POSTGAME: Match SIM vs Richmond

[leave it to deever 15,344]

12 hours ago, Deespicable said:

It's hard not to be critical of a loss to Richmond, who are widely tipped to be bottom six this season and were arguably missing more big guns than we were - Martin, Lynch, Taranto, Prestia and Nankervis are big omissions for them.

What has worried me for a long time is that we have continually recruited ultra small players and aside from Viney, Petracca and Sparrow, we don't look ultra physical - which is a by-product of being so small. The decision not to get Caddy may yet come back to haunt us, just as the Weideman v Curnow debate was there some time back.

Aside from JVR and when he's up there Gawn - we don't have any players who look remotely like taking a mark - once again that's something that comes with going small with a forward line that includes at least five of seven players under six feet each week. 

And to be honest most of our small players, with the exception of Kossie, aren't explosive speed type players. Even Windsor struggled to get away from opponents, although he was the pick of our youngsters. His kicking was at time abysmal today, but you can tell he will be better for the gallop and even better if he had some quick-moving big targets.

My other major worry is that we have spent summer training with little pressure drills. Maybe that's the plan these days - not overdo it early to avoid injury and get stuck into more tackling drills when the season gets closer. I don't have stats, but I'm guessing we were majorly outtackled and I lost count of the number of pressurised kicks and handballs that were intercepted or missed targets.

The big disappointments were in my view:

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.

Fritsch - he's been looking sharp at training, but really couldn't influence things - maybe as has been stated he was playing too close to goals and cut off easily.

Gawn - gees, how many times did he lose front position at thrown-ins and have to push his opponent Ryan from behind - eventually the umps even spotted it and started paying free kicks against him.

Schache and Tomlinson - yep both need to realise their time in the game ends in 2024 unless they lift.

Yes it's only a practice game, but boy, we'd better show some signs against Carlton next week or the season will get away from us and Goody will have to utter Neeld's line - "we didn't see that coming". 

 

This belief for the last three years that Bbb and Tmac will suffice is based on sheer hope and not past reality.

We are still lacking tall fwfs and God help us if Petty goes down again.

[durango 1,976]

If you add both results the Melbourne win by 2 points not the other way around.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

My thoughts on the game is that Richmond were playing at a pretty high intensity and we had about 2-3 guys that got anywhere near that. They laid some massive tackles and bumps and I hardly saw us lay one. The bump on Lever was right in front of me and that was huge!

- Trac was really there to get run into his legs and have a few touches. He looked very disinterested.

- Most of our backline were lethargic and dropped simple marks (May being the worst of them). Bowey was probably the one shining light there. I will hold judgement on Thommo for now given after the first 20 minutes the ball was coming in at a rate of knots.

- Obviously there are still concerns for our forward line, but if we can get McAdam and Petty on the park that could really change things. Even Fullarton as a big 200cm target would be handy.

- I was super impressed with Windsor, even though his kicking was a bit off today. His speed is incredible to watch and he went hard a number of times, including getting crunched by Nathan Broad. The best thing is he came back on in the 2nd half and didn't take a backward step. He has so much potential it's great to see.

- Really liked what I saw from Billings and started to work is way into the game in the second half with some nice link up play and elite footskills. He will be important for us.

- I'm not super confident for our start to the season at the moment, though will hold on going hard early until I see how we play v Carlton. I am expecting them to be a lot sharper and increased pressure as the final game before the season starts.

- I was also pretty happy with Will Verral and thought he showed a bit. He is obviously very raw still, but he's put on quite a bit of size and is really athletic. Also looks a reliable set shot kick. I could see him as our ruck/forward in future.

Edited February 18 by DistrACTION Jackson

[drdrake 3,037]

Our biggest issue remains the skills forward of centre, so many turnovers in our forward half.  We were away then a missed handball, kick and Richmond just went the other way clean and used the ball so much better than us.

We did try to hit the dangerous kick inboard, which for most of last year we avoided that kick, just need the right players hitting that kick, we missed it to much and as soon as you miss that kick your opponent will score.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

13 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Our biggest issue remains the skills forward of centre, so many turnovers in our forward half.  We were away then a missed handball, kick and Richmond just went the other way clean and used the ball so much better than us.

We did try to hit the dangerous kick inboard, which for most of last year we avoided that kick, just need the right players hitting that kick, we missed it to much and as soon as you miss that kick your opponent will score.

Even our elite kickers were off today. Rivers & McVee were missing targets.

