PREGAME: Rd 11 vs St. Kilda

[DubDee 26,679]

Haven’t seen this little interest in the teams coming out in a while

everyone still got ptsd from last sunday??

we will smash the Saints and get back amongst it! Go Dees!

[IRW 1,388]

On 21/05/2024 at 21:46, Nicko said:

agree but you forgot  that we should probs give  May and Fritsch a spell too and kozzie to whilst we’re at it 

Give Choco a match or two and a chop out for Goody before resting anyone imo

[loges 6,767]

9 hours ago, John Demonic said:

She could probably hold it mid-september and not only ensure Ed was in attendance, but increase the likelihood of some warmer weather on the day.

I see what you did there 😉 

[Tarax Club 4,189]

Adam Tomlinson must have run over Goody’s cat or something left out in the Casey Doldrums. Has kept his head up and has regularly been listed in the best players there this season. With Jake Lever in recovery for a block of games he would be in the frame for a call up you’d think. Though his role would be more as a sweeper than as an interceptor.
 

Lachie Hunter’s halcyon days are well behind him. Defensively he adds a battle hardened body, although his ability to find separation and hurt offensively have declined. Due to losing a yard or two of pace and his kicking has struggled to get over a jam tin at times. But he’s not home alone there.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Tarax Club
Golf swings coming along nicely.

[Young Angus 875]

Pretty sure I'd like to see Hunter come in but I can't see Billings getting dropped against his old team, even though he should.

[DubDee 26,679]

1 hour ago, Tarax Club said:

Adam Tomlinson must have run over Goody’s cat or something left out in the Casey Doldrums. Has kept his head up and has regularly been listed in the best players there this season. With Jake Lever in recovery for a block of games he would be in the frame for a call up you’d think. Though his role would be more as a sweeper than as an interceptor.

Tommo is listed in the INs and will most likely come in for Lever unless we go short at the back

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,353]

Yo ... does anyone know if the Dees are training at Gosch's Paddock this morning? If so, what time?

I couldn't see anything on the MFC website.

---------------------------------------------------

Update/apology .... re-checked the MFC website.

Training tomorrow (Saturday ... 9.45 am) at GP.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Winners at last

[jnrmac 20,377]

14 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Very surprised that Hunter is named as a possibility. His game last week for Casey was woeful and I rarely criticise players to this extent. He really didn't look interested.

That means two spots and one sub left between Howes, Billings, Woewodin and Sparrow. Can't see Sparrow missing and probably not Howes so one of Billings or Woewodin is left as sub with the other missing out.

This game should be a regulation win but... who knows

Player management is a delicate thing. It's why they often name people as an emergency to indicate they are getting close to playing. Got to keep their spirits up.

Maybe and I have no knowledge here they think they need to keep Hunter engaged as we may well need him later in the year. I have seen it in workplaces where people think they are 'on the outer' yet they just need a little TLC. They are humans after all.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,137]

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Player management is a delicate thing. It's why they often name people as an emergency to indicate they are getting close to playing. Got to keep their spirits up.

Maybe and I have no knowledge here they think they need to keep Hunter engaged as we may well need him later in the year. I have seen it in workplaces where people think they are 'on the outer' yet they just need a little TLC. They are humans after all.

Picking players as emergencies may be used as encouragement. But we have traditionally chosen an appropriate mix to cover any forced late outs. As such, we shouldn't expect the three emergencies to be the next three players in line. It's more likely to be something like the best tall forward/ruckman, the best defender and the best onballer/wingman. 

[seventyfour 1,248]

16 hours ago, gs77 said:

She couldn't hold it Oct-March?

When the weather is awful in the UK?

It was one game, Langdon wouldn't have made a difference to whether we won or lost.

Ed has played 17, 24, 23, 25 games since coming to the Dees. He is possibly the most no-fuss player on the list. Turns up almost every week, runs his butt off, then you never hear about him off-field.

