Nairobi_Demon

I just re-watched the last ~15min of Q2. A few observations: - Hawkins first two goals (in that 15min period) were critical and I think started to give the Cats some confidence after a gruelling 45min of football. Both goals were probably on May who didn’t seem to read the ball’s flight allowing Hawkins to get in a better position. - The subsequent run of goals from the centre seemed driven by their pace. Dangerfield was key. The first goal was probably on Harmes and to some degree Gawn. Harmes started next to Dangerfield on their offensive side but lost him. Dangerfield subsequently just waltzed past Gawn and ran almost up to 50m arc. - Clarry started next to Dangerfield at the next bounce, also their offensive side. Cats got a bit lucky getting this ball out of the centre but then they just waltzed forward. It seemed like our backs were just not set up. Can’t see on TV but maybe their forwards had dragged our backs out of position. Rivers seemed to have slipped over or perhaps was pushed off the ball, which opened up the space for Dangerfield. Bowey also got sucked toward Dangerfield, opening up the space behind him. - the third goal out of the centre could have been a Cats set play in terms of how their forwards worked together. Hawkins kept May out of the contest, and Cameron grappled with Smith effectively blocking Lever and creating a space for Rohan to get across for the mark. At the centre bounce, Dangerfield was again on their offensive side this time Viney was on him. But Oliver and Harmes both got sucked into focusing on Dangerfield, which then allowed Selwood and their #9 (I think) to clear the ball with pace. Some overall observations: - their pace was key - not clear who was on dangerfield, and we got sucked towards him a few times (did Dangerfield have a tag?) - Cats were quite clever at blocking our pathways to create space for the ball carrier - May was not at his best in this period I also wondered whether the extra space between the goal square and the 50m arc threw us off a bit. GMHBA is longer than the MCG by 10m so there must be an extra 5m on either side of the goal square. They exploited that space.

Just realised I posted this in the wrong thread, will repost it in the postgame thread. Whoops 😆

I just re-watched the last ~15min of Q2. A few observations: - Hawkins first two goals (in that 15min period) were critical and I think started to give the Cats some confidence after a gruelling 45min of football. Both goals were probably on May who didn’t seem to read the ball’s flight allowing Hawkins to get in a better position. - The subsequent run of goals from the centre seemed driven by their pace. Dangerfield was key. The first goal was probably on Harmes and to some degree Gawn. Harmes started next to Dangerfield on their offensive side but lost him. Dangerfield subsequently just waltzed past Gawn and ran almost up to 50m arc. - Clarry started next to Dangerfield at the next bounce, also their offensive side. Cats got a bit lucky getting this ball out of the centre but then they just waltzed forward. It seemed like our backs were just not set up. Can’t see on TV but maybe their forwards had dragged our backs out of position. Rivers seemed to have slipped over or perhaps was pushed off the ball, which opened up the space for Dangerfield. Bowey also got sucked toward Dangerfield, opening up the space behind him. - the third goal out of the centre could have been a Cats set play in terms of how their forwards worked together. Hawkins kept May out of the contest, and Cameron grappled with Smith effectively blocking Lever and creating a space for Rohan to get across for the mark. At the centre bounce, Dangerfield was again on their offensive side this time Viney was on him. But Oliver and Harmes both got sucked into focusing on Dangerfield, which then allow Selwood and their #9 (I think) to clear the ball with pace. Some overall observations: - their pace was key - not clear who was on dangerfield, and we got sucked towards him a few times (did Dangerfield have a tag?) - Cats were quite clever at blocking our pathways to create space for the ball carrier - May was not at his best in this period I also wondered whether the extra space between the goal square and the 50m arc threw us off a bit. GMHBA is longer than the MCG by 10m so there must be an extra 5m on either side of the goal square. They exploited that space.

Our worst quarter of the season

Good question. I think your hypothesis above has legs. Above I suggested the hypothesis in bold: And LD has hypothesised that it relates to us: In some ways we can test these hypotheses next week. If the umpires revert to favouring the dogs then it’s an indication that it’s either hypothesis 1 or 3. That they wanted another interstate team in the top 4 and not that they were trying to correct their biased umpiring earlier in the year. 😆

A win for me today would be no injuries.

I’ve watched bits and pieces of the Dogs games the last two weeks, and one thing I noticed is that they didn’t seem to be getting a helping hand from the umpires like they did in the game against us. And it makes a big difference. Today, for example, the free kick count was 23-15 in favour of Port. And last week it was 14-11 in favour of the Hawks. Our game was 25-11 to them! Perhaps the umpires have noticed the talk about their huge free kick advantage and are trying to balance it out (a little) before season ends. They’re other reasons why they’re down and losing, but I think this has contributed.

As did I BBP. It seems clear that yesterday’s numbers were largely a result of 13 day tests of those that went into isolation at the beginning of this current outbreak. But today’s numbers are driven by a new cycle of infections. I suspect Melburnians went into last weekend thinking the city was getting on top it. And if you were looking at the numbers and the iso % late last week, you can understand why. See the highlighted section in this graph on the 11-13 August. That prompted a spike in population movement as shown in this graph, a trend in behaviour that is common across all lockdowns, i.e. movement begins to pick up towards the end of lockdown. Thus these are new infections that have been out and about this week, seeding a new cycle of infections that will take at least two weeks to bring under control. Sadly I think this means finals in Melbourne are unlikely 🙁

The AFL should save the bye for the week between the preliminary finals and the grand final. That way they’ll know the teams in the GF and have two weeks to put in place contingency measures to allow supporters to attend, including pre-game PCR and antigen testing.