Billings was probably the most reliable with ball in hand.

[whatwhat say what 18,921]

nothing would surprise me about the baggers in 2024

like us in 2018, they were overdue to make the finals in 2023, and similarly got through to the prelim final

they might drop back again but from all reports they had nothing like the injury concerns we had in 2019 preseason

they are a lot more experienced than i think is credited and, like us in 2018, should have already been in finals before then

[binman 38,035]

11 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Scratch match: purpose is to condition the players bodies to the intensity of things to come. People gotta chill. 

Indeed.

Avoiding injury is another objective.

The foundation of our game plan, like every other club, is pressure.

Pressure creates turnovers.

As one of the commentators said, 70% of scoring now comes from turnovers.

But pressure also causes injuries.

We only applied something even close to AFL pressure in the first 20 mins of each half. And even then it was miles off what we see round one.

The tigers weren't applying much pressure in those phases

We dominated in those periods. Kicking five unanswered goals to start the  game.

When the tigers lifted their pressure ratings, they dominated, kicking 10 straight at one point.

Until the last couple of years practice games were not broadcast. And rightly people paid little heed to them. 

Yes, with only one proper preseason game the practice match is a bit more significant - but it remains a PRACTICE match. 

In addition to getting players conditioned to something like AFL intensity, it's an opportunity to practice things, eg new roles, strategies and ball movement 

Examples yesterday included Windsor on a wing, Howes at half back, Schache rucking, Verrel rucking solo for a half, more time in the middle for koz, ditto for nibbla, salo on ball, inside 50 kicks, leading patterns and our long handball chains.

On the latter, i had a memory of old dees fans at the g back in the mid 2000s yelling "JUST KICK IT!!!!!' when we were employing the then standard, yet sometimes frustrating, strategy of moving the ball forward with chains of handballs.

If we start using chains of handballs again, the equivalent fans might have to yell "JUST KICK IT - BUT DON'T BOMB IT IN - HIT A LEADING TARGET - SO DON'T JUST KICK IT INDISCRIMINATELY !!!!!"

Edited February 18 by binman

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

6 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

nothing would surprise me about the baggers in 2024

like us in 2018, they were overdue to make the finals in 2023, and similarly got through to the prelim final

they might drop back again but from all reports they had nothing like the injury concerns we had in 2019 preseason

they are a lot more experienced than i think is credited and, like us in 2018, should have already been in finals before then

Their list is not too different age wise to us, so they should be able to back it up.

I think the biggest thing people don't think about is the difficulty of fixture once you're a top 4-6 team. They will have more double up games against tough opposition so it is how they back up from that.

[HBDee 343]

Watched the whole 7 periods on replay last night. 

Reason for most of Richmond's goals were sloppy turnovers from us, or poor ball handling aka. May fumbling, turning over and them goaling. 

Thought the ball movement when we were scoring goals was pretty good and our depth of forward 50 entries was good. JVR leading up and very nearly clunking quite a few was promising for early in the season.

To everyone saying we have to stop bombing into the forward 50, but they think we're a tall forward or two short down there, we can't have it both ways. The tall forwards want the ball coming in high or so they can get a run and jump at it.

Everyone saying we need to lower our eyes and hit up targets, means forget the tall forwards, just play smaller guys and look for them to lead to space/ball carrier. Which by the sounds of it no one wants that either.

Pressure on in the contest and the ball carrier on the wing for example, means they might have to put the ball on the boot quickly and therefore go long and high into the forward 50. We can't expect the ball to be coming in fast with space all the time, given our high-contest game, and opposition zone defences. Sounds like people want perfect leads and passes every time. Not realistic. 

I actually think the bigger issue is the separation of our tall forwards. To me it seem like they're always flying for the same ball. Easy for defenders for mine. Get separation and try and create a one-on-one and back our guys in. 

As the commentators were saying during the broadcast, we were top 5 for inside forward 50 efficiency (score per entry) during the home and away season last year, and top 5 for scoring in general. That obviously wasn't the case in the two finals we lost, but also, saying our method is completely useless is also not true. Tweak it yes. Say it doesn't work and completely change the way you play. Pretty stupid.

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

15 minutes ago, HBDee said:

Watched the whole 7 periods on replay last night. 

Reason for most of Richmond's goals were sloppy turnovers from us, or poor ball handling aka. May fumbling, turning over and them goaling. 

