Altona-demon

I'm a strictly numbers man mostly myself, but couldn't help but feel like there was some footy god intervention in that Collingwood game. I felt like we dominated the game for long long periods - but things would refuse to fall our way - an errant miss, Collingwood goes the other way and kicks a 50/50. It was uncanny. What was worse was a deep seeded feeling that we weren't going to win, and tbh it's something i've felt throughout the year. So, what have we done to anger the footy gods? And how can we turn it around ?

This is on the money - I was at the game, and you could see them set up for the kick. Honestly, it's that predictable that teams are setting up for it now. People are making a large amount about the lack of f50 tackles by our forwards. These tackles are a direct result of splitting aerial contests - if you think it through it's hard to tackle a player in AFL unless you are in close proximity to that player. Close proximity occurs in two scenarios in AFL - stoppage, and crumbing situations. The reality was that we were repeatedly unable to bring the ball to ground in predictable ways for our crumbers to either win possession or make tackles. That fault has to lie a lot with Sam Weideman, as this is his role when playing forward of the ball in our system. It's also the main reason why he doesn't look good in our system - i've no doubt in a different (say Carlton model) he would look a lot better.

He's very much ready - i've been thinking about pulling together a highlights package for people here on DL so they can see what is getting a lot of us regular Casey watchers very excited about him. He's a brief summary of some of things that he did on the weekend which were really exciting: 1. Strong physical tackling, repeat efforts - was unlucky not to have HTB paid on one occasion, narrowly missed another. He's a great tackler. 2. Ground ball gets, he's better below his feet than Weideman 3. He's competitive, angry and hungry - he slapped the ground really hard when he missed what would have been a 1% tackle. 4. He's physically strong under the ball - he took a match sealing mark where he basically threw the player off and stood his ground. 5. He's splitting contests to advantage, he crashed a pack and hit the ball to advantahge of chandler to a goal. He rarely is getting outmarked. 6. His engine, he's rucking and roving all around the ground showing a good engine. He's ready for debut - but because of our team - he won't play AFL this year.

Like a lot of these young Vic players coming out of TAC - he gets a lot of it, but doesn't do much with it/hurt you. Of the youngsters McVee looked more accomplished with less of it. Baker was great in providing an outlet from defenders in d50 "the Langdon/Jordon" role. He played this very well and was running all day hunting ball. He is criminally underrated here on DL.

Diasgree 100% Martin was outstanding and the main reason that the Dogs were in the game for so long was their ruck dominance. The Adelaide game the Dees played also was an example of no ruck creating a huge headache for us - even though we sharked well.

The Doggies game was an interesting tactically because a few clear tactics were deployed by the Doggies which were the cumulative effort of a number of teams studying our tape. What was clear was that this was a departure from the usual Doggies game plan (although there midfield emphasis was still there) - so it was not as some pundits like to say "them backing in their system against ours". What becamb e clear is that our system is not perfect (which is of course impossible) - and that there are certain tradeoffs that necessarily exist, which the Doggies were able to target. Here's what I picked up, but I'd be interested in what other DL'ers (especially those at the ground) were able to glean. 1. Targeting Gawn down the line, in D50, F50: a work on for our heroic leader is his body language when under adversity. It must be deflating to not have free kicks called in your favour week after week, but it helps noones case to "plead" with the umpires as if they'll change their decision. It is also a poor leadership example for other players. The Doggies clearly targeted Max with blocking, holding and chopping at the three critical points Max tries to insert himself. In the hole, down the line, and drifting forward. Bontempelli in one hillarious example just straight up pushed Max over, while English was only penalised once for the holding, and pulling on shoulders that happened to Max all game. Some DL'ers will remember what Port Adelaide did to Max in Rd 1 2019 - and this remains a weakness for him. Either we start blocking for Max, or we watch his contested marking potency reduce. 2. Sharking the first handball: teams have worked out that Melbourne's midfield is searching for "clean" exits from stoppage - in particular out the front. The Doggies sat off Melb midfielders - and waited for the handball rather than be drawn into making the tackle and therefore creating the space. This removes Petracca and Oliver's strength in being able to offload through tackles and create outnumbers and "negative space" outside the contest. Put another way, by clogging the outer ring of the stoppage with bodies, rather than creating a "nucleus" effect, you negate our ability to exit clean from stoppage. 3. Low hard bullet kicks - the Doggies have the players to try it and the reality is it worked. If it didn't come off it created a 50/50 groundball which they were able to split. If it did it reduced our ability to have third man up, and or use our zone to create intercept opportunities. In the absence of turnover on HB, we were deprived of one of our main scoring avenues. 4. Play fast and draw Melbourne into shooutout open styles, including switching the play to "open" the corridor. Hawthorn first showed that by taking us on through the middle, you can "draw" in our zone to the centred focal point of the corridor, then creating space behind it at the edge of F50, or in more dangerous areas. The constant switching forces the hard running Melbourne players to work laterally and (because they are zoned off players) to naturally give up a corridor advantage to the fat-side of their opponent player. Bailey Dale was able to exploit this "zone" of offence on a number of occasions, and once it was centred - the Doggies were able to get deep entries into f50, and win territory. 5. Exiting d50 - our predictable exit strategy out of d50 is well and truly worked out now. As people note, predictability is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it's becoming clear that what we are really lacking is run off HB when exiting d50. Our HB line and FB line if full of very good field kicks (May brainfades excluded) - but if point 1. is not working (ie contested potenncy down the line is reduced) we should have a second method of exiting d50. If you study the way the Dogs transition from d50 to midfield and then into f50, this should provide a template for the way that the Dees can switch strategically. Run and carry from this part of the ground, may prevent defences sitting goalside of the contest down the line - attempting to create a re-entry. Ofc this will not happen (Hunt/Baker) these sort of players aren't in our squad and we prefer to maintain a structured defence - and let the ball do the hard work travelling up field.

