On 18/03/2024 at 00:31, kev martin said:

The strange one was when a review was called when the ball was still in play. TMac was over the ball and got collected in the back of his head, as a review was called for a point, but the ball didn't cross the line. They then balled it up at the top of the goal square. Such an advantage to the attacking team, as they set for the stoppage and set to hold the ball in the area. Just pressures the defensive side.  A really unbalanced call. AFL need to let it play until a stoppage occurs and then call the review, though that is also fraught with problems. Maybe review as the play continues..

Then they bounced it at the top of the square!!!

 

Madness

33 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Then they bounced it at the top of the square!!!

 

Madness

That was so bizarre.

I mean, they couldn't have picked a more advantageous spot for the dogs.

I would have been ropeable if they had scored a goal from that stoppage.

It would have been another way for the dees to get screwed by a review.

15 hours ago, binman said:

You've well and truly misunderstood me jnr. 

To be clear my point was Goody deserves a lot more credit for his tactical innovations than he gets. Full stop. 

As an example, as i said, whilst he didn't invent the all team defensive zone or the use of the zone off, third man intercepting defender (Hardwick deserves credit here) he has absolutely perfected the model. 

As i noted, he began working on it way back in 2016. The model is now the gold standard defensive system in the AFL.

The proof is in the pudding - we have had the best defence for at least three season now. On the back of that we have won a flag and made top 4 three years in succession.

Teams like the Port and the Dogs who have not developed something similar are going nowhere.

The Lions might be the exception to prove the rule, but the fact remains they are yet to win a flag under Fagan. 

In addition to implementing a defensive system with key similarities to ours (with Moore playing the Lever role), albeit a more aggressive one, the Pies developed a ball movement method that was specifically designed to break down our defensive system, such is its brutal effectiveness, through fast ball movement. 

The Giants defensive system is almost a carbon copy of ours, and the Swans and saints employ very similar systems too. Ditto Freo and Blues.

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right that 'blind freddy' could see that we needed better key defenders than Frost and Omac.

How does that change the fact that Goody developed a sophisticated defensive system that has become the AFL template for defensive systems?

Bringing in may and Lever would have changed little if they were not the cornerstone of the defensive system he was developing and implementing.

Port brought in Alir, who is a star as it was obvious to Freddy they needed to do something about their defence. And he is a brilliant interceptor - perhaps the best in the AFL.

But Port haven't implemented a sophisticated defensive system as evidenced by their woeful points against record under Hinkley. And so Alir hasn't moved the needle on their defensive issues. 

And if it was just about bringing in elite defenders, then Lever was not the player to target as he is average one on one. Tomlinson would have been a better target back then if all we needed were better key defenders.

Again, many posters one here and plenty of media types knocked the dees at the time for spending so much capital on Lever given he was 'just an interceptor'. Plenty would have preferred we chased a gun forward. Or a pure lock down key defender. 

At that point only the Crows, tigers and dees had a specialist intercepting defenders, now every team does.   

Blind Freddy could also see the dogs needed to focus on sorting out their defensive system from 2018 and go out and target some elite defenders.

But what have they done? Turn Naughton from a CHB into a KPF, draft JUH and Darcy and trade in Lobb.

What have they done about their woeful defence?

Well they finally got a interceptor in  - Jones, a good player, but he's undersized and 33. Genius. 

So Blind Freddy might be able to point out decent players that could be replaced by even better, AA players, but Freddy seemingly ain't so good at seeing massive issues with team's game plans and methods.

OK I get your point I just don't agree that the defence recruitment of May and Lever was a "tactical innovation".

He's done other tactical innovations like the deployment of our wings but fixing our leaky defence wasn't 'tactical' as such. It was an obvious necessity. And it was innovated by others.

But each to their own.

10 minutes ago, binman said:

That was so bizarre.

I mean, they couldn't have picked a more advantageous spot for the dogs.

I would have been ropeable if they had scored a goal from that stoppage.

It would have been another way for the dees to get screwed by a review.

