1964_2

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm also confused by Goodwins presser yesterday.

He stated that they have been really happy with Gawns progress in the forward line and could see this as something that could be used more often down the track.

Checks notes and see that Gawn hasn't kicked a goal since round 12 against Sydney...

Goody is a funny bugger. ...

Could be double FUGAZI. Make both Jackson, and the contingency plan of Grundy believe that first ruck is theirs if they want it. 

But really Maxy, getting over an injury, and not able to play 70-80% ruck just yet. 
 

PS that is a brutal stat. No goals in Max’s last 6 games, despite a decent amount of fwd line time. (That R12 game against Syd. 3 goals, 28 touches, 30 hitouts. The week before he got injured against the filth)

Flynn (24 y.o), or Briggs (22 y.o) from GWS. They are pretty well stocked with those 2 and Preuss. 

Surely one of them would appreciate more opportunity, and playing with a better team.

Both have shown some ability to take a contested mark / kick a goal, in their short careers thus far, on top of basic competent ruck craft. 
 

10 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

You're not missing anything - it's a fair question. I can only surmise that given the opportunity, our players are trying to make it look like a "Melbourne game", gain control and command the tempo. The more they do it, the more we revert to type and the system can take over. 

It's just a gameplan - there are many moments within games when they won't adhere and we will go fast and direct. To some extent, we potentially rely on those moments to kick a winning score despite doing the pocket stuff so frequently. 

Instinct when it's clear & obvious (e.g Jackson's kick to Fristch one out with Murphy in the 1st Q on the weekend), pocket kick when it's not. Noting that 'instinct' differs for many - some will still put it to the pocket by type (Clarry). Doesn't mean we don't score from the pocket - we had several scores from it on the weekend - but if we do it 70% of the time it allows the system to take over.

On good days, the other 30% will help us score in spite of ourselves...

I hold some hope that in finals, the energy and excitement take over and we go more on instinct - clearly, Bang Bang Bang was not the product of the pocket kick. 

To the poster questioning how we stop #3 - teams playing on quickly after intercepting - its two fold:

-play a competitive tall to halve the marking contest

-stay switched on. Requires all who are not involved in the pocket contest to avoid ball watching, running to space, or zoning off too far. 

Makes sense. Agree regarding potential for finals to naturally fix entry method. Also have my doubts whether Coll and others will be able to execute the slick ball movement against us come finals, but I guess we have to plan for the chance that they might. 

36 minutes ago, mo64 said:

He's on massive coin, so regardless of the dump, we're still paying him at least $700k for 5 years. 

Which would be better than Weid or Mitch Brown in the ruck, when Max needs a rest or is inured. 
 

13 minutes ago, Oakridge Demons said:

Forward line connection has been our problem for 5 years, except for last 2 games last year, my issue is our coaches have seem to have done nothing, we still move ball the same, kick long and hope someone marks it !!!

We continue to dominate out of center but just bomb it long and hope to mark it or break even, when is the last time we broke out of centre and hit a leading forward !!!

As explained by fr_ap above, it is our game plan to kick to a contest in the pocket, unless someone is wide open. 

Last year (and selective games this year - St.Kilda, Freo, a couple of others) it did allow our defence to setup, and strangle teams ability to get good looks inside their 50. Then when oppo is fatigued (use to be 3rd qtr), we would capitalise with aggressive movement and 4-5 quick goals.

Whether or not we need to adjust the style against fast ball movement teams is the uncertainty. Partly dependant on whether we have enough forwards able to mark or worst case bring the ball to ground. 

5 hours ago, fr_ap said:

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised after 2 years of this game plan. 

I'll be very clear:

The players are under coaching instruction that says "unless you are confident you can hit the lead up or lateral kick, play the %s and kick to the pocket". 

It is the #1 building block of our much vaunted defence as it narrows the opposition's exit, allowing us to set up the full ground zone accordingly. This plays to the strengths of our key & intercepting defenders. 

It is also why we have so many inside 50s - from the pocket, you're the least likely to score but the most likely to get repeat entries. This also comes with an advantage of tiring the opposition's defence & mids, and giving our defence a break (adopted from the NFL). The longer you play front half footy, the theory is the more you score. 

