I'm firmly in the camp refusing to draw any conclusions from that game.  Who knows what the coaches wanted to see out there?  People are bemoaning that we couldn't stop their 10 goal run, but did we even try?  Was it more important that we stopped that run on, or more important that we kept experimenting with setups, structures and ball mvement?  The second quarter centre square combos looked very unusual to me.  The outcome of preseason games, both good or bad, has and will never be a reliable indicator of what happens in the real season.

4 hours ago, Damo said:

Bombing it into the forward line should not be 90% of entry 

Sure, agree totally. 

But it never is, or has been under goody. Nowhere near it. 

It certainly wasn't anywhere near 90% yesterday. 

Come the finals last year every team, including the Pies, basically played a variation of the dees game plan, which includes bombing it long into the forward line. But again, none of them do so 90% of the time. 

5 minutes ago, binman said:

Sure, agree totally. 

But it never is, or has been under goody. Nowhere near it. 

It certainly wasn't anywhere near 90% yesterday. 

Come the finals last year every team, including the Pies, basically played a variation of the dees game plan, which includes bombing it long into the forward line. But again, none of them do so 90% of the time. 

The two finals in 2023 would beg to differ.

 

Virtually every ball was bombed in.

 

19 hours ago, Deespicable said:

McVee - he was so good last year and seemed to be a step behind this time. Surprisingly he wasn't given the job on Bolton, but perhaps that was a deliberate ploy to avoid it before the Anzac Eve clash. Howes played on Bolton quite a bit and enough said.

 

We know McVee can do that job, moving him onto Bolton would have shown us nothing. Now Goody knows Howes is a long way off it and Howes know what he needs to do to play on a player like Bolton. Who by the way is one of the hardest match up going. This is what practice games are for.

 

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

The 10 unanswered goals is a real concern given our inability to lock opponents down and stop the run. 

Your assuming we tried to lock them down

4 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

 

We know McVee can do that job, moving him onto Bolton would have shown us nothing. Now Goody knows Howes is a long way off it and Howes know what he needs to do to play on a player like Bolton. Who by the way is one of the hardest match up going. This is what practice games are for.

 

Your assuming we tried to lock them down

Well one would have thought you try different things when teams get run on's that's what practice is for.

30 minutes ago, stinga said:

With Turner injured, Thomlinson, Hore, Adams and Howes not showing much, and Tmac just avarage.   Would it be possible for Verrall to take the tall defender spot and then do a turn in the ruck.

Sorry stinga Will Verrall is a ruck/fwd and need him up fwd more than another key back, I would wait until we are well into the season before we attempt that. Tomlinson can hold down 3rd tall defender until Adams/Turner are ready.

I wasn't expecting so many alarm bells to be ringing on here after an average practice match...

4 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

I wasn't expecting so many alarm bells to be ringing on here after an average practice match...

Surprised? After you being on here for 13 years?

Just now, sue said:

Surprised? After you being on here for 13 years?

Sorry I should have highlighted the 'so many' part. Definitely expected some but I thought we had improved :(

1 minute ago, Young Blood said:

Sorry I should have highlighted the 'so many' part. Definitely expected some but I thought we had improved :(

The veil of negativity was only temporarily misplaced after September 2021.  It's back with a vengence.

Tom Sparrow	25 CBAS	73.5%	No clearances
Alex Neal-Bullen	22 CBAS	64.7%	No clearances

42 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Well one would have thought you try different things when teams get run on's that's what practice is for.

Good point.

After reading training reports for the past few months I was hopeful that there would be changes happening to our starting four by rotating more players through the middle. Yesterday it was predominantly Viney, Neal-Bullen with Kossie & Trac combining on ball & forward. Sparrow had a run in the middle & also Billings & Laurie. I was hoping that might have experimented a bit more with the likes of Rivers & McVee. Hopefully when Oliver & Brayshaw return we will have more flexibility in the midfield. Neal-Bullen should not play in the midfield - no clearances & he too regularly turns the ball over.

Our skills weren't up to standard - fumbled, missed targets by hand & foot. The forwards played too close together & they weren't helped by the poor disposal into them. I can understand why they aren't playing Van Rooyen as the 2nd ruckman, but the forward line can be a lonely place in our team & an occasional run on the ball to get into the game would benefit him. Our 3rd tall in the backline is a concern given Turner is out for a long period of time, Hore is only 190cm, McDonald has lost pace & Adams is untried. Richmond ran the ball out of our backline so easily & ran to space allowing them to attack from the backline.

