titan_uranus

Excellent stuff. Can't stop laughing. As to your "analysis" of the recruiting: what has any of that got to do with your horrendous argument that we're like Adelaide?

All year I've felt that St Kilda are a step behind the truly good sides. They play footy which IMO won't hold up in finals. It's too risky and fluky to try absorbing opposition inside 50s and relying on accuracy in front of goal to ensure you outscore your opponent. Still, they're playing finals and we're no better than 50/50 to join them, and the way they play is a recipe for disaster for us. I'm sure attitude is a problem for us. Whether it's a lack of confidence (self-confidence or confidence in teammates) or arrogance and bathwater drinking, I'm yet to be convinced that our players approach each week with the mindset that I'm sure Geelong, West Coast and Richmond bring weekly.

If this is your best attempt at analysis, I'd consider trying to follow a different sport.

There are a number of reasons why we are likely to lose to St Kilda. This sort of analysis isn't one of them. We lost to Brisbane by 4 points. Like St Kilda, we had fewer scoring shots but were relatively more accurate and kept ourselves in the game. Like today, if Brisbane had kicked straight, the margin would have been bigger.

Not really. They prefer to keep it uncontested. It got tight late through Brisbane appearing to run out of puff and having wasted their third quarter dominance. St Kilda rely on an open forward line and uncontested play. When it works it looks great. But they have an unhealthy and unsustainable (in the long-term) reliance on goalkicking accuracy. There's no coincidence IMO that when they're inaccurate this year they've lost (7.12 against North, 5.7 against Collingwood, 4.10 against Geelong). The way we play is capable of beating them but not if we're loose defensively and not if we don't capitalise on our inside 50s.

That game played out like you'd expect our game to next week. Brisbane getting a stack of it inside 50 and a stack of shots on goal, but failing to take their chances. St Kilda keeping their forward half open and using speed and run to make the most of it. If we're going to go down the same road, goalkicking accuracy is critical.

So do you think May is playing poorly?

Having a different thought doesn't make you correct or insightful. Suggesting Goodwin should make positional changes might carry some merit if your suggested changes made sense. You are suggesting moving one of our absolute best and in-form players out of his role just to try to get TMac back in form. It's ludicrous. If you wanted to suggest swapping TMac for Tomlinson, that might be an arguable idea. I would be against it because TMac hasn't played defence for three years. And given his poor mobility, we can't really have him trying to follow an opposition key forward. He'll get lost and beaten on repeat leads. Sometimes, there is a majority view on something because the majority view is clearly correct. Moving May out of the backline is not a good idea, and hence is why you're on your own.

It's not hyperbole. He's absolutely dominating. It's not worthwhile, it's not a suggestion worth trying, it's ridiculous.

The three keys IMO are getting on top in the middle, being efficient in our forward 50, and pressuring them in our back half before they get out. If they get on top in the middle, we won't score enough to win. If we waste our chances forward of centre and turn it over, they'll destroy us on transition. And if we don't pressure them from their kick ins, they'll waltz out of the backline like the Dogs. We're capable of winning this, but in all likelihood we won't be able to do all of this at once. Hunt, Bedford and Jones all in, but Harmes out. Who's taking Harmes' rotation in the back half? If you're going to drop Harmes and Spargo, I'd suggest only two of these three forwards come in, and Rivers gets the other spot.

100% agree. We know. Doesn't mean you're right. Congratulations @Biffen, despite competition from the likes of olisik, Elegt and Pickett2Jackson, somehow you have come up with the worst post of 2020. You are advocating taking May, approaching AA form and clearly one of our stand out performers all year, and moving him to the forward line, to replace him with TMac who has no mobility and hasn't played defence for three years. Absolute, A-grade, carp.

IMO it would have been our offensive work which would have won us the game, not our defensive work. We were defending poorly (Goodwin has admitted as much) but we were generating scores all the same. If we had kicked straight, it would have been our scoring potency exploiting the Dogs' major weakness (defence). I agree with the reality that when our forward pressure is off opposition sides get on top of us. I'm sure that's the same for all 18 clubs. What was different about yesterday was that our defending of our defensive half was not at the level it has been in recent weeks. IMO that's in part due to the switches spreading our zone and it breaking down (as well as work rate). I agree it's partly work rate, but I also think we weren't able to counter the Dogs' natural game style nor their tendency to switch and spread us mid-game.

Wow. 11 of that 22 didn't play yesterday and probably Hunt is the only one who might get a game this week.

