Altona-demon

Bumping this topic to see what the collective thinks is the strategic approach to this weekend's blockbuster. Can we take anything from the Swans game - if so, what?

Apologies gents if this has been mentioned already on the thread, but how about that spoil to save a goal from Lever running back on the goal line, when the score was something like 46-41. That for me just felt so un-Melbourne to get there, and make that play, and had we not, in years passed I would be convinced Hawthorn comes over the top. We all know that defensive efforts aren't recognised perhaps as attacking ones, but that one for me was a game winning moment - and at the moment Jake Lever is winning games for us.

His spread at stoppage is incredible. The way he follows the ball up elite. He also seems to pop up and link so well as well - definitely in a way that Max doesn't (different sort of player of course). He is one hell of a player.

Agreed v. good indeed.

Also Kent's bang on with the tag, we have too many players now that can get off the chain. Was fantastic watching them to try and put a tag on Oliver and watching Tracc get off the chain - in past years Tracc wouldn't have been able to expose that. Now he can. Then they removed the tag from Oliver and he exploded. Please footy gods keep this midfield injury free. Although having said that, the depth we are building by rotating Jordon and Sparrow through there is very encouraging. I think Yze is doing a GREAT job at changing the One dimensional nature of our midfield unit. Anyone else been noticing how Max has suddenly started smashing the ball long out of clearances and also grabing the ball himself? Stops all the sharking that has been going on for years now (i'm sure that this is yze influenced as well).

The combination of the surfer bros Hunt and Langdon is a generational joy to watch. Hunts dare and speed puts your heart in your throat, and Langdon's endeavour is an example to the entire team on effort. And now he is more settled in the team culture you can see that starting to disseminate across the team

Is anyone else having trouble with ticketek? I enter my members barcode, choose general reserved, and it is still trying to charge me? what am I missing dl’ers?

@binmanI suspect the theory of kicking forward for territory into forward 50, is just a product of disciplined data analysis and understanding the key drivers of scoring. For example, if we outline the series of outcomes that could occur from such a kick (assuming the ball hits a contest): Defensive Outcomes: 1. Defensive Mark 2. Defensive Groundball Get - required exit 3. Defensive Free Kick 4. 50/50 - stoppage Vs. Offensive Outcomes 1. Offensive Mark - with opportunity to score 2. Offensive Groundball Get - with opportunity to score 3. Offensive Free Kick - with opportunity to score 4. Stoppage - with opportunity to score Clearly the impact of the game of the offensive outcomes is greater given their ability to impact most important stat in the game - points scored. So which of the offensive outcomes generates more points? If we believe Richmond - stats tell us 2, and 4. I think its interesting to reflect on whether they generate more 2 and 4s through having Lynch, or just defensive players taking less clean marks (which raises a different question - should defensive players EVER try to take contested marks? - consider for example Max King's third goal on the weekend where all three Melbourne players tried to take a contested mark, which was easily crumbed by King). It's clear from the outcomes that defensive players have absolutely more to lose from missing a contested mark, than the offensive player - in my view this should shade the way that umpires view the behaviour of "marking" forwards in the modern game around the contested mark. For me, this means that for real success (in terms of points) in the territory model you described, a couple things are crucial. The ability to create contests - either through personnel or midfielders being able to get the ball inside 50. I know we disagree on this, but I still think clearances, and by extension inside 50s are paramount in this way. A tall forward line up able to split contests, and small forwards capable of driving high numbers of 2, and 4. Either through locking the ball in, or getting groundball get like goals. Alternative to this is to create separation and hit leading forwards and rely on goal-kicking accuracy. This appears to be Tom McDonald and Ben Browns M.O - but does rely on higher skill and nullifies your small forwards potency to an extent.

Legitimately came here for some good news! Lol. When are we going to get that announcement from Perty?

Echo the thoughts that this is an absolute danger game for the club. Now let's see if this group has matured and can get the job done! No excuses, really want to see a ruthless thrashing out there this weekend.

Thanks for the kudos @Engorged Onion - appreciate it. I agree with you - the takeaway I get from the review of the fixture list is as you say 10 - 12 wins at an optimistic level, which is edge of 8, and to be honest probably reflective of our trajectory as a club at the moment. Had we pulled a double header against for example North as opposed to Bulldogs - this could have had a significant impact on us making finals. But it still doesn't change the fact that the discussion is about making finals not about winning flags. The conclusion : based on previous performance, this group is not capable of winning the flag this year, and will be in the scrap for finals. I know not exactly rocket science there! I like your observation on the Adelaide game at the "G" you are right, based on the past 4 years it certainly has tones of a banana skin for us, I can remember many of those games in the previous 3 years - I guess time will tell. I'll revisit this post over time to keep it updated.