Yes he is paid well to play AFL footy but it was one game. His sister shouldn't have to work her life around him.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,353]

1 minute ago, seventyfour said:

When the weather is awful in the UK?

It was one game, Langdon wouldn't have made a difference to whether we won or lost.

Ed has played 17, 24, 23, 25 games since coming to the Dees. He is possibly the most no-fuss player on the list. Turns up almost every week, runs his butt off, then you never hear about him off-field.

Yes he is paid well to play AFL footy but it was one game. His sister shouldn't have to work her life around him.

He played with 4 broken ribs. Only had one or 2 weeks off from memory.

 

 

[The Taciturn Demon 624]

Long-time reader, first-time contributor. (I was on Demonology years back and always appreciated the thoughts of much more knowledgeable, perceptive and insightful Demons supporters than me.)

I appreciate that anyone who makes it to this level, let alone plays dozens or hundreds of games, is an exceptional footballer. But everything is relative...

Lachie Hunter. What's going on there? What do Goodwin and the decision makers like about him? I know he may not play this week, but in the recent press conference, Goodwin made it sound like he desperately wanted him in the team as soon as possible.

Is there something he does really well that isn't obvious to a person (me) with (at best) a mediocre understanding of the nuances of modern football? I ask because from what I see, the "brilliant footy IQ" we heard about at the time he was recruited, has never materialised. I don't remember it being there at the Bulldogs, to be honest. I don't see him as a particularly good kick (even over 25 to 30 metres), he's not a robust player, he doesn't kick many goals, he seems to take players on at the most inopportune times and the underground handball is almost like a tic. 

I see last year he was in the top 150 in the league for score involvements (behind only Petracca, Pickett, Viney, Neal Bullen and Chandler). Is it as simple as that? Despite the apparent sloppiness, is he in fact a very effective link player? 

Or is he just a known quantity benefiting from a reasonably conservative football department? Is it simply a case of better the devil you know than a debutant or five-gamer?

[Mickey 4,777]

8 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Long-time reader, first-time contributor. (I was on Demonology years back and always appreciated the thoughts of much more knowledgeable, perceptive and insightful Demons supporters than me.)

I appreciate that anyone who makes it to this level, let alone plays dozens or hundreds of games, is an exceptional footballer. But everything is relative...

Lachie Hunter. What's going on there? What do Goodwin and the decision makers like about him? I know he may not play this week, but in the recent press conference, Goodwin made it sound like he desperately wanted him in the team as soon as possible.

Is there something he does really well that isn't obvious to a person (me) with (at best) a mediocre understanding of the nuances of modern football? I ask because from what I see, the "brilliant footy IQ" we heard about at the time he was recruited, has never materialised. I don't remember it being there at the Bulldogs, to be honest. I don't see him as a particularly good kick (even over 25 to 30 metres), he's not a robust player, he doesn't kick many goals, he seems to take players on at the most inopportune times and the underground handball is almost like a tic. 

I see last year he was in the top 150 in the league for score involvements (behind only Petracca, Pickett, Viney, Neal Bullen and Chandler). Is it as simple as that? Despite the apparent sloppiness, is he in fact a very effective link player? 

Or is he just a known quantity benefiting from a reasonably conservative football department? Is it simply a case of better the devil you know than a debutant or five-gamer?

The thing for me is that they've decides to bring him in this week, when from all reports he was disinterested and poor at Casey last week

[binman 44,843]

On 22/05/2024 at 21:46, binman said:

Midfields are simply not as important as they were even two seasons ago.

Scores from clearances were something 60-70% of total score when goody took over as coach.

It's now only 20-30%, with scores from turnover being the main score source.

I mean you only have to look at the game we just played.

Seven years ago if we were plus 21 for scores from stoppages we win most games.

Not now, particularly when our opponents absolutely smash us on scores from turnover.

Yes mids play a role in creating turnovers and scoring from them, but no more than the high half forwards and wingers and less than intercepting defenders and half back flankers.

Last night's game was yet another example of what i'm talking about above.