Positives were Kynan Brown, Windsor & Verrall also showed promise & the return of Clarrie & Salem! Also add Brayshaw & McAdam to the best 22 & Oliver returning will help Trac balance mid & forward better. I suggest that if Kossie plays mid & forward that someone like Moniz-Wakefield may eventually get a game as a skilled pressure forward.

Let's see what changes occur when we face up to Carlton?

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The two finals in 2023 would beg to differ.

Virtually every ball was bombed in.

It might have felt that way, but its not the case that virtually every ball was bombed in.

If it was the case it would be reflected in the shots at goal data (also in the charts that show inside 50 entries and where goals were kicked from, which I've seen but couldn't find with a quick search).

Given how infrequently we jagged pack marks in those games (or any games really, given how hard it is to take a pack mark these days) and factoring in goals from free kicks and pings from 40 -60 metres, if we bombed it long to a pack say 90% of the time, logic suggests the numbers would be something like:

• 70% of scores from general play (eg crumbing packs, stoppage goals, running shots etc) 
• 30% from set shots (marks, usually one out or on the lead, and frees).

In the blues finals loss we were aprox 50% from general play and set shots.

In our loss to the Pies, a game that was high pressure and slippery, we were aprox 40% from general play and 60% from set shots.

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	15	4	9	33	26.7
Carlton	8	3	2	20	37.5
Set Position
Melbourne	13	5	6	36	38.5
Carlton	13	8	4	52	61.5

 

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	9	3	3	21	33.3
Collingwood	4	2	2	14	50.0
Set Position
Melbourne	14	4	5	29	28.6
Collingwood	11	7	3	45	63.6

 

The bottom line is our method works. 

Which is why other teams employ it, just at the tigers did yesterday - which is no surprise since they are the originators of the when in doubt get territory strategy that, with pressure, is the foundation of the game circa 2024. 

It was our accuracy that failed us in the finals not our method. 

Petty, Fullarton, Oliver, Brayshaw and Salem will make a difference. Even 3 of that bunch.

Not sure when Petty or Fullarton will be available.

Suspect Fullarton will be ready by mid March at least. Petty??

Genuinely shocked by the continued downward trending of Ed Langdon. Do we all remember that long haired gut running beast that was so crucial in 2021? He would run up and down that wing, all the way to pockets and provide defensive cover and crucial link up play...where is that guy? In my opinion it isn't talked about enough, he's a shell of himself. It's so bad that I'm to the point of I'm wondering if it's even time to move on from him in favour of a Woewodin type. FWIW this isn't based on yesterday's performance, as uninspiring as it was. This has been building for the best part of a season and a half.

18 minutes ago, RedFox said:

Genuinely shocked by the continued downward trending of Ed Langdon. Do we all remember that long haired gut running beast that was so crucial in 2021? He would run up and down that wing, all the way to pockets and provide defensive cover and crucial link up play...where is that guy? In my opinion it isn't talked about enough, he's a shell of himself. It's so bad that I'm to the point of I'm wondering if it's even time to move on from him in favour of a Woewodin type. FWIW this isn't based on yesterday's performance, as uninspiring as it was. This has been building for the best part of a season and a half.

Give him a chance to prove his doubters wrongs.

3 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

I'm firmly in the camp refusing to draw any conclusions from that game.  Who knows what the coaches wanted to see out there?  People are bemoaning that we couldn't stop their 10 goal run, but did we even try?  Was it more important that we stopped that run on, or more important that we kept experimenting with setups, structures and ball mvement?  The second quarter centre square combos looked very unusual to me.  The outcome of preseason games, both good or bad, has and will never be a reliable indicator of what happens in the real season.

Certainly some validity to this.....  essentially it forms the "salt" with which to take it all by......  but having said that our skill level was abysmal for the most.... were they told to 'ham' it up also ??

The score isnt what concerns me .  The tenet of play does.

Am interested in what we look like against Carlton....   and I'm betting they're  not wanting play to cute.  

This is after all a proper hit out  prior to the season proper... no 4 points granted ....and they wont give away everything ( I'm sure ) but they're going to have to play without 'blinkers' 

 

It definitely seemed that Richmond would find a short target inside 50. We didn't seem to be on the lookout so blazed away. I'm not complaining but I was looking for a point of difference.

