1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

We really have reached peak Elon Musk problems when Demonland is being affected.

...Then they came for the Demonland website. And I did not speak out. Because I am not a Melbourne supporter.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

The Twitter/X card didn't display properly in the original post, so I've re-embedded it. This has been an ongoing issue when embedding Twitter/X content here, and it seems to be caused by Twitter/X itself. The problem is quite random—sometimes embeds work, sometimes they don't, and occasionally an embed that initially worked will fail to display later when revisiting the thread. It's particularly frustrating when the embedded content is essential to the post.

perhaps you should try upgrading the website...

2 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I think there’s a time and place for the ‘get it in there’ strategy. For example, when it is wet it isn’t a bad strategy as long as you are kicking to the right areas and not to the advantage of the other team.

But for the most part ball movement and short kicks are more beneficial ways of scoring. Also, being able to defend well around your 50m arc and then burst away when you win it back. That’s the best way to score and probably why the hawks won last night.

Perhaps there is a time and place. You certainly don't want to overpossess by hand in the wet, but I think generally we still want to play the same way in all conditions, otherwise the way you want to play is vulnerable to externalities.

Obviously, there are situations where you don't want to overpossess but if you're maintaining possession with uncontested kicks across the back half, I think that's still an acceptable move in the wet. Certainly with the right kickers.

In all conditions, there'll be certain players who are instructed to kick longer to contests and other backs who will be expected to maintain possession with shorter kicks when the kick down the line isn't on.

It's a great way of controlling tempo, even in inclement conditions.

Edited March 21Mar 21 by Adam The God

50 minutes ago, binman said:

When the heat got dialled up come finals they were found wanting and come the GF the lions smashed them off the park.

Good call. Although, in fairness to the Lions, they played some really nice precision-kicking footy in that GF... and the one before it. 

6 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Good call. Although, in fairness to the Lions, they played some really nice precision-kicking footy in that GF... and the one before it. 

Yep. They have been using the spot up 20 metre pass for a few seasons - bur more forward than side to side.

And they have long had excellent kicks. 

1 hour ago, binman said:

Will always need pure inside mids. 

The game might be more about transition and turnover than it was, but pressure and contest is still the most important part of footy.

And only 70% of scores come from transition.

 

Yep, you've gotta be able to win it at the contest, if you can't, you rely on adding numbers to the contest to outnumber, pressure and force a turnover and sweep it away after winning ground ball (ala Collingwood 2023).

We have a big advantage if we can break even in scores from turnover. As you've said, we don't need to be the best, we just need to be good at it. Our 1 wood is scores from stoppages.

As I wrote prior to the GWS game, I'll be happy if we go for aggressive pure centre clearances that lead to scores (utilising forward handball, blocks and our power in and from the contest), because this will mean we'll lose our fair share of clearances too by positioning ourselves aggressively at centre stoppage. This then means the opposition has it in our back half, and we can look to transition off the back of that.

It was obvious we were trying this in the first half of last year, but without a fitter Oliver, we struggled to get bang for buck from aggressive stoppage set ups and we'd end up losing too much territory, which goes to Hoyne's point. You don't want be camped in your back half, so breaking even with inside 50s as the ball moves from one end to the other is more the goal. And when you sweat that opposition turnover, and it's anywhere near D50 corridor, you have to score from it.

We did this beautifully against Geelong last year, but the rest of the year, we were very hit and miss. This is why Windsor and Lindsay have the ability to completely transform our game.

2 hours ago, binman said:

Um, we were almost bang on 50-50 for inside 50s against the Giants.

Goody has got the memo

Also, you can lead a horse to water……

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Agree with you as to what Hoyne said, but that his theory requires pace and skill from transition and my fear is that we are not great in that area, ( yet ).

As he said, only one premier in the last 6 years won it on the Clarko theory of just get it in there and that was us.

I think Goody has been trying to improve pace and skill from transition and that is why Caleb is on the hbf and soon Judd will return there. Sharp is another who could get a go there, with possibly Woey as depth and AMW was looking good there until injured. Bowey at his best fits the bill, as he did in 2021.

Perhaps this year the team with the best mix of both will be the premier, rather than the outstanding team in the one area.

PS: Forgot XL .

I wouldn't send Sharp there because I don't trust his disposal.

We have enough guys we can run through there at full fitness. Lindsay, Salem, McVee and Windsor. 

I think @binman may have suggested this previously, but we could also play Fritta at half back. He's not slighter than Lindsay or Windsor. My only question over Fritta's disposal is when he seems to play higher up the ground (and this includes the back end of 2018?), he seems to have a lot of his kicks intercepted, which is obviously poison at half back.

The point is, I think we've got our guys that can slingshot now that have pace, poise and skill.

