Stuff drafting a kid, poach a key forward.

[D4Life 2,405]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:25 AM, Stiff Arm said:

But they have a forward set up that works 100% better than ours

IMO Checkers and McStay are much better for them than JVR and Tmac are for us

JVR 1st year AFL forward and TMac at end of career recovering from injuries, both his speed and agility compromised, so would hope Pies two are better.

Petty or Melksham play instead of TMac we win!

Take out Mihicek or McStay, Curnow, Daniher or Hipwood, Port key forward, Hogan for Giants, King for Saints in last six weeks of season, and none of them win!

Demonscdealt a [censored] injury run with key forwards this season, that has a major impact on forward line functioning!

We looked like we had it made vs Tigers, take out Petty & Melksham - there’s your difference. 
 

Hard to find new structure when you keep losing key forwards! Coaching team can only do so much!

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,828]

4 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

We have a different method to Collingwood as @old55 and @binman regularly say.

The way we move the ball given our territory dominance means we need good contested markers. This is why we rely so heavily on Max. 

Collingwood are very ordinary (aside from the first quarter) at contested possession (13th league wide). They rely on conceding territory, which leaves space in behind for their kickers and runners to penetrate into an empty forwardline. It's why they don't rely on a key forward.

They play to their list's strengths, which is what we do too. However, without TMac, BB and eventually Petty to compete in the air forward of the ball, we aren't as potent.

As a rule, TMac, BB and Petty are excellent set shots (TMac was unusually wayward, which was a factor in our loss), so IMO we need more genuine class in the air and at ground level.

Petty, I think can be one of those dominant threats in the air, but I think we need a second in the short term that will relegate JVR to the third tall and leave Fritta as the 4th banana, and I reckon that'll elevate JVRs game.

Don’t disagree with anything you have said here. The million dollar question is are we playing to our strengths.

[Adam The God 29,417]

1 hour ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Don’t disagree with anything you have said here. The million dollar question is are we playing to our strengths.

Our strength is clearly contested ball and therefore our ability to get it inside 50. We are number 1 for both in the comp and have been for years. Even 2019.

So it was always about getting strength behind the ball and team defence to ensure we could lock it in and play territory. We've done that now and finished top 4 three years in a row and won a flag within that (and still in it this year), and the next step IMV is improving the forwardline personnel. 

And since territory derived from winning the contest is our strength, we're number one for stopping defensive transition and conceding scores from it.

Injury has meant our method hasn't so far been able to go to the next level in the forward half (our main targets Fritta, Petty, BB and Tmac all missing huge chunks of the season), but despite all these injuries, our system has seen us finish in the top 4.

So yes, I'd say we're maximising our strengths.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Binmans PA

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,828]

Agree that our contest is our strength. However I would say our ball movement going forward is too slow which certainly does give our defenders a chance to set up behind the ball but doesn’t give our forwards the space, time and clean looks at goal that most forwards crave which I believe would allow us to be more efficient when going forward and give us more bang for our inside 50 buck. Would love to see a bit more of a value on offence as opposed to being so contest / defence. Just seems to be a negative mindset for mine. 

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

I would've thought our most important strength should be the ability to kick goals. Maybe my priorities are askew 

[Adam The God 29,417]

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

I would've thought our most important strength should be the ability to kick goals. Maybe my priorities are askew 

Nice analysis.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

28 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Nice analysis.

Nice response, AF

The objective of the game is to kick a winning score. We can talk about our contest and defensive strengths ad nauseum, we know they are our strengths, but we struggle to have a functional forward line and decent delivery i50, and have for years. Locking it i50 isn't good enough. Let's talk more about how we are going to score goals, without using injuries as an excuse

Fwiw, if you havent already, might like to read the Roar article which talks about our forward strategies on Thurs night. 

Their point about our first goal from the Brayshaw hit was spot on. No one was leading towards Gus, despite the leading forward being a weakness of Howe and Moore. Everyone was running back one on one. Trac was Maynard's opponent and was free and 40 out direct in front waving his arms. But Gus has been taught to kick long, just what Coll had hoped for. The better option was to flick a handball to Trac, given no one was leading forward into the open paddock

Edited September 9, 2023 by Stiff Arm

[Jaded No More 67,771]

8 hours ago, ANG13 said:

Have Geelong conceded their now out of premiership contention? Probably not because they just won’t go away but I would still ask the question about Cameron. 
 

