fr_ap

This is what tipped you off? Of all things? Anyone who has gone remotely close to them in corporate Melbourne knows it. Its a milk bar being run by your uncle's best mates ' mates and the boys. Truthfully the entire industry is a house of cards that rests on 4 very large invoices

You're not missing anything - it's a fair question. I can only surmise that given the opportunity, our players are trying to make it look like a "Melbourne game", gain control and command the tempo. The more they do it, the more we revert to type and the system can take over. It's just a gameplan - there are many moments within games when they won't adhere and we will go fast and direct. To some extent, we potentially rely on those moments to kick a winning score despite doing the pocket stuff so frequently. Instinct when it's clear & obvious (e.g Jackson's kick to Fristch one out with Murphy in the 1st Q on the weekend), pocket kick when it's not. Noting that 'instinct' differs for many - some will still put it to the pocket by type (Clarry). Doesn't mean we don't score from the pocket - we had several scores from it on the weekend - but if we do it 70% of the time it allows the system to take over. On good days, the other 30% will help us score in spite of ourselves... I hold some hope that in finals, the energy and excitement take over and we go more on instinct - clearly, Bang Bang Bang was not the product of the pocket kick. To the poster questioning how we stop #3 - teams playing on quickly after intercepting - its two fold: -play a competitive tall to halve the marking contest -stay switched on. Requires all who are not involved in the pocket contest to avoid ball watching, running to space, or zoning off too far.

Precisely 😛

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. I'll be very clear: The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time. If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. Where this falls down is: 1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. #1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4.

We were spoiled by what happened in Finals last year & it's tainted our expectations. We came in this year believing the hype and genuinely believing that we would beat most teams by 100 points every week. When we struggle through and win by 20, even going 10-0, a lot of us were disappointed. The reaction on here was testament to that. Noise & passion is based on how performance compares to expectation; when we had nothing to lose in 2018 & were dreaming of a flag run, we were raucous. The Pies didnt expect to be where they are & they're riding the wave. They're raucous (moreso than usual). The other key driver of noise & passion is demographic. I've covered this before but put simply - footy means more to those with less. It's a weekly highlight (for many, the key highlight) & an escape from the daily pressures. You can see this at Pies games, Blues games & Tigers games - there are swathes of grown men who rock up in pilly trackies, a 1999 bomber jacket & are incredibly vocal. You get the impression the footy is their key weekly outing. It's a cliche but our more affluent supporter base results in less passion - put simply, they've got a lot of other things to do. We on this forum aren't the problem & by definition have some fanaticism.

100%. Its only ever been a factor for those that can't or won't come to terms with what their eyes can see is happening on field. I'm sure they'll find another excuse shortly

What's missing is hunger. We drop away in second halves because we mentally let it happen. It's not fitness. Our response as supporters to these losses is - we have last year. Players are no different. They are satisfied with one.

Gutted. One of the best games I've been to...probably ever. And of course, we're on the wrong side at the end. The train just broke into a Collingwood chant. Is the loading conspiracy dead? Same theme again tonight as all of our losses. All were blamed on loading despite no confirmatory evidence. Sometimes you just need to admit that your gameplan has been worked out and that other teams want it more. It's been clear all year, even when we won 10 in a row. The fact we are As close as we are without a dominant key forward is just absurd. The fact Geelong are gettable' despite having two is an indictment on them. Can't argue with 11 in a row. I will say I don't think it's sustainable, but I've already been proven wrong. I don't think any defence can setup when the ball moves that fast. Blink and you'll miss it. They added an absolutely elite 18 yo half back and it changed their side. All credit to them - if they can win a flag in this style it will be one of the Better ones. Every premier revolutionised something - maybe Collingwood have broken zone defence. Its utterly deflating and utterly painful. I've not seen dees fans look that wrenched for a long time. Be kind to your families folks. We have last year. They don't. I'm hanging onto that and they can't take that away from me

Bit of a misnomer this - they will play De Goey in the guts to compensate. He's extremely dynamic in there and has torched us before (one particular game I remember he had it on an absolute string)