Thought the ball movement when we were scoring goals was pretty good and our depth of forward 50 entries was good. JVR leading up and very nearly clunking quite a few was promising for early in the season.

To everyone saying we have to stop bombing into the forward 50, but they think we're a tall forward or two short down there, we can't have it both ways. The tall forwards want the ball coming in high or so they can get a run and jump at it.

Everyone saying we need to lower our eyes and hit up targets, means forget the tall forwards, just play smaller guys and look for them to lead to space/ball carrier. Which by the sounds of it no one wants that either.

Pressure on in the contest and the ball carrier on the wing for example, means they might have to put the ball on the boot quickly and therefore go long and high into the forward 50. We can't expect the ball to be coming in fast with space all the time, given our high-contest game, and opposition zone defences. Sounds like people want perfect leads and passes every time. Not realistic. 

I actually think the bigger issue is the separation of our tall forwards. To me it seem like they're always flying for the same ball. Easy for defenders for mine. Get separation and try and create a one-on-one and back our guys in. 

As the commentators were saying during the broadcast, we were top 5 for inside forward 50 efficiency (score per entry) during the home and away season last year, and top 5 for scoring in general. That obviously wasn't the case in the two finals we lost, but also, saying our method is completely useless is also not true. Tweak it yes. Say it doesn't work and completely change the way you play. Pretty stupid.

I agree with all of this.

I also think we lack those elite pressure forwards that a team like Collingwood have. In the grand final the Pies had Hill, Mcreery, Ginnivan and Elliott as small forwards. Their key forwards were Mihocek and Cox! Not really a scary proposition, but they all work together well.

[Gawndy the Great 7,344]

26 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

nothing would surprise me about the baggers in 2024

like us in 2018, they were overdue to make the finals in 2023, and similarly got through to the prelim final

they might drop back again but from all reports they had nothing like the injury concerns we had in 2019 preseason

they are a lot more experienced than i think is credited and, like us in 2018, should have already been in finals before then

I think the Blues are the most likely (at this stage) to snare the premiership in '24. They go toe-to-toe with us midfield wise, but have the best 1-2 KF combo in the AFL by a long way. They are still vulnerable defensively, which is their main weakness - if Vossy has managed to fine tune that over pre-season, then watch out. 

Expecting them to give us a bit of a reality check next week. 

[JTR 2,627]

12 hours ago, kev martin said:

You might be able to pick them out of this line up.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/teams/casey-demons/squads/vfl

A short chunky at training on Saturday was Charlie Peters. 

That's him yep (#35). Looked just like Tapscott, only shorter!

Looking at the line-up, I think #33 was most probably Cooper Macdonald.  Like the look of him.

[HBDee 343]

33 minutes ago, binman said:

On the latter, i had a memory of old dees fans at the g back in the mid 2000s yelling "JUST KICK IT!!!!!' when we were employing the then standard, yet sometimes frustrating, strategy of moving the ball forward with chains of handballs.

If we start using chains of handballs again, the equivalent fans might have to yell "JUST KICK IT - BUT DON'T BOMB IT IN - HIT A LEADING TARGET - SO DON'T JUST KICK IT INDISCRIMINATELY !!!!!"

100% agree with you. People expecting to see the guys hit a leading player aka Harmes to Fritsch in the 2021 GF every single time there is a contest. 

Edited February 19 by HBDee

[binman 38,035]

49 minutes ago, HBDee said:

To everyone saying we have to stop bombing into the forward 50, but they think we're a tall forward or two short down there, we can't have it both ways. The tall forwards want the ball coming in high or so they can get a run and jump at it.

Everyone saying we need to lower our eyes and hit up targets, means forget the tall forwards, just play smaller guys and look for them to lead to space/ball carrier. Which by the sounds of it no one wants that either.

Pressure on in the contest and the ball carrier on the wing for example, means they might have to put the ball on the boot quickly and therefore go long and high into the forward 50.

We can't expect the ball to be coming in fast with space all the time, given our high-contest game, and opposition zone defences. Sounds like people want perfect leads and passes every time. Not realistic.

Spot on.

I'd add that whilst there might be some variation as to where that kick is directed (eg pockets or hot spot), long and high kicks inside 50 is standard practice for all teams when kicking into a crowded forward line (which is not say team do it all the time of course).

And the reason why is when kicking into a crowded forward line, a long, high kick to a pack at predetermined spot, is the percentage play. It's the risk reward calculation. 

