Engorged Onion

I'll just stick this opinion piece here.

Mmmm a 25 year old film clip. Probably what a Melbourne fan will be like tomorrow - if we lose tonight

Curious, if we lose tonight, do most posters on here, interpret it that we are not 'legitimate contenders'?

So how many talls reduces a teams ability to effective deal with ground balls in your own forward line?

That appears to be true, be it by the media or Demonlanders. Mind you, not one other top 4 team has brought 'it' as consistently as us either... So I guess it depends if you don't want to look beyond Melbourne FC and include other clubs in that conversation. It's just a lovely little narrative, and I suspect the team would call it Fugazi, whilst still working on remedying it. I concur with Leppitsch. I'd rather be in Melbourne position losing to bottom 4 teams, than losing to top 8 teams.

I always imagine, that is exactly how it would have started... some dude/dudette, with some words, on a guitar...before production.

One of my favourite covers of all time

Mmmmm Pressure vs Delivery. I'm Libran, it's all about the weight of scales.

If you're a Chelsea fan - you'll get the link Actually Bin, I think you are on to something in the use of language of 'defensive'. If there was media commentary around that role and what it entails, then the midfielder (who is operating as a defensive mid) wouldn't be seen as performing as poorly, but performing in line with the specific role. Viney is an excellent defensive mid. Gus was not.

My prediction if we win...

Could go either way. If we lose, don't get sucked into the hype about the Bulldogs or the Dees If we win, don't get sucked into the hype about the Dees or the Bulldogs.

Interesting, I interpret it completely differently. ’It’ll be interesting’ - adds uncertainty I’d love to stay - is also adding uncertainty

None of those exist aside from Hawkins and McKay Perhaps Hawkin's relationship with Shannon Burns in the key in getting him across ?

run out of jokes???

We got away with our poor conversation rate early in the season, we’ve now seen it cost us wins against Adelaide, GWS, and the Hawks. In the current era, average conversion rates are around 51.4% on 22.3 scoring shots per match — that is, teams have scored an average of 11.6 goals per match. For the purposes of this article goal accuracy or conversion rates is defined as Conversion Rate = Goals / (Goals + Behinds). In 2021, we are averaging 1.5% less than the competition norm. Our opponents are 3% above the expected norm. Here is a break down of our percentage conversions per game, against opponents (losses/draw in red) vs their conversion, as well as a difference between the teams on the day, as well as a % difference from the norm (for our opponents)

Yep, 100% I can imagine that for the players, whilst a loss/draw is disappointing - here we are 18 rounds into the season and we sit on top, or at a minimum sit comfortably within the top 4 teams of the comp. The evidence is overwhelming that our system works, and they will know it too. The also know that it's due to hard graft, and they also know not to get complacent (even though some draw the bow that losing to lower sides means just this). I'd imagine Goodwin et al, would be suggesting that the evidence is that due to our system we get the scoring opportunities and that conversion only needs to be marginally better (in 2 losses and a draw, one point becomes one goal and we win). It's such small margins. I also can't imagine that the team isn't doing everything possible to address scoring conversions (aside from the limitations of what the AFLPA put in). I posted a stat here the other day that when a team has 24 scoring shots or less - winning is 50/50. 2 more scoring shots (26) and it only goes up to 60% Scoring Shots by Team (in Modern Era) Data: All games from 2000 to 2017 Topic: Relationship between Scoring Shot production and Winning Rate by Team Points of Interest Only a handful of teams are able to win at a greater than 50% rate over a large number of games having registered only 24 Scoring Shots (Geelong, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda, and Sydney). Some register winning rates of over 60% with just 26 Scoring Shots (Adelaide, Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Sydney) Carlton's winning rate goes above 50% only when it registers 29 Scoring Shots We back our system to have greater scoring opportunities than the opposition. An on eyeballing our games this year, this looks to be relevant (and also why we play the way we do with kicking to pockets in the F50, to reduce ease of exits). R1 +7 R2 +13 R3 +14 R4 +10 R5 +15 R6 +4 R7 +5 R8 -1 (win against Sydney) R9 +11 R10 +5 (loss to Adelaide) R11 +3 R12 +7 R13 - 7 (loss to Collingwood) R14 +6 R15 -1 (loss to GWS) R16 +11 R17 +5 (draw to Hawthorn) The other point to note is, again there is statistical evidence that essentially during late Autumn to Spring time, scoring drops - from an accuracy perspective. If I look at the first 5 rounds... this bodes very very well for our team.