If Victorians can travel to WA for a final with a PCR and vaccination, then surely one could apply the same criteria to a game at the ‘G? You can only attend if you have a PCR test taken within say 72 hours (and/or a rapid antigen test at the gate; otherwise almost all PCR testing capacity would need to be allocated for footy goers) and a full vaccination certificate. Sure, those under 40 who can only now access AZ would probably miss out (given time gap between doses), but they’ve got 30+ years to wait for the next MFC premiership 😁

While I’m excited about Bowey like everyone else, I still think Hibberd has a role to play if we need an experienced shutdown defender. He’s had a solid season overall and I just don’t think Bowey has sufficient experience to come in for finals off two games, one of which was a walk in the park.

Let me guess, umpire #26?

Very unhappy with the Monday night game - middle of the work day for me given the time difference which means I can’t watch live 😫

I’d like to see this too if anyone has it, particularly for umpire #26. Has to be a Dogs supporter.

Thanks, very helpful. Why does the intensity line stop at round 18? According to the graph the volume (training time) increases but the intensity is so low it’s not even shown? Or is the intensity determined week to week and wasn’t yet determined and plotted when this screen shot was taken?

Agree with this. I’ve been wondering the last few games why we fumble so much more than the other teams. I think it’s because we’re trying to play at speed that is beyond our skill level, which is made a lot worse when we’re tired and when wet conditions challenge our skills. In those circumstances we just need to throttle back our speed that is commensurate with our skill base and the conditions.

Like the players, we shouldn’t get complacent at the pointy end of the season. In the next final 5 rounds, we are the only top 8 team that plays three top 8 teams (two of which are top 4): Dogs, Cats and WCE. Drop all three and we probably finish 5th or 6th, drop two of those three and we probably finish 3rd or 4th. This assumes we bank the 4 points against GCS and the Crows. We simply cannot turn up expecting to execute our game plan for only 1-2 Quarters and finish top 4, against any team. And we desperately need to sort out our set shots for goals. All teams will crank the pressure in finals and we’ll need to take our opportunities in front of goal.

6 May 5 Lever 4 Brayshaw 3 Hunt 2 Trac 1 Gawn

In B. Brown Out Sparrow Viney replaced Weideman, which is not like-for-like, and thus this change would rebalance the team.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. I watched a bit of the dogs-cats match last night and noticed the dogs seemed to slip over a lot more than the Geelong players. I also remember us slipping over a lot in Adelaide. I wonder if this is related to transitioning from higher to lower quality turfs, or just different style turfs?

This is my best estimate also, but when I put this in the AFL predictor it gives us 4th place with Geelong, Lions and the Dogs just above us by either one game or percentage. Suggests with those results we could finish anywhere from 1-4 depending on other team results and %. To get our percentage up higher we need to sort out our forward line, could be the difference between a home or away (in Geelong or Brisbane) final in round 1 of the finals.

He kicked 5 goals in his first three games back from a long injury break and it’s now come out that his body wasn’t ready. If he can bag 5 when his body isn’t right and he’s still get used to the team, I’d love to see what he can do when his body is right and he’s settled with the team.

This really is the crux of it for me: the lack of leadership and blame shifting. The federal government has avoided taking decisions and actions to get ahead of this pandemic, including investing in quarantine, advance purchasing of vaccines, proactive vaccination communication campaigns, investing in mRNA manufacturing capacity, etc. because it found itself in a political sweet spot where it could blame any outbreaks (downside risks) on states and avoid the optics of failing to achieve actions that would keep us ahead of this thing (the way vaccine targets are now being fudged is the exception that proves the point). Yes, there’s uncertainty with all those actions, but as Binman has clearly outlined the costs of lockdowns greatly outweigh the costs of action. But clearly the federal government weighed up the political cost and benefits differently, and decided it was politically expedient to do little. It’s not how I’d want my football club run and I bet the Dees are where they are today because previous and current leaders took risks, set targets and were prepared to be held accountable for moving this club forward.

I’ve asked this question myself too, 5 goals in his first three matches after returning from a long injury hiatus is very decent. Btw, Weideman has kicked 3.4 from 4 outings, not 4.3, which further strengthens your argument.

The bottom-line is that Weideman has kicked 3 goals from 4 outings, an average of 0.75 per game, and there’s a player on the team that kicked 5 goals from 3 outings or 1.66 per game, 120% more. That’s the difference between a 17 goal full season and 38 goal full season. We should absolutely keep Weideman on the list if he wants to stay, but mid way through the season we genuinely don’t know for sure whether BBB or Weideman are better for the side (I personally lean BBB based on those 5 goals but concede there’s uncertainty). Weideman has been given a good run. BBB needs another run while there’s still time, including time for Weideman to come back in if indeed BBB doesn’t deliver.