The dogs had a whopping 16 center clearances last night, twice as many as the Swans who could only manage 8. 

The Swans were plus 3 for around the ground stoppages, meaning the dogs were +5 for total clearances 

Six years ago if a team had 16 center clearances and their opponent only 8, that would be the ball game.

But as is often the case now, the dogs center square domination was not a decisive factor in the game.  

They scored 6.6.42 from stoppages (in total, ie centre and around the ground combined) to the swans' 5.2.32.

Like so many games now, the decisive factor was scores from turnover, with the dogs scoring 6.10.46 from turnovers and the Swans 11.2.68.

On turnovers, there is no doubt the dogs inaccuracy hurt them, they had 16 to 13 turnover scores after all.

But an interesting factor to consider, particularly as it relates to the discussion about us changing our game plan, is that the dogs dominated inside 50s, particularly in the last quarter, winning inside 50s 60-48.

I think there is enough evidence now to suggest the time in forward half model, high inside 50 numbers with lots of reentries into a crowded forward line (ie our 2021-23  game plan) contributes to inaccuracy. 

The other interesting stat from last nights game, also relevant to the midfield discussion (given the key role mids play in terms of winning contested possessions), is the dogs smashed the swans for contested possessions 138 to 105.  

Edited May 24, 2024 by binman

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,748]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Last night's game was yet another example of what i'm talking about above.

The dogs had a whopping 16 center clearances last night, twice as many as the Swans who could only manage 8. 

The Swans were plus 3 for around the ground stoppages, meaning the dogs were +5 for total clearances 

Six years ago if a team had 16 center clearances and their opponent only 8, that would be the ball game.

But as is often the case now, the dogs center square domination was not a decisive factor in the game.  

They scored 6.6.42 from stoppages to the swans' 5.2.32.

Like so many games now, the decisive factor was scores from turnover, with the dogs scoring 6.10.46 from turnovers and the Swans 11.2.68.

On turnovers, there is no doubt the dogs inaccuracy hurt them, they had 16 to 13 turnover scores after all.

But an interesting factor to consider, particularly as it relates to the discussion about us changing our game plan, is that the dogs dominated inside 50s, particularly in the last quarter, winning inside 50s 60-48.

I think there is enough evidence now to suggest the time in forward half model, high inside 50 numbers with lots of reentries into a crowded forward line (ie our 2021-23  game plan) contributes to inaccuracy. 

The other interesting stat from last nights game, also relevant to the midfield discussion (given the key role mids play in terms of winning contested possessions), is the dogs smashed the swans for contested possessions 138 to 105.  

The new prototype for mids is high speed, high skills, as opposed to the inside bulls that were so important when we were building our list.

I think a lot of this comes back to the way the game is played now and the extreme scrutiny on physical play, especially anything remotely close to the head. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,555]

28 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Long-time reader, first-time contributor. (I was on Demonology years back and always appreciated the thoughts of much more knowledgeable, perceptive and insightful Demons supporters than me.)

I appreciate that anyone who makes it to this level, let alone plays dozens or hundreds of games, is an exceptional footballer. But everything is relative...

Lachie Hunter. What's going on there? What do Goodwin and the decision makers like about him? I know he may not play this week, but in the recent press conference, Goodwin made it sound like he desperately wanted him in the team as soon as possible.

Is there something he does really well that isn't obvious to a person (me) with (at best) a mediocre understanding of the nuances of modern football? I ask because from what I see, the "brilliant footy IQ" we heard about at the time he was recruited, has never materialised. I don't remember it being there at the Bulldogs, to be honest. I don't see him as a particularly good kick (even over 25 to 30 metres), he's not a robust player, he doesn't kick many goals, he seems to take players on at the most inopportune times and the underground handball is almost like a tic. 

I see last year he was in the top 150 in the league for score involvements (behind only Petracca, Pickett, Viney, Neal Bullen and Chandler). Is it as simple as that? Despite the apparent sloppiness, is he in fact a very effective link player? 

