Skuit

What happened to the Tyson of these recruitment highlights? Has the modern in-tight game eclipsed Dom already? Has the series of leg and knee injuries below the waste restricted his agility and speed (and then vision)? Are these snapshots just cherry-picked? In answer to the last two questions, he's certainly lost penetration on his kick (and his radar since his first year with us, kicking 16.6 in 2014 against 5.9 last year - with many of his goals previously from long range), while I also recall watching him at the Giants and thinking he was - cliche - Pendlebury-like with the time and space he could conjure. I think a combination of the above, with the injuries taking a toll that we give little credit to, in that he's returned pretty quickly from most of his set-backs.

It would be a minor scandal if somewhere along the line it was whispered in his ear that he'd need to improve in these areas if he wanted to come to us. But not outside the realms of possibility. Pretty sure Sylvia had to demonstrate his certain predilections before being determined a cultural fit in the West. Edit: No offence to your good self of course Mr Tremblay.

Thought I'd take a quick statistical look at our opposition leading up to the bye. Was going to post something similar in the lead-up to the Hawthorn match, because a few comparative areas had me slightly concerned, but alas, life got in the way. It's worth noting now though that it's difficult to get a fix on our appropriate game-style grouping, because we cross over at the top in just about every category. Bulldogs: 4th in Marks, Handballs and Disposals. 3rd in Clearance Differential 5th in Inside-50s Melbourne are first in least Marks, Kicks and Inside-50s against, as well as 2nd in Clearances and Differential. Armchair Summary: We match up quite well in some areas. The Demons restrict space for the kick, but the Dogs like to handball - and both teams are clearance and inside-50 machines. That said, the Demons are the T1000 to the Dog's 800 Series, and we significantly outrank them in every other category. The Dogs are 16th for Contested for starters, and drop to 8th for Centre Clearances. They're also 17th for hit-outs, against the Dees as #1. Another area of note is a Dogs ranking of 14th for rebound-50s, while we would be ordinarily open as the number one for rebounds against. Conclusion: Cake-walk. The stats suggest similar elements to the game-style, particularly as to close in work and forward territorial ascendancy. Yet, we're better than them at their best points, and smash them at the core of ours, while having them covered across all other categories. Expect a scrag, because the Wallace superflood legacy won't work, as we basically bring it on ourselves every week through our own centre set-up.

I have it on no authority whatsoever that the recruiters and financial dept had this mapped when they traded out of the first round next year. I also have no source to cite when I say that the recruiters have been cultivating long-term relations in their planning for targeted players. And I certainly can't state with any credibility that this is basically a done deal, all but secured between player and club well in advance. But I do believe these things to be true, and can confidently invoke a Denuto contention.

We've also gone from the second worst contested marking differential last year to the best.

Yes, a poster in the sack Goodwin thread, who suggested Hogan would leave the club because Goodwin was playing him out of position up the field.

And we're such an outlier when it comes to contested differential - such that 17 teams range from +8.4 (North) down to -9.3 (Lions) while we sit on +19.3 - that I thought I'd take a quick look back through the years. There hasn't been anywhere near such a gap between best and next best this decade, and the closest in absolute terms was the Bulldogs 2016. Greatest Contested Differential / Closest Competitor (grand-finalists in bold) 2010: Collingwood 11.7 / Geelong 6.7 2011: Collingwood 14.6 / Carlton 13.1 2012: Adelaide 11.6 / Hawthorn 8.1 2013: Bulldogs 12.4 / North 7.8 2014: Fremantle 8.9 / Adelaide 5.8 2015: Fremantle 9.8 / West Coast 9.7 2016: Bulldogs 16.5 / Geelong 14.0 2017: Collingwood 7.7 / Geelong 7.5

It's a good question. Nothing that I can see that isn't a reflection of our intended game-style - i.e the most rebound-50s against and last for bounces. I would say that the area we would most probably like to improve is our inside-50 tackles ranking, which currently sits at an abysmal 4th. The thing that's most noticeable is that certain game-styles are evident through stats groupings - Richmond good in some areas for example and Adelaide good in others. We're around the top of almost every measure. They're quite staggering numbers altogether.

I still think Viney is easing himself back in as well.

Could probably just copy & paste one of the responses from the Changes vs Bulldogs thread this week: no changes. But there's no harm in a brief reminder of the following: 1st Contested 1st Contested Differential 1st Centre Clearances 1st Scoring 1st Inside-50s 1st Marks Inside-50 1st Goal Assists 1st Least Opponent Marks 1st Least Opponent Kicks 1st Least Opponent Inside 50s The areas where we are still letting ourselves down 2nd Clearances 2nd Metres Gained 2nd Turnover Differential 2nd Intercept Differential 2nd Goal Accuracy 3rd Contested Marks 3rd Total Tackles

My recollection is that we were last denied for two reasons, one official and one less so. The first, publicly discussed, was that we'd had a number of close games in 2014, and so were adjudged competitive with some decent young prospects. The second, was that despite it adhering to the AFL free agency formula, our compo for Frawley was deemed sufficient reward, and it would have been a bad look for the league if we were awarded a bonus pick on top. Mostly, in my mind, it was Roos and co going through the motions to secure concessions in other areas, but 2013 should have been the year - and if we didn't deserve one then, then the bar has been raised to a serious degree. Still, I couldn't care less if the Blues get one or not.

There's some talk of us starting to shape as a destination club. This is all good. But what's more exciting is that there's evidence that we're now perhaps considered a Rookie destination club with a strong development programme and clear pathway as demonstrated by Maynard and Smith. It's great if everyone in the AFL wants to come to us, but we will still need to pay for them and juggle the cap - so it's even better if we can keep getting first dibs on potential top-line young talent for free.