'At least be accurate' ? I already debunked the 'we looked just as poor last year' idea in another thread pasted below. Not only are you proving my point by implying what happened before will happen again, you're also wrong. At no point last year were we losing in the manner we have this year - statistically, stylistically nor to the challenging teams (as outlined in that thread, the Bulldogs loss was very even with free kicks the major difference). Look at the scoring shots, look at inside 50s, look at marks inside 50, look at how/where we conceded our goals. Watch the games again. I have. My memory isn't short - yours is blurry. When I presented the opposing optimist with these facts & asked for the basis of his confidence - his response was he has faith in the FD. Nothing objective to explain our performances. The loaders present an argument they think is objective and I find much of that analysis interesting - but truthfully it is speculative. I'd be beyond happy to eat my words if we spring back to best version of the Dees & a coach/player announces loading was the reason. I'm actually not trying to be 'doomy gloomy' and definitely didn't bag anyone - at worst I said "those with blind hope". Hardly an insult, particularly when one of the effected already admitted to me this is the basis of his confidence. I'm here for no reason other than engaging in analytical discussion on my team. I appreciate the collective passion we have is perhaps not conducive to that discussion, but I'm at least trying to bring an objective view. I fully expect most will not understand or partake in that discussion for fear of what it could mean. I have the same discussion in person with my brother, who just doesn't want to hear the reasons it could come undone. He sees it though & is aware of it, as I suspect you & many others are too. If objectivity apparently = MFCSS then by all means give me the label Would love to be wrong

And you like so many with blind hope seem unable to separate observations on current form from the team in general. We have a great team - a premiership winning team, with game breaking stars, good young players, a once rock solid system, and collective mindset and buy-in. I love this team. But at the moment (and for large parts of the year if we are honest), it's not been functioning as it should. We managed to stack wins against teams we now know are not challengers. When we've met those at the top, particularly Freo and Geelong, we've failed pretty emphatically so far. You'll call out a range of excuses no doubt, mostly speculative and unconfirmed ideas such as loading, keeping our cards close to our chest or that we led during the game or were 'within a kick' (if only Pickett kicked the goal you say....what about the 8 gettable' set shots Geelong missed? If behinds are an excuse for us they are then equally a reason for them to claim dominance despite scoreboard) We're still a good team and as I said, we can figure it out. But this current iteration isn't winning the flag. It's an inescapable conclusion for anyone who even tries to watch objectively and pays opposition teams the respect they deserve.

Wouldn't waste my breath mate - there are so many on here who know what they see but are in denial, clinging to last year's dip and just assuming history will repeat itself Beggars belief how any honest, reality-entrenched supporter could watch us over the last 6 weeks and think we'll go anywhere close unless something changes forward of the ball. In case it isn't clear: -our 3 starting small forwards are collectively averaging 1.9 goals a game. Spargo has 6 for the year. ANB 4. A commentator in the GC game on the weekend commented that Nick Holman has 'only' 12 goals for the year in a half forward role. That's how low the bar is - and they're 50% away from reaching it. -Fritsch is consistently taking the best medium/tall defender whilst we insist on dumping it on his head in the pocket. He's done well to kick as many as he has and he's well justified imo in getting selfish when he gets the opportunity, given the scoring woes of his colleagues and his ability to Fluke goals when within range -Ben Brown is consistently playing against 3 tall defenders and/or a floating ruckman on the wing. He doesn't spend much time near goal which is bizarre given his underrated creative ability and ability to draw a free kick -the last two weeks Trac has kicked 20-30% of our score. Resting forward perhaps but we then miss our most game breaking mid. Robbing P to pay P. -more generally, harmes and Gawn having productive goalkicking years has spared the forward line's blushes. In my view if we're relying on midfield and ruckman goals in finals we'll be in trouble -Tom Mac last year averaged more goal assists than anyone else in the side. Including petracca. People have always slept on Tom's ability to mark on the wing, find a target, or ride a tackle deep 50 to dish off a handball as a big senior body. He also kicked 33 for the season in 2021. We've no one who can replace this output and this is compounding, contributing to and combining with the issues above. -think very clearly about the shots at goal we had and conceded In the Freo and Geelong games in particular. We have had an absolute dearth of easy shots within 35m in the middle section of the field. Geelong had by my count >6 on the weekend and we were lucky they missed so many. At the same time, we were only close through trac hitting running goals, brown slotting unlikely goals from the pocket, and a Fritsch shot from 55. The system is not generating the shots we want or restricting it in others. If we're honest with ourselves, it's pretty inarguable. But many can't bear to admit it so they reach for ridiculous explanations - loading, extenuating circumstances, mirroring last year, faith in the coaches, the fact we won in a canter last year, the general vibe of things, the shape of the ground, the weather, the short break, the fact we're everyone's grand final, 'keeping our powder dry' (takes the cake, my favourite), Lloyd hating Melbourne, the colour of the sky and generally anything that can conceivably have a negative connotation. We can all follow footy in our own way - I choose not to be deluded. I'm not saying things can't change, but I really don't see where it's going to come from. Debuting JVR/Laurie etc might be nice and I could foresee JVR playing Tom's role as he's all heart, but expecting Tom's level of output from him at the pointy end is a big ask.