I would be making a very loud complaint to the Umpiring department about that one. We are very lucky it didn't cost a goal. The umpires are now too scared to call obvious decisions like Lever's touched ball.

Why did the Dogs get such a big advantage. As it was JUH got the ball and had a shot on goal which was smothered.

And the number of goal reviews generally is now insane. As someone else mentioned maybe its an advertising thing. But its a terrible look for the game

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I would be making a very loud complaint to the Umpiring department about that one. We are very lucky it didn't cost a goal. The umpires are now too scared to call obvious decisions like Lever's touched ball.

Why did the Dogs get such a big advantage. As it was JUH got the ball and had a shot on goal which was smothered.

And the number of goal reviews generally is now insane. As someone else mentioned maybe its an advertising thing. But its a terrible look for the game

I suspect it is about $$$$$ as the group sponsoring the score review have asked or mandated a minimum no of score reviews so they get their monies worth 

Tine will tell but if we continue to see unnecessary reviews then this can be the only explanation 

Bouncing it at the top of the square is just so wrong - hopefully the umpires discuss this and don’t repeat it 

9 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

My only suggestion is for Fritta to lose the pink boots! If you're gonna stand out with fancy football boots then they need to be GOLD! 😁

 

The pink boots he wore on Sunday are the same boots he wore vs Sydney when he kicked four goals. They replaced the pink boots he wore in the praccy vs Carlton which he’d only worn for the first time that day and which he didn’t wear again because they ‘didn’t feel right.’ Maybe he should go for Gold! 😅

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Then they bounced it at the top of the square!!!

 

Madness

I was at the game and was astounded by the decision. 

Is this what some ( obscure )  rule requires or did the umpire , for whatever reason, simply choose to bounce at that spot?

Could one of our resident rules experts explain this please? @daisycutter ?

i was screaming bloody murder in afl members about the ball-up at the top of the square

THAT'S NOT WHERE THE BALL WAS! IF THEY GET A GOAL HERE WE RIOT!!

apparently people thought i was being funny; i was deadly serious

3 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

The pink boots he wore on Sunday are the same boots he wore vs Sydney when he kicked four goals. They replaced the pink boots he wore in the praccy vs Carlton which he’d only worn for the first time that day and which he didn’t wear again because they ‘didn’t feel right.’ Maybe he should go for Gold! 😅

his handball to Trac was gold.

3 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

his handball to Trac was gold.

Yep. ‘Handball of the season’ thus far, if there were such a thing. 

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

For @binman NSFW (from 59 secs)

 

Not much I like about Kane but I enjoyed this. Tx.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

OK I get your point I just don't agree that the defence recruitment of May and Lever was a "tactical innovation".

He's done other tactical innovations like the deployment of our wings but fixing our leaky defence wasn't 'tactical' as such. It was an obvious necessity. And it was innovated by others.

But each to their own.

No, you clearly don't get my point.

And I'm confused as to what the disconnect is. It honestly feels as if you are arguing for arguing sakes jnr

Of course the recruitment of lever and May wasn't a tactical innovation. I didn't say it was. It was a recruitment decision. And bringing in two AA quality players is hardly rocket science. 

His tactical innovation was developing an incredibly effective all team defensive sytem that is now the template, the Gold standard, in the AFL. A model the best teams are implementing (with tweaks), for example the giants and the blues. Carbon copies of our sytem

(Note: I made clear goody didn't invent zone defence, or even all team defence, but it is unarguable he took both to a new level and developed a new and improved defensive system - one based on an incredible amount of all team running and demanding a new level of aerobic fitness. Which is why he brought Burgess in. His model doesn't work without that elite level fitness across the whole team. It is a model that has changed the way the game is played and is a big part of its evolution in the last 8 years - for example fitness is more important now than it has ever been. If you think otherwise then we are never going to agree on this topic. And we see the game very differently)

That is a considerably more complex exercise than simply 'fixing our leaky defence' by recruiting two gun defenders (something that is as old as the game  -ie recruiting good players).  

