Just re "falling back into old habits" is this even really a thing now given the list turnover in recent years and in particular the departure/unavailability of most of the chief proponents of said old habits?

3 hours ago, JTR said:

Just re "falling back into old habits" is this even really a thing now given the list turnover in recent years and in particular the departure/unavailability of most of the chief proponents of said old habits?

How long can we use this pathetic excuse?

4 hours ago, JTR said:

Just re "falling back into old habits" is this even really a thing now given the list turnover in recent years and in particular the departure/unavailability of most of the chief proponents of said old habits?

I didn't see us falling back into bad habits against Fremantle

On 22/03/2026 at 12:35, SPC said:

I think for now that Langfords 2 way running is lacking as is his tackling pressure and clean hands. It will come, but I think confidence needs developing first. One thing that I’d say about modern footy, it you are not a great 2 way running, great at drawing tackles, great at tackling yourself and clean below your knees, you shouldn’t be in the middle. One thing that was noticeable from Freo is how they drive through tackles, forcing more Dees players to tackle, then they could find a team mate in space, it was brilliant.

Loving how Kolt is playing and listening to Kingy in the presser, he is a coaches dream.

Interesting approach!

Apologies for the flippancy - it's a great thread you've started. I'm not expecting much this year as it's clearly going to be the first of a couple of years of transition as a new coach changes both the style of play and the personnel. While I believe Melksham and McDonald can still be good contributors, I'd prefer it if we were playing those likely to be around in 2028 which is when I next expect we'll be in the window to challenge the good teams.

8 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Nailed it @WERRIDEE CJ and Lever to Casey and Xavier to the wing or HFF.

Unfortunately Xavier is hearing foot steps at the minute and needs to go higher up the ground and work on his kicking, handballing accuracy and tackling intensity.

If there is no spot up the ground back to Casey and work on your craft, need to be stronger lad.

Xavier is not going to improve staying in the back line and getting pumbled and buckle every single time and lose confidence.

Why is it every f kn other team can find run and overlap and we seem to invite pressure constantly?

We need kickers/smart decision makers off HB that can handle the heat and make smart, efficient choices by hand and foot.

Not panic merchants that are like rabbits in the spotlight.

Plus Max G needs help we need to prolong his career not shorten it, time for Moose to come in the side on Sunday.

Ins- Moose, AMW, Tmac

Out- Lever, CJ, Turner (inj)

8 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Nailed it @WERRIDEE CJ and Lever to Casey and Xavier to the wing or HFF.

Unfortunately Xavier is hearing foot steps at the minute and needs to go higher up the ground and work on his kicking, handballing accuracy and tackling intensity.

If there is no spot up the ground back to Casey and work on your craft, need to be stronger lad.

Xavier is not going to improve staying in the back line and getting pumbled and buckle every single time and lose confidence.

Why is it every f kn other team can find run and overlap and we seem to invite pressure constantly?

We need kickers/smart decision makers off HB that can handle the heat and make smart, efficient choices by hand and foot.

Not panic merchants that are like rabbits in the spotlight.

Plus Max G needs help we need to prolong his career not shorten it, time for Moose to come in the side Sunday.

Ins- Moose, AMW, Tmac

Out- Lever, CJ, Turner (inj)

'Would leave CJ on the side, yes, he makes mistakes but plays like King wants to play, and at least he gives his all while chasing or competing. I watched Petty just jog along, then tried to chase a Fremantle player when it was too late. I have more of a problem with Lever and Salem: when the heat is on, they try to take the easy option.'

We played a contested brand down the line stuff which Goodwin couldn’t or wouldn’t change, coupled with selfish thickheads who destroyed the culture, the loss of experienced players is significant and expecting the younger brigade to replace them with instant success coupled with King new game plan will take time, posters having a crack after the Freo game on our 1st & 2nd year players is poor, expect bumps and no finals

Freo have started both their games so far with intensity, drive and pressure on the opposition. Was a good reminder to our boys as to what the level is in the top 8 and they’ll be better for it.

Be interested in seeing data on their (Freos) number of games played Ed together vs ours, as our low numbers (high turnover) dimly required time and games to get cohesion back.

12 minutes ago, PaulR said:

Freo have started both their games so far with intensity, drive and pressure on the opposition. Was a good reminder to our boys as to what the level is in the top 8 and they’ll be better for it.

Be interested in seeing data on their (Freos) number of games played Ed together vs ours, as our low numbers (high turnover) dimly required time and games to get cohesion back.