We play a mathematically conceived system that ignores low conversion & low efficiency in favour of sheer quantity. If you unflinchingly play the %s every time, those %s are realised in the results. This is not to say anomalies can't occur, but its a system designed to keep us competitive for long periods of time in winning positions, somewhat irrespective of personnel. Sprinkle some luck, skill or moments of class onto this system, and you'll be OK a lot of the time.  

If you're complaining about kicking to the pocket, then you can't laud our high i50 count or laud the fact we have conceded the least points all year. They're fundamentally connected. 

Where this falls down is:

1. The majority of our players are not confident they can hit the lead up or lateral kick, so they don't bother, because if they miss it the defensive system falls down & our 'defence first' gameplan falls apart. Lacking this confidence, they play the %s, ignoring blatantly open options. Spargo is told by all and sundry he's our best i50 kick - he now knows it implicitly and is the only one who takes the chances others are too scared to try. 

2. Our bigs need to be able to contest the pocket-kick & at least bring it to ground or get it out of bounds. With one tall (often taking the bail out kick on the wing), it falls down and we get intercepted. 

3. Having intercepted, teams like Collingwood move it out from the pocket incredibly fast. This negates the defensive benefit we were getting whilst still limiting our chances to score. It is however for them a risky strategy that relies on supreme fitness. Teams can do this, but they'll not often succeed. 

#1 and 2 can be addressed by encouraging players to be bold (they have the skill; they've been coached out of it) and simply picking a competitive 2nd tall. #3 has emerged this year and is a challenge for the coaches. 

On the eve of finals we're not going to change this plan. It is the reason we are competing for top 4. 

Well explained. The tactic has worked when we are playing more tempo style football against a team that is not using aggressive ball movement (corridor, switching etc). As we can wear out an opposition defence with repeat entries, and strangle their ball movement, as they try and make their way out of defence via down the line kicking.

What I am a little confused by, is in a shoot out style game (Coll, dogs), why are we applying more attacking ball movement from defence, through the middle, and then sticking with the defensive kick to the pocket?   When we take an aggressive ball movement team on head to head, we can handle the game style in most areas (contest, mids, run etc), but then we stick with the defensive kick to the pocket, which doesn’t really bother the aggressive ball movement team, who can switch, or even take a kick through the middle.

What am I missing? 
 

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Can confirm Mel and Steve have moved into the Perth home that Jackson recently purchased. Make of this what you will… 

It is my understanding, although not yet confirmed, that Mel had corn flakes for breakfast this morning. Obviously has large ramifications for the developing trade situation, and I will report back as this story unfolds. 
 

The good news is with Grundy out for the year, we will get a likely opportunity for payback in the finals. 

Viney should rip his goggles off. Too far? 

2 hours ago, SFebes said:

 

You’d  hope Viney, Petracca and Oliver would be a fair bit more above AFL average. This is what I was taking about today. We need more from them than possessions, we need more quality, not quantity 

I wonder what % ANB is 

49 minutes ago, CYB said:

Some vision on Couch just shows how one dimensional and safe out ball movement has become forward of centre. 

Kicking into pockets and not to an outnumber or leading target is killing our ability to generate easy goals. It’s our system and it takes away our dare and makes us too predictable. Compare that against the Cats, Pies and Blues who take the game on and have a wide open f50. 

In addition to a KPF , we have to either involve Spargo more in the scoring chain or  move one of our elite kicks and playmakers into the HF to provide the forward link.

Something I have been pondering. 

Thoughts on this fwd line.

Trac.   Brown.  Spargo

Kozzy.  Gawn.  Fritsch 

where BB is the lead up CHF. Gawn sits in the hole and makes sure we don’t get out-marked when no other free options. (Gawn and BB can rotate roles throughout the game) Trac has a license of when to play up the ground, and focus on hitting inside 50 targets, vs being a target himself inside 50. Fritsch keeps being Fritsch. Kozzy and Spargo focus on crumbing Gawn and BB, as well as their pressure/defensive roles.

With Gus playing well in the middle, we can afford to play Trac forward more.

Don’t have any stats to back this up, but I think we win more clearances when Jacko is in the ruck vs Gawn, and Jacko is just not an effective fwd target this year. 

I realise we have tried a version of the above for small periods of games, but what if we committed to it for larger % of games?  

Feel free to shoot it down. Just hoping for a magic fwd line fix really. 
 

