Skuit

We were offensively coasting today - sloppy at times in the last links of the chain, lairising at other times, not entirely switched on with our decision-making, letting them get on top in the clearance battle - and still we controlled the match, put in the necessary effort and lifted the intensity when required, adjusted to the opposition, demonstrated our slick movement, pressure and spread, and won by an easy 50 points. Despite the umpires, a key injury, and some good periods of intensity from the Dogs. This is a different team we are watching - brimming with confidence and understanding their roles and exactly what needs to be done. All smiles after the match and I can't recall a team ever looking so happy and having so much fun on on the field. I doubt we'll even spend much time reviewing. Tick off the easy one after a tough interstate trip and short break and get set for the next challenge. I have full confidence that they'll be more fired up and switched on next week. It's a strange feeling as a supporter.

I think we all do now dee-tox. But when he fired up today so did we. Those almost imperceptible little handballs in tight don't make a huge visible impact yet are so important in getting us moving out of a maul.

90. Disposal Efficiency 38. Possessions 19. Contested 13. Oliver ?

Jones said in his post-match on-field interview that the Dogs threw something different at them that they weren't expecting. I'm curious what this could be. Did anyone pick up anything out of the ordinary (for them or football) about their play or set-ups? Obviously they're a very good and creative stoppage team - being right up the top for clearances and dead-last for taps - and they work the angles well on the handballs through traffic - but why wouldn't Jones be expecting this?

Statistically validates what I was arguing with a friend on the weekend: the (brave, young) Blues have escaped recent attention for being basically as shite as us, probably due to us. From 2002 after finishing 6th the previous year and 2nd and 3rd in the years immediately prior: 2002: 16th 2003: 15th 2004: 11th 2005: 16th 2006: 16th 2007: 15th 2008: 11th 2009: 7th (beaten in the Elimination Finals) 2010: 8th (on percentage - beaten in the EF) 2011: 5th 2012: 10th 2013: (effectively 9th) 2014: 13th 2015: 18th 2016: 14th 2017: 16th That is just downright [censored] horrible with the same evident failed rebuilds as us; except they're no closer to getting better in the foreseeable future and have had basically the same access to talented juniors - indeed, they'll have to rebuild a rebuild of a rebuild of rebuild, if they can admit that is what is needed. Roll around in the corpse on Carlton ladies and gentlemen. Note: If we went for it around 2011-2013 wih our list, instead of imploding, we probably would have made finals similar to the Blues in this period as well, even if it was a false dawn.

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.

In round 2 of this year, 9 of our starting 18 versus the Bears were recruited from other clubs. On the weekend there were just 5, with two of those in Bernie and Lewis potential outs for next year A number of our other inter-club recruits are now on the outer - including Tyson, Bugg, Pedersen, Garlett and Frost. I think our in-house development programme could now be considered probably okay.

I don't remember the internet being that old. A bump from 2006 would see you suspended for weeks nowadays in the AFL.

And I like and have promoted what at least Hunt and Frost and to an extent Bugg can bring to the team in terms of specific attributes in certain areas despite some obvious failings. But I'm also super-happy that Goodwin has basically proven me wrong. Wait, was it you who first brought up the omissions = poor DE% Mon?

Some of the self-apologists in the sack Goodwin thread have suggested that Simon has renounced his stubborn, wicked ways and simplified in respect to complex set-ups, with the Simon's Tsunami ploy from half-back being the most obvious wacky innovation. I don't often register our centre set-ups due to the distraction of Max Gawn ruck-porn, but I'm curious if there's any evidential basis to support these claims, perhaps from those who can make it to games? Otherwise, someone in another thread (apologies to the poster who I can't presently recall) noted that almost all of those currently on the outer from earlier in the year - Tyson, Hunt, Wagner, Bugg et al - had the common denominator of questionable foot-skills. If anything especially stood out against the Crows for me, it was our absurd disposal efficiency in the first quarter - backed by our apparently league-leading stats in the department over the past five weeks.

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.

In real time: From Clarry's perspective:

How long before I can stop taking a sharp breath when Gus leads head-first into a pack? I think the Petracca knee each time he pivoted took a solid six months of MFCSS mental reconditioning.

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

You forgot the 20 contested component. Oliver a quiet day with just the 16 contested and 10 centre clearances.

Yup

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.