jnrmac

1 hour ago, Pates said:

Have to say I liked Gary Lyon making that point on On the Couch, to get a title like "the Wizard" you gotta earn it through doing things that no one else in the comp can do. Right now he's no more of a wizard than Windsor. 

Lyon made the point softly saying, "he will be an exciting player to watch as he grows, but he is no wizard".

To be fair I don't think Watson calls himself the Wizard. But those [censored] Hawk supporters & commentators doing it should be pointed out

ps I see the word for a door handle is now censored.... great/

23 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

game will be won / lost in the midfield

gawn, oliver, viney, petracca, sparrow, langdon, windsor, billings vs soldo, butters, rozee, drew, farrell, wines, houston, boak

they bat deeper than us, i would say, but we have higher quality

i love watching butters - one of the best players running around at the moment

Do you think we might tag butters?

40+ possessions and goals against us last time?

Anyone watched Port this year? Anything they're doing differently?

4 hours ago, Dannyz said:

Windsor didn't register a tackle per the stats. 

Might be due to the definition of a tackle. 

He certainly tackled often. Maybe they didn't stop the player

2 hours ago, Ouch! said:

we'd need a 5th umpire for looking at behind the scenes stuff... and we know how well they are going with the review system and the boundary umpires keeping things in bound.

They already have a reserve umpire that I believe is miked up to the other umps. I presume, but don't know, that they can pass on observations to the other field umpires during breaks in play etc

Really professional win v the Hawks.

Played a great team game. Didn't get put off by their faux toughness tactics

Let them over-possess the ball before we turned it over time and time again.

Smashed them in stoppages. Killed them with pressure. Covered some big holes in defence with ease.

Great camaraderie that we haven't seen since '21

They look like they have steely determination  

Go Dees

4 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Currently 10th on our all time goalkicking ladder, should pass Yze soon and could get the Ox and Greg Wells this year too - I’m not as worried as some about defensive efforts, he knows what his job is

Allen Jakovich

47 games , 201 goals.

Amazing player

Lever out at the 3/4 time huddle

Hawks been trying to rough us up all day

Filthy germs can't play footy

6 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

If that wasn't incorrect disposal against Hawks then nothing is.

They've hardly paid that to us all day

The hawks have done 720 degree spins and still they won't blow the whistle

8 hours ago, durango said:

He is 191cm which in the old days 1950's would have been a key position player not a flanker, I have been impressed by his composure when gets the footy.

The MFC backline last week was tall and yet did not lack the speed to keep smaller players in check.

He should get a rising star nomination this year.

Carlton's Ruckman of the Century John Nicholls was 192cm!

9 hours ago, DEE fence said:

Back to the game...

I respect Mitchell's coaching, the way he took away our wings a year or two ago, was well documented and showed some tactical flair, so I am apprehensive to see what he comes up with. However one of the things that I liked from Frogs game was the 'paced' attack with players clearly choosing between options rather than following a plan dogmatically.

While we won't get 120+marks this game and Billings might not have 15 marks for the rest of the year, our switching between line and diagonal/short will be too much I think for the Hawks to have coached against in a week. And I expect to see some pretty dour defending by the Hawks rather than taking the game on.

I also think we play just fine man on man, if they choose that option, we will cut them open, as we have great 1v1 players. Also watching several teams over the weekend I think out leg speed stacks up, Gunston is not the terror he was.

Our greatest kryptonite will be injury (like any team), not just because of what certain players bring skills wise, (I think we do use a systems based approach that replacement players understand), but that players like Gawn, Lever and May give us a psychological advantage. I might be delusional but not having them in the team will give teams more confidence to take us on. Not including the Giants in this they are looking very very good.