As i said port and the dogs have tried to fix their 'leaky defence' by bringing in Alir and Jones respectively.

But neither Hinkley or Beveridge have also developed an innovative defensive system (though the dogs appear to be trying to implement a version of ours). And so despite attempting to fix their 'leaky defence' by recruiting guns, their defensive issues remain unresolved.

Recruiting May and Lever, particularly Lever (no coincidence he was recruited first given how key intercept marking is to goody's system) enabled goody to fully realise his vision.

They were targeted not merely because they were so good, but so they could be the foundation of his system. Both had to have the nous, and desire, to play the role goody needed them to play, They wouldn't have bene recruited if goody thought they didn't.

By the by, i think the reason Tomo is not going to be a regular best 22 player (he'll come in for specific roles no doubt) is that he struggles with the complexities of the defensive system, in particular when to zone off and leave his man to impact a contest or intercept. 

If it was just about bringing in AA quality key defenders then goody wouldn't have waited three years after trading in Lever to get may. 

And yes, he has done other tactical innovations - though none so influential and impactful on how the game is played (which is why I picked it as an example). 

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT - GOODY DOESN'T GET THE KUDOS HE DESERVES FOR HIS TACTICAL INNOVATIONS.

I'm really not sure why this conversation has landed where it has - I would have thought the para above is pretty uncontroversial.

But as you say, each to their own. Tapping out now.

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by binman

19 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I was at the game and was astounded by the decision. 

Is this what some ( obscure )  rule requires or did the umpire , for whatever reason, simply choose to bounce at that spot?

Could one of our resident rules experts explain this please? @daisycutter ?

Huh, yeah I didn’t even think of that. 
 

Only thing I can think of is if Gawn taps it through for a point (even by accident, but being right by the goal line, it means he can only tap it one way without being penalised) it’s a free kick to the dogs? 
 

So going to the top of the square gives more room range for him to tap too? Dunno, just speculating. Didn’t look right regardless.  
 

 

17 hours ago, binman said:

At that point only the Crows, tigers and dees had a specialist intercepting defenders, now every team does.   

The Giants drafted Sam Taylor in 2017, who has played an outstanding intercepting game since at least 2021. Brian Lake fulfilled that role for Hawthorn from 2013; hell, even Nick Maxwell played an intercepting role for Collingwood in their 2010 premiership year. 

Off the top of my head Phil Davis (at GWS) and Jeremy McGovern are others you could easily throw into that category. 

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by BLWNBA

50 minutes ago, binman said:

No, you clearly don't get my point.

And I'm confused as to what the disconnect is. It honestly feels as if you are arguing for arguing sakes jnr

Of course the recruitment of lever and May wasn't a tactical innovation. I didn't say it was. It was a recruitment decision. And bringing in two AA quality players is hardly rocket science. 

His tactical innovation was developing an incredibly effective all team defensive sytem that is now the template, the Gold standard, in the AFL. A model the best teams are implementing (with tweaks), for example the giants and the blues. Carbon copies of our sytem

(Note: I made clear goody didn't invent zone defence, or even all team defence, but it is unarguable he took both to a new level and developed a new and improved defensive system - one based on an incredible amount of all team running and demanding a new level of aerobic fitness. Which is why he brought Burgess in. His model doesn't work without that elite level fitness across the whole team. It is a model that has changed the way the game is played and is a big part of its evolution in the last 8 years - for example fitness is more important now than it has ever been. If you think otherwise then we are never going to agree on this topic. And we see the game very differently)

That is a considerably more complex exercise than simply 'fixing our leaky defence' by recruiting two gun defenders (something that is as old as the game  -ie recruiting good players).  

As i said port and the dogs have tried to fix their 'leaky defence' by bringing in Alir and Jones respectively.

But neither Hinkley or Beveridge have also developed an innovative defensive system (though the dogs appear to be trying to implement a version of ours). And so despite attempting to fix their 'leaky defence' by recruiting guns, their defensive issues remain unresolved.