17 minutes ago, COVID Dan said:

Fair points.

Taken on board. I guess I was still upset from Friday and this was my way of dealing with it.

I would enjoy your posts so much more, if I wasn’t thinking about the bloke who locked us down for 2 years while reading them. Any chance of a name change? 

Regarding the attacking fast ball movement teams that have exposed us, and minimised our defensive weapons. Do you think teams like the pies, swans and cats will be able to execute this in the more contested finals? Or will it just be as simple as whether or not our pressure/tackling etc gets to a high enough level? 
 

6 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

No room for Gary Ablett Senior to come out of retirement in a forward pocket?

on the half fwd flank target list (backup for nibbler)

40 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I love how Demonland is so pessimistic about us being 3rd on the ladder, but can convince itself effortlessly that a generational forward from a competing team is going to stroll on over into our goal square. 

Check my forward line for next year  :) 

2023 Dee’s forward line 

Koz.          Naughton / Larkey (either one).   ANB

Fritsch.           J.Kennedy.      Spargo 

Emerg:   TMac, BB, JVR (replace JK in 2024)

9 minutes ago, Sydee said:

According to Leigh Mathews - “I suspect that’s incidental contact” LMAO 🤣 

Lethal obviously got no supercoach trades or bench left, and doesn’t want to field a donut if Cripps rubbed out. 

10 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Those commentators! 

Cripps left the ground, bumbs from behind/side, hits the head, didn’t get near the ball, Che subbed out.

Mathews says going for the ball all should be fine, the rest follow.

Where is the 'duty of care.'

At least 2 weeks.

 

Haven’t seen it yet, but triple m commentators said “big trouble, definite weeks” 

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

My point is, you can't say:

'We'll smash Freo because loading, and all the analysts and Joe average don't understand that. And the Pies are in trouble next week'

And then say:

'Well we lost to the Pies because we're still 7 weeks away from optimal performance'.

That's clearly moving the goal posts IMO.

As you point out, there's clearly a lot of nuance and context to every game, as well as our form etc etc, none of that is an argument from me, but if you're (binman) going to take credit for your particular loading theory being the reason we won one game (especially when you go so over the top in criticizing footy commentators), then you need to conversely be willing to cop it when your prediction doesn't come to fruition the very next week.

Cmon Nev. You are holding the man 50 metres off the play, and pretending to be playing the ball. 
 

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. 

They lifted their pressure in the second half and were fantastic.

But I think it was only the last 10 to 15 minutes of the game where we couldn't deal with their pressure.

And it is that period where we were clearly fatigued.

And that is why it is important, in my opinion to factor in things like loading and fitness levels into assessment of the game. 

Because otherwise, if looking for an explanation (not you, in the genetal sense) it can be easy to default to saying the reason we couldn’t handle their pressure was we mentally couldn't.

Which perhaps is partially true. But they were stronger for longer.

The million dollar question is whether the program will have us in the right shape to run out such games to the very end come finals.

And we won't know till then.

Watching the replay, I must admit Collingwood’s dare, and willingness to switch, change angles, play aggressively was really impressive. Requires a high level of skill and smarts to execute that plan, and they did it perfectly. A few teams have worn us down with that style this year. Whether or not that plan will work in finals is an uncertainty, as the contest/intensity naturally increases. 

But it is worth considering that for us to defend against that style is naturally more intensive vs last year, when we would more frequently strangle teams, as they conservatively kicked down the line. 

So another variable separate to fitness & loading is whether it is too challenging for us to run 4 qtr’s out defending against teams with the willingness and skill to execute an attacking game that involves frequent use of the corridor, switching, etc. 

41 minutes ago, A F said:

Spot on.

I reckon the defenders need to win more contests. May rarely wins 1v1s anymore, whereas last year he was impenetrable. Petty had his worst match for the year and Lever was mostly unsighted.

But we also need more pressure up the ground, both forwards and mids. Does anyone have our post clearance numbers for the season and the Collingwood match? That will tell us a lot. Post clearance pressure rushes the opposition and brings our interceptors behind the ball into play.

We've been smashed for ground ball gets too in both games against Collingwood. 

That all said, kick straight and it's game over.

I think we've evolved too much. We sit our zone deeper from kick outs; we play Max more forward (out of necessity due to TMac's injury); and we've started handballing more than we did (as we don't trust our forwards to bring the contest up the ground, but it invites more pressure).