43 minutes ago, binman said:

It might have felt that way, but its not the case that virtually every ball was bombed in.

If it was the case it would be reflected in the shots at goal data (also in the charts that show inside 50 entries and where goals were kicked from, which I've seen but couldn't find with a quick search).

Given how infrequently we jagged pack marks in those games (or any games really, given how hard it is to take a pack mark these days) and factoring in goals from free kicks and pings from 40 -60 metres, if we bombed it long to a pack say 90% of the time, logic suggests the numbers would be something like:

• 70% of scores from general play (eg crumbing packs, stoppage goals, running shots etc) 
• 30% from set shots (marks, usually one out or on the lead, and frees).

In the blues finals loss we were aprox 50% from general play and set shots.

In our loss to the Pies, a game that was high pressure and slippery, we were aprox 40% from general play and 60% from set shots.

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	15	4	9	33	26.7
Carlton	8	3	2	20	37.5
Set Position
Melbourne	13	5	6	36	38.5
Carlton	13	8	4	52	61.5

 

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	9	3	3	21	33.3
Collingwood	4	2	2	14	50.0
Set Position
Melbourne	14	4	5	29	28.6
Collingwood	11	7	3	45	63.6

 

The bottom line is our method works. 

Which is why other teams employ it, just at the tigers did yesterday - which is no surprise since they are the originators of the when in doubt get territory strategy that, with pressure, is the foundation of the game circa 2024. 

It was our accuracy that failed us in the finals not our method. 

I'd like to see how a Collingwood, Carlton or Brisbane would go for that matter, if a Curnow, Mihocek or Daniher we out of their finals campaign.

Add in one of their key midfielders getting knocked out 3 minutes into the 1st quarter in a Qualifying final.

We are not far away at all my fellow Demonlanders.

It's one scratch match hit out FFS.

We beat ourselves last year, even with talent absent and Clarry and Fritta not 100%.

Lady Luck shining down on us wouldn't go astray.

Fullarton could be ready as early as next game v Carlton. He told me so.

1 hour ago, binman said:

It might have felt that way, but its not the case that virtually every ball was bombed in.

If it was the case it would be reflected in the shots at goal data (also in the charts that show inside 50 entries and where goals were kicked from, which I've seen but couldn't find with a quick search).

Given how infrequently we jagged pack marks in those games (or any games really, given how hard it is to take a pack mark these days) and factoring in goals from free kicks and pings from 40 -60 metres, if we bombed it long to a pack say 90% of the time, logic suggests the numbers would be something like:

• 70% of scores from general play (eg crumbing packs, stoppage goals, running shots etc) 
• 30% from set shots (marks, usually one out or on the lead, and frees).

In the blues finals loss we were aprox 50% from general play and set shots.

In our loss to the Pies, a game that was high pressure and slippery, we were aprox 40% from general play and 60% from set shots.

Shots at goal

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	15	4	9	33	26.7
Carlton	8	3	2	20	37.5
Set Position
Melbourne	13	5	6	36	38.5
Carlton	13	8	4	52	61.5

 

Team	Shots	G	B	T	Acc.
General Play
Melbourne	9	3	3	21	33.3
Collingwood	4	2	2	14	50.0
Set Position
Melbourne	14	4	5	29	28.6
Collingwood	11	7	3	45	63.6

 

The bottom line is our method works. 

Which is why other teams employ it, just at the tigers did yesterday - which is no surprise since they are the originators of the when in doubt get territory strategy that, with pressure, is the foundation of the game circa 2024. 

It was our accuracy that failed us in the finals not our method. 

Appreciate your response but yes it certainly felt that way!

1 hour ago, Damo said:

It definitely seemed that Richmond would find a short target inside 50. We didn't seem to be on the lookout so blazed away. I'm not complaining but I was looking for a point of difference.

We hit a number of leading targets and players getting out the back.

In fact if I was forced to guess i reckon we might have had more goals from set shots than the tigers. 

57 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Appreciate your response but yes it certainly felt that way!

I suspect it does for blues fans too - particularly when McKay and Curnow both play.  

Edited February 19, 20241 yr by binman

1 hour ago, waynewussell said:

Fullarton could be ready as early as next game v Carlton. He told me so.

Harry Petty told me he didn’t have a new injury.

Nek minnit…

 

Just sayin’

😭