Missed the goal assist to Brown.

It's not true to say he has a solid build - he doesn't, and he certainly doesn't play at his weight or build, he plays below it and is regularly pushed off it by harder smaller opponents. He's destined to be delisted.

JVR was better than good, he was easily the best forward on ground, and after having to play the second ruck for large parts of the game I was impressed with his engine going up against Ceglar and then taking mark after mark. So unused to seeing a Melbourne player take contested marks (he took 6). He also was able to spoil to advantage and followed up. This game was just a good example of why Weideman is absolute toast - this kid is the real deal. Other stand outs tonight were Dunstan - he was pivotal to the win, even if Laurie got some cream on the outside and was good with it. Dunstan is a cut above - and deserves another go, good on him. Still gushing about JVR, what a game.

I've also watched most of Casey's games, and my observations: 1. Rosman is not hard at it - not a strong contested player at all. Cannot impose himself physically on any contests. I think this will be the main reason he is delisted from Melbourne to be honest - doesn't look like he has the contested capacity to play our brand. 2. Rosman work rate is poor - repeated efforts, coupled with an inability to "find the footy" - he tends to drift though games almost unnoticeably. 3. Disposal is weak, and has often chosen poor options (kick across half back flank) or misses targets. Posters here are correct that he can give the ball a very good roost, but is not a penetrating kick in the same way that McVee is. 4. Lacks run and carry, does not provide run and bounce off HB (this could be role based) in the same way that McVee or Rivers can and do. On the subject of Deakyn Smith - he like Toby Bedford, AMW, and even Taj in games has shown that his ceiling is higher than Rosman. There's been games when Smith has looked very much AFL standard. Like a lot of junior players, I believe its developing the consistency to play at that standard for longer periods. Again the problem with Rosman is that he has NEVER had a break out performance or done things that make you sit up and think, yup AFL standard. Smith in particular has shown an ability to be clean under pressure and hit up targets (similar to McVee). From my watching of the Casey games the ones I really enjoy watching week in week out are Corey Ellison - I think he has got such great potential and is a really good contested mark (forward and behind the ball) - would love to see him get a shot as a mature age recruit. The other crafty b#%tard player in the team is Roan Steele I think out of Frankston YCW - this kid just pops up everywhere, and has immediately looked top echelon small forward. The other is George Grey. So there's some good talent in that team that maybe doesn't get all the hype of someone as a Rosman for example. I don't think i've watched a game where Rosman has even been close to a top 5 player on the ground for Casey - such is his limited impact.

Quick question picking up my two away members tickets for this Thursday, there are two options looking for anyone with experience with the BAY provided C13. One ticket is described as restricted view ($50) - does this mean what it sounds like, you can't see the field? the other is described as "Player Stand" ($60) - what does that mean, not even a seat? Looks like the bay is a tiny isolated slither high up in the pocket - is this where we have been slotted?

Let them. It's to their own detriment - idiots.

Just was going to buy three - encouraging some friends to buy a couple more - Go Dees - but the link has expired... sigh.

Gee i loved this video:

With all the talk of Freo interest in Jacko. Got me thinking about our recent trading history with them ie the Hogan trade. Anyway, went down a rabbit hole trying to trace this trade through. In effect, looked like we turned Hogan into May. In that context I found this article: AFL 2020: Steven May trade to Melbourne, Ben King Gold Coast Suns, AFL draft, Jake Lever Adelaide (foxsports.com.au) There are some absolutely priceless quotes in there from David King. Hindsight is 20/20. Enjoy D'Landers - and let's trust our list team to get the job done (again).