What do we reckon 13 wins for finals? Good to have one knocked off and 12 to go if that is the case. Looking at our draw - and the performance of Adelaide last weekend doesn't fill with me a high amount of confidence about banking those two wins. So that leaves me with the following split at this very early stage: Probables North in Tas - Round 7 Essendon - MCG - Round 15 GC - Metricon - Round 19 Possibles St Kilda Round 2 Hawks Round 5 GWS - ACT - Round 3 Swans MCG - Round 8 Adelaide - SA - Round 10 Collingwood - Round 13 Giants - Round 16 Hawks - Round 18 Adelaide - Round 22 Unlikely Richmond Round 6 Geelong - Round 4 Carlton - MCG - Round 9 Doggies - Round 11 Brisbane - Round 12 Port Adelaide - Round 17 Doggies - Round 20 West Coast - Round 21 Geelong - Round 23 Based on the above, i've applied a 50% win rate to the Possibles, and a 25% win rate for the Unlikely section. This leaves our potential win count at: 3 probables, 4 possibles (rounding down), and 2 unlikely wins (again round down). That leaves us with 9 wins - or typically around 10th in a 23 round season. I've highlighted in ORANGE the possibles I think are most likely to be the 4 wins, and then in RED the possibles which shape as big swing games (ie getting our win rate above the 50% and potentially into the 8). Notably this week's St Kilda game shapes as one of those in my opinion. I've also highlighted in PURPLE in the probables the game I think is the biggest banana skin for the club thats the North Melbourne game in Tasmania. In the Unlikely Section - i've highlighted in ORANGE the two games I think we could get unlikely wins in - and in RED again a game we might be able to win to get us into the 8. You'll see I quite like the look of the NT fixture with Brisbane - and we have had Carlton's measure last few years - but gee they looked better than us against a much better opposition. I think we could steal one of the Geelong fixtures - probably not the GMHBA fixture in round 23, because, well we know how this team performs under finals pressure at the end of the season. Round 4 with Danger still out looms as a big game for the MFC. So, long story short, I don't think we've got the wins to get there this year. But, if we can beat Geelong in Rd 4, and St Kilda next round, we may give ourselves a fighting chance.

binman has argued in other threads a change of strategy at the centre bounce, I'll keep an eye on it this weekend against St Kilda. I;m not sure if other DL posters agree, but watching the Carlton/Richmond game, and then the Dogs/Pies game the skill disparity between those games and our game was noticeable. I think we could be on a hiding to nothing if these stats play out and the game is more flowing and open - with less stoppages etc.

This is a fantastic point - I think the thing that makes Clayton so divisive among the fans is the fact that he is a "statistically heavy" player. On paper he looks very, very good. But there seems to be something which irks certain fans who seem to watch his involvements and don't believe his +/- score would be that great.

I like the effort you have put into this post, but to suggest such a strong correlation (positive or negative) between winning flags and clearances is, in my view at least, misleading. There are a number of other factors which I would contend were more important for each of those teams in winning flags. The most notable being forward driven defensive pressure - the real hallmark of Richmond's game. People don't watch Richmond and say - they are defined by losing clearances and Vlaustuin/Houli rebounding off halfback (although I agree this could be a strategic face of their game). They note the second efforts and shut down pressure of their small forward brigade. This isn't to say I don't agree with your analysis that "clearances aren't as significant KPI as people may think". Tend to agree on that measure, in fact i'm not sure we get much from such a dominant aerial ruckman either.

I think that this is basically what is going on - he's a great bloke and a bit of a larrikin, but like you say let's see him fire up and throw that weight around. Especially now he's getting a chop out from Dogga up forward.

Binman - interesting perspective. I enjoyed having a think about whether we were deliberately conceding clearances in order to create opportunities to "intercept mark" a very risk strategy indeed you'd have to think. Fortunately for us, Fremantle was incredibly wasteful with their posessions going inside our defensive 50. If we adopt a similar strategy I don't think we will be so lucky - let's not forget who our defenders were defending against. This was a relatively good match up for us - as soon as the weather comes on and intercept marking becomes harder and we play against a small forward line - i'm not so sure that this strategy will "stack up". In particular, I am not sure Jake Lever will look as good when the ball is at his feet more and more often. It was noticeable however, and commented on regularly by Browny, that the set up of Melbourne was great behind the ball. Which is a good positive. Let's see some different looks at stoppage from our midfield group - a bit of variety.