Also re this weekend, having re-watched the game several times now, (because watching long flowing chains of passes is very enjoyable) and paid a lot of attention to Tmac's game. I think he was almost disrespected (and I under-rated his performance as well at 1st, kudos to those that called it straight up) by the Dogs, and they were guilty of writing him off as the weak link. He played a Lever type game and was allowed much to much rope by the Dogs forwards, who were busy trying to work over Rick (and were scared of May). Anyway I don't think Sam will allow Tmac the same freedom this week, but with Rivers, McVee, Howe and Hore, I have great confidence that our backline might really stifle the Hawks this week. And I think Frtisch will get off the chain. Sorry a bit disjointed, sort of meant to be working.

 

I respect posts that discuss game tactics like this. Well done.

I think you are referring to the rd 7, 2022 game. We were 6-0 at the time. I recall that Mitchell had McGuinness tag Langdon to stop his effectiveness and he did a good job. They also handballed their way out of our fwd 50, switched the ball a lot and had scrubby entries into our D50 to try and nullify Lever and May.

They still lost by maybe 10pts but it was a wake up call on how to beat Melb, the reigning premiers.

Will be interesting to see how it evolves this time.

On 19/03/2024 at 09:34, Mazer Rackham said:

On the plus side: Cornes is not afraid to "speak truth to power" (although I suspect there are limits to this, eg when it comes to Port, or AFL head office).

What does this inane expression even mean?

On 18/03/2024 at 11:40, Rab D Nesbitt said:

First and foremost. It is OUR HOME GROUND. That's why we play there. 

I also thought the attendance was poor. Let's say there were 10,000 Doggies supporters there. That means around 40% of our supposed 75,000 membership turned up to watch our opening home game. Both sides have also won flags in the last eight years and are mooted as top four contenders. Could you imagine only 40% of season ticket holders turning up at Anfield / Old Trafford / Ibrox / Celtic Park for any game? 

Your argument is a complete false equivalence

Firstly the EPL doesn't have members. They have fans who buy access to seats. Like in the Redlegs lets say. And they are usually full.

Many people who buy memberships to AFL clubs do so to support the club. I have two memberships and never use one as I am an MCC member. I rarely go to Marvel, don't go to Geelong and probably go interstate to watch the Dees a couple of times every two years

Should I stop contributing to the club? Does that make me a 'bad' member?

Then you have the issue of fixturing where the games are held on different days and times every week. Often it doesn't suit someone like me that has many things including family and other sporting commitments going on in my life. Does that make me a 'bad' member?

13 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

So are they getting two years of compromised drafts? Where do we see our list during those 2 years being 2026 & 2027? 

We were royally screwed when GWS and GC came into the comp. At the bottom at the wrong time and with an abominable recruiting team

1 hour ago, DEE fence said:

Rapidly losing interest in any sport that is played in Saudi Arabia, talking two F1 races now. Hamdillah the Saudis can't get their hands (or have interest to tbf) on the AFL. 

We sell $1.4 billion of products to Saudi Arabia each year. 

Should we stop that too?

I haven't read the full thread but surely Tassie Devils infringes on our IP and logo etc?

48 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

But the disputed ball was on the goal line - and the kick off line (top of the goal square) is 9m out. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here jnr.

Well It's not ideal but they bounced the ball at the top of the goal square rather than 9m out from the middle of the goal and point post where the disputed mark/touch took place. That would have been marginally better but the whole thing is ridiculous and gave the Dogs an advantage that they didn't deserve.

14 minutes ago, sue said:

While that is right in general play, I think an defending ruckman cannot hit it through for a point without a free being awarded regardless of the 9m/pressure issue. The attacking ruckman can.  So totally unfair.

18.11 DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS

18.11.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.

18.11.2 Free Kicks - Deliberate Rushed Behinds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player: (a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line; (b) is not under immediate physical pressure; (c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or (d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.

ok, Good get. 

8.2.4 Goal Umpire

(c) Unless otherwise determined by a Controlling Body, if a goal Umpire is unsure whether a Goal, Behind or no score shall be recorded, the goal Umpire may consult with the field and boundary Umpires to determine the outcome. If a decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser outcome. . If a decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser outcome. If the outcome is no score and the football remained in play, the field Umpire shall throw the football up at the centre of the Kick-Off Line.