Well said.

They were hungry. Pouncing on every ground ball and snapping into tackles.

15 hours ago, lorn said:

I didn't see us falling back into bad habits against Fremantle

Neither and I thought that was just a cute line that commentators and media were using. Apart from the odd long bomb which was to be expected I thought we generally stuck with the process.

15 hours ago, lorn said:

I didn't see us falling back into bad habits against Fremantle

Really? We fumbled due to pressure all the way through 1st quarter.

We bombed relentlessly in the last quarter. I counted 10 at least with no purpose. Reminded me very much of Goodwin coached teams, long bomb to no one in particular. There were stuff all leads from forwards. Was a stark difference to way we played vs St Kilda, we lost most of our dare.

I must have watched a different game, old habits were there to see all over the place.

I hope King categorically tells them that this is not the way we want to play, and really encourages them to take the game on, especially when it gets tough.

4 or 5 years of bombing it long is going to be one of hardest habits to kick, quite simply.

Old habits like Lever kicking across goal with an inaccurate kick with hang time an NFL punter would be jealous of?

Old habits like Salem refusing to bend over and collect the ball, preferring dinky little toe pokes?

Old habits like Fritsch unable to tackle?

37 minutes ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

Really? We fumbled due to pressure all the way through 1st quarter.

We bombed relentlessly in the last quarter. I counted 10 at least with no purpose. Reminded me very much of Goodwin coached teams, long bomb to no one in particular. There were stuff all leads from forwards. Was a stark difference to way we played vs St Kilda, we lost most of our dare.

I must have watched a different game, old habits were there to see all over the place.

I hope King categorically tells them that this is not the way we want to play, and really encourages them to take the game on, especially when it gets tough.

4 or 5 years of bombing it long is going to be one of hardest habits to kick, quite simply.

The constant bombing into our forward 50 on the weekend was absolutely reminiscent of bad Goodwin era.

51 minutes ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

Really? We fumbled due to pressure all the way through 1st quarter.

We bombed relentlessly in the last quarter. I counted 10 at least with no purpose. Reminded me very much of Goodwin coached teams, long bomb to no one in particular. There were stuff all leads from forwards. Was a stark difference to way we played vs St Kilda, we lost most of our dare.

I must have watched a different game, old habits were there to see all over the place.

I hope King categorically tells them that this is not the way we want to play, and really encourages them to take the game on, especially when it gets tough.

4 or 5 years of bombing it long is going to be one of hardest habits to kick, quite simply.

Fair enough. I didn't notice as much bombing at the time but will take your word for it.

Guess it will take more time and many different situations like being down a few goals in a game to really shift that mentality.

15 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

The constant bombing into our forward 50 on the weekend was absolutely reminiscent of bad Goodwin era.

100%.

All I could think about watching it was how have we so quickly returned to this game style.

In reflection however, we got absolutely smashed around pill by an absolute red hot Freo midfield. I think our lads just basically crapped themselves with panic kicks everywhere. It looked boys vs men.

We were definitely poor - no doubt. But that first quarter, they looked absolutely phenomenel.

If they keep fit, get Hayden Young back then they really should be pushing for a top 4 finish.

I keep reading this thread title as "Clarry and Petracca" at first glance. If anybody wants me, I'll be at Specsavers.

1 hour ago, NeveroddoreveN said:

Really? We fumbled due to pressure all the way through 1st quarter.

We bombed relentlessly in the last quarter. I counted 10 at least with no purpose. Reminded me very much of Goodwin coached teams, long bomb to no one in particular. There were stuff all leads from forwards. Was a stark difference to way we played vs St Kilda, we lost most of our dare.

I must have watched a different game, old habits were there to see all over the place.

I hope King categorically tells them that this is not the way we want to play, and really encourages them to take the game on, especially when it gets tough.

4 or 5 years of bombing it long is going to be one of hardest habits to kick, quite simply.

This is where the chicken and egg comes in. Or to butcher another metaphor, confusing symptoms with causation.

Why did the forwards not lead as often as they did against the saints? Because there was often no space in the forward line for out forwards to lead into.

Why was there often no space in our forward line? Because Freo's defensive unit did a top job with their set up and zone defence, meaning we were often kicking into a congested forward line.

