8 minutes ago, binman said:

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.

A very astute reply, I agree with what you've said. Particularly your comments around Hardwick, which is an incredibly hard pill to swallow (I can't stand him) and I also agree personal wasn't the sole reason for our poor defensive showings in 2016 - 2018. The scattergun approach to offensive movement often came at the expense of the quick rebound out when it didn't work, although I've expressed my dismay at Goodwin and concerns on his tactical abilities, credit where it's due - he was able to flick the switch and not go down the path Knights and Sanderson with their kamikaze and smash and grab approach. 

 

 

On the commentary, for me was a breath of fresh air compared to a Brayshaw or BT etc, Matt Hill calling the game (race caller as someone said) wasn't perfect, and confused a couple of players, Chandler and Ed etc, but didn't have the grating effect the other Fox callers have. Also huge kudos to Brad Johnson who is extremely fair to MFC in play when obviously a WB fan, praises all appropriately.

2 hours ago, BLWNBA said:

A very astute reply, I agree with what you've said. Particularly your comments around Hardwick, which is an incredibly hard pill to swallow (I can't stand him) and I also agree personal wasn't the sole reason for our poor defensive showings in 2016 - 2018. The scattergun approach to offensive movement often came at the expense of the quick rebound out when it didn't work, although I've expressed my dismay at Goodwin and concerns on his tactical abilities, credit where it's due - he was able to flick the switch and not go down the path Knights and Sanderson with their kamikaze and smash and grab approach. 

 

 

I'm really interested in the approach Mitchell is taking at the Hawks. He is running with a very aggressive, fast ball movement game plan, and seems to be focusing less on sorting his defensive system out.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he is prioritizing offence and ball movement over developing a defensive system. 

It's a model that genuinely looked different to the way say we or the pies were playing. I heard Mitchel talk about his philosophy and paraphrasing he said rather than copying the model that is successful now he wants to devlep a model that is head of the curve and is successful in five years time. Se the agenda, not follow the leader. 

Goody had a focus on defence from the get go, whilst still being quite offensive in 2017 and 2018 (i reckon he used 2019 to get his defensive system how he wanted it).  

Longmuir, who i think is a very similar coach to Goody in style and philosophy, has gone the opposite way to Mitchell and focused on getting their defensive system sorted before moving to getting their offence right (with low scoring as a result). Which is really what Roos did too when he came to the dees. 

I had forgotten about Knights' tenure at the bombers, but you're right he went with attacking model similar in philosophy to what Mitchell is trying to implement.

But Knights is a cautionary tale for Mitchell because as exciting as the occasional high scoring win is, fans quickly lose patience when their team consistently get opened up and lose by big margins. 

Knights was stiff, getting sacked after only two seasons, and with two seasons left on his contract. Turned out to be quite the decision as he was replaced by Hird. And the rest is history. 

Norm Smith was always defence whilst Hayfey was attack it always depends on the cattle you have.

I thought TMac was very good and his disposal was spot on.

Generally our backline players were very good.

Players sitting in the rehab group McAdam and Hunter, will put alot of pressure on current group.

Fullerton and Petty may be need soon?

Listen to Full Podcast

 Watch Full Podcast

 

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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

But the disputed ball was on the goal line - and the kick off line (top of the goal square) is 9m out. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here jnr.

1 hour ago, binman said:

I'm really interested in the approach Mitchell is taking at the Hawks. He is running with a very aggressive, fast ball movement game plan, and seems to be focusing less on sorting his defensive system out.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he is prioritizing offence and ball movement over developing a defensive system.

As long as you’re still coaching defensive skills and effort I’d much rather prioritise attacking because you’re coaching hand balling and kicking skills, flair and getting the ball in young guys hands to make decisions.

Got to be easier to add a couple of role players to help stiffen a side that has skills than go the other way.

But it’s all a balance. Roos ball set the table in terms of defensive effort and contested work for when Goody added a much more attacking system. Then they got the defensive stuff right. Now it’s time to go more attacking again and get Windsor, Howes, McVee, JVR some footy in their hands.

4 hours ago, Jontee said:

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?

If the Bont is chasing ANB in to the back pocket then it’s not a matter of fitness or second effort. He’s more than done his part, where’s the Dogs half back that’s meant to track ANB’s forward run?Youd be annoyed he didn’t do it but getting up and manning the mark is effort 3 or 4 for a superstar mid to run with Nibbler.

48 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

But the disputed ball was on the goal line - and the kick off line (top of the goal square) is 9m out. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here jnr.

Well It's not ideal but they bounced the ball at the top of the goal square rather than 9m out from the middle of the goal and point post where the disputed mark/touch took place. That would have been marginally better but the whole thing is ridiculous and gave the Dogs an advantage that they didn't deserve.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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

Thanks jnrmac - I did go through the rule book and found 18.11.2.d and that does appear a very unreasonable rule, particularly if the ball up was closer to goal, though then reading 8.2.4.c I guess the ball up would rarely be closer to goal unless I guess there is an unresolved scrimmage near the behind post.

All a bit confusing as I am sure I have seen ball ups within a few meters of goal near the behind line.

However it does seem that they did ball it up in the correct position, which is crazy.  

44 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

But the disputed ball was on the goal line - and the kick off line (top of the goal square) is 9m out. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here jnr.

It was actually on the behind line, so th umpire was technically correct.  A very unfair rule though.

If that was fritsch running into the 50 instead of Clayton,  I bet fritsch would have had a shot for goal rather than pass it to van rooyen 

Considering how good our backline looked I wonder if when Bowey is right and despite the fact that chandler kicked three if we might try bowey in a chandler type role. I think he has what chandler has and more. the more creativity and execution we can get into the front half of the ground come finals the better in my opinion, as long as our defensive structures hold.

