Adam The God

I agree with all of that, except resting JVR during 21-23. I'd be resting him at 18-19. I know it's only 2-4 weeks later, but I expect us, if we've timed it properly, to be really attacking those games hard and we want continuity heading into the finals. 5 weeks allows us enough of this. If he's coming back in for Round 24, he's stop-starting, given the post R24 bye and finals.

I just listened to Goody's press conference and he says TMac 'is probably 3 or 4 weeks away at the moment'. I'd suggest they're targeting Rounds 19 or 20 for his return, so that we get enough time to adjust to the forward system with TMac and Brown in it (both of them potentially) and to build synergy again with the other forwards and the mids. Goody mentioned the word synergy and we know he values continuity to build cohesion and improve ball movement, so it'll be interesting to see if Tom is ready as well. JVR might just end up being the unlucky one this year, because I can't imagine we'll play JVR, TMac and BB in the same forwardline if we continue with Max or Grundy forward. Also going from Goody's presser, he says Max and Grundy are working from a rucking perspective, as we've started to get our clearance game going recently, but that we'd like to see more of them forward of centre. So the forwardline around Round 20ish (injury and rehab permitting) should have all our talls available: JVR, TMac, BB, Smith and Max/Grundy. If Selwyn and the conditioning team can get TMac ready to go in time and maintain the fitness of everyone else, plus get Clarry back to normal, we'll be really well placed to attack those last 5 weeks. We won't be going with the two defensive talls (May and Lever by themselves) again either by the sounds of it, unless it's completely out of necessity. I took Goody's comments to mean Petty stays back now. Particularly, if we have BB and TMac to choose from in time. With the exception of Bowser for Hibbo this week, likely changes will come in the forward half if BB comes in. If so, it'll be interesting to see whether they give JVR a rest or drop Smith. The pressure for spots is really heating up, which is great and will be compounded again when we try to fit Clarry back into the midfield.

Which means we're following the 2021 set up, except I assume it's JVR for TMac staying in. I think we have to use Grundy as the forward with bursts in the middle personally. More like how we utilised Jackson. And when Max isn't rucking or floating behind the ball, he's resting on the bench and JVR or Brown are doing the inside 50 ruck work (as Grundy stays behind the ball).

Winning ground ball against Collingwood and they're vulnerable the other way. Yep. We are set up to beat Collingwood.

I completely disagree with this, but each to their own. Collingwood rely on trying to manufacture uncontested possessions to move the ball quickly. Richmond often kicked long and high to contest and got their mozzie fleet at ground level to pressure, settle for territory or to crumb. Our style is much closer to Richmond's IMO. I've answered all this in an above post to Steve. I've answered this above as well. Was comparing game style, not ability to fall over the line.

I'd agree they have more balance in the midfield, but we have better extractors. It's why Collingwood have to send extras to the stoppages. We're the better contested midfield team, but I'd say their defenders, particularly Quaynor, who just doesn't lose 1v1s, are edging us this season. And you could hardly say we don't pressure well all over the ground. That's foundational to the way we play as well. Their backline is too small. Again, this is why McRae's best form of defence is attack. Their defensive kickers exceed our kickers, although we're building nicely / trying to emulate some of what they do there with Salem, McVee and Bowey. Hibbo on his day is as good as Quaynor 1v1 and May is a better shut down player IMV than Moore, but Moore is a better interceptor. That's a role thing though. Agreed. They definitely have better defensive personnel than our 2018 incarnation. Which is why we sort out Lever and May, and drafted Petty. I'm not sure that's true. There's a reason their opposition are always in the game and usually ahead for large portions of the game. They give up big on turnover. Even when they beat Geelong in Round 1, you could see, they'd still conceded 100 points and managed to kick more because Geelong were 1 or 2 players down. Again, their fitness got them over the line there, not necessarily superior game style. I agree with this completely. We do have to put more speed and pace into the game and I expect us to ramp that up post Round 19. This has been the pattern across 2021, 2022 and it's already showing in 2023 that our ball movement has been tweaked post Round 11 and we're unable to put too much speed on the ball. We're deciding instead to try and chain out of contests and slingshot that way.