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I have to agree.  It is becoming obvious, that Hoyne's thesis is correct.  "Getting it in there" means more opportunities.  Even if it is turned over in the 50m, it is better than a turnover upfield where you get nothing, because at least you had a chance. 

Hawthorn used this tactic extensively in the Carlton game.  Long kicks into the forward line almost every single time.  Forget about the short possession/territory game, just put it in there and take your chances.  The percentages will win it for you, if you have more chances. 

reckon you've misunderstood hoyne's point

It is usually difficult to compensate  for a lack of talent by changing the game plan.

We simply don't have the forward talent to kick a winning score against the good teams no matter how we deliver the ball.

5 minutes ago, old dee said:

It is usually difficult to compensate  for a lack of talent by changing the game plan.

We simply don't have the forward talent to kick a winning score against the good teams no matter how we deliver the ball.

Absolute rubbish.

 

This is what I have been saying for a year and a bit now - we are falling into a trap with how we press high and get 65 Inside 50s and win contests back into that packed milleu of a forward 50 that has no space and little chance for good shots on goal. 

We moved away from it more last year and that was promising and what I saw on the weekend was good progress to that affect. @binman mentioned the less I50s and we also looked to progress of HB quickly from turnover and meaningfully (ie corridor and with kicking) at this stage that is just anecdotal but it is something we just have to do and get better at. Especially with our poor forward line talent - they need quick movement to give them the best chance.

As a possible indicator, metres gained from the back half; 600 from Salem and over 300 each from Windsor, Rivers, Bowey, TMac!, Lindsay, and Petty. That’s all well above what they have previously produced (save for Rivers where it’s about average). That’s a promising sign that we can move the ball from our defence. You would want less from TMac and Petty but the fact that I don’t remember too much indiscriminate bombing from either is a good thing.

It is starting to mean we have an open ground to work with and we are taking advantage of that. 

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

This is what I have been saying for a year and a bit now - we are falling into a trap with how we press high and get 65 Inside 50s and win contests back into that packed milleu of a forward 50 that has no space and little chance for good shots on goal. 

We moved away from it more last year and that was promising and what I saw on the weekend was good progress to that affect. @binman mentioned the less I50s and we also looked to progress of HB quickly from turnover and meaningfully (ie corridor and with kicking) at this stage that is just anecdotal but it is something we just have to do and get better at. Especially with our poor forward line talent - they need quick movement to give them the best chance.

As a possible indicator, metres gained from the back half; 600 from Salem and over 300 each from Windsor, Rivers, Bowey, TMac!, Lindsay, and Petty. That’s all well above what they have previously produced (save for Rivers where it’s about average). That’s a promising sign that we can move the ball from our defence. You would want less from TMac and Petty but the fact that I don’t remember too much indiscriminate bombing from either is a good thing.

It is starting to mean we have an open ground to work with and we are taking advantage of that. 

See Collingwood 2023.

3 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

I have to agree.  It is becoming obvious, that Hoyne's thesis is correct.  "Getting it in there" means more opportunities.  Even if it is turned over in the 50m, it is better than a turnover upfield where you get nothing, because at least you had a chance. 

Hawthorn used this tactic extensively in the Carlton game.  Long kicks into the forward line almost every single time.  Forget about the short possession/territory game, just put it in there and take your chances.  The percentages will win it for you, if you have more chances. 

Can’t disagree with that logic goto but isn’t that what we were being criticised for bombing it in long to the fwd line, were we right but lacked the players to exploit it and has that now changed??

54 minutes ago, old dee said:

It is usually difficult to compensate  for a lack of talent by changing the game plan.

We simply don't have the forward talent to kick a winning score against the good teams no matter how we deliver the ball.

Bullocks. I’d kick a tonne with a bung back if I was leading into paddocks. But would be useless in a contested marking situation, which is what our KPFs are put in. 

46 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

See Collingwood 2023.

And you have Carlton who have possibly the best 1-2 combo in the league struggle because they play a similar game style to us with a less talented midfield and defence.

We all think having a Curnow or a McKay forward line will make us infinitely more successful, but I honestly I don’t think it will not change us that much.

The award for the most pessimistic poster has to go to…….

I'll double-check the author but I think it was Isserson's analysis of the first world war and the problem of overcoming 'defence in depth' which described the way assaults evolved after the initial thrust as being a matter of 'the attackers mounting a desperate defence while the defenders press the attack from all points'.

I'd say it is a strikingly strong analogy to the way a forward 50 entry decays within moments of the initial penetration.

Isserson's solution (and the conventional approach by mid WW2) was to attack with as much depth as the defence - an initial wave to achieve the breakthrough is followed by and effectively relieved by a second wave more suited to holding positions gained and pressing further, while the first wave takes a half step back to cover flanks and prevent any cauldrons forming.