Recruiting May and Lever, particularly Lever (no coincidence he was recruited first given how key intercept marking is to goody's system) enabled goody to fully realise his vision.

They were targeted not merely because they were so good, but so they could be the foundation of his system. Both had to have the nous, and desire, to play the role goody needed them to play, They wouldn't have bene recruited if goody thought they didn't.

By the by, i think the reason Tomo is not going to be a regular best 22 player (he'll come in for specific roles no doubt) is that he struggles with the complexities of the defensive system, in particular when to zone off and leave his man to impact a contest or intercept. 

If it was just about bringing in AA quality key defenders then goody wouldn't have waited three years after trading in Lever to get may. 

And yes, he has done other tactical innovations - though none so influential and impactful on how the game is played (which is why I picked it as an example). 

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT - GOODY DOESN'T GET THE KUDOS HE DESERVES FOR HIS TACTICAL INNOVATIONS.

I'm really not sure why this conversation has landed where it has - I would have thought the para above is pretty uncontroversial.

But as you say, each to their own. Tapping out now.

Yep me too. I have work to do!

1 hour ago, binman said:

 

His tactical innovation was developing an incredibly effective all team defensive sytem that is now the template, the Gold standard, in the AFL. A model the best teams are implementing (with tweaks), for example the giants and the blues. Carbon copies of our sytem

WHICH WAS MY POINT - GOODY DOESN'T GET THE KUDOS HE DESERVES FOR HIS TACTICAL INNOVATIONS.

 

Whilst I get the gist of what you're saying, and I say this with more intent than to merely argue semantics, Goodwin had a strategic vision regarding the implementation of the zone which has been effective. However his tactical abilities are still questionable, IMO. I think it's important that the strategic and tactical outcomes aren't conflated. 

I agree to a point that Goodwin has implemented a typically serviceable and strong defensive system, but I also think your somewhat overselling his 'template'.

 

Edited March 19, 20241 yr by BLWNBA

49 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Huh, yeah I didn’t even think of that. 
 

Only thing I can think of is if Gawn taps it through for a point (even by accident, but being right by the goal line, it means he can only tap it one way without being penalised) it’s a free kick to the dogs? 
 

So going to the top of the square gives more room range for him to tap too? Dunno, just speculating. Didn’t look right regardless.  
 

 

You are allowed to punch the ball through if its within 9m of the goals and you are 'under pressure' - the under pressure bit was brought in to stop Clarkson's Hawks walking the ball through the goals to concede a point

13 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

The Giants drafted Sam Taylor in 2017, who has played an outstanding intercepting game since at least 2021. Brian Lake fulfilled that role for Hawthorn from 2013; hell, even Nick Maxwell played an intercepting role for Collingwood in their 2010 premiership year. 

Off the top of my head Phil Davis (at GWS) and Jeremy McGovern are others you could easily throw into that category. 

Yep, good points.

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You are allowed to punch the ball through if its within 9m of the goals and you are 'under pressure' - the under pressure bit was brought in to stop Clarkson's Hawks walking the ball through the goals to concede a point

While that is right in general play, I think an defending ruckman cannot hit it through for a point without a free being awarded regardless of the 9m/pressure issue. The attacking ruckman can.  So totally unfair. (not that the attaccking ruck would in the current case, but if it decided a match by a point, he can.)

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by sue

In the 21GF ANB and the Bont went to the deck in a contest; ANB was quickly back up and off but unfortunately the ball went in the Bonts direction and he kicked a magnificent goal.

Sunday ANB marks and the Bont loses his feet.  ANB kicks a magnificent goal leaving the Bont on the ground.

Has the Bont lost his second effort; does he need to be fitter?

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I was at the game and was astounded by the decision. 

Is this what some ( obscure )  rule requires or did the umpire , for whatever reason, simply choose to bounce at that spot?

Could one of our resident rules experts explain this please? @daisycutter ?

nfi, uncle

sunday special treat

30 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

The Giants drafted Sam Taylor in 2017, who has played an outstanding intercepting game since at least 2021. Brian Lake fulfilled that role for Hawthorn from 2013; hell, even Nick Maxwell played an intercepting role for Collingwood in their 2010 premiership year. 