Not at all. I admire what McRae has been able to do in a short amount time, but at the end of the day, they lost their first final, only beat Freo by 20 points and then lost their prelim. It's a system that doesn't stand up in finals... so far. Yes, absolutely. They're great to watch. A bit like us under Daniher. And the Bulldogs in 2021. That's all well and good, but I'd rather a so called 'dour' system and style that wins you premierships. Clearly you'd be happy just going deep in finals and looking good. I wonder how you'd be viewing us if the shoe were on the other foot. Given your glass half empty approach to most things Melbourne, I'd wager you'd be saying exactly as I have above. That you'd prefer winning flags than looking good. And just on the unbelievably exciting and fast paced brand, this is a furphy. Goodwin's style is incredibly exciting and fast paced earlier in the season (many on Demonland often lament that we started the season with more dare, just as they did in 2021) and in the 2021 finals series delivered arguably the most comprehensive finals series of all time. But I'm sure you'll say, oh, that was 2021. Well, the more negative and defensive style still delivered 2nd spot last year, despite us not being able to run out games in the second half of the year. This last point is not a game style problem, it's a fitness problem. If you want to win premierships, you have to be one of the fittest teams out there and then still it takes a huge amount of luck and other factors going your way. Yeah, sure, arousal levels. Okay, they've got arousal levels off their crowds. I'd again argue that playing contested, uncompromising football is a pretty good way to inspire and motivate players as well. But yes, I'd love a bigger crowd. This is hardly going to be changed by playing a more attacking style. We have the best supporter to member ratio and our attendances are bloody good for the size of our supporter base as evidenced by currently breaking the home attendance record, which eclipses our huge crowds in the 1960s. Well, actually, it can be argued. Our second half of last year wasn't helped by our predictable ball movement, but fitness was clearly the number one downfall of our game in the second half of last year - you couldn't dispute any other way given we were 10 zip, it's all about our failures in the second half of the year. However, in the second half of the year, we led against Collingwood at 3/4 time of both games against them, we led at half time in both finals and we led at half time against Freo in Round 11, were 2 points down at half time against Sydney in Round 12, we beat Brisbane by 10 goals at the MCG in Round 15, we beat Adelaide in Adelaide by 5 goals in Round 16, we were 4 points down to Geelong in Geelong at half time (we drew level just before 3/4 time) in Round 17, we beat Port in Adelaide in Round 18, we led to 3/4 time against the Bulldogs at Marvel (a game that was not a Melbourne game at all - a shoot out), we beat Freo by over 7 goals in the West in Round 20, beat a desperate Carlton playing for their season by 7 points in Round 22 and mauled Brisbane by 10 goals up at the Gabba in the final round. Collingwood have been a more consistent because they've been fitter over the last 12 months. That part cannot be debated or denied. But to argue their brand is more consistent is to miss the point. Our brand was super consistent last year. This year, we've been less consistent IMV, but still sit inside the top 4 with the 2nd best percentage, -4% to Collingwood, who have won 3 more games! The thing about Collingwood is they have consistently fallen over the line against teams. They rarely control games. Eventually, that belief in the come from behind, attack at all costs will dwindle and they'll be left with self doubt and their system will leak goals. Will it happen this year? Let's revisit this point at the end of 2023. They have a very strong offensive game, no doubt. So did the Bulldogs in 2021. The Bulldogs game style was reliant on handballs to chain out of contest that could be stopped at the source. This protected their unsophisticated defensive system. I wouldn't say Collingwood's defensive system is unsophisticated, but it does rely heavily on the likes of Moore and Howe to intercept and Quaynor to win 1v1s, and to take territory with their kickers. Our system used to be very reliant on May and Lever. To an extent it obviously still is, but we don't rely on May and Lever taking intercept marks to score or to stop the opposition from scoring. And IMV, our midfield is superior to Collingwood's, but less skilled by foot. And again, their brilliant win loss ratio is of course in part to their offensive, take it on game style, but without superior fitness they would not be coming back repeatedly in 4th quarters or being able to defend turnover. Take away their come from behind victories and I think you'd find their record to be heinous. As I say, they're rarely in control of games and they're always chasing. It means they're very vulnerable to mental fatigue. Again, this is a wait and see what happens in the finals series and the back end of 2023. I made the crude comparison merely in terms of their stoppage focus (sending +1 and +2 to contest, which we did prior to 6-6-6) and their ability to be exposed on defensive transition. Their defensive personnel is better given Moore, Maynard and Howe, but the latter two are undersized and usually rely on intercept and get shown up against bigger opposition (think Geelong and Brisbane). I'd take our 2018 midfield over their 2023 midfield, but then they have more elite ball users than we had, which is foundational to their game. 2019 is irrelevant. I was merely comparing game styles. And yes, I expect Collingwood to come back to the pack when sides go to work on them, which they are. Whereas, Collingwood were in all three finals and managed to win one. We both made a prelim. Their 2022 finals campaign was better than ours (clearly) for their prelim effort, but again, this is a side that has failed to make a GF. Yet, the esteem with which they're being held in is one of a premier or at least someone that got close in a GF. They didn't even make it to one! Again, I suspect if the shoe were on the pessimist's other foot, you'd be decrying our inability to get to the big one and that our game style, although getting us wins during the H&A season, had failed to get the job down when it came down to finals pressure. I doubt you'd be talking about the positives of arousal levels... We were vulnerable in the second half of the year, because sides knew they could overrun us then. Conversely, in 2021, sides realised we'd strangle them and rarely give them a sniff, because we were the fitness team in it. Again, we were ahead at half time in both our finals and in our second final, we'd beaten that opposition less than a month earlier on their home deck by 10 goals. That was the story of our season. That we'd consistently fail to run out games. Nothing to do with game style or arousal levels or some other furphy. Perhaps. This is your half empty approach again. Wasting our talent? Really? We're 4th FFS. Get a grip. Anyone would think we were languishing on the fringe of the 8. By the way, are you back from swanning around in Europe yet or are you still picking and choosing when to come to games? Don't tell me you're refusing to attend games because you don't like the game style.