To press the analogy home, it would be a little like having tall forwards stay 'home' ready and fresh to contest for the ball, and then when a forward stoppage occurred they would move to patrol that ring around the 50 ready to intercept/contest the dump kicks, while extra grunts and runners move inside 50.

Strangely, this would mean that once the ball (and about 20 players) are inside the forward arc, our main forwards would be outside it!

On a different but related note, every strategist worth mentioning notes the value of creating uncertainty by sending detachments to ambiguously menace positions which the opposition must defend. In football terms; keeping a forward or two inside attacking 50, no matter where the play is at the time, causes the entire other team to have to think about covering them, and run to positions to cover ALL the potential ways that forward could be a problem. 

So, there's my two cents. True forwards should be kept home and fresh as possible until the actual crucial moment of the contest. Just being there puts implied pressure on the entire other team. After that contest, when the swarms arrive, they should be the ones providing the intercepting ring.

The way clubs use forwards at the moment is like the manager who assesses performance on 'hours attended' rather than actual output. Like telling fire-fighters to wash streets all day and then being surprised they struggled to haul people out if burning buildings.

Rant over. Apologies.

8 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I'll double-check the author but I think it was Isserson's analysis of the first world war and the problem of overcoming 'defence in depth' which described the way assaults evolved after the initial thrust as being a matter of 'the attackers mounting a desperate defence while the defenders press the attack from all points'.

I'd say it is a strikingly strong analogy to the way a forward 50 entry decays within moments of the initial penetration.

Isserson's solution (and the conventional approach by mid WW2) was to attack with as much depth as the defence - an initial wave to achieve the breakthrough is followed by and effectively relieved by a second wave more suited to holding positions gained and pressing further, while the first wave takes a half step back to cover flanks and prevent any cauldrons forming.

To press the analogy home, it would be a little like having tall forwards stay 'home' ready and fresh to contest for the ball, and then when a forward stoppage occurred they would move to patrol that ring around the 50 ready to intercept/contest the dump kicks, while extra grunts and runners move inside 50.

Strangely, this would mean that once the ball (and about 20 players) are inside the forward arc, our main forwards would be outside it!

On a different but related note, every strategist worth mentioning notes the value of creating uncertainty by sending detachments to ambiguously menace positions which the opposition must defend. In football terms; keeping a forward or two inside attacking 50, no matter where the play is at the time, causes the entire other team to have to think about covering them, and run to positions to cover ALL the potential ways that forward could be a problem. 

So, there's my two cents. True forwards should be kept home and fresh as possible until the actual crucial moment of the contest. Just being there puts implied pressure on the entire other team. After that contest, when the swarms arrive, they should be the ones providing the intercepting ring.

The way clubs use forwards at the moment is like the manager who assesses performance on 'hours attended' rather than actual output. Like telling fire-fighters to wash streets all day and then being surprised they struggled to haul people out if burning buildings.

Rant over. Apologies.

Maybe we’ll try it on Anzac Eve

1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

The award for the most pessimistic poster has to go to…….

This is his spirit animal.

History. Phfffffff.

Lots of people complaining on the Game Day thread about the chip kicking we were doing

I wonder if they are same people complaining about us bombing it long last year

Thankfully we are trying something different this year!

2 hours ago, old dee said:

It is usually difficult to compensate  for a lack of talent by changing the game plan.

We simply don't have the forward talent to kick a winning score against the good teams no matter how we deliver the ball.

Hawthorn's tall forward line consisted of Chol last night so I don't think talent is everything

System and team work beats talent most times

4 hours ago, binman said:

With our current mix of players we'll never match the very best transition teams at that game.

And I totally agree - I reckon goody is developing a hybrid model that looks to still be competitive on the turnover transition front, but also plays to our strengths - contest, clearance, pressure and defence.

Transition footy is sexy but without manic pressure and contest it's not going to win a flag. 

The swans last season were the perfect example of that -  halfway through the season they were, what , 2 games clear on top of the ladder playing the best, most dynamic transition footy in the AFL.

When the heat got dialled up come finals they were found wanting and come the GF the lions smashed them off the park.

Ball movement is the new king. We were lucky we got our flag just before the trend kicked in.

The Lions had far superior ball movement in that grand final. They moved the ball with ease and the Swans applied little to no pressure in closing space. The Swans biggest flaw was being too invested into their zone defence and guarding space that the Lions just kicked their way through it. From what I've seen, Cox had started to push a more of a hybrid defence.

I reckon Goody is more concerned with improving our new method over wins and losses

3 hours ago, binman said:

Absolute rubbish.

 

Hmm so where have these mystery forwards been the last three years binman we often have more inside the forward 50 but manage the lose the games. Last week same problem 56 vs 52.