16 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I didn't walk away from that thinking Fremantle were awful. I think they played OK enough, but that for once we were on the right side of the pressure and tactical side of things.

Freo's offense was very good and their chains of possession from half back or the wing was very good as well. And when they switched play they looked dangerous.

Also, they missed a few they should have got. But we missed a few as well

A day later and T-Mac's game looks even better. He was like a general down back and repelled a number of their attacks

But they just ran into a better team on the day (us)

I thought the game was of a high standard. Maybe not worthy of a final, but close

An excellent win as Freo are no mug team

It's only one win but it was a good win

Edited Sunday at 12:204 days by Macca

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I didn't walk away from that thinking Fremantle were awful. I think they played OK enough, but that for once we were on the right side of the pressure and tactical side of things.

I agree, much better effort in all aspects.

Forward entries still a big concern for me. We went top of the goal square almost every time but our players were better positioned to take advantage and the ball came in faster so it was harder to defend. But we only had 7 marks inside 50 which is not good at all and barely even tried to hit up easy targets in the forwardline.

On 19/04/2025 at 16:09, picket fence said:

Still far from convinced, not a lot changes but a great result today

Maybe you needed to be at the MCG to feel the full effect of the result and effort put in by all the players coaches and a very loud and enthusiastic crowd that all will back up again on Thursday with hopefully another 20,000 Dees fans and 30/25 Tigers as well.

After Last night the game deserves 60/65,000 plus now.

PS Picket Whatever were you thinking going to Casey and not the G? Almost too afraid to see us lose in another Freo onslaught? Really get some b….s Ypu handle those snakes well what about adversity?

Sorry you got what you deserved missing out on one of our better wins under Goody and maybe an era changing day for the future of the Vlub plus Kossie Maxy JV and all others put in to the new plan.

9 hours ago, darkhorse72 said:

Much better performance but he team, I had to say from the efforts form he coaching team. They need to back it up while painting the style of play they want.
Wre we much better or Freo just having a really off day, given our last 2 encounters with them.

We have 2 winnable games coming up, thought the tigers are looking more of a danger game.

Can you rewrite that.

1 hour ago, 58er said:

Maybe you needed to be at the MCG to feel the full effect of the result and effort put in by all the players coaches and a very loud and enthusiastic crowd that all will back up again on Thursday with hopefully another 20,000 Dees fans and 30/25 Tigers as well.

After Last night the game deserves 60/65,000 plus now.

PS Picket Whatever were you thinking going to Casey and not the G? Almost too afraid to see us lose in another Freo onslaught? Really get some b….s Ypu handle those snakes well what about adversity?

Sorry you got what you deserved missing out on one of our better wins under Goody and maybe an era changing day for the future of the Vlub plus Kossie Maxy JV and all others put in to the new plan.

Are u a psychologist?

8 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Forward entries still a big concern for me. We went top of the goal square almost every time but our players were better positioned to take advantage and the ball came in faster so it was harder to defend. But we only had 7 marks inside 50 which is not good at all and barely even tried to hit up easy targets in the forwardline.

Exactly. Most of our goals, in the first half in particular, were the result of individual brilliance rather than great ball use. Long shots sailing through, great snaps or goals from the goal square. Importantly, as you said, it wasnt to an outnumber which gave us a chance. That was pleasing.

7 marks from 50+ inside 50s is bog ordinary. Almost every premier (since ever) has been in the top 4 of the league average, usually north of 12. Sometime you win the way we won on the weekend, amazing conversion, good team pressure and some individuals match winners. But as a system, forward entries were really only marginally better than the rest of the year.

It was a small step in the right direction though, until we can get 10-12 marks a week inside 50 regularly, we wont be the real deal.

9 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

It was a small step in the right direction though, until we can get 10-12 marks a week inside 50 regularly, we wont be the real deal.

We also received a few frees in our forward line (simply by playing in front) Not marks, but as good as

And I thought Saturday was a big step in the right direction but again, we've got a long way to go. Still too many dump kicks forward but the number was well down on previous weeks

We should be aiming at taking up to 15 marks in the forward 50 and that can happen with lightening ball movement further afield along with the forwards making multiple leads and gaining seperation ... along with other mids following up and dropping into space inside the forward 50

But we need to become more adept at creating that space in our forward line for marks to occur ... that one extra handpass on attack is often needed

Another furphy that needs explanation ... the pace of our ball movement forward before Saturday was ranked 3rd in the league??? ... well, that's going to happen when long kicks forward are the order of the day (the ball travels quicker through the air as opposed to multiple possessions on attack)

So that's another flawed stat. I'd say before Saturday our ball movement forward in terms of a string of possessions would have been in the bottom 4 (pace of movement)

26 minutes ago, Jjrogan said:

Exactly. Most of our goals, in the first half in particular, were the result of individual brilliance rather than great ball use. Long shots sailing through, great snaps or goals from the goal square. Importantly, as you said, it wasnt to an outnumber which gave us a chance. That was pleasing.