You think the style of football they play is better than our style? Their style leaves them incredibly vulnerable to the counter, and is basically just rolling the dice with every play, adding numbers to contests and hoping numbers win out. We've been here before. We tried that in 2018. It's vulnerable to a sophisticated defensive system and to pressure. The mindless idealisation of Collingwood is quite bewildering on here. Is it a case of the grass is always greener or do people just swallow the media narrative? And make no mistake, Collingwood drives clicks and sells papers, so manufacturing an unbeatable aura around them (despite failing to even make a GF last year) is profitable and beneficial for media outlets. If it were the Bulldogs or the Saints, or even GWS or Gold Coast, the hype would not exist. Simple as that.

Where have you pulled $400 billion from? The purpose of a Just Transition is that it's a medium term project seeing infrastructure built over many years. I'd love to know where the inflation is coming from. Again, spending will only cause inflation if it pushes up against a real resource constraint, meaning the economy will not be able to produce or provide the goods and services... I won't be responding any further, but fire away.

Again, look up the Just Transition movement. Provided the Commonwealth understands its fiscal, regulatory and legislative powers, there'll be no inflation. Spending in of itself doesn't cause inflation. It's about the availability of real resources (labour, equipment, minerals etc). All spending public or private carries an inflation risk, but unlike private spending and consumption, the Commonwealth has levers like say taxation to free up resources. Federal taxation isn't a funding mechanism, it helps maintain the value of the currency and helps to manage resource space for expenditure. I've had these arguments many times on Demonland and I think I'll leave it at that.

Bergman would have been a good replacement / heir to Hibbo. Oh well.

Nowhere near as high it was back in the 1970s. Where's that stat of 70% come from? And it needs to be a transition. Look up Just Transition.

Haha, not to open a can of worms, but you realise they're addicted to revenue because they're addicted to thinking of themselves as businesses, rather than governments. If you think federal revenue funds things, you think of tax as a revenue raiser. As former RBA Governor Bernie Fraser once said "all this folksy nonsense about governments have to live within their means, governments have to behave like households and like businesses, that government spending is bad, deficits are bad, debt’s bad, all this to me is nonsense really, because governments are not like households, they’re not like businesses, they have responsibilities that go beyond".

Let's hope so. Invest in renewable energy. A major driver of inflation over the past 2 years is the cartel behaviour of local providers, and the price setting power of the OPEC cartel.

Have you seen That Sugar Film? Those industries have captured government (via lobbyists) in the same ways the Tobacco lobby remained relevant for so long. They've paid scientists to write papers downplaying the impacts on us. That film explores what the sugar industry has lifted from the Tobacco industry. As for betting agencies being able to take over, you can bet lobbyists are the reason why it's taken so long to get even a parliamentary recommendation on the table.

What are you talking about? We ban or regulate or tax things that we deem to be against the public good all the time. Alcohol and cigarettes are very obvious examples. You're not going to be able to stop alcohol, cigarettes or betting, but we can tax and regulate it. Sorry Binners.

I'm surprised IT and data security money isn't bigger in the AFL. Instead of our fundraising strategy being asking members for donations, I hope we're looking at some of these emerging players. Also, there's a big difference between a recommendation to parliament and legislating that change. Many recommendations from countless royal commissions are never implemented, but are recommended.