 

Chris Scott said they fear nobody in finals… their only fear is the jello cups running out at the retirement home 

[adonski 10,897]

On 9/8/2023 at 8:20 AM, leucopogon said:

We've clearly peaked as a list (2021 to first half of 2022). We're now on the slide and it's only going to get worse as key players like May, Lever, Salem, Gawn have all declined in their impact and will continue inevitably downward. Add to that the decline of Harmes and Spargo and loss of players like Bedford and likely JJ searching for more opportunity, which has impacted our depth. 

I initially thought that going after a big fish was the way to go, but on second thoughts. We really need to nail this draft to refresh our squad. Luckily we have the picks to do it so over to you Jason Taylor.

We need a 2019 draft part 2 to fill the cracks

[Ithinkimgawnalever 90]

On 9/8/2023 at 7:20 AM, Gorgoroth said:

Time to shelf the trying to get pick 1 etc, get gold coasts 4, and throw 4&5 at a key forward. McKay from Carlton, Allen from West coast are two of target. West coast would be happy with 1,4&5 going into the draft.

And unless we change our game plan or truly believe that Petty will be the main focal point and his body won’t fail him then we need to head hunt a genuine forward.

West coast will not be parting with Oscar. Would be amazing for both clubs nonetheless

[Adam The God 29,417]

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

Nice response, AF

The objective of the game is to kick a winning score. We can talk about our contest and defensive strengths ad nauseum, we know they are our strengths, but we struggle to have a functional forward line and decent delivery i50, and have for years. Locking it i50 isn't good enough. Let's talk more about how we are going to score goals, without using injuries as an excuse

Fwiw, if you havent already, might like to read the Roar article which talks about our forward strategies on Thurs night. 

Their point about our first goal from the Brayshaw hit was spot on. No one was leading towards Gus, despite the leading forward being a weakness of Howe and Moore. Everyone was running back one on one. Trac was Maynard's opponent and was free and 40 out direct in front waving his arms. But Gus has been taught to kick long, just what Coll had hoped for. The better option was to flick a handball to Trac, given no one was leading forward into the open paddock

If you want to boil it down simplistically, you kick a winning score, based on method. The method is how you get there. And the method got us there 16 times on a season. The method isn't the problem. It's the execution. Fritsch, TMac both missed multiple gettable shots they'd usually get, that's the game right there, before we even mention the 6 other on the fulls.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

2 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

If you want to boil it down simplistically, you kick a winning score, based on method. The method is how you get there. And the method got us there 16 times on a season. The method isn't the problem. It's the execution. Fritsch, TMac both missed multiple gettable shots they'd usually get, that's the game right there, before we even mention the 6 other on the fulls.

Plenty of excuses could be used for the loss: injuries, poor goal kicking, Gus getting knocked out which prevented Trac spending more time forward, etc. They are simplistic excuses

The Pies also missed a number of gettable shots, that works both ways. 

Yet, with that many forward entries we should've won comfortably

I don't think I've ever seen a worse game for ineffective i50s. And this is a pattern years old. Might win us 16 H&A games, but gets found out in finals

Our "method" fails to convert a large enough percentage of our i50s. We had 26% conversion into a score from 69 entries, Coll were 41%, and they weren't exactly accurate either

With those entry numbers most teams would expect to win by 10 goals, in which case our missed set shots wouldn't be used as an excuse. Collingwood can only dream of stats like that

IMO it is our connection forward and predictable forward strategies that will cost us this year's flag. That is where our "method" fails. With that addressed, we crush the Pies

BTW, I believe Tmac missed one set shot, not multiple 😉

[Adam The God 29,417]

8 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

The Pies also missed a number of gettable shots, that works both ways. 

No, it doesn't. We had 3 more scoring shots than them, plus 7 on the full ons. That's 10 scoring shots and expected score suggests many were more than gettable and we should have won.

We kicked 3.7.25 to 6.4.40 from turnover when we average 58.1 points from turnover a game and concede 41 points. That's the game right there. Our inability to convert our chances from turnover lost us the game. Not our method.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Binmans PA

[whatwhat say what 22,195]

the key to modern football has been, for the last several years, inside-outside midfielders who can play forward and midfield

bontempelli, martin, petracca, etc

if harley reid is more of the same, make it happen

Edited September 9, 2023 by whatwhat say what

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

2 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

No it doesn't. We had 3 more scoring shots than them, plus 7 on the full ons. That's 10 scoring shots and expected score suggests many were more than gettable and we should have won.