Off the top of my head Phil Davis (at GWS) and Jeremy McGovern are others you could easily throw into that category. 

There have always been defenders who are interceptors. Hardeman comes to mind.

Goody forced the oppo to play into the interceptors hand, by the zone, the structure and role playing.

Hold it in the forward 50, fill the middle corridor, force them to kick down the line, wrangle them to neutral areas, pressure the ball carrier to get a long bomb, have the wings run, create team buy in and have them so well coordinated that they can call on each other to swap roles and 'pass the baton' as the zone moves.

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by kev martin

26 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You are allowed to punch the ball through if its within 9m of the goals and you are 'under pressure' - the under pressure bit was brought in to stop Clarkson's Hawks walking the ball through the goals to concede a point

I thought it was like Sue mentioned, that a defending ruck can’t hit it through for a behind in a ball up as it’s a free kick?

Edited March 18, 20241 yr by BoBo

14 minutes ago, sue said:

While that is right in general play, I think an defending ruckman cannot hit it through for a point without a free being awarded regardless of the 9m/pressure issue. The attacking ruckman can.  So totally unfair.

18.11 DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS

18.11.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.

18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player: (a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; (b) is not under immediate physical pressure; (c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or (d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.

ok, Good get. 

8.2.4 Goal Umpire

(c) Unless otherwise determined by a Controlling Body, if a goal Umpire is unsure whether a Goal, Behind or no score shall be recorded, the goal Umpire may consult with the field and boundary Umpires to determine the outcome. If a decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser outcome. . If a decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser outcome. If the outcome is no score and the football remained in play, the field Umpire shall throw the football up at the centre of the Kick-Off Line.

Wow. That is cooked. And needs changing right away. At worst you would say 9m out from where the disputed ball was in play NOT the top of the goal square

12 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Whilst I get the gist of what you're saying, and I say this with more intent to merely argue semantics, Goodwin had a strategic vision regarding the implementation of the zone which has been effective. However his tactical abilities are still questionable, IMO. I think it's important that the strategic and tactical outcomes aren't conflated. 

I agree to a point that Goodwin has implemented a typically serviceable and strong defensive system, but I also think your somewhat overselling his 'template'.

 

Fair enough. And good points well made.

Semantics are important 

So it depends what is meant by tactical, tactics, sytems and strategic. 

Goody is not a game day tactition, more a developer of sytems and specific strategies that have tactical elements. If that makes sense.

The weekend gone is a good example.

Goody said they had planned, and no doubt, trained the strategy of controlling possession through lots of marks after analysing the history of early seaon games.

As a result we had more uncontested marks than any game Goody has coached.

Beveridge, a noted game day tactician, said in his presser they didn't have an effective response to our strategy.

I would argue that was an example of tactical nous by Goody, but it is semantics to a degree.

It's interesting that the previous most uncontested marks in a game goody had coached was round 2 2017, his second game as senior coach.

Goody tried a number of quite radical strategies in his first two seasons.

For example, whilst its true our defence was a weak link in 2018 its way too simplistic to suggest personell was the sole reason.

A big factor was the really agressive high press and super fast ball movement method Goody employed that year.

Once we got rolling we smashed teams below us - it was the teams above us, with their strong defences, that troubled us.

He tweaked the method around two thirds into the season (and iirc started using a version of the goal keeper we implemented later) and we stopped leaking so many goals

It was a method that didn't look a million miles from that of the pies under mcrae.

And it was a method that got us to a prelim - with two of the great win at the g on the way (cats and hawks).

I see your point about my use of the word template. Maybe that is overstating things (though id argue he set the bar for aeorobic fitness)

But i think its reasonable to suggest hardwick created the templste fir how footy is played now.

As much as I hate to say it,  hardwick has a case for being the most influential coach of the modern era.

His focus on territory, absorbing pressure in the back half, pressure and winning the contest is the template of the modern game.