IMV, 2021 is important, because we (and others) will use it as a template to try and emulate. Throw in some lessons/learnings from Geelong's management program last year as well, except unlike Geelong's approach we'll only know the full story of our own 2021 approach. As a result, I believe that we deliberately tweak our ball movement through the middle of the season. I think we may have landed on it in 2021 as a response to our fatigue in that year or had a very deliberate strategy going into 2021 knowing we'd do this. As @binman often alludes to, Goody is a coach that plays the percentages and is seemingly a man of data accordingly. I've no doubt our FD would be all over these same CD numbers (and thanks for sharing, @titan_uranus) and more, and be saying we're doing a lot right, we just have to execute better (ie at this stage, we have to take our opportunities in front of goal). But back to the tweaks to our ball movement during the middle parts of our season, we are happy to deliberately go slower and longer to contests inside 50 if that's the state of that particular play (ie there's not someone free or in plenty of space inside 50). The other situation we're okay with during the middle parts of the season are finding free players across the 50m arc or wider in the pockets. It means less running and as the opposition tries to cover the more dangerous central areas as they begin to fatigue as well, those situations are more likely to be easier to hit up. However, slow ball movement to 1v1 contests often result in stoppages and kicks to the pockets/flanks/outside 50m across the arc, result in poor conversion. The reason is obvious. Many of our shots are either coming from tough angles, long distances or from snap shots off stoppages. But the trade off is as we have territory, it means we're essentially protecting our defence up the other end, and making the opposition defend us. I think if you look back to our 2022 season, we did a similar thing with our ball movement. Because a lot of our guys were playing injured and we often had little continuity in the back 7-8 due to injury ruling out players entirely, we tried to protect the defence by taking territory and trying to lock the ball in. The problem was our ball movement became so predictable that it didn't always result in grinding out a territory win, but often allowed teams to slingshot on us from the ensuing ground ball that would go to a contest. But despite this predictable and dour style, it enabled us to be a stingy defence and defence wins flags. Our problem was we never really got our offence going again. The exception being that Brisbane game in Round 23 of 2022. Anyway, if you remember back to the last few weeks of the 2022 season, we started to try and take on the corridor more, but it seemed like a bit of a plan on the fly or we simply didn't have the right guys to execute it. This year, we've set ourselves up more to slingshot and take on the corridor when it's on. It feels like a very deliberate plan. However, this dare has gone out of our game somewhat in the middle part of our season, but with the slingshot method in play, IMV, we're giving ourselves a better chance of creating 1v1s or free numbers ahead of the ball by playing the slingshot method as a key to scoring. Also, one of the main differences during the middle part of this year in comparison to 2021 and 2022 (2022 in particular) is that when we're going slow and long to a contest inside 50, we're going more centrally. This does have the potential to open us up more as going centrally provides the opposition with more exits, but we're maintaining a really good shape behind the ball, which enables us to almost tempt the opposition to chain out of our A50 and get through us. However, it's a risky move for them, because if we can create a turnover, we should have a decent look going back the other way. And conversely even if the opposition do get through, hopefully we can push them wide, slow them down or win 1v1s behind the ball to halt their attack. In short, I believe we deliberately tweak our ball movement during this period of the year and part of that sees lower accuracy, but ultimately, I think our turnover game, which has been a greater focus this year, is providing us stronger scoring potential than a pure clearance focus and territory game as per 2021 and 2022. We simply need to be more accurate when we get those chances inside 50.

So who are you replacing him with? Keeping in mind, the modern game is a slingshot affair that requires blokes that can bring lots of pressure and get the job down at ground level.

I'd rate their forwardline roughly on par with ours, otherwise I agree with the rest. As for the thought experiment, it's a great one. I think they'd want to make some tweaks, but I reckon they'd basically go again next year. But Pendles and Sidebottom are getting long in the tooth, so it brings further heat onto the Daicos boys.

Chandler's actually laid 8 in the last 4 games. But he had zero in the Carlton game. Since then, he's stepped up and he's also had 4 shots on goal for 4 behinds. He needs to improve his accuracy, but if he kicks straight the last two games, we're talking about him very differently. It's a game of margins and I'd prefer to back the work rate of Chandler, which is also helping our forward half IMO.

Binners, I'd like to zero in on this point. I believe Collingwood's system as it stands is very susceptible to pressure and turnover. I know you agree. Is this what you're referencing above or in your view, do they have other issues?

Sorry, I was advocating for Chandler. Whilst he's not hitting the scoreboard and it's hurting us, he's bringing enough good defensive work to keep his spot. Charlie is not contributing enough however. And his relegation to sub is evidence of this.

More the second part I reckon.

They need to hit the scoreboard, no doubt, but the last two weeks, we're +24 for inside 50 tackles, so they are doing brilliant work defending and maintaining territory for us. JJs problem is with the addition of Hunter, JJ can no longer fill in on a wing, which means when he's not playing midfield, he's basically on the bench, because he's not great at half forward.