Why was Freo able to do job job with their set up and zone defence? A big factor was our lack of run and overlap handball after winning a turnover. Doing so successfully means the ball moves quickly on transition, it drags defenders out of their D5O to press up on players receiving the handball, which creates the opportunity to tic tac over the opponents and creates space inside our 50 for our forwards to lead into and/or have genuine one one one contests.

Which is precisely what Freo did to us in that first quarter (made easier by the same lack of run that hurt us on offence), which was why they had so much space inside their 50 and why they got so many genuine one one one contests.

Why did we often bomb it long into a crowded forward line and often around the ground? Because King has made it clear we are a low disposal, territory team (ie we go forward at all costs, by both hand and foot) and the clear instruction is if there is not a clear short option on then kick for distance - as i have posted in other threads, and as already borne out by the data, we will be more a long bomb, territory focused team than we were under goody in 2025.

On that topic, dees fans should get used to being a long bomb, territory team again because the coach has made it clear that's what we will be, and won't for example go laterall as often ad some teams or use short lead up kicks in the way say Lions (and now Pies too) do to move the ball forward with control and precision until they get spares ahead of the ball then go fast.

Why was there often no clear short options we could spot up by hand and foot to set up wave running and overlap? Because we lacked run.

Why did we lack run? Good question.

Could be we struggled to come up after six day break, could be we struggled wit the heat (28 degrees and 85% humidity) after a game last week in the heat. Could be a number of players, as has been suggested in another thread, were impacted by the flu that has been running rampant in Melbourne in the last few weeks. Could be were were not mentally prepared and had too many passengers. Could be combination of these factors.

Whatever the reason for our lack of run and spread, that was the key reason why we lost.

That lack of run is the cause - the long kicking, the difficulty defending turnover, the number of open players they had around the ground (they had 72 more handball receives than us)and inside their 50 , our inefficiency going forward and their efficiency going forward etc etc were of course facors in the loss, but i would argue they are symptoms not cause.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by binman

What do you do with clarity and perspective once you have it?

Do you hold on tight and almost suffocate it or do you nurture it and let it do it's own thing?

Can you save it for a rainy day?

3 hours ago, binman said:

This is where the chicken and egg comes in. Or to butcher another metaphor, confusing symptoms with causation.

Why did the forwards not lead as often as they did against the saints? Because there was often no space in the forward line for out forwards to lead into.

Why was there often no space in our forward line? Because Freo's defensive unit did a top job with their set up and zone defence, meaning we were often kicking into a congested forward line.

Why was Freo able to do job job with their set up and zone defence? A big factor was our lack of run and overlap handball after winning a turnover. Doing so successfully means the ball moves quickly on transition, it drags defenders out of their D5O to press up on players receiving the handball, which creates the opportunity to tic tac over the opponents and creates space inside our 50 for our forwards to lead into and/or have genuine one one one contests.

Which is precisely what Freo did to us in that first quarter (made easier by the same lack of run that hurt us on offence), which was why they had so much space inside their 50 and why they got so many genuine one one one contests.

Why did we often bomb it long into a crowded forward line and often around the ground? Because King has made it clear we are a low disposal, territory team (ie we go forward at all costs, by both hand and foot) and the clear instruction is if there is not a clear short option on then kick for distance - as i have posted in other threads, and as already borne out by the data, we will be more a long bomb, territory focused team than we were under goody in 2025.

On that topic, dees fans should get used to being a long bomb, territory team again because the coach has made it clear that's what we will be, and won't for example go laterall as often ad some teams or use short lead up kicks in the way say Lions (and now Pies too) do to move the ball forward with control and precision until they get spares ahead of the ball then go fast.

Why was there often no clear short options we could spot up by hand and foot to set up wave running and overlap? Because we lacked run.

Why did we lack run? Good question.

Could be we struggled to come up after six day break, could be we struggled wit the heat (28 degrees and 85% humidity) after a game last week in the heat. Could be a number of players, as has been suggested in another thread, were impacted by the flu that has been running rampant in Melbourne in the last few weeks. Could be were were not mentally prepared and had too many passengers. Could be combination of these factors.

Whatever the reason for our lack of run and spread, that was the key reason why we lost.

That lack of run is the cause - the long kicking, the difficulty defending turnover, the number of open players they had around the ground (they had 72 more handball receives than us)and inside their 50 , our inefficiency going forward and their efficiency going forward etc etc were of course facors in the loss, but i would argue they are symptoms not cause.