7 marks from 50+ inside 50s is bog ordinary. Almost every premier (since ever) has been in the top 4 of the league average, usually north of 12. Sometime you win the way we won on the weekend, amazing conversion, good team pressure and some individuals match winners. But as a system, forward entries were really only marginally better than the rest of the year.

It was a small step in the right direction though, until we can get 10-12 marks a week inside 50 regularly, we wont be the real deal.

Going deep to one on one contests is a fine way to score, you back your players in to win those but you still can't be too one-dimensional. Still gotta find those easy marks to players in space which are created by good running patterns from the forwards. I'm still not seeing that from us. Geelong are probably the best in the comp to do it.

Our pressure in the forwardline was incredible though. 27 tackles in 50 is like our best in ten years so unlikely to be repeated often.

Dump kicks forward should be an absolute last resort ... unless those long kicks forward are to the forwards advantage in a 1 on 1

Kicking forward to a pack has become a low percentage play ... whoever is kicking it should always be looking for that extra handpass ... which can create a situation where the ball is run into the forward 50 instead (we saw a bit of that on Saturday)

So we need runners and lots of run ... 2 talls only in the forward line. And those talls can't be just players who can take a mark. They need to tackle and become another runner otherwise they become liabilities

Last night's game was a clinic for the Bulldogs but they still weren't tempted to dump it forward ... 427 possessions of which 343 found a target (81.7%) Keepings off to mega levels

If Gawn, Oliver, Viney, Petracca, Rivers & Sparrow are the chief offenders with regards to the dump kicks forward, we saw a marked improvement with all 6 (to varying degrees)

Oliver just handpassed it, Gawn kept giving it off, Petracca & Viney were better and Rivers & Sparrow were much better

Edited Monday at 00:593 days by Macca

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

If Gawn, Oliver, Viney, Petracca, Rivers & Sparrow are the chief offenders with regards to the dump kicks forward, we saw a marked improvement with all 6 (to varying degrees)

Oliver just handpassed it, Gawn kept giving it off, Petracca & Viney were better and Rivers & Sparrow were much better

Petracca looked a lot better playing more attacking footy and streaming out of the middle but his disposal was shocking, he butchered at least 3 inside 50s that I recall and that set shot.

Salem also played a lot better but made 3 or 4 crucial errors which a player of his maturity just should not be making.

Oliver again was a lot better looking to handball first instead of dump kick but if I remember there were two turnovers he had which resulted in goals to Freo.

If these three mature/experienced players can clean their disposal up even a little it will go a long way to fixing some of our problems.

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Petracca looked a lot better playing more attacking footy and streaming out of the middle but his disposal was shocking, he butchered at least 3 inside 50s that I recall and that set shot.

Salem also played a lot better but made 3 or 4 crucial errors which a player of his maturity just should not be making.

Oliver again was a lot better looking to handball first instead of dump kick but if I remember there were two turnovers he had which resulted in goals to Freo.

If these three mature/experienced players can clean their disposal up even a little it will go a long way to fixing some of our problems.

Yep, and along the road forward there's a few bumps ... the 3 players you mentioned also set up a number of scoring opportunities with their accurate disposals

I've been watching a lot of footy and with the fast paced offense that we're seeing from most of the teams, we're also seeing a lot of turnovers & fumbles

I reckon our biggest challenge will be defending against the rebound offense ... so it's not just our own fast-paced offense that we have to perfect

Previously, those long dump kick forward allowed us to employ the press and the zone defence

Now that we've gone away from that, it's a whole new ball game

Take the game last night, for instance ... once the Bullies got their game going, the Saints became cannon-fodder

Edited Monday at 01:133 days by Macca

21 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yep, and along the road forward there's a few bumps ... the 3 players you mentioned also set up a number of scoring opportunities with their accurate disposals

I've been watching a lot of footy and with the fast paced offense that we're seeing from most of the teams, we're also seeing a lot of turnovers & fumbles

I reckon our biggest challenge will be defending against the rebound offense ... so it's not just our own fast-paced offense that we have to perfect

Previously, those long dump kick forward allowed us to employ the press and the zone defence

