experiment is a bust

petty is out

I would persevere with Smith 

what is the alternative until TMac finds form?

Edited August 15, 2023 by dino rover

[Doug Reemer 1,197]

12 hours ago, Demonland said:

Your questions and comments form a large part of our podcast.

So thanks to these posters this week that posted questions/comments.

@Clintosaurus @Gunna’s @OhMyDees @Nairobi_Demon @Titus Totty @pewpewpew @Grr-owl @sam6172 @Go Lordie @Skrull @layzie @Travy14 @buck_nekkid @Supreme_Demon @Roost it far @Fromgotowoewodin @BoBo @BW511 @whatwhat say what @smurf @PrestigeDee @Jibroni @monoccular @demoncat @Deeoldfart @Doug Reemer @Bigfoot @Singa @jane02 @Redjacket

Don't forget to leave us a 5 Star Review on Apple Podcasts and write a review and we'll read it out on the show.

 

Quality pod as usual!

[Webber 10,538]

Great pod again guys, so good that it puts me in mind of a quote from that recent font of all wisdom, the current-day, cinema Barbie - “I have no difficulty holding both logic and emotion at the same time, and it does not diminish my powers”.

[Adam The God 30,403]

Just getting around to the podders now, my essential weekly listening.

Now, Binners, I'm gonna disagree with you on where we lost the game being in the forward 50 tackles stakes, unless you think we lost it tactically. 

The first half saw us playing Kozzy higher up the ground and allowed them to come at us up the ground from kick outs. It meant we were quite happy to have the ball leave our attacking 50 by design, as this would leave more space in behind for us to attack back the other way. It would also mean that forward 50 tackles would be reduced by this.

At the time, I actually thought it was the right tactical play. I'm playing a similar style with a junior team I coach at the moment and it's strangling teams and leading to heavy scoring for us, because it becomes almost always about fast break away, uncontested play off the sling shot once we cause turnovers or intercept. As soon as you win possession via intercept or winning a 1v1, you go quickly. This was clearly our plan.

You allude to this, but I think it was lost because they won intercept and they were better/more effective at it. Part of this was a function of their extremely aggressive forward half press that enabled them to get repeated re-entries from higher intercepts than we were.

When we managed to intercept deep in defence or even off half back and in the corridor, we mucked up at least 2 or 3 opportunities on the fast break that should have been scores at the very least, if not goals on the counter.

When Oliver went down earlier in the season, we started to shift away from demanding a forward half game and seemed to be more open to the idea of playing on the counter from D50, the one major advantage of this is obviously a less crowded forward half to enter. This was also the blueprint to beat Collingwood, although arguably we wanted to create turnovers slightly higher up the field than D50.

We've also seen in 2023, probably more than any other season, Goody experiment with winning in different ways. Winning in shoot outs, winning in overly defensive contested matches, winning via back half intercepts, winning via forward half intercepts (relaxing or constricting the press), allowing games to open up and then deliberately playing overly contested, forward half games etc etc. And I just wonder if we treated this game (the first half at least) as a bit of an experiment again. To see if we could beat our own system with a more Collingwoodesque slingshot game. We don't take the same risks as them by foot though, which meant it was always going to be a dour affair if Carlton brought the heat. Which they did.

I'd argue therefore that it was a tactical mistake (the experiment notwithstanding) to slacken the forward press and look to sit back and hit them on the counter. By half time, it was clear that Goody and co agreed with this view, because we made an adjustment in our forward half by playing Kozzy deeper, rather than higher as per the first half, and we started to lay inside 50 tackles and try to lock the ball in our forward half. At the very least, we forced them to kick to contests outside our A50.

I have no idea what Chandler's role was on the night, but given he was pretty much a non entity, I think this robbed us of forward half pressure too, it can't always land on Kozzy's shoulders. And I just wonder if Chandler was playing the higher half forward role that Spargo should be playing, and as a result was too high up the ground to be applying the necessary pressure inside A50...?

I said soon after the game finished that I felt our forward mix was off. It wasn't just Grundy, because he actually did a neat thing or two in the forward half (despite lacking the forward craft), and I agree with you that he was better in the ruck than Max, but the other thing that threw our balance off was, I think, the extra mid instead of the extra speed forward in Spargo.