The template for beating Melbourne - and it is a well known one now is: 1. Rough up Max Gawn. It never gets called, and it always has the affect that longusffering referred to above, Max goes off the boil and either (a) plays worse, or (b) alienates the umpires. This template was provided by Port Adelaide in 2019 - when they just deliberately played hard on Gawn. 2. Maintain the outside shoulder of the Melbourne midfielders - either waiting for the opportune shark, or the tackle to create another stoppage. This is effective against Melbourne for two reasons. Holding the outside, puts midfielders in a box seat to receive outside half-baked handballs which Clayton Oliver will inevitably provide. Secondly, Melbourne midfielders show week in week out that they are like seagulls to the chip - Harmes is particularly poor at this, there is no need to throw three men at a contested possession with a likely outcome of a 50/50 disposal. So other teams throw 1 in - and either (a) concede the contested possession and receive the half baked handball on the outside (because they have the number) or (b) just make the tackle on the Melbourne player and allow the other Melbourne players to lock the ball in. I'm not sure how many games I've watched with this pattern plays out week after week, and tbh it was better against Fremantle with Petracca, Brayshaw and Jordon through the middle, least they can sometimes provide a bit of stoppage spread. It gets demonstrably worse with Viney and Harmes in the same midfield as Oliver. If people are interested, I'd be happy to pull together some footage from the weekend and show the examples of how we lose clearances in this predictable manner week after week. As an earlier poster said - can we not just adjust our stoppage set up and have Maxy really exploit his first tap advantage by pushing beyond the immediate area. Just doesn't seem to be much variety in our stoppage play?

I know that sometimes there can be something of an echo chamber of negative sentiment on DL - but I do think that there were some concerning aspects of the game which other posters have talked about. It's concerning for me that: 1. A debutant made our other midfielders look lazy. 2. Our disposal inaccuracy was so inaccurate - and I want to emphasise that these poor disposals were often a result of not a great deal of pressure from the Freo defence. 3. I continue to believe that Max Gawn's impact at stoppage is more than nullified by the inablity to connect ruck to midfield. I say more than nullified, because it is actually becoming a disadvantage given just how easily midfielders seem able to read and shark Max. Early in the first quarter we were losing the clearance count something like 7- 0. Against Fremantle.

Couldn't agree more - you could see this even in the scratch match against Richmond, we don't defend fast small forwards very well. tbh i'm not sure? Jetta - Rivers?

Is it time enough now to reflect on why we resigned Jack and didn't do the hard thing and move him on at peak value. We now have a broken player in a position where we have enough depth to cover him taking salary cap we may want to use on one of Salem, Oliver or Trac. Just not sure that we did the right thing signing Jack long term...even if it felt like the emotionally right thing by the club.

One other minor thing I forgot to mention in my post above - did anyone else feel like Richmond started quarters strongly but fell away in the last quarter of the quarter? Not sure if this is a reflection on conditioning of our team - I know that much was made of it last year - but would it have carried over? Was also impressed by the amount of run in the last part of the last quarter. We seemed to be able to go up a gear in intensity - and this was against fresh legs that Richmond had pulled on - v. impressive.

Yeah I couldn't put my finger on it - but I think you are bang on. The times when he got exposed in defensive 50 was when he was kinda out of position. But that dash of halfback (loved when he ran around Lynch...d**khead) really helped us transition so well.

Played four smalls forward basically - TMac and Jacko as the talls. The mix was OK. Spargo in particular was able to lay a good tackle to force a goal, and ANB was there and thereabouts. Still probably a fair assessment that none of our small forwards looks dangerous in the same way as some of the oppo forwards can. TMac and Jacko took the odd contested mark, but Jacko in particular was muscled under the ball on a few occassions. TMac was able to get some separation on a couple of occassions and as some on the thread have noted even clunked a few. Agreed that he looked a bit better. I think its probly a fair comment to say that the forward line sort of "held up" - and will actually be much much more threatening with the addition of Milkshake, BB, and Weid.

I suppose we should be thankful AFL commentary still hasn't approached the old mates club that is cricket commentary. Why can't we have people that are passionate about the game, know the players and aren't ex-players in the box? Agree was refreshing even to have none of the over the top commentary you are forced to sit through these days.