Couldn't have said it any better Teams win flags a million different ways...just because we won it last year with a dip in the middle of the season doesn't mean that's the only way to do it, or that we are doing the same thing again, or that it was even intentional the first time

We're equal first and still in control of our destiny, so no. We could afford to lose. It's the way we lost (comprehensively, in the contest, bad defensively) that concerned me.

Not a difficult concept mate.. I accept we will lose some games especially away from home against a very good team. That doesn't concern me. Especially if we lose in a close game that could have gone either way. What does bother me is when we lose comprehensively in every facet of the game as we did. I.e. the manner of the loss. Especially when it begins to occur over a number of weeks in semi-familiar patterns. I'm over the back and forth - you basically made my point for me admitting you're projecting a return to form on blind hope, past performance and trust in the FD. I think that's nonsense but as I said, if you find comfort in it then great.

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate, though you really haven't said anything of substance. You're admitting your perception of where we are at is informed by -Loading (speculation, unconfirmed) -Trust in the FD If that's all it takes to convince yourself that we'll be ok then I'm glad for you. I think attributing losses to loading is both extremely disrespectful to the opposition (as if to say if we were fully fit, winning is a fait accompli) and extremely complacent. Especially in the face of clear statistical indicators showing where we're getting well beaten and comments from Scott post game explaining how he dismantled our gameplan. It's a lazy excuse that papers over any meaningful analysis or explanation, because fitness is obviously a common element that underpins the entire sport. As for trust in the FD - I have some but not enough to blindly ignore what my eyes and ears are telling me. Just as Goodwin took us to a flag he also landed us in 17th. To assume he will always get it right is pretty ridiculous. Huge recency bias too. I'm not bothered by the loss honestly - it's the manner of the losses that concern me and they bear very little resemblance to last year regardless of what you say. As I said, no reason we can't turn it around and I'll be thrilled if it happens - but in a post game thread full of good analysis and people searching for answers, chalking it up to loading and last year's profile is lazy & simplistic. This isn't negative at all, it's observational. Some very sensitive folks on here.

Do you? I actually asked you to elaborate but you clearly don't know how to address my detailed points and instead resorted to a personal insult. I feel more comfortable acknowledging the statistical differences which are inarguable. You feel comfortable clinging to the past and assuming history will repeat itself. You're not the first to do it and won't be the last. The Media are good at it too. My assessment of our form does not turn on my 'comfort' with failure or success - I'm just repeating widely available objective stats that tell a story for those willing to listen. Goody & Co have repeatedly spoken about not looking at the past. If they were we would never have gotten off the 2019 canvas. If they're looking at '21 & saying "its all good, this happened last year" - not only would they be statistically wrong but they'd be fools as well. As the one drawing parallels to last year with no real justification - you clearly feel more comfortable with blind hope. At least acknowledge it rather than dropping last year's form-line like its a relevant analysis. For what it's worth, I clearly hope I am wrong and you are right