Probably cause the bloke rarely gets a free kick awarded for being held ?

Why are we here? You mean on top of the ladder? We kick to pockets to have repeat entries - the risk is of course, inaccuracy. It's far better than kicking to the centre of the f50 - where other teams defensive setups are also skilled - and then the ball having multiple ways to exit our F50 if we fail to mark it or keep it in. Do you (we) all remember the wave of 'sling shot' goals over the last few years and how ugly that looked.

What's with this incessant belief that the players/the FD are complacent or 'take it easy' against lower teams? It's does not take into consideration how tight the competition is. We would have won all the matches if we had better conversions, but we didn't. (that is also not a symptom of being complacent). @jnrmac - when you watch other teams, who play against lower teams and lose (too many to mention) - do you also stand by that they lose as they are taking it easy?

Just to add to yours @titan_uranus. This fact is no different to the Dogs, Swans, Port, Brisbane and Geelong, who have all worse records against the top 8, and similar records against those outside the top 8. And there is no evidence that they do it in perpetuity either. So why do we expect our team to operate outside the norms of whats realistic for a team in this competition?

It's a good point @Clint Bizkit So if we're working off the hypothesis, that as a FD and team, we are prepared to risk losing first use, due to pressuring the opposition and getting a dump kick, and feeling that particular option works more consistently (when it occurs, getting ball in d50 and working back for a cleaner delivery into the F50 (rather than first use and pressured kick), then the inverse for our opponents is also true, hence our back 6 performing very well throughout the season (with added bonus pressure from the mids on the kicks entering the D50). Whilst I'd rather us blow teams out of the water - and to be fair - I'm not sure what happened after 1/4 time in the game (but as noted Hawthorns pressure gauge was well up), I'm not worried about it. So what does this mean for Gawn and the midfield brigade for being 16th to hitouts for advantage? Well, I'd imagine it's a reaction to 2017-2020 opposition trying to shark (and consistently doing well at it) all taps to advantage from Gawn - as the assumption was made - Gawn is ultimately going to win 80-90% of taps, so lets set up that way as the opposition. That then nullified our midfielders propensity to win the ball... As a reaction to that (as well as other factors, being beaten on the outside) - Goodwin and co have set up the midfielders in a way whereby if they DO get the ball from a tap - great, but also if they don't win the clearance - damage isn't huge. I'd argue the evidence is there, we're on top of the ladder, no team has blown US out of the water, up to the bye we were on 'record' to becoming a team that had the best (least) ever % of D50 entries to conversions. We've lost (and drawn) 4 games by a total of 29 points - that'd be 7.25 points a game. And whilst the evidence is teams are always kept in it, which always feels uncomfortable - I believe this style will hold us in good stead for the finals over the next 3-4 years (should we make it, injuries would be my only concern). The game always tightens up in finals, it's more attritional, systems win, not individual players, but individual players can influence - and we've got (May and Lever, Petracca and Oliver, and probably Pickett, and perhaps Brown and Tmac, as those forwards who could light it up). As bizarre as it sounds, I'm not worried about the hit outs to advantage stat, because teams have been counteracting Max for years, and we've had to find a way to counteract their positioning, rather than trying to get first use at all costs, and been blown out of the water on the outside as we've been done for 4-5 years. It's not sexy, but it's smart coaching.

Love your efforts in sourcing those stats. Well done ?

Some random information/data which I think is relevant to this conversation. It's taken from A Matter of Stats (but goes to 2017 - which is a long time ago in football terms). Our style - kicking to pockets, repeat entries - to my mind links into the 3rd point of interest in the Relationship Between Scoring and Winning Rates.

Useless Lockdown Nerd Stat Time. Someone on here recently spoke about the floor and ceiling of each team. So, this arvo, I thought I'd type out all the margins for all teams in all matches played so far (aside from the current GWS/Sydney one). Anyway, make of this what you will. Our spread is less then any other team in the top 4.. and by that I mean, the total points lost by divided by losses and the total points won by divided by the wins - then calculate the difference to get the notional spread. ** I counted a draw as a loss Is it better to have a higher ceiling? Or have a smaller gap between our 'best' and our 'worst'? F.I.I.K Does this matter? Is it meaningful? Who knows? Who even cares. It took me an hour to do whiling away this arvo with some rain, whilst eating Lindt balls.

Yeah but how many OoB’s ??