Also, on the broad subject of incestualism (Collingwood supporters), I had separate boyhood crushes on both mother and father growing up as a sporting lad in the 80s. Makes for supporting Austin now a little bit awkward - although I certainly wouldn't have chosen the name Austin for our fantasy spawn back then. Phileas Provis perhaps, or maybe Bradbury Bradkte (hint: I also liked fantasy sci-fi as a kid).

Collingwood supporters generally cry into their porridge rather than cornflakes. It's a dental thing.

Thanks fellas. This hadn't occurred to me at all. On another absolutely completely unrelated note, is there any chance we can add a tongue-in-cheek Demon emoticon @Demonland?

Kent will play in the bye week? Perfect conditions for him with the opposition at home with their feet up playing Playstation. I hope he kicks 3000 goals. No excuses.

You'd think de Goey would be a better fit with West Coast.

I was meaning to update a couple weeks back so it's not just a fair-weather bump - but I do hope others can help to keep the numbers fresh and add their own bits and pieces when they come across them. Anyway, at the end of Round 9: Scoring: 1st Scoring 1st Inside-50s 1st Inside-50 (Differential) Intensity 1st Contested 1st Contested Differential (by a huge margin) 2nd Clearances (1st Center - 3rd Differential) 3rd Tackles (3rd Most Tackles Against) 5th Tackles i50 4th poorest D/E% against/most Turnovers Against/most Clangers Against 3rd (!) Contested Marks! (6th least Contested Marks Against) Space/Territory 1st Least Kicks Against 1st Least Marks Against 1st Marks i50 3rd Metres Gained (2nd Differential) 4th Intercepts (2nd Differential) 2nd Least i50s Against 17th Rebound-50s 18th Bounces Notes - again, most of the stats are telling us exactly what we're seeing - although I don't think we're entirely appreciating the extent of our various multiple areas of dominance (possibly because we're still not consistently and fully capitalising on-field). We're top-notch at the coal-face stuff but we're also forcing the opposition to play our close-in game - i.e high tackles against. We're also putting a lot of pressure on the carrier and it's telling in the opposition turnover/DE%/clanger stats as well as the least kicks against figure. And we're smashing the territorial battle. The big surprise for me is in our continued contested marks statistics - a huge improvement on last year, and we've also properly balanced our kick/handball disposal ratios - another common grizzle from last year. The most pleasing thing for me - we're doing all the hard stuff and proving a dynamic forward threat. If I had to build a team game from scratch from a fan perspective, and could choose aspects of dominance by compromising in other areas, I would probably take contested/high-scoring/forward territory over high possessions and DE%. The Roos to Goody transition may have been an unintended masterstroke. We're both a hard and attacking football team in an aggressive and pressurised modern era. But disregarding my own personal footy fan-boy preferences - is this the formula for success? Manic, contested footy, a high-press, and thrusting the ball forward as the first priority?

So after succumbing to our strange 40 point roadblock again for two weeks in a row this month, we seem to have broken the hoodoo and kicked on with it in the past two consecutive weeks. Coincidence? Irrelevant? Turning point? For me, there has been an obvious intent within the team to do so in these past two weeks, and some of the language coming out of the club suggests that it's an area which has been addressed. Does this put to rest the question re. our potentially unsustainable game-style - or is it something which requires a longer-term measure? Will we be able to crush better teams when we dominate (such as Adelaide last year?) vs. Essendon 43 points (4th Qtr 9.10 mins) 48 points (19.29) 36 points (Final) vs. St Kilda 43 points (3rd Qtr 25.5 mins) 48 points (4th Qtr 4.18) 39 points (Final) ....................................... vs. Gold Coast 38 points (4th Qtr 7.1 mins) 69 points (Final) vs. Carlton 37 points (3rd Qtr 0.34 mins) 73 points (4th Qtr 4.15 mins) 109 points (Final)

As an aside, I live in Europe and have travelled a fair bit in my time. The vast majority of people I speak to overseas, from every corner of every continent, have derived most of their cultural understanding of Australia from Masterchef. And forget official figures - go on an illegal streaming site and you'll often see the show among the 'popular' content. This show is simply huge. For the most part these people will probably never care much about football. But in terms of international exposure, this is a massive coup - in fact, I can't think of a single, promotional effort that could bring as much widespread attention to our football club - especially one as easy and inexpensive as this. Masterstroke.

I still think he has depth-perception issues. Maybe we can shift one on the o's on Ooscar's $50,000 contract offer and he won't pick it up?

I still back us in on the trade to bring him in - because he showed he was on the up when he first joined us and by previous exposure was good in many of the areas he is now critisised for. But something has happened since - he's lost penetration, accuracy and breakaway speed from the pack - whether through injuries I'm not sure. The one upside; he's still young - but I'm not so confident he'll suddenly start to improve again, although I agree we currently need his experience in the middle.

'We have looked at the game as an opportunity to improve all all aspects of how we go about things, including how we can better communicate key messages to our players when the opposition gets a run on. It is easy to forget how young our list is and we have two key leaders in TMac and Jack out so this week we are going to have Macca, who is definitely in no way disaffected and is really happy about the move and he and Goody get on better than ever and have a fantastic working relationship, you could even say a personal relationship, if you consider that time Macca went round to Goody's house for a BBQ, go back to his role that he played so brilliantly for the last 3 years as a key person communicating directly to players on the bench and conveying messages from the box. Which he is happy about.

Was vaguely concerned after reading the general thrust of this thread. Not so now. Thanks for sharing Cards. While there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in the story, it's a shame modern journos feel the need to sensationalise - whether it be internal media pressure, pandering to a mindless audience, or plain simple ego to break something big. I'll be taking a grain of salt with that kernel. And if there are a few minor internal problems, it's clear then that the club is moving to address them. A modern workplace.