If you play Spargo alongside ANB to defend closer to D50 and through the middle of the ground, all of a sudden you can play Kozzy, Chandler and Trac deep forward, add Smith into that mix and you've got forward pressure through the roof. It means you can slacken your zone too and not lose that important ability to lock the ball in forward half and play territory.

Now that Clarry has a game under his belt, I hope we revert to this forward set up this week and drop the extra mid (JJ).

[binman 43,718]

10 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

Just getting around to the podders now, my essential weekly listening.

Now, Binners, I'm gonna disagree with you on where we lost the game being in the forward 50 tackles stakes, unless you think we lost it tactically. 

The first half saw us playing Kozzy higher up the ground and allowed them to come at us up the ground from kick outs. It meant we were quite happy to have the ball leave our attacking 50 by design, as this would leave more space in behind for us to attack back the other way. It would also mean that forward 50 tackles would be reduced by this.

At the time, I actually thought it was the right tactical play. I'm playing a similar style with a junior team I coach at the moment and it's strangling teams and leading to heavy scoring for us, because it becomes almost always about fast break away, uncontested play off the sling shot once we cause turnovers or intercept. As soon as you win possession via intercept or winning a 1v1, you go quickly. This was clearly our plan.

You allude to this, but I think it was lost because they won intercept and they were better/more effective at it. Part of this was a function of their extremely aggressive forward half press that enabled them to get repeated re-entries from higher intercepts than we were.

When we managed to intercept deep in defence or even off half back and in the corridor, we mucked up at least 2 or 3 opportunities on the fast break that should have been scores at the very least, if not goals on the counter.

When Oliver went down earlier in the season, we started to shift away from demanding a forward half game and seemed to be more open to the idea of playing on the counter from D50, the one major advantage of this is obviously a less crowded forward half to enter. This was also the blueprint to beat Collingwood, although arguably we wanted to create turnovers slightly higher up the field than D50.

We've also seen in 2023, probably more than any other season, Goody experiment with winning in different ways. Winning in shoot outs, winning in overly defensive contested matches, winning via back half intercepts, winning via forward half intercepts (relaxing or constricting the press), allowing games to open up and then deliberately playing overly contested, forward half games etc etc. And I just wonder if we treated this game (the first half at least) as a bit of an experiment again. To see if we could beat our own system with a more Collingwoodesque slingshot game. We don't take the same risks as them by foot though, which meant it was always going to be a dour affair if Carlton brought the heat. Which they did.

I'd argue therefore that it was a tactical mistake (the experiment notwithstanding) to slacken the forward press and look to sit back and hit them on the counter. By half time, it was clear that Goody and co agreed with this view, because we made an adjustment in our forward half by playing Kozzy deeper, rather than higher as per the first half, and we started to lay inside 50 tackles and try to lock the ball in our forward half. At the very least, we forced them to kick to contests outside our A50.

I have no idea what Chandler's role was on the night, but given he was pretty much a non entity, I think this robbed us of forward half pressure too, it can't always land on Kozzy's shoulders. And I just wonder if Chandler was playing the higher half forward role that Spargo should be playing, and as a result was too high up the ground to be applying the necessary pressure inside A50...?

I said soon after the game finished that I felt our forward mix was off. It wasn't just Grundy, because he actually did a neat thing or two in the forward half (despite lacking the forward craft), and I agree with you that he was better in the ruck than Max, but the other thing that threw our balance off was, I think, the extra mid instead of the extra speed forward in Spargo.

If you play Spargo alongside ANB to defend closer to D50 and through the middle of the ground, all of a sudden you can play Kozzy, Chandler and Trac deep forward, add Smith into that mix and you've got forward pressure through the roof. It means you can slacken your zone too and not lose that important ability to lock the ball in forward half and play territory.

Now that Clarry has a game under his belt, I hope we revert to this forward set up this week and drop the extra mid (JJ).

I might have been unclear.

I don't think the inside 50s tackle diff was where we lost the game per se, more that it was the only key stat with a meaningful difference and it helped the blues win (maybe that's the same thing).

Their ability to keep it trapped inside their 50 and get second chance scoring opportunities was def a factor - particularly in the first half when they applied more pressure.

You make a good point that our low number of tackles inside 50 might be related to structure and the small forwards pushing higher.