Now that we've gone away from that, it's a whole new ball game

Take the game last night, for instance ... once the Bullies got their game going, the Saints became cannon-fodder

Yeah freo made it pretty easy for us to get through their zone with handball, I wonder how we will fare against a team like the Pies who apply great pressure and clamp down on the ball carrier. The quick handball chains look good when they come off but when you hit a brick wall (like the Saints did last night vs the Dogs) trying to get through the midfield you can fall apart pretty quickly.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah freo made it pretty easy for us to get through their zone with handball, I wonder how we will fare against a team like the Pies who apply great pressure and clamp down on the ball carrier. The quick handball chains look good when they come off but when you hit a brick wall (like the Saints did last night vs the Dogs) trying to get through the midfield you can fall apart pretty quickly.

I thought our deficiency on Saturday was defending against Freo's offense. They had 27 scoring shots and that's too many

And they could have pinched the game with a bit of luck their way

Still, it was still a very good win against decent opposition... in the end, our offense beat their offense

Happy with the application and changes made at the selection table. Crucially, the forward pressure was where it needs to be.

It is still only 1 game. I thought Freo’s pressure was a bit low in the 1st half but we capitalised which is a good sign. Credit where it is due, Goody allowed the team to attack the game and made some wrinkles to our setup. We rolled the dice.

Selection integrity and putting players in positions to succeed works. Dropping out of form players in JVR, Fritsch and Henderson. Selecting players based on form in Fullarton. Putting players in positions where they are better suited in Disco and Viney. This isn’t rocket science nor is it an exhaustive list. Hopefully we continue to keep this type of team culture moving forward.

Lastly I think it’s a complete nonsense that the players hadn’t completely bought into the game plan. Our effort on the most part was ok for the first 5 games. We played differently as we were given the freedom to do so. By Freo and our setup.

Listening to Goodwin's presser ... he talks about the new way of playing and how we needed to change. And that has been the theme all season long

Have we seen the team share the ball around like we did on Saturday?

Even in the premiership year, the game plan was to boot it long for territory

Edited Monday at 05:513 days by Macca

19 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Forward entries still a big concern for me. We went top of the goal square almost every time but our players were better positioned to take advantage and the ball came in faster so it was harder to defend. But we only had 7 marks inside 50 which is not good at all and barely even tried to hit up easy targets in the forwardline.

I think we are either No 1 for forward entries and 5th for

11 hours ago, Jjrogan said:

Exactly. Most of our goals, in the first half in particular, were the result of individual brilliance rather than great ball use. Long shots sailing through, great snaps or goals from the goal square. Importantly, as you said, it wasnt to an outnumber which gave us a chance. That was pleasing.

7 marks from 50+ inside 50s is bog ordinary. Almost every premier (since ever) has been in the top 4 of the league average, usually north of 12. Sometime you win the way we won on the weekend, amazing conversion, good team pressure and some individuals match winners. But as a system, forward entries were really only marginally better than the rest of the year.

It was a small step in the right direction though, until we can get 10-12 marks a week inside 50 regularly, we wont be the real deal.

Sometimes I wonder what game you watch, it’s almost how you think the game should be played not how our new gameplan will be. What stood out for me was the relentless pressure when we didn’t have the ball …sadly missing in the last few games. We had an incredibly undermanned defence but we won on effort and commitment from 23 players. We can only improve.. small steps but exciting steps

35 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

I think we are either No 1 for forward entries and 5th for

Not sure what you're trying to say here but we're 13th for inside 50s 14th for shots at goal, dead last for Goal efficiency and marks inside 50...

1 hour ago, KozzyCan said:

we're 13th for inside 50s

11th. Equal with Giants, between Port and the Cats.

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

11th. Equal with Giants, between Port and the Cats.

Fair enough but it's the other stats I'm worried about.

Geelong kick a goal almost a third of the time they enter their forward 50.

GWS almost a quarter of the time.

We are at 18.8%.

3 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Fair enough but it's the other stats I'm worried about.

Geelong kick a goal almost a third of the time they enter their forward 50.

GWS almost a quarter of the time.

We are at 18.8%.

I think that improves if this gamestyle sticks and we can have a settled F50. The long bomb in was never a high % conversion.

59 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I think that improves if this gamestyle sticks and we can have a settled F50. The long bomb in was never a high % conversion.

As I said in my earlier post we still need to improve a lot in that area. 7 marks inside 50 on the weekend is very poor. We were better, yes, but you can't expect to consistently kick a decent score without generating set shots.

Get rid of him