@Young Blood thanks for the feedback 

9 minutes ago, von said:

Considering how good our backline looked I wonder if when Bowey is right and despite the fact that chandler kicked three if we might try bowey in a chandler type role. I think he has what chandler has and more. the more creativity and execution we can get into the front half of the ground come finals the better in my opinion, as long as our defensive structures hold.

1 minute ago, von said:

@Young Blood thanks for the feedback 

Sorry Von. You were simply making a suggestion and I do understand your logic. 

It was one game where our backline functioned well without one of our two best ball users. Lets see how we go over the next 7 odd weeks perhaps. Maybe give Chandler a go as well. I'm not convinced entirely but his gut running and attack on the ball and defensive pressure were terrific. 

I think people forget how difficult the HF role is in the modern game (probably the hardest position). You have someone on your tail the whole game and must run full sprints up and down the ground. Backman have the benefit of being behind the ball and being able to shadow their man or read the ball to peel off, its a reactive role.

Bowey is of course capable and played midfield/fwd in his jnr years. But he's been a key cog in our backline for years now and has trained as part of a system essentially as our quarter back (with Salem moving to midfield) its such an important possition/role. It would be desperate times to make such a dramatic change.

11 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Sorry Von. You were simply making a suggestion and I do understand your logic. 

It was one game where our backline functioned well without one of our two best ball users. Lets see how we go over the next 7 odd weeks perhaps. Maybe give Chandler a go as well. I'm not convinced entirely but his gut running and attack on the ball and defensive pressure were terrific. 

I think people forget how difficult the HF role is in the modern game (probably the hardest position). You have someone on your tail the whole game and must run full sprints up and down the ground. Backman have the benefit of being behind the ball and being able to shadow their man or read the ball to peel off, its a reactive role.

Bowey is of course capable and played midfield/fwd in his jnr years. But he's been a key cog in our backline for years now and has trained as part of a system essentially as our quarter back (with Salem moving to midfield) its such an important possition/role. It would be desperate times to make such a dramatic change.

Don’t disagree with those points. Just thinking along the lines of how to have the best ball users in the most dangerous places when there is a premium on conversion and usage later in the season. 
 

Id like chandler to prove me wrong but I think he has a lot to do to change perception. If he keeps kicking goals and showing up in game I’ll happily change my tune on him.
 

I was also really encouraged by our backline and am maybe getting carried away with one game. McDonald, Howes and hore looked like they belong against what I think is quite a good forward line.

2 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

But the disputed ball was on the goal line - and the kick off line (top of the goal square) is 9m out. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here jnr.

look again. it was on the behind line

Is it just me?  it feels stupid to talk about round 1 vs the dogs when we have played 2 games. How can you have a round 0. 

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

Is it just me?  it feels stupid to talk about round 1 vs the dogs when we have played 2 games. How can you have a round 0. 

wait till next year, od.  there is talk of a round  -1

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

wait till next year, od.  there is talk of a round  -1

That would be the 2024 GF?

Just now, old dee said:

That would be the 2024 GF?

haha

but dillon is touting for an extra round

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

If the Bont is chasing ANB in to the back pocket then it’s not a matter of fitness or second effort. He’s more than done his part, where’s the Dogs half back that’s meant to track ANB’s forward run?Youd be annoyed he didn’t do it but getting up and manning the mark is effort 3 or 4 for a superstar mid to run with Nibbler.

With 88% game time for the Bont, are the Dogs flogging their best mid, or is that a necessity?  Trac at 81% and Clarrie at 71% in comparison

On 18/03/2024 at 20:40, monoccular said:

I wonder if Petty's "quiet game" in VFL combined with BBB's good game makes selection easier this week.  Even if BBB has a "just reasonable" game this week and Petty shows decent form then BBB gets a rest and Petty goes to Adelaide. 

Is that a new rule?  The ball was in the outer ⅓ of the behind space, yet it was balled up in the midline?

Did the umpire not call high contact on McDonald because he thought it out of play, or because he doesn't know the rules?  Maybe both.

With regards to you first comment Mono, I would rest him. I feel as though three games and his knee starts getting inflamed, he's unable to launch at the footy and gets pushed of his lead too easily. If he has a week off, it may give him time to recover and go again. 

1 hour ago, Jontee said:

With 88% game time for the Bont, are the Dogs flogging their best mid, or is that a necessity?  Trac at 81% and Clarrie at 71% in comparison

Probably, was in at nearly every centre bounce too before swapping forward. Although Tracc generally plays high 80’s when he rests forward more as well.

 

50 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

With regards to you first comment Mono, I would rest him. I feel as though three games and his knee starts getting inflamed, he's unable to launch at the footy and gets pushed of his lead too easily. If he has a week off, it may give him time to recover and go again. 

Which was why I suggested resting BBB after two.  Petty hopefully will be ready by then - not ready this week by all accounts.

17 hours ago, binman said:

I had forgotten about Knights' tenure at the bombers, but you're right he went with attacking model similar in philosophy to what Mitchell is trying to implement.

But Knights is a cautionary tale for Mitchell because as exciting as the occasional high scoring win is, fans quickly lose patience when their team consistently get opened up and lose by big margins. 

Knights was stiff, getting sacked after only two seasons, and with two seasons left on his contract. Turned out to be quite the decision as he was replaced by Hird. And the rest is history. 

 

You're absolutely correct. Not too mention, this is something that hits close to home and was one of the constant criticisms of Bailey (especially on this forum at times) during his tenure at the Dees too.