On Chandler, agree we want him closer to goal - and kozzie too for that matter. We need them inside putting pressure on, tackling and kicking crumbing goals. Hard to do so from the wing.

[Watson11 2,241]

12 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

Just getting around to the podders now, my essential weekly listening.

Now, Binners, I'm gonna disagree with you on where we lost the game being in the forward 50 tackles stakes, unless you think we lost it tactically. 

The first half saw us playing Kozzy higher up the ground and allowed them to come at us up the ground from kick outs. It meant we were quite happy to have the ball leave our attacking 50 by design, as this would leave more space in behind for us to attack back the other way. It would also mean that forward 50 tackles would be reduced by this.

At the time, I actually thought it was the right tactical play. I'm playing a similar style with a junior team I coach at the moment and it's strangling teams and leading to heavy scoring for us, because it becomes almost always about fast break away, uncontested play off the sling shot once we cause turnovers or intercept. As soon as you win possession via intercept or winning a 1v1, you go quickly. This was clearly our plan.

You allude to this, but I think it was lost because they won intercept and they were better/more effective at it. Part of this was a function of their extremely aggressive forward half press that enabled them to get repeated re-entries from higher intercepts than we were.

When we managed to intercept deep in defence or even off half back and in the corridor, we mucked up at least 2 or 3 opportunities on the fast break that should have been scores at the very least, if not goals on the counter.

When Oliver went down earlier in the season, we started to shift away from demanding a forward half game and seemed to be more open to the idea of playing on the counter from D50, the one major advantage of this is obviously a less crowded forward half to enter. This was also the blueprint to beat Collingwood, although arguably we wanted to create turnovers slightly higher up the field than D50.

We've also seen in 2023, probably more than any other season, Goody experiment with winning in different ways. Winning in shoot outs, winning in overly defensive contested matches, winning via back half intercepts, winning via forward half intercepts (relaxing or constricting the press), allowing games to open up and then deliberately playing overly contested, forward half games etc etc. And I just wonder if we treated this game (the first half at least) as a bit of an experiment again. To see if we could beat our own system with a more Collingwoodesque slingshot game. We don't take the same risks as them by foot though, which meant it was always going to be a dour affair if Carlton brought the heat. Which they did.

I'd argue therefore that it was a tactical mistake (the experiment notwithstanding) to slacken the forward press and look to sit back and hit them on the counter. By half time, it was clear that Goody and co agreed with this view, because we made an adjustment in our forward half by playing Kozzy deeper, rather than higher as per the first half, and we started to lay inside 50 tackles and try to lock the ball in our forward half. At the very least, we forced them to kick to contests outside our A50.

I have no idea what Chandler's role was on the night, but given he was pretty much a non entity, I think this robbed us of forward half pressure too, it can't always land on Kozzy's shoulders. And I just wonder if Chandler was playing the higher half forward role that Spargo should be playing, and as a result was too high up the ground to be applying the necessary pressure inside A50...?

I said soon after the game finished that I felt our forward mix was off. It wasn't just Grundy, because he actually did a neat thing or two in the forward half (despite lacking the forward craft), and I agree with you that he was better in the ruck than Max, but the other thing that threw our balance off was, I think, the extra mid instead of the extra speed forward in Spargo.

If you play Spargo alongside ANB to defend closer to D50 and through the middle of the ground, all of a sudden you can play Kozzy, Chandler and Trac deep forward, add Smith into that mix and you've got forward pressure through the roof. It means you can slacken your zone too and not lose that important ability to lock the ball in forward half and play territory.

Now that Clarry has a game under his belt, I hope we revert to this forward set up this week and drop the extra mid (JJ).

All fair points but the zone or pressure debate to protect i50s is not mutually exclusive.  To be a real threat you need to do both. Carlton are setting the benchmark in the last 5 or so games and Port and the Pies crumbled (we stood up pretty well). It’s so hard to play against. That we are still trying stuff at this stage of the season is not ideal.

Kozzie played deeper after half time but it far from fixed the i50 pressure. In the 3rd qtr we gave up 2 goals from d50 where it was too easy. Both went straight down the other end for soft goals. It isn’t on Kozzie but all 6 forwards.