The idea that we haven't tweaked is nonsense. We haven't completely changed our game plan, but we've made tweaks everywhere, which you call for in this post RE Clarkson. Bizarre.

A key reason our backline is not winning as many contests as last year, is opposition teams have learnt not to kick down the line inside 50 (which use to allow our defenders to peel off and intercept). 

The pies were constantly switching and changing angles, which opened up much more space inside 50, and allowed them to kick to their forwards advantage. 

Teams will continue to do this, which means our pressure needs to be better up the ground. Starting from our forward 50, where we can’t allow easy un-contested turnovers. 
 

6 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

 

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. what's incredible is the conviction with which something so ridiculous is posted. 

Loading is real, it's not exclusive to AFL, we did it in 2021, i almost guarantee we've done it in 2022 as have other sides, i would be shocked if we still were at this stage of the year, so it's not an excuse for last nights result. 

but i am going to call out and challenge any posted silly enough to try and claim loading doesn't exist because it's just an absolute load of nonsense. 

Well said. 100% we have done it. Whether it benefits us, and gives us the edge we are hoping for, is the key uncertainty we are all speculating about.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This is where I seem to differ from a lot of supporters.

Unless it happens at the G and I can actually experience it it's less tangible. Yes winning the flag was great but there's a hollowness to the way it was done after such a long wait. Not being able to attend games, big finals, not being able to celebrate properly.

Secondly I don't want to just see us win a flag, I want to see multiple flags and I want to see us compete every single year - like Geelong, like Sydney and like Hawthorn who I'm sure will be back up there soon - or at least every few years like Collingwood seem to be able to do.

I'm not fulfilled with the 2021 flag. Yes it was great but I want more. I'm sure Goodwin feels the same, I hope the players do too.

Well said. After watching the replay today, one thing I picked up on which I couldn't see from the ground last night was all the laughing and smiling. Especially in the first quarter. Maybe this was just a tactic to stay relaxed. But it appeared to be the exact opposite of last week, when we had a steely focus. 

6 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

I think you will see from my history that this is not my style. I thought posters would be interested in the rumour but of course it comes with no guarantee except that the source is reliable.

Well if they know Naughton wants out, it would explain their interest in Lobb 

10 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I have had the opinion for a few weeks now that we simply won't win the flag this year.

Few factors.

Our record against top 8 sides is poor and watching last night just proves that we had not adjusted or tweaked our game plan from the moment we lost to Freo. Not so much Freo, but the weeks leading up to that game where there was some concerns starting to creep through. 

Goody's stubbornness in not willing to bring new and fresh players into the team to mix up our structure and inject some fresh enthusiasm. We've had 1 [censored] debut player this year and that was Daniel Turner.

To continue to remain a successful club you have to regenerate your team and bring in guys who can add a different element and layer into the side. Alastair Clarkson and Kevin Sheedy were always big on this.

It's infuriating that he continues to pick the likes of Weideman, Melksham, Bedford who are either not up to AFL standard or are cooked which Melksham has for the past 2 years. These players are revolving doors for team selection.

Our Casey team is 16-0 and he's refused to reward the blokes who are putting in the work week in and week out. He's too scared of dropping blokes like ANB, Jordon, Spargo Sparrow who haven't performed for a number of weeks now.

Our team and game plan is completely one dimensional because clubs have simply worked us out and yet we haven't tweaked one bit of it to counteract what the opposition are now bringing to the table.

We're two rounds off finals and we could be out of the top 4 by end of the weekend. That's infuriating in itself. 

Going into the finals with the form that we're in, doesn't bode well unfortunately and history will say that you have to be in tip top form with your game plan and structure.

Right now ours is just out of wack, and I can't see how we drastically improved come finals when we've barely made much improvement since the middle of the year. 

Our in-ability to successfully adjust strategy mid game, and the amount of times opposition do adjust things at our expense is certainly concerning.

Rightly or wrongly it is my assumption that Yze provides the most strategic input during games. What happens next year when he is gone? 

 

8 minutes ago, Dogga said:

I'd do it, but I really can't see it happening unfortunately. 

How about Jack Watts instead? 😉

Jack Watts and Liam Jurrah would have functioned better than our forward line this year