Teams would have 20 plus years of analytics, and whilst i cant back this is up with the data (because frustratingly the AFL allow champion data to lock up key data), I'm very confident the data would show, that when factoring in:

• the attacking teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession  (ie either when the ball hits the ground OR after a stoppage, if one happens)
• and the defensive teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession (ie on turnover)....

.........the net scoring advantage is in favor of the attacking team. 

That data would change when the forward line is not crowded and the percentage play would be hitting up leading targets (unless as you note HBD, if that kick is under huge pressure, then the percentage play might still be the long high kick)

But the problem is space inside 50 can only be created through fast ball movement from the back half (hence practicing the handball chains).

But even then it is a one time deal. If a team moves it quickly, as we did yesterday at times, get it inside 50 to an open forward line, but fail to score and the oppo win the ball back, the go to play is put pressure on the outlet kick, set up a wall and try to win the ball back.

If we do win it back, in that scenario, the defensive zone usually has had time to get set and players from both teams have flooded into the forward line area. So the kick back inside 50 is into a crowded forward line. And the percentage play is a long, high kick to our forward line.

I think it was our second goal (perhaps the brown's first?) that we scored a goal from exactly this scenario. 

Edited February 19 by binman

[jayceebee31 666]

9 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

No, we didn’t 

Yes, we did…..we got it wrong.

[JTR 2,627]

45 minutes ago, HBDee said:

To everyone saying we have to stop bombing into the forward 50, but they think we're a tall forward or two short down there, we can't have it both ways. The tall forwards want the ball coming in high or so they can get a run and jump at it.

Everyone saying we need to lower our eyes and hit up targets, means forget the tall forwards, just play smaller guys and look for them to lead to space/ball carrier. Which by the sounds of it no one wants that either.

Welcome to Demonland 🤣

[jayceebee31 666]

9 hours ago, FTB said:

So what do we think about Kynan Brown? Personally, I did not think he looked out of place at all. With another good showing against Carlton, do we think he’s a genuine opening round chance despite his very small frame?

With Pickett out, has to be a strong chance, did better than Chandler, Billings etc in my opinion.Deserves a chance 

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,880]

21 minutes ago, HBDee said:

100% agree with you. People expecting to see the guys hit a leading player aka Harmes to Fritsch in the 2021 GF every single time there is a contest. 

I don’t think that’s the case, but we do expect to see more often than not the ball kicked to a players advantage and our smalls to be in the vacinity of the ball, not 15 plus metres away which is often the case.

[jayceebee31 666]

13 minutes ago, binman said:

Spot on.

I'd add that whilst there might be some variation as to where that kick is directed (eg pockets or hot spot), long and high kicks inside 50 is standard practice for all teams when kicking into a crowded forward line (which is not say team do it all the time of course).

And the reason why is when kicking into a crowded forward line, a long, high kick to a pack at predetermined spot, is the percentage play. It's the risk reward calculation. 

Teams would have 20 plus years of analytics, and whilst i cant back this is up with the data (because frustratingly the AFL allow champion data to lock up key data), I'm very confident the data would show, that when factoring in:

• the attacking teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession  (ie either when the ball hits the ground OR after a stoppage, if one happens)
• and the defensive teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession (ie on turnover)....

.........the net scoring advantage is in favor of the attacking team. 

That data would change when the forward line is not crowded and the percentage play would be hitting up leading targets (unless as you note HBD, if that kick is under huge pressure, then the percentage play might still be the long high kick)

But the problem is space inside 50 can only be created through fast ball movement from the back half (hence practicing the handball chains).

But even then it is a one time deal. If a team moves it quickly, as we did yesterday at times, get it inside 50 to an open forward line, but fail to score and the oppo win the ball back, the go to play is put pressure on the outlet kick, set up a wall and try to win the ball back.

If we do win it back, in that scenario, the defensive zone usually has had time to get set and players from both teams have flooded into the forward line area. So the kick back inside 50 is into a crowded forward line. And the percentage play is a long, high kick to our forward line.

I think it was our second goal (perhaps the brown's first?) that we scored a goal from exactly this scenario. 

It’s a pity ANB doesn’t get the ball to kick it.

[Neil Crompton 4,730]

2 hours ago, binman said:

Spot on.

I'd add that whilst there might be some variation as to where that kick is directed (eg pockets or hot spot), long and high kicks inside 50 is standard practice for all teams when kicking into a crowded forward line (which is not say team do it all the time of course).

