Fat Tony

I think everyone would agree that Hibberd is the most likely to come back in. He was playing decent footy before getting dropped. As much as Hunt's injury is a bummer, we do have decent depth.

Smith was one of the players who flew to Perth, so it would not be that big a surprise.

I have seen Bowey play 5-6 VFL games and have posted several times on here that he looks a future 200 gamer. And I was also calling for his inclusion in the AFL weeks before he debuted. I am a big wrap for the kid. But he is not perfect and his obvious weakness is height and strength.

I am a bit surprised they are not playing Sunday night and even Monday night games given half the country is in lockdown.

He will still be able to play at AFL level because of his leap, pace and skill, but he would have greater scope if he was taller. He got out marked by Zac Langdon last night.

Jackson's timing with his marks has improved over the course of the season and he is regularly getting two hands to the ball in pack situations. He just needs to nail his set shots a little better.

Much better than the intense jealousy of missing out.

The Eagles were very good last night and (as always) got an armchair ride from the umpires, so it was an excellent win. If we do have to play finals in Perth, Optus Stadium suits our game style. It is a fast track a bit like Docklands and the narrow ground is well suited to the defensive game plan. It was good to see our forwards play well. Jackson was outstanding. ANB and Spargo played very well. And Ben Brown was a good target and effective.

Bowey was playing the same way in the VFL, so it is great to see that he has been able to step up to the the increased pace of the game. He obviously needs to get stronger and is limited by lack of height, but the rest of his game is A-Grade. I think Bowey will need to keep playing like last night to keep his spot though. Pig is still a good player and is more finals ready, even though he is not as quick or clean.

The Eagles play a kick/mark game and rely on their tall forwards. I don't think they have been good in the wet.

I don't think Melbourne will gain any benefit from the inclusion of a Tasmanian team. The inequitable distribution of supporters across the league and the power of the AFLPA means that the rich clubs are in effect subsidising the existence of the poor clubs (including Melbourne). While the AFL and AFLPA are currently supportive of this model, the current leadership may change and we need to be aware of this. Adding Tasmania would not increase revenue for the competition at all and would be a major cost. I get the romantic notion behind Tasmania entering the competition, but self interest means we should vote against a new side entering the competition IMO.

Luckily the crash occurred when the Olympics were on! If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Good work for getting us back on Nasher and Andy.

I think upgrading Gosch's Paddock to a full sized AFL ground and better facilities at AAMI Park seems the most practical solution. The location is excellent and it won't cost a bomb. The main issue I see is if we will we ever be able to hold private training sessions on Gosch's Paddock? i.e. using some sort of temporary screening. Otherwise, we will likely have to venture down to Casey once a week to do our tactical training sessions.

If we played the Suns every week I would be as calm as Jess Fox’s father.

We have had more shots at goal in every game this year except against Collingwood which we lost 23-25. It is pretty obvious what the major issue is.

It doesn’t really matter but it seems a strange decision to leave AVB off the emergency list. I wonder if he is carrying an injury or being managed.

We conceded 21 scores vs Crows and 19 vs Hawthorn and didn’t win either largely due to goal kicking differential. I think the bigger issue is conversion and our ball movement being a bit too predictable and conservative. The other main problem at times is trying to get a perfect exit at stoppages rather than just getting a quick kick forwards.

I think the conditions helped the Hawks tactic of using scrappy entries inside 50. And like the Crows, they gambled a bit by going into the corridor with handball. Is that a weakness of our defensive structure? Not sure. In both those games we had a lot more scores but just did not convert and they hardly missed. That said, our strategy in offence is becoming too predictable and we should look to attack a bit more off half back, particularly from kick ins. Rivers was all on his own a few times on the open side for kick ins and was not used. I also think we are too conservative with our entries when kicking into a crowded forward 50 and would like to see us look to switch and/or kick it more central rather than deep into the pocket. The team has not had much practice coming from behind this year and has not been able to adjust from the rigidity of the game plan to attack mode. Rather than a complete change in tactics (as is currently required when we need to come from behind) I would prefer to see us tweak Plan A to be a bit more attacking.

We kick to the pockets too often, particularly when Gawn is in the forward line and its crowded. I know this exposes us to goals on the counter attack but it’s costing us. Plus Spargo has no range, Petracca is hit or miss, Kossie is missing too many, Oliver can’t kick straight and TMac has gone a bit cold.

My gut feel is that 'playing too safe' is a bit of an illusion and that we probably err on being too aggressive rather than too conservative. (Although our balance is very good.) I feel the only times we have been 'too safe' is because: a) we have not won enough clean contests on the wing; b) had to hold up due to being outnumbered ahead; or c) we have made skill errors in trying to break the game open. Jackson and TMac are particularly important to this part of our game because they are so good in the air and on the ground. I was not at the Lions game (and you can't see the whole ground from watching on TV) but I think they defended much better in the first half and stymied our attempts when we tried to play on and get overlap or got numbers behind the ball so we had to go slow. In the second half, they turned the ball over and even defended poorly on slow plays and we got overlap going. I would put the turnaround on their inability to sustain the defence for the full game and our handball skills being so good. (Plus we won the centre bounces.)

Great post again. A couple of other points: I am of the view that the pocket entry does not really suit Ben Brown very much. We are usually kicking to a pack of 4+ and he is rarely going to win those. The best chance he will have to kick goals may be from stoppages. We have been ultra impressive in getting handball overlap to break the game open at times this year. But IMO keeping 'speed on the game' and 'getting goals over the back' are really a function of winning clean contests on the wing and the opposition having a full press on. I don't think it is really a decision not to do it at times. Rather it is because we have not won enough wing contests or the opposition has set up to have a goal keeper in place.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I would argue we that we have rarely ever gone to the hot spot with a congested forward 50, so it has not really been tested this year . I am sure it has in previous years though, which is when the percentages were developed. The other question is if we will persist with the same tactics if we go behind. Against GWS and Collingwood we abandoned the game plan in Q4 and in both games we got a bit lost with our tactics. It would be good to have a few games in the back end of the year which are not close (preferably winning by a lot) and we look to be a bit more attacking. We don't want to go behind in a final and not know what to do.

And the Dees coming from the tropics.

Telecast?

Binman, do you think the percentages change enough in our favour to kick it to the hot spot when Max is in the forward line? I think they probably do and we should be a bit bolder with our entry if he is there. The Salem goal versus GWS was something I would like to see more of from us. We went from the wing on a 45-degree angle with two 30m kicks. The risk of going from the wing to CHF with a long kick is high, so going in with two shorter 45-degree kicks is a better strategy. I also think the opposition should know by now that we are 95% going long into the pocket from the wing, so there should be a few holes inboard as they fold back to the pocket and so mixing it up a bit makes sense. The other option to mix it up is to do a full switch from the wing across the middle of the ground, which we never do on a slow play. This is clearly not a percentage play unless we have someone 100% on.