Wow. That is cooked. And needs changing right away. At worst you would say 9m out from where the disputed ball was in play NOT the top of the goal square

49 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Huh, yeah I didn’t even think of that. 
 

Only thing I can think of is if Gawn taps it through for a point (even by accident, but being right by the goal line, it means he can only tap it one way without being penalised) it’s a free kick to the dogs? 
 

So going to the top of the square gives more room range for him to tap too? Dunno, just speculating. Didn’t look right regardless.  
 

 

You are allowed to punch the ball through if its within 9m of the goals and you are 'under pressure' - the under pressure bit was brought in to stop Clarkson's Hawks walking the ball through the goals to concede a point

50 minutes ago, binman said:

No, you clearly don't get my point.

And I'm confused as to what the disconnect is. It honestly feels as if you are arguing for arguing sakes jnr

Of course the recruitment of lever and May wasn't a tactical innovation. I didn't say it was. It was a recruitment decision. And bringing in two AA quality players is hardly rocket science. 

His tactical innovation was developing an incredibly effective all team defensive sytem that is now the template, the Gold standard, in the AFL. A model the best teams are implementing (with tweaks), for example the giants and the blues. Carbon copies of our sytem

(Note: I made clear goody didn't invent zone defence, or even all team defence, but it is unarguable he took both to a new level and developed a new and improved defensive system - one based on an incredible amount of all team running and demanding a new level of aerobic fitness. Which is why he brought Burgess in. His model doesn't work without that elite level fitness across the whole team. It is a model that has changed the way the game is played and is a big part of its evolution in the last 8 years - for example fitness is more important now than it has ever been. If you think otherwise then we are never going to agree on this topic. And we see the game very differently)

That is a considerably more complex exercise than simply 'fixing our leaky defence' by recruiting two gun defenders (something that is as old as the game  -ie recruiting good players).  

As i said port and the dogs have tried to fix their 'leaky defence' by bringing in Alir and Jones respectively.

But neither Hinkley or Beveridge have also developed an innovative defensive system (though the dogs appear to be trying to implement a version of ours). And so despite attempting to fix their 'leaky defence' by recruiting guns, their defensive issues remain unresolved.

Recruiting May and Lever, particularly Lever (no coincidence he was recruited first given how key intercept marking is to goody's system) enabled goody to fully realise his vision.

They were targeted not merely because they were so good, but so they could be the foundation of his system. Both had to have the nous, and desire, to play the role goody needed them to play, They wouldn't have bene recruited if goody thought they didn't.

By the by, i think the reason Tomo is not going to be a regular best 22 player (he'll come in for specific roles no doubt) is that he struggles with the complexities of the defensive system, in particular when to zone off and leave his man to impact a contest or intercept. 

If it was just about bringing in AA quality key defenders then goody wouldn't have waited three years after trading in Lever to get may. 

And yes, he has done other tactical innovations - though none so influential and impactful on how the game is played (which is why I picked it as an example). 

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT - GOODY DOESN'T GET THE KUDOS HE DESERVES FOR HIS TACTICAL INNOVATIONS.

I'm really not sure why this conversation has landed where it has - I would have thought the para above is pretty uncontroversial.

But as you say, each to their own. Tapping out now.

Yep me too. I have work to do!

10 minutes ago, binman said:

That was so bizarre.

I mean, they couldn't have picked a more advantageous spot for the dogs.

I would have been ropeable if they had scored a goal from that stoppage.

It would have been another way for the dees to get screwed by a review.

I would be making a very loud complaint to the Umpiring department about that one. We are very lucky it didn't cost a goal. The umpires are now too scared to call obvious decisions like Lever's touched ball.

Why did the Dogs get such a big advantage. As it was JUH got the ball and had a shot on goal which was smothered.

And the number of goal reviews generally is now insane. As someone else mentioned maybe its an advertising thing. But its a terrible look for the game

15 hours ago, binman said:

You've well and truly misunderstood me jnr. 