We kicked 3.7.25 to 6.4.40 from turnover. That's the game right there. Our inability to.convert our chances from turnover lost us the game. Not our method.

Had we converted more of our i50s into scores we would also have won the game, regardless of the missed shot we had. 

I believe the 7 on the fulls were for the whole ground, but there were certainly a number in the forward line

Thats it from me, good night AF

[JimmyGadson 3,455]

4 hours ago, Binmans PA said:

No, it doesn't. We had 3 more scoring shots than them, plus 7 on the full ons. That's 10 scoring shots and expected score suggests many were more than gettable and we should have won.

We kicked 3.7.25 to 6.4.40 from turnover when we average 58.1 points from turnover a game and concede 41 points. That's the game right there. Our inability to convert our chances from turnover lost us the game. Not our method.

It's both you goose. Clearly.

Our method means our players refuse to give the ball to team mates in more dangerous positions which would equate to better looks going inside 50 as well as shots on goal. 

You can't claim that we lost the game due to a few missed set shots but at the same time say it has nothing to do with method. Because there are missed opportunities at shots on goal in our method as well. 

Go and look at first crack and the vision that Montagna shows. Every game we play there are countless missed opportunities to change an angle or go inside to a free player which would open up so many opportunities for forward to lead to space and therefore opportunities for shots on goal. 

It's about honouring those at the right time so that we obviously still play our game plan. But we simply don't do it enough. And we possess players who simply aren't composed enough. 

You think you're contributing deep analysis when really your summation is that we lost due to a few missed set shots? Righto. 

Our method creates problems when faced against sides who know how to combat it. We have execution issues and have for a long time. We have a lacklustre and boring forwardline. Etc. The issues are multifaceted. 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by JimmyGadson

[Superunknown 4,062]

21 hours ago, Juicebox said:

A tactic that’s worked against us for a very long time. We are lovers not fighters. 

Another commenter here said to me that whilst the players love Goodwin they wouldn’t run through a wall for each other. He said Stinnear has that with the women’s team. It’s been like this with Melb for as long as I can remember. Where’s the buy in for each other? The brayshaw injury exemplifies this as noted by others above . It’s really odd. 

[Demon Disciple 11,680]

3 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Another commenter here said to me that whilst the players love Goodwin they wouldn’t run through a wall for each other. He said Stinnear has that with the women’s team. It’s been like this with Melb for as long as I can remember. Where’s the buy in for each other? The brayshaw injury exemplifies this as noted by others above . It’s really odd. 

We would’ve done it in 2021. We simply are nowhere near as hungry as we were in 2021.

In 2021 we were relentless, we were manic, we were uncompromising. We are a shadow of that now.

[Adam The God 29,417]

8 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

It's both you goose. Clearly.

Our method means our players refuse to give the ball to team mates in more dangerous positions which would equate to better looks going inside 50 as well as shots on goal. 

You can't claim that we lost the game due to a few missed set shots but at the same time say it has nothing to do with method. Because there are missed opportunities at shots on goal in our method as well. 

Go and look at first crack and the vision that Montagna shows. Every game we play there are countless missed opportunities to change an angle or go inside to a free player which would open up so many opportunities for forward to lead to space and therefore opportunities for shots on goal. 

It's about honouring those at the right time so that we obviously still play our game plan. But we simply don't do it enough. And we possess players who simply aren't composed enough. 

You think you're contributing deep analysis when really your summation is that we lost due to a few missed set shots? Righto. 

Our method creates problems when faced against sides who know how to combat it. We have execution issues and have for a long time. We have a lacklustre and boring forwardline. Etc. The issues are multifaceted. 

 

We could win by more, I agree that we could do better, but our method still turned the ball over/won the ball back and got two shots within 35m (slight/to no angle) for both Fritta and TMac (arguably our best kicks at goal). Kick them, and we win.

If you do not convert regulation set shots (ie less pressure than shots from open play), you will not win finals. Look at 3 of the 4 finals in week one. The teams that kicked straighter won, and the teams that started well, won.