We withstood their first qtr territory dominance, and really dominated them from then onwards.  For the last 3 qtrs we had 45 i50s to 28 but got outscored and those soft goals we gave up were costly. They cost us just as much as the stoppage goals at the start of the last.

Ironically, Carlton are a much more dangerous team without McKay.  With him in this year, they were 16th for f50 tackles.  In the last 5 weeks since he went down they are ranked #1.  It’s a problem for Carlton as they are a poorer side with him in.

It’s a problem for us as without a tackling tall like Petty we are a much poorer team (TMac/BB/Grundy are not the answer).  For us to hold up through finals I personally think we need to accept what we have and a 2nd tall is not required, and focus on f50 pressure like Carlton have done recently, and Richmond did in 2017. 

[old55 23,687]

18 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Ironically, Carlton are a much more dangerous team without McKay.  With him in this year, they were 16th for f50 tackles.  In the last 5 weeks since he went down they are ranked #1.  It’s a problem for Carlton as they are a poorer side with him in.

It’s a problem for us as without a tackling tall like Petty we are a much poorer team (TMac/BB/Grundy are not the answer).  For us to hold up through finals I personally think we need to accept what we have and a 2nd tall is not required, and focus on f50 pressure like Carlton have done recently, and Richmond did in 2017. 

Or go with Smith who provides an aerial threat and a forward pressure on the ground ball.

[Supreme_Demon 3,897]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:04 AM, Demonland said:

Your questions and comments form a large part of our podcast.

So thanks to these posters this week that posted questions/comments.

@Clintosaurus @Gunna’s @OhMyDees @Nairobi_Demon @Titus Totty @pewpewpew @Grr-owl @sam6172 @Go Lordie @Skrull @layzie @Travy14 @buck_nekkid @Supreme_Demon @Roost it far @Fromgotowoewodin @BoBo @BW511 @whatwhat say what @smurf @PrestigeDee @Jibroni @monoccular @demoncat @Deeoldfart @Doug Reemer @Bigfoot @Singa @jane02 @Redjacket

Don't forget to leave us a 5 Star Review on Apple Podcasts and write a review and we'll read it out on the show.

 

Well done on another brilliant podcast Andy, George and Binman!

 

Fantastic work as always!

 

We all greatly appreciate everything you do for our shared love of the Melbourne Demons! 🔴🔵👹

[Adam The God 30,403]

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

All fair points but the zone or pressure debate to protect i50s is not mutually exclusive.  

I didn't say it was. In fact, I said playing different personnel would allow us to play

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

To be a real threat you need to do both. Carlton are setting the benchmark in the last 5 or so games and Port and the Pies crumbled (we stood up pretty well). It’s so hard to play against. That we are still trying stuff at this stage of the season is not ideal.

I'm fine with playing a different game depending on who we play. The personnel shuffle (ie Grundy and Laurie) is not what's ideal IMO. 

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

Kozzie played deeper after half time but it far from fixed the i50 pressure. In the 3rd qtr we gave up 2 goals from d50 where it was too easy. Both went straight down the other end for soft goals. It isn’t on Kozzie but all 6 forwards.

We withstood their first qtr territory dominance, and really dominated them from then onwards.  For the last 3 qtrs we had 45 i50s to 28 but got outscored and those soft goals we gave up were costly. They cost us just as much as the stoppage goals at the start of the last.

Agree with all this. 👍

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

Ironically, Carlton are a much more dangerous team without McKay.  With him in this year, they were 16th for f50 tackles.  In the last 5 weeks since he went down they are ranked #1.  It’s a problem for Carlton as they are a poorer side with him in.

Agreed. And with a multi million dollar contract.

5 hours ago, Watson11 said:

It’s a problem for us as without a tackling tall like Petty we are a much poorer team (TMac/BB/Grundy are not the answer).  For us to hold up through finals I personally think we need to accept what we have and a 2nd tall is not required, and focus on f50 pressure like Carlton have done recently, and Richmond did in 2017. 

Agreed. Think Richmond circa 2017. JVR, Smith and Fritta surrounded by Kozzy, Trac and Chandler.

[Adam The God 30,403]

5 hours ago, old55 said:

Or go with Smith who provides an aerial threat and a forward pressure on the ground ball.

Yep, that's what I'd go with.