I am keen for this as well!

Unless that one person is the tipping point?

It's funny you know the tough comment (also in the context of certain people shirtfronting him) - I believe he was an Australian representative boxer I believe? That means definitely no stranger to gut busting training - with a definite hard edge and ability to "play through pain"

Agree - I don't know how many of my friends who have listen to me rant about MFC. But pretty much all of them have the same critique of our team - we butcher the ball and don't have clean disposers. Adding Jack Viney into our team does not make us more efficient entering forward 50 or converting scores, or even making more scores, he reduces all of those key metrics. Arguably he increases our midfield pressure and tackling - but so does James Jordon, while positively impacting our disposal efficiency and composure.

Viney and Jones are sentimental fan favourite picks, the reality is that on form and potential upside to the club players like Jordon, Harmes, Sparrow, Bowey have gone past them. Viney hurts this team in a big way in the way he disposes the ball, makes poor decisions, and also drifts in and out of our defensive shape.

A fantastic milestone game. I love his energy, and he is clearly a leader in that forward half in terms of bringing the right attitude. Very important role model for Spargo and for Kozzie Pickett. Just imagine if Kozzie starts executing the fundamental basics that Nibbler is doing consistently - scary. It's fair to say Nibbler doesn't have the same x-factor of Kozzie but Kozzie could learn a lot from his attitude and approach. I love the way our Junior player are mentored by real men (Gawn - Jackson) (Jordon / Sparrow - Petracca / Oliver) (Rivers/Petty- Lever/May/Hibberd) the balance bodes very very well for our continued success.

Three perhaps unpopular (on DL) things that came out of that game for me: 1. Jake Melksham provided more than a little something in the forward half, and has done enough to get another game. 2. Ben Brown has convincingly shown he is a superior forward now to Sam Weidemann - as if his track record didn't already play this out. He approaches form at the right time. 3. The midfield - looked better without Jack Viney. The difference between Harmes and Viney was even apparent when Harmes showed an ability to pick a target and hit them up on the lead. I can't see Jack doing this. We might be better without Jack.

What's happened to Wallis? He was a quality mid-sized forward for them last year ... we should pick him up lol.

Start of the season one of the more innovative things we did was start Kozzie at centre bounces, and watching the inability of midfielders to evade and hit up short targets in half-forward / inside 50 got me thinking why can't we play Kozzie a bit more through the middle (and why did we stop?). He gives a different look, is fast and threatening has great closing speed and a good disposal off both feet. In the video of the week you can see the way he reads the ball and is decisive in his decision making. Compare this to the lack of decisiveness in players like Harmes and Viney who are limited footballers, its surprising we don't want this star closer to the ball.

A couple of observations - and apologies if these have been raised earlier in the thread - i haven't gone through all pages. 1. Jack Viney is a very limited disposer of the footy. High floating dump kicks - which lack penetration. These kicks are either turned over, or inevitably formed another contest which we lost. He also burnt Petracca very badly at the top of the goal square. I am not convinced his "grunt" makes up for these incessant turnovers on our half forward line (which rebound very quickly). I'm not against Sparrow playing through the midfield - he has a cleaner disposal, more penetrating kick and is a midfielder playing out of position at half-forward at the moment. 2. Clayton and Christian both ball watching and not running two ways - happened at a number of stoppages. The outnumber at the stoppage really hurt us and you could see GWS plan to sit behind our players at stoppage and push players into contests and then hold the outside space for the spread when the ball came out. Kelly in particular carved us up on this tactic. 3. Our ball movement is so predictable it has now become a weakness. The one time we actually used tempo kicking to direct the ball slowly into the forward 50 it was effective because the other team just sets up now for a contest and creates unmarkable balls for TMac (or any other forward for that matter). Let's use some measured entries to reduce our predictability. This includes the short kick across our half-forward line and penetrating into the 30 m out space. Rather than simply relying on crumbing or miracle marks all the time..... 4. Pickett was so quiet it wasn't even funny, I don't even remember him getting it our touching the ball. What is the structural reason for this? Why isn't Pickett getting played through the middle at centre bounce any more? I found this was an effective way to "get him into the game" - he is the sort of player one feels who needs to TOUCH the ball to get into a game. Surprised he isnt getting some minutes through the middle - he is the sort of player we want touching the ball in the middle / half forward area -which leads me to my final point. 5. Is it time for Salo to play through the middle and do what he does off halfback (distribute hit up targets etc) through the middle into the halfforwad/full forward space. No other midfielder has been able to lower their eyes and hit targets in this way. Can we bring in another distributor (is Bowey ready) to play that role for the team, or even shift Sparrow or Rivers into that role?