I'm not denying there's huge scope for improvement with our ball movement, forward craft and forward half play, but despite this, the method still generated more scoring shots that expected score calculated should lead to a comfortable win. That's method succeeding and execution failing.

So it's not on the coaches or even the players behind the ball or through the middle of the ground, it's that those taking shots and missing gettable shots, cost us the game.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Binmans PA

[Roost it far 7,423]

39 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

So it's not on the coaches or even the players behind the ball or through the middle of the ground, it's that those taking shots and missing gettable shots, cost us the game.

So you're happy with players consistently bombing it to no one in particular. Oliver gained 750m and is lauded, I reckon his 750m cost us 3000m back the other way. Yes we should have won and would have if we kicked straight, that's a no brainer. However our kicking inside 50 and even further back was atrocious. The Pies knew to pressure the kicker and we succumbed. Our forwards are often not leading and our mids are often bombing it behind any leads that do occur, or worse just plain ignoring others in better positions. What keeps me in the hopeful camp is this game was a mirror image of the GWS game and we recovered from that pretty well. I'm dirty with that loss, we just may have gifted the Pies a flag.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Roost it far

[Adam The God 29,417]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

So you're happy with players consistently bombing it to no one in particular. Oliver gained 750m and is lauded, I reckon his 750m cost us 3000m back the other way. Yes we should have won and would have if we kicked straight, that's a no brainer. However our kicking inside 50 and even further back was atrocious. The Pies knew to pressure the kicker and we succumbed. Our forwards are often not leading and our mids are often bombing it behind any leads that do occur, or worse just plain ignoring others in better positions. What keeps me in the hopeful camp is this game was a mirror image of the GWS game and we recovered from that pretty well. I'm dirty with that loss, we just may have gifted the Pies a flag.

Not exactly happy with it, but I don't think chipping it around the arc against a high press, speedy transition team was thw answer either.

I keep reading that our method is off or that we need do better forward, but nothing I've read so far has said how.

We are a contest winning team. We're the number one winning contest team. So it means we dominate territory, which means the entire opposition is in our forward half, making it hugely difficult to score etc etc.

I'd like to hear how you'd improve forward connection if we're constantly winning contest and therefore usually entering our 50 when it's congested.

We chained out of contests by hand for months, but unless you move the ball quickly by foot and get it inside 50, you will not beat the modern defensive zone.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Binmans PA

[Roost it far 7,423]

2 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Not exactly happy with it, but I don't think chipping it around the arc against a high press, speedy transition team was thw answer either.

I keep reading that our method is off or that we need do better forward, but nothing I've read so far has said how.

We are a contest winning team. We're the number one winning contest team. So it means we dominate territory, which means the entire opposition is in our forward half, making it hugely difficult to score etc etc.

I'd like to hear how you'd improve forward connection if we're constantly winning contest and therefore usually entering our 50 when it's congested.

We chained out of contests by hand for months, but unless you move the ball quickly by foot and get it inside 50, you will not beat the modern defensive zone.

Watch the replay and there’s a dozen clear better options within the 50 that players either ignore or don’t see before they bomb it long to no one. I’m with you for most of what you say but method is also an issue. Even Brayshaw’s kick that saw him ironed out would have been better as a handball to Petracca. It’s those things that we fall into that hurt us continually. 

[Adam The God 29,417]

Just now, Roost it far said:

Watch the replay and there’s a dozen clear better options within the 50 that players either ignore or don’t see before they bomb it long to no one. I’m with you for most of what you say but method is also an issue. Even Brayshaw’s kick that saw him ironed out would have been better as a handball to Petracca. It’s those things that we fall into that hurt us continually. 

Handball to Petracca? He had a player right on his hammer and was backing off towards that player as well.

[Roost it far 7,423]

1 minute ago, Binmans PA said:

Handball to Petracca? He had a player right on his hammer and was backing off towards that player as well.

Backing off? He was streaming forward with eyes looking straight ahead with only one intent, kick it long. This is our problem in a nutshell 

[Adam The God 29,417]

8 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Backing off? He was streaming forward with eyes looking straight ahead with only one intent, kick it long. This is our problem in a nutshell 

If you watch that play to the end, a handball would have seen Trac cut off by a quickly closing Quaynor.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Binmans PA