A team that wants to play long bomb and territory needs to have some taller players that are strong overhead I would have thought. Aside from Max we have nobody that fits that mould forward of centre - JVR sadly was back to his worst concrete hands against Freo (how you can mark the ball confidently one week and then the next drop absolute sodas is remarkable)

It is a pity Kentfield got injured because he did look like a possible tall target inside F50

If we are going to play that way I think Heath needs to play and he and Max can share ruck duties with one resting forward

I agree we lacked run at times which made transition far more difficult, but we also took way too long to decide what we wanted to do when we did win possession

Lindsay looks all at sea in D50 and frankly way off the level required in terms of his ability to compete physically -he is probably lucky that AMW may need another solid hit out to prove he is ready for AFL selection

1 hour ago, Sydee said:

A team that wants to play long bomb and territory needs to have some taller players that are strong overhead I would have thought. Aside from Max we have nobody that fits that mould forward of centre - JVR sadly was back to his worst concrete hands against Freo (how you can mark the ball confidently one week and then the next drop absolute sodas is remarkable)

It is a pity Kentfield got injured because he did look like a possible tall target inside F50

If we are going to play that way I think Heath needs to play and he and Max can share ruck duties with one resting forward

I agree we lacked run at times which made transition far more difficult, but we also took way too long to decide what we wanted to do when we did win possession

Lindsay looks all at sea in D50 and frankly way off the level required in terms of his ability to compete physically -he is probably lucky that AMW may need another solid hit out to prove he is ready for AFL selection

Maybe, but King has been crystal clear that's the game plan we are running with. Kentfield will help, Brodie too. I can't see Heath coming into the side anytime soon as we simply cant afford to be down a runner (though if they are going to pick him, this week wouldn't be th eworse time to do so given the Blues are dead slow). I suspect their plan was to use Kentfield as the second ruck, so the sooner he's in the better.

I disagree Lindsay looks all at sea as defender, though it feels like I'm on my own on that front. Agree he's a ways off his optimal strength, he's a second year player after all, but I'm not surprised at all Kins is using him down back, and i think will continue to do so (I don't think he's competing with AMW for a spot, more XT - who IS miles off).

He played a big chunk of his junior career, for Gippy power and representative sides, in the exact same role he played this season - half back flanker who pushes up the ground and is key to transition. That included one of his best representative games - an under 17s Future Stars game played on GF day where he was BOG playing as a running half back flanker.

In his final year at Gippy power he predominantly played as a mid (though still went back at times), and that's where he might end up, but as highlighted by draft watchers he was an excellent defender as a junior. So its not as if he doesn't have experience in the role, and obviously King rates him as defender given that where he has selected him two weeks in a row.

Watching live, and then again the replay, i thought he was excellent against the Saints - i was amazed he seemed to get no love on DL. He was our 5th highest rated player for the game and only Steele and Salo had more metres gained (and not by much).

He was not nearly as good against the Dockers, but again i'm amazed at the opprobrium he's received on DL. Sure he was fumbly at times, particularly in the first quarter, and he lost a couple of key one on one contests, but he was far from the only defender to struggle - hardly surprising given the volume of D5O entries (25 in the first quarter - nuts!), the speed it was coming inside D50) and the lack of pressure on their last kick inside 50.

I thought he played OK, but i rate him highly so i was conscious there might be some confirmation bias informing that assessment. So i was pleased to see his player rating supported my assessment - he scored 7.5 rating points, better than 12 of his teammates including other defenders like CJ (4.7 points), Howes (4.6 points) and Petts (-0.7 points). He was also comfortably the highest rated player of our young guns - Langford, Windsor, Kolt and Latrelle.

I keep saying XL is the most exciting of our kids and nothing I’ve seen this year has changed my mind there, so yr not alone @binman

Of course we’re thin all over the ground and we’ve only gotten thinner over the off-season.

What’s frightening is that Max, Checkers and Lever will be finishing up in a couple of years. Were clearly in a transition period where our oldies are holding up our game, whilst we’re developing our youth asap.

We’ve simply got to get games into our kids. The when and how is dictated by culture and leadership. We could go the ‘08-‘13 route (playing kids too early), or we could do it like under Roos regime.

It will take a few years before we should realistically be seriously contending again. But to contend, you must get the foundations right.

I don’t expect to play finals, I suspect we’ll finish in a similar position to the last couple of years. Change is afoot and it doesn’t happen over night. But at least we’ve begun.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by Demon Disciple

In spite of the stats distorted by our older players we are a fairly young and inexperienced team.