To be clear my point was Goody deserves a lot more credit for his tactical innovations than he gets. Full stop. 

As an example, as i said, whilst he didn't invent the all team defensive zone or the use of the zone off, third man intercepting defender (Hardwick deserves credit here) he has absolutely perfected the model. 

As i noted, he began working on it way back in 2016. The model is now the gold standard defensive system in the AFL.

The proof is in the pudding - we have had the best defence for at least three season now. On the back of that we have won a flag and made top 4 three years in succession.

Teams like the Port and the Dogs who have not developed something similar are going nowhere.

The Lions might be the exception to prove the rule, but the fact remains they are yet to win a flag under Fagan. 

In addition to implementing a defensive system with key similarities to ours (with Moore playing the Lever role), albeit a more aggressive one, the Pies developed a ball movement method that was specifically designed to break down our defensive system, such is its brutal effectiveness, through fast ball movement. 

The Giants defensive system is almost a carbon copy of ours, and the Swans and saints employ very similar systems too. Ditto Freo and Blues.

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right that 'blind freddy' could see that we needed better key defenders than Frost and Omac.

How does that change the fact that Goody developed a sophisticated defensive system that has become the AFL template for defensive systems?

Bringing in may and Lever would have changed little if they were not the cornerstone of the defensive system he was developing and implementing.

Port brought in Alir, who is a star as it was obvious to Freddy they needed to do something about their defence. And he is a brilliant interceptor - perhaps the best in the AFL.

But Port haven't implemented a sophisticated defensive system as evidenced by their woeful points against record under Hinkley. And so Alir hasn't moved the needle on their defensive issues. 

And if it was just about bringing in elite defenders, then Lever was not the player to target as he is average one on one. Tomlinson would have been a better target back then if all we needed were better key defenders.

Again, many posters one here and plenty of media types knocked the dees at the time for spending so much capital on Lever given he was 'just an interceptor'. Plenty would have preferred we chased a gun forward. Or a pure lock down key defender. 

At that point only the Crows, tigers and dees had a specialist intercepting defenders, now every team does.   

Blind Freddy could also see the dogs needed to focus on sorting out their defensive system from 2018 and go out and target some elite defenders.

But what have they done? Turn Naughton from a CHB into a KPF, draft JUH and Darcy and trade in Lobb.

What have they done about their woeful defence?

Well they finally got a interceptor in  - Jones, a good player, but he's undersized and 33. Genius. 

So Blind Freddy might be able to point out decent players that could be replaced by even better, AA players, but Freddy seemingly ain't so good at seeing massive issues with team's game plans and methods.

OK I get your point I just don't agree that the defence recruitment of May and Lever was a "tactical innovation".

He's done other tactical innovations like the deployment of our wings but fixing our leaky defence wasn't 'tactical' as such. It was an obvious necessity. And it was innovated by others.

But each to their own.

On 18/03/2024 at 00:31, kev martin said:

The strange one was when a review was called when the ball was still in play. TMac was over the ball and got collected in the back of his head, as a review was called for a point, but the ball didn't cross the line. They then balled it up at the top of the goal square. Such an advantage to the attacking team, as they set for the stoppage and set to hold the ball in the area. Just pressures the defensive side.  A really unbalanced call. AFL need to let it play until a stoppage occurs and then call the review, though that is also fraught with problems. Maybe review as the play continues..

Then they bounced it at the top of the square!!!

Madness

4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Nah, that's not it. You just wanted to shoehorn in a way to dunk on an ex-player, Oscar McDonald, for no good reason other than that you seem to hate him.

He's played AFL footy at 3 clubs despite being cruelled by some very serious injuries, including fighting his way through the VFL despite having spinal fusion surgeries. He also seems like lovely guy and a really weird played to have a grudge against. 

I've met Oscar he's a lovely bloke

Speaking of shoehorning his way into a conversation.....