And the reason why is when kicking into a crowded forward line, a long, high kick to a pack at predetermined spot, is the percentage play. It's the risk reward calculation. 

Teams would have 20 plus years of analytics, and whilst i cant back this is up with the data (because frustratingly the AFL allow champion data to lock up key data), I'm very confident the data would show, that when factoring in:

• the attacking teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession  (ie either when the ball hits the ground OR after a stoppage, if one happens)
• and the defensive teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession (ie on turnover)....

.........the net scoring advantage is in favor of the attacking team. 

That data would change when the forward line is not crowded and the percentage play would be hitting up leading targets (unless as you note HBD, if that kick is under huge pressure, then the percentage play might still be the long high kick)

But the problem is space inside 50 can only be created through fast ball movement from the back half (hence practicing the handball chains).

But even then it is a one time deal. If a team moves it quickly, as we did yesterday at times, get it inside 50 to an open forward line, but fail to score and the oppo win the back the go to play is put pressure on the outlet kick, set up a wall and try to win the ball back.

If we do win it back, in that scenario, the defensive zone usually has had time to get set and players from both teams have flooded into the forward line area. So the kick back inside 50 is into a crowded forward line. And the percentage play is a long, high kick to our forward line.

I think it was our second goal (perhaps the brown's first?) that we scored a goal from exactly this scenario. 

The conclusion being that we cannot afford to [censored] up the initial fast forward entry, so it doesn't come back out just as quickly. Better skills and forward craft needed.

Edited February 19 by Neil Crompton

[binman 38,035]

13 minutes ago, jayceebee31 said:

It’s a pity ANB doesn’t get the ball to kick it.

It's even more a pity that last season our bottom 3 for average kick to score ratio with kicks inside 50 were our three best players (Maxy, Tracc and Oliver), two of whom are our two best mids, most prolific ball winners, and most prolific inside 50 kicks.

By the by, number one for that same stat? Nibbla. 

#nibblamyths 

Edited February 19 by binman

[Damo 2,988]

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

[binman 38,035]

10 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

The conclusion being that we cannot afford to not [censored] up the initial fast forward entry, so it doesn't come back out just as quickly. Better skills and forward craft needed.

100% agree.

Which is why Windsor is on a glide path for round one selection.

Though i hope his kicking is better than what we saw yesterday. 

Edited February 19 by binman

[DeeSpencer 23,129]

26 minutes ago, jayceebee31 said:

Yes, we did…..we got it wrong.

The only choice we made was a 2 year deal for Chandler and 1 year for Bedford at the end of 2021. At that stage Chandler was more advanced and had rival interest from the Crows pushing the extra year. 

All reports were we matched Bedford’s 3 year deal offer from GWS and were very keen for him to stay. He was never put on the trade block in preference for Chandler.

[binman 38,035]

1 hour ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I also think we lack those elite pressure forwards that a team like Collingwood have. In the grand final the Pies had Hill, Mcreery, Ginnivan and Elliott as small forwards. Their key forwards were Mihocek and Cox! Not really a scary proposition, but they all work together well.

100% agree. 

Hill, Mcreery, Ginnivan and Elliott were absolutely key for the Pies in the finals. All were fantastic and big factors in the flag. 

Interestingly all bar Ginnvan are more medium forwards size wise, but apply huge pressure.

Koz is small, but his pressure is elite. Chandler is small, but his pressure in the finals was average i thought.

Spargs is also small, but never really got back to his best, was inexplicably (IMO) not selected for the Pies game and pressure was average on the blues finals loss. 

That puts a lot of pressure on the medium forwards to apply pressure, particularly when you have a lumbering Tmac.

Smith held up his end of the bargain pressure wise in the blues loss, but i don't think Fritter was fully fit and his pressure was average.

Losing Melk really hurt in this regard, and his loss was compounded by JVR missing the blues game as in addition to missing his marking and goals we really missed the sort of pressure and tackling inside 50 we saw glimpses from him yesterday. 

Based on yesterday's game i think Brown is a red hot chance of being in the team in round one and playing that small forward and/or high half forward pressure role.

I think the Colt might still be a ways off, but he's chance to come in to the side for the same role at some point, as is perhaps Sestan (jury out though). That would certainly make life difficult for Chandler in terms of keeping his spot in the ones.  

If McCadam comes in he will to need to apply the sort of defensive pressure melk applied last season. 

Edited February 19 by binman