L Pickett: 2 games

Culley: 18 games

Lindsay: 20 games

Tholstrup: 21 games

Langford: 24 Games

Howes: 30 games

Sharp: 36 games

Windsor: 38 games

Turner: 39 games

That's half of a starting 18 and not even counting JvR who is only 22. No doubt one of Jefferson or Kentfield were likely to games early as well and we would presumably look for Taylor and Matthews to debut later in the year.

We would like reliable consistency in performance but you're just not going to get it with that amount of inexperience. This group needs another full season, perhaps even two before we see that.

32 minutes ago, Nascent said:

In spite of the stats distorted by our older players we are a fairly young and inexperienced team.

L Pickett: 2 games

Culley: 18 games

Lindsay: 20 games

Tholstrup: 21 games

Langford: 24 Games

Howes: 30 games

Sharp: 36 games

Windsor: 38 games

Turner: 39 games

That's half of a starting 18 and not even counting JvR who is only 22. No doubt one of Jefferson or Kentfield were likely to games early as well and we would presumably look for Taylor and Matthews to debut later in the year.

We would like reliable consistency in performance but you're just not going to get it with that amount of inexperience. This group needs another full season, perhaps even two before we see that.

An excellent point.

A bit was made of the fact that our average age was a tick over Freos.

But the key difference is how many of high end talent are 24 or under and/or played less than 50 games.

3 hours ago, binman said:

Maybe, but King has been crystal clear that's the game plan we are running with. Kentfield will help, Brodie too. I can't see Heath coming into the side anytime soon as we simply cant afford to be down a runner (though if they are going to pick him, this week wouldn't be th eworse time to do so given the Blues are dead slow). I suspect their plan was to use Kentfield as the second ruck, so the sooner he's in the better.

I disagree Lindsay looks all at sea as defender, though it feels like I'm on my own on that front. Agree he's a ways off his optimal strength, he's a second year player after all, but I'm not surprised at all Kins is using him down back, and i think will continue to do so (I don't think he's competing with AMW for a spot, more XT - who IS miles off).

He played a big chunk of his junior career, for Gippy power and representative sides, in the exact same role he played this season - half back flanker who pushes up the ground and is key to transition. That included one of his best representative games - an under 17s Future Stars game played on GF day where he was BOG playing as a running half back flanker.

In his final year at Gippy power he predominantly played as a mid (though still went back at times), and that's where he might end up, but as highlighted by draft watchers he was an excellent defender as a junior. So its not as if he doesn't have experience in the role, and obviously King rates him as defender given that where he has selected him two weeks in a row.

Watching live, and then again the replay, i thought he was excellent against the Saints - i was amazed he seemed to get no love on DL. He was our 5th highest rated player for the game and only Steele and Salo had more metres gained (and not by much).

He was not nearly as good against the Dockers, but again i'm amazed at the opprobrium he's received on DL. Sure he was fumbly at times, particularly in the first quarter, and he lost a couple of key one on one contests, but he was far from the only defender to struggle - hardly surprising given the volume of D5O entries (25 in the first quarter - nuts!), the speed it was coming inside D50) and the lack of pressure on their last kick inside 50.

I thought he played OK, but i rate him highly so i was conscious there might be some confirmation bias informing that assessment. So i was pleased to see his player rating supported my assessment - he scored 7.5 rating points, better than 12 of his teammates including other defenders like CJ (4.7 points), Howes (4.6 points) and Petts (-0.7 points). He was also comfortably the highest rated player of our young guns - Langford, Windsor, Kolt and Latrelle.

Not sure how the player rating points are calculated but those numbers surprise me. Where do you see AMW getting a go if not for XL - while I am not convinced Howes is best 22, I do like his height and the fact he is reasonably quick. Similarly, CJ is better than XL aerially and also quicker albeit he is clearly capable of some serious brain explosions

I agree that XT has a way to go which is a little frustrating as I think most supporters thought he would be a starter early this season I guess some youngsters adjust to senior footy quicker than others, but we all need to stay patient

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

I keep saying XL is the most exciting of our kids and nothing I’ve seen this year has changed my mind there, so yr not alone @binman

I'm onboard...

2 hours ago, binman said:

An excellent point.

A bit was made of the fact that our average age was a tick over Freos.

But the key difference is how many of high end talent are 24 or under and/or played less than 50 games.

freo have a huge range of players in that 70-160 game range that you want as part of yr premiership tilt

i think they should absolutely be looking to give it a big shake in 2026