How is this relevant? "It happened last year so it will happen again"? Extremely simplistic, naive & IMO you/most in this thread are grasping for any explanation that makes you feel better about our form. There are so many different variables to this time last year - the most pertinent being we have a very tough run home & have lost most games to our key top 8 competitors, whereas last year we lost/drew to teams well below us & knew very early we stacked up well against our key competitors. We had the measure of the best teams last year and they knew it. There'll be no fear this year & any of Geelong/Freo/Collingwood/Sydney/(Carlton when they beat us) will have a very clear understanding of how to deal with Melbourne at finals time. Brisbane (presuming they don't destroy us at the Gabba) the only ones who will have some memory of what we are like at our best. Crucially, in all of the games you've mentioned last year, we were relatively even statistically for scoring shots & inside 50s - it was either poor kicking or umpires (in the case of the bulldogs game) that cost us. QB against the Pies was the only aberration last year in terms of being comprehensively beaten in scoring shots/all over the ground. Last night we were whalloped in every statistical sense: 31 scoring shots to 18, -20 inside 50s, -25 clearances, conceded 15 marks i50 most within 35m dead in front, often within 20m of unguarded space, which does not happen to us very often. We were easy to score against. We took 6 marks i50 with most of those deep in the pockets. We had no answers at all & the shape of the ground excuse only goes so far. Against Sydney & Collingwood this year, we lost scoring shots comprehensively and conceded a lot of marks i50. Those games we had supply - relatively even i50s - but could not defend. We had some personnel issues (May, Petty) over this time that perhaps exacerbated this, so I'm willing to look past them. Fremantle we were outplayed & beaten in the contest, but the scoreboard looked worse than it was. Pressure and speed have been a consistent theme that we've been unable to cope with. IMO, the make up of the defence with 3 offensively minded/intercepting HBs (Bowey, Salem & Brayshaw) is having a lot to do with this without necessarily providing us any drive going forward. Small/pressure forwards are finding a lot of space against us, which wasn't the case last year. One or both of Hunt/Rivers are a requirement IMV especially with Hibberd's increasingly fragility. No mind their poorer distribution - all we do is kick it to contests at centre wing anyway. My point is - this year we are losing in quite a few different ways. We are losing contest, we are conceding marks i50, we aren't coping with pressure/speed and last night, we lost in every other way. We are relatively predictable & there is a clear blueprint emerging of how to beat us. Maybe this is all par for the course for a reigning premier - after what we did at the pointy end last year, you really get the feeling we are everyone's grand final (both from opposition coaches, players and fans collectively - the sheer joy teams display when they beat us tells you a bit). We are still in a great position & I have faith we can get it done - but we're a long way off. Other than giving us experience to draw upon & a degree of faith, last year has nothing to do with anything. I'd love to hear some actual reasoned explanation as to why you think any of the games you've quoted are a valid precedent for this year. "Loading" might be it - which none of us can confirm. As i said, grasping at straws.

They're an awful bunch there truly. Extremely precious about their seats, how much noise you make etc - they're so used to having 95% of the crowd that it seems to personally offend them if you cheer for the other team

I'm not sure why this keeps being mentioned. It's a different year, with different opponents, in different places, played by players who will feel different, act different and be different to last year. Do you go to work, check your calendar from last year and conclude on what's in store for this year? I appreciate there are loading & tapering profiles but to believe that's the difference pays no respect to the opposition. Geelong have improved and have added speed and pressure around their well established litany of senior seasoned stars. It's not going to take a lot for them to fire. We were comprehensively beaten (this ground or any other) and thats the only way to view the game. I see zero value to comparing it to a game against the Bulldogs a year ago, in front of no crowd, at our home ground. I'm sure we had a different, equally valid excuse at the time...

Not sure about that - that game was equal scoring shots, marks i50 etc but the free kick count killed us. This was different and was a mauling - most rounded loss (as in, all facets of the game) for some time. Small ground plays a part but Geelong have added significant speed and pressure to their game. They're a different outfit this year and if they bring that brand in finals they'll be hard to beat wherever the game is We didn't have a loss like that all last year in terms of scoring shots conceded - lots and lots of easy looks within 30 too. They just happened to miss most of them

