RadishDee

Building on my suspicion that the Dees aren't able to effectively move the call to the forward line... I ran some stats on intercepts, intercepts allowed, points from turnover and points from turnover allowed and it makes for interesting reading. Melbourne currently rank 16th in the league for turnover points per intercept (0.60) and 14th in turnover points allowed per intercept (0.73). Similarly, if we look at scoring shots from turnover per intercept, Melbourne score from 17.8% (16th) rank of intercepts, while allowing scores from 18.4% (11th) of intercepts. Interestingly, the defensive side has gone down from 16.4% (3rd) since the Carlton game (the last full game before Lever was injured). So my reading on the situation: Without Lever we are stuffed at the moment. We haven't been able to consistently move the ball downfield from intercepts all season, but without Lever the defence is completely stuffed. The intercept numbers are about the same (68 without and 69 with), but it's the non-intercept parts of our game that are suffering. Lever was patching over the holes, but the game plan isn't working yet. The top 8 teams are more consistent than Melbourne at scoring from their intercepts. They regularly score on more than 20% of their intercepts, with very few games between 10% and 15% (Melbourne has 4 games of 13 in this range, Sydney, Carlton, Port and Geelong all have 1). Surprisingly, we seem actually seem to be improving slightly in this respect, with our last 5 intercept scoring %s being 13.1%, 15.0%, 22.5%, 16.4% and 21.5%. Getting Lever back after the bye should help the defensive part of our game. But it's the ball movement that really needs to improve if we want to compete this year. For what it's worth, this data kind of says we should have won today, but scoring 4.10 from turnover and allowing 10.1 from turnover is absolutely where the game was lost. Is this a fitness issue? We're too tired when taking shots to kick accurately (JVR execpted)?

GAMEPLAN The Red and Blue-print simply isn't working. When we turn the ball over in the back half our disposal is not good enough to successfully move the ball to the forward line. We actually ended up with 1 more turnover than the Dockers today, but got significantly outscored on turnover (I'm sure Binman has the stats). Yes Fremantle's pressure was good, but not enough to show that kind of difference that leads to a 96 point loss. I think we simply don't have the personnel to make the gameplan work. We're not skillful enough to move the ball fast without turning it back over and we're not good enough in the air to take the contested marks necessary. We have to fix at least one of those. Should we persist with the gameplan? (for the record, I think Goody will persist because that's his nature) What changes can we make to turn the gameplan around? Is it as simple as JVR coming in or are there other structural changes we need? TACKLING Our tackling technique seems very poor. Countless times today Fremantle players would push off Melbourne players in tackles. Are there any recorded stats on missed or broken tackles? Surely we must be amongst the worst at successful tackles. PERSONNEL Again, I will put forward the point that we look much better with 7 talls than 6. With 6 it means that there is frequently only 1 tall forward to kick to when we boot the ball from D50 (1 tall forward is on the bench) and they consistently lose those contests in a 2 on 1. 7 talls means that we should have even numbers at those contests and it gives us a chance.

While the Dees were good today, I have been pondering the long-term viability of the red-and-blueprint for the rest of the season thinking about what has worked and what hasn't worked. (Stick with me here) The ability to intercept or otherwise cause turnovers doesn't seem to be a problem. for the Dees It's what we do with the ball once we have it that can cause problems. To transition a back-half intercept into a score, the team with the ball must be able to quickly move the ball into the forward 50 by either: a) taking uncontested marks to move the ball forward, b) using handball, run and carry to move the ball quickly, c) taking a contested mark (usually on the wing), or d) win a contested ball off a marking contest (again, usually on the wing). We know that the Dees aren't a great kicking team or a great speed team (for 3 quarters anyway - I believe this changes late in games which makes us look a lot better because it opens up more transition avenues). So option a) and b) are not reliable to build the red-and-blueprint around. That leaves us with c) and d), which both rely on big body forwards to compete in the air around the middle of the ground. When those forwards aren't marking, the smaller forwards and mids need to gather the ground balls so that we can score. My theory is that when we look bad (e.g. vs Lions and vs Eagles), the forwards aren't taking marks on the wing and the mids and forwards aren't in the contest, so our transition from turnover ends on the wing and is over being it begins. Do we have access to any stats on percentage of turnovers transitioned to scores or something like that? To this end, I think we are best suited to playing 7 true talls (2 forward, 3 back and 2 rucks). It gives us more options to win the contested ball on the wing and drive the ball forward. This is why I'm very concerned that Goody has moved to playing 6 talls again with McAdam and Fritsch playing hybrid, but the wing is not where either excels. A key player we need to find (either internally or externally) is a big bodied tall that can play forward, bring the ball to ground and play backup ruck. JVR fills this need, but I think we need a second. If the player in question can be a bit of an enforcer to deal out some payback for the elevated physicality sent toward Max, then all the better. What does the panel think? Can this be Verrel? Jefferson?

Hi gents love the pod. I didn't get to watch almost any of the game, but it seemed to me that the 5 day break was an issue for us, hence the slow start. Once both sides tired out, we seemed to have the run of the game. Is that what it looked like live? Not too unhappy with the result, a win would have been better for sure. But I have to think that in another game and in a final with full breaks, we would be the fitter and better team. The first quarter was bad, but I think it has to be considered an outlier, rather than an indication of where either team is at. Does the panel agree? I think Binman's notion that each game is not a litmus test on flag credentials is especially important now. We've looked good in many games and looked bad in small stages. I think our best footy is right up there and probably the best 2 or 3 sides in the comp. The challenge for the Dees is delivering that consistently in September. The change to the Red and Blueprint means that sometimes it might not quite all come together, which is not a problem in May. We're growing and improving and Goody always says the team that wins the flag is not the best team, but the team that improves the most. I think we have that in us. Go Dees.