Isn't he contracted for another 3-4 years? Hard to offload, assuming we want to, with that sort of contract hanging over his head, surely?

Not the time for experiments...but you want to play Smith?

IMO the biggest problem yesterday was that the Dogs generated their scores precisely in the way you would have imagined them to prior to the game. They came in with a plan and executed it. Whatever plan we went in with didn't work. It's OK to back your own system in but sometimes you have to acknowledge the strengths of the opposition and look at ways to set up to counter that. We should have known they would rely on Daniel's kicking, Johannisen's run, and their relative speed to move the ball. We should have known they are league leaders for generating scores from their defensive 50. We should, and I'm sure did, know all of that, but whatever we decided to do to counter it didn't work. Add to that their tactic of repeat switches (not sure if that's a standard ploy from them or something they came up with deliberately for us) and there were a whole host of things they did that we couldn't stop. I'm convinced part of it was on the players because we saw old habits creeping back in. Dinky handballs in tight and Viney trying to break tackles and kicking without looking are two classic signs of Goodwin's Melbourne struggling with pressure. But I'm also convinced we should have had considered how to set up across the ground to limit their run, and when they were switching it repeatedly from the first quarter, that's also something we should have adjusted to. Backing in our system to the hilt, even when it's not working, is a flaw.

Hope so! I'm not convinced that Tomlinson has failed on the wing, but even if he has, if he ultimately finds a spot in our best 22 then it's a successful acquisition.

As @A F said, I'm certainly not putting the performance down to these things, not at all. But one thing that was problematic for us yesterday was the way the Dogs spread the field and used the wings. We know that teams like West Coast and Geelong play their respective home grounds better by using width/length/etc., and we know we have struggled for a time at the MCG for a similar reason. I don't know Metricon's dimensions so it might not be a factor for us but I wonder whether the Dogs (in a credit to Beveridge) knew the ground's dimensions and tried to exploit them by stretching our zone out and switching across the ground. Maybe they would have done the same at any other ground we played at, so it may well not have been a factor at all, but it's just something I noted. With the Dogs having played 5 games there before yesterday to our 1, it could have been a (sort of) home ground advantage to them.

What baffles me about the focus on Tomlinson this week is that he was one of our best yesterday and played one of his best games for the club. He was providing rebound and making space for us to spread and get scoring chains going.

Two things I've been reflecting on and wondering about the impact of: Yesterday was our first game with a red ball all season. I'm also guessing it was our warmest game since Round 1, five months ago. I have no idea whether there's any merit to this at all, but is it possible we struggled to adjust to the earlier start, red ball and/or warmer temperature? Yesterday was our second game all season at Metricon, but it was the Dogs' 6th. I wonder whether they knew the ground dimensions better than we did and planned accordingly?

I know what his positives are. His mistakes, ill-discipline and failure to impact the game consistently mean the negatives outweigh the positives. It's a bit like vandenBerg. Positives with the physicality, tackling, pressure, etc., outweighed by the turnovers and ill-discipline.

No chance. We'll need to win 3 of the last 4 (likely dropping the GWS game) and hope that 9 and a decent percentage is enough.

Your analysis of Lever is not based in the evidence though, which is why I can't help but feel it's simply personal. He's been nailing his kicks for a month now. He's also more than just an intercept mark, although that is one of his strong suits. The way he and Lever (along with Hibberd and Salem) have been setting up behind the ball has been critical to our improvement. The way the Dogs were able to break that down today is one of the main reasons we lost. What you've outlined about the ruck changes Beveridge made is my point exactly: it's not "junk", there are just different approaches to it. They tried being cute, it worked for a bit then didn't, so they went back to a traditional set up, but chose Bruce over English (for two reasons I think - Bruce was giving them nothing in the forward line, and English was being outworked by Preuss). Agree on work rate. Their switches opened the fat side up and our zone didn't work across fast enough. We also saw mids failing to run defensively again. Old habits creeping back in when we're under pressure.

About 10 people have suggested it. And with good reason. But I also think it's unlikely Goodwin will drop him. Melksham is rated highly by Goodwin/the FD.

Yes, but what makes him "probably best 22"? Midfield/forward form. Not defender form. If Harmes is nothing but a defender, he's not best 22. That's the problem. He has talent as a midfielder and a forward. We had both Jones and Sparrow in midfield/forward rotations last week, so there is room for Harmes to play a role at that end of the ground.