It's not been explicitly called out but I think what the Cats have changed in both personnel & method this year is in direct retaliation to our matches & flag salute. For that reason, I think they'll be absolutely primed for this and ready to make a statement (unfortunately). They've built their side this year to knock off Melbourne. The fact pattern is pretty clear: For years Geelong relied on slow chip play to set up the ground & then strong marking forwards (Hawkins, Cameron, Rohan/Esava/other to a lesser extent) to kick a score (3+ tall setup forward). This was good enough against most teams but they then witnessed both Richmond & Melbourne go past them, despite persistent top 4 finishes, as full ground pressure systems collectively outweighed their star power up forward. Fool them once with Richmond - they backed in their system & went back to the well, doubling down with another elite KPF (Cameron). Didnt work. Fool them twice though...I dont think so. Our rise has made them take notice: Our comeback goals at KP in Rd 23 was largely ground ball and/or small/medium forward/midfield goals. Spargo did damage (2), Pickett (3), Oliver (2), Fritsch got out the back for the important one. Brown kicked 2, but Gawn's mark & goal after the siren was actually the aberration - it wasnt he, Tom Mac or Ben Brown that got us over the line. Fast forward to the Prelim - the smalls went to work again - Pickett 3, Fritsch 2, Spargo 2, ANB 1 and 4 goals out of the midfield. Max taking them to the cleaners was a by product of them being worried (rightly so) about our smalls against their slow/strong/tall backline (& of course, an outlier virtuoso performance no one could have stopped in any case) Our strength last year was full ground defense and in particular, key backs / aerial balls into the 50. Their traditional slow gamestyle played into our hands, as has been widely reported. Their plan B for attack was lacking - they had very little by way of crumber/non set-shot goals, particularly with an ageing midfield that cant get forward & back as much as other teams to add scoreboard pressure. Cue - Stengle, Atkins, Close all in the same fwd line with Miers on the bench & reversion to a 2 tall / even 1 tall setup with Cameron roaming around the ground. That is the same number of small forwards we have in the side (4 - Spargo, Pickett, Bedford, ANB). If our strength is/was aerial balls into the D50, this would appear a poor strategy if they continued to play slowly - so of course they've upped the speed of ball movement across the ground - quicker, less chipping & more playing on, creating more space for the speed of these small forwards to be a weapon. Hawkins & Cameron are the trump cards and threatening under any system of play which gives them a constant competitive baseline as/when smalls have down days (common for all but the very best). That ties into their defense. Traditionally dour in a 1v1 sense with strong, tall, slow-ish but tight checking lockdown defenders (when your smallest defender is Bews, you know that's a big backline) as opposed to interceptors - this year their quicker ball movement means they can't rely on their back 6 to be in position all the time. Cue - a roaming & intercepting game plan utilising the height they have in Henry (a very good player), Blicavs and most importantly De Koning for this role. Stewart can play any role & we're lucky he's not in their side at the moment. Kolojashnij is the exception to this role as he still plays a lockdown role. They're better off without Henderson who never had the craft to go with Fritsch. The comparison above shows they're significantly smaller across the ground - 3 talls out for 1. This enables all of the above & means their running power is improved on last year. I trust the FD has studied them in anticipation for this game but don't expect it to play out like last year - they're a different side. In their forwardline alone - Hib was always our matchup for Rohan. Bowey will therefore have to play on one of Stengle, Atkins, Close or Miers. All would back themselves to beat him 1v1 & for pace/craft. Our remaining 'small' defenders are Salem and Brayshaw, neither of whom are close checking, so it wouldnt surprise me to see one of their smalls kick 3 or 4. Hunt for all his flaws could have been a good option in this game. Ditto Rivers who played on their smalls in the equivalent games last year. If Hawkins/Cameron add their customary 2/3+ each, they'll go a long way to getting the job done. Dees by 85

Quite right. But I think playing in the ruck makes him a better forward. His issue has always been that he doesn't engage the body. Takes marks on the lead or with a run and jump at a pack to use his reach. Defenders know this and engage him early and buffet him out of the contest. As a ruck or resting forward he's often given more leeway to run and jump I've got no confidence it will happen but hope this stint can be the making of him. Lord knows the list needs it

He's actually a better ruckman than he is a forward. That's saying something....

I have to agree. On a like for like basis, Bedford is a better small forward than 200cm Coleman medal winning Ben Brown.