Or is he just a known quantity benefiting from a reasonably conservative football department? Is it simply a case of better the devil you know than a debutant or five-gamer?

I thought Hunter was very good in the first 10 weeks of last year, to the point when everyone was concerned that he would be sorely missed for the Freo game (thru suspension) in round 11, which we duly lost.

His second half of the year was ordinary but I thought he stepped up in the Carlton semi final and was able to adsorb the finals heat really well in that game.

I expect him to be given an opportunity next week if we lose to St Kilda and either Billings plays another poor game (assume he's selected) or Windsor needs a rest.

[binman 44,843]

7 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The new prototype for mids is high speed, high skills, as opposed to the inside bulls that were so important when we were building our list.

I think a lot of this comes back to the way the game is played now and the extreme scrutiny on physical play, especially anything remotely close to the head. 

Teams still need the bulls, particularly come finals, but agree, also need multiple players like Warner, McCluggae and Zac Bailey. But such players are often hybrid half forward or wing types.

Which is where we have  invested some capital in the last 3 seasons - Hunter, Billings, Windsor, Kolt, Laurie, even Woey and Sestan, who both also sort of fit that bill (ie good foot skills, quick, can play forward of center, bit also as mid if needed for whom KPIs include clean kicks inside 50, score involvements, goal assists and  ideally a goal a game on average). 

[greenwaves 516]

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

Haven’t seen this little interest in the teams coming out in a while

everyone still got ptsd from last sunday??

People are losing hope for this year

[Diamond_Jim 12,773]

5 minutes ago, greenwaves said:

People are losing hope for this year

It's a long season.

AFL have finally got their wish of a relatively even competition.

Luck, injuries, weather, travel breaks between games, fixture and umpiring have now become major competition deciders.

In the past my interest went up a notch post mid season bye. Before then I looked for trends. From that perspective it's not encouraging at present but still a way to go.

A win over the Pies would be nice

[layzie 34,528]

14 hours ago, DubDee said:

Haven’t seen this little interest in the teams coming out in a while

everyone still got ptsd from last sunday??

we will smash the Saints and get back amongst it! Go Dees!

I'm just not anticipating as much from selection as usual. What can we really do?

It won't have much bearing on the result this week, the effort on Sunday is more relevant to my interests.

[binman 44,843]

1 hour ago, greenwaves said:

People are losing hope for this year

Not this person.

[D Rev 635]

32 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'm just not anticipating as much from selection as usual. What can we really do?

It won't have much bearing on the result this week, the effort on Sunday is more relevant to my interests.

I saw that Fullarton is listed as 'new' - stupid question - but does that mean he is in?

[Dee*ceiving 1,738]

With Lever out for a month the selection needs to consider filling that role for at least the next three weeks.

Based on that and the fact that the coach has said Petty will be staying forward (we really have no one else to play key forward anyway), Tomlinson has to come in. 

As does JVR (for Brown) and Langdon. The swap for Langdon is tough though. Woey's form is better than Billings, but tough to drop Billings against his old club. 

Windsor could probably use a rest but I am not sure we can afford to lose his pace. 

Other options that would necessitate a reshuffle might be Howes (not practical?) or Sparrow (harsh, but may send a message?). 

Edited May 24, 2024 by Dee*ceiving

[jnrmac 20,377]

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Picking players as emergencies may be used as encouragement. But we have traditionally chosen an appropriate mix to cover any forced late outs. As such, we shouldn't expect the three emergencies to be the next three players in line. It's more likely to be something like the best tall forward/ruckman, the best defender and the best onballer/wingman. 

Clearly you're not going to make the three emergencies the next 'three in line'. Just trying to point out sometimes there are human management issues and on occasion they will give a player some TLC

[FTB 302]

2 hours ago, D Rev said:

I saw that Fullarton is listed as 'new' - stupid question - but does that mean he is in?

No, it does not mean that he is in.

He is just on the extended bench and I can tell you he will not be in the final 23 for this round.