Adam The God

I'd have him out for Viney next week. Perhaps they want to try some things that Brown wouldn't fit into this week or next? That said, I'd bring in Captain Sparrow this week instead of Melksham if that were the case. There's not a lot that's dangerous about Sam to this point in time, but hopefully he starts to show it. And keeps his feet a bit more, whilst maintaining some strength in the contest. Why not Sparrow? He offers more than Chandler and has been ripping it up in the 2s. I can only assume they think Sparrow is fighting for another position. Say ANBs spot for example.

And I forgot Langdon. His spread and the outlet he provides is irreplaceable. I think losing any of our top 12 or 15 will make it tough this year. I reckon people forget that Richmond had a dream 18 months with no injuries. This coincided with their 2017 flag year. The constantly injured Bulldogs managed to win 2016 on system, but that's much rarer.

Great post mate. In order of importance, it's Oliver, Lever and then potentially Max IMO. We did show in 2017 though that minus Max we're less predictable. Petracca's spark and brilliance is difficult to replace though.

Great post mate. Still waiting for the Axis of Bob newsletter. Would gobble it up.

Zimbabwe is pegged to the USD. Its currency as a result can be at the mercy of money markets and the foreign sector.

Vis a vis #2, nothing can compete with fiat. Sure, the worth of a currency can decrease on global markets, but its domestic value is what's important. Particularly, as most people are beginning to buy more local product or buy very cheap multinational products (ASOS, Amazon etc). As for the reliability of a fiat currency, that is totally in the hands of Treasury and DFAT. The Australian Government can control the strength or weakness of the AUD if it wants to. This is of course why some millennials (in particular) like the idea of decentralising the currency. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea. At the end of the day, the fascination with cryptos are mostly to do with #1 - profit and greed. How can I get a greater passive return for my money? But the thing most people fail to understand is how value is derived from a fiat currency. The majority of the LNP, ALP and the Greens stupidly believe in Thatcher's taxpayer money myth. Taxpayers have no role in financing the Australian Government. None whatsoever. A fiat currency derives its value from the tax liabilities the fiscal authority demands every fiscal year, of every citizen and firm. So the Australian Government could increase the value of the AUD by increasing taxes or by buying up AUDs on the FEX, but it depends what the goal is and how that impacts on your foreign sector. One of the greatest living economists, I'd argue the greatest we've ever had, would do a much better job of explaining currency valuation than I would. He does post on this site, but unless he sees this, I'll assume he doesn't want to post about it.

To da moon, am I right? The dump is on. Again.

Have a read of David Graeber's DEBT. It blows the lid off barter and gold as a medium of exchange. Precious metals are just like crypto and unlike state money. Tax liabilities drive the value of state money. Nothing else can compete. But at least PMs have a history of people believing in their worth in times on instability.

Cryptos are nonsense, but each to their own. They'll never supercede state money. Decentralising finance is even more dangerous than having two major parties who operate almost entirely on behalf of the elites. All you get with cryptos is the same thing happening. The elites manipulating their wealth port folios with the old pump and dump, and then virtue signalling about cryptos horrible ecological impacts. But a deal is a deal. I wonder how much money they're tipping in. I hope it's taxable AUDs. :P

The Dogs will be hard to beat at Marvel and potentially harder at the G (their outside game could really tear you up), but I reckon Brisbane and even Richmond are a stronger team than the Dogs. But each to their own. It's interesting to note those top 3 teams are either Clarkson or Clarkson assistants.

Completely agree. And this is where the comparison to Klopp's team is still very apt. The aim being to force a turnover as quickly as possible or at least as deep in our forward half as possible.

Close. Bulldogs, Eagles, Hawthorn, Geelong and North lead the DE team stat. It's interesting to note the two bottom teams are in the top 5. I think you must be spot on and it's about the tactical way we play.

For many years I have viewed the DE stat with some scepticism, but it is interesting to note that we are dead last for disposal efficiency. This despite all the talk of the Williams effect. It would be interesting to read why Demonlanders think this might be the case, particularly as we are trying to be much more careful from stoppages and we seem to be much cleaner than previous years. In our effort to create the perfect clearance with use of handball, is this impacting on our DE efficiency?

Love it mate, but I'm going to disagree with you here. I think the Goodwinpressing was absolutely a feature of our games across 2017-2019, even early parts of 2020, but I think our defensive set up is now far closer to Clarko's cluster from yesteryear. We protect the corridor and are quick to close any switching exits. We've even started to block the 'play on' space from a standstill defensive position on the wings and flanks. When Carlton had it and looked to kick it long down the line, Kozzie would man the 15m space that the kicker would normally move into to get extra distance with the new rule. I haven't worked out yet whether this was something Kozzie was smart enough to do himself or whether it was a directive. Sidebottom did the same in the Sydney game. In Kozzie's situation, it meant that someone with pace could close down the kicker once they tried to play on, but without giving the 50m away by encroaching on the 15m zone. It's quite evident in games that we zonally mark space rather than press (Langdon and Gus are vital components here) and, sure, if an opposition player tries to break lines we're in a position to tackle and defend, but what happens mostly is that an opposition defender will look up and see a sea of Melbourne jumpers ahead. I think the instinct of a modern player is not to run and carry through that and undermine their own defensive positioning, particularly if their own disposal slingshots back at them. Instead, I think they look for a shorter option or more often a long kick up the line to a contest (and right into our hands). The Goodwinpress was far too aggressive and naturally left space out the back as the opposition could draw tacklers and utilise the space created to continue their attack. We used to see a lot of goals out the back. Carlton's first on the weekend was a very rare sight, where we all went up and it went out the back. Usually, our team plays with the ball in front of them. Petty, May and Lever all took turns at playing the goalkeeper role. May and Lever played it a little higher, but Petty was often 50m behind the play. As shown in the Sydney analysis by King. This happened again on the weekend. At one stage, Carlton dump kicked it over our initial wall and a completely free Petty marked in 30-50m of space. It was less obvious on the replay, but at the ground he was ridiculously deep. I loved it. And as King said, the deepness of this sweeper allows Lever and May to really play a more aggressive intercept game, knowing they've got cover out the back and quickness of defensive transition with the wingers helping out Hunt and Rivers to get back and cover Petty if the ball gets through May and Lever. It's a pretty impregnable set up. I think the first signs of this system started in the Collingwood game last year and were honed and really delivered in that St Kilda game. Like the Goodwinpressing, our current system still requires massive work rate to constantly shift and reposition the zone. Of course, there is definitely some pressing inside 50, but usually 3 or 4 players, not an 18 man press with mids pushing up like in Klopp's teams. We don't usually add an extra or two to stoppages anymore either. We're happy to have that extra behind ball. In some ways, it's been a monumental shift in philosophy. The boys mentioned it on the podcast last night, the ability to give up centre clearences for example and still be dominant around the ground. They mentioned Richmond and Hawthorn. I'd add Chris Scott's teams to this too. They're fine losing clearance, because they're well set up behind the ball. I think the other reason we've gone away from Klopp's aggressive style is our local game is far too quick. It's also much tougher to press exits on an AFL ground as opposed to a football pitch. This new system will get found out soon enough, but I'm hoping not within this year. It might take playing a 1v1 set up in the forward half, but even then, we're forcing teams to go against their own philosophies just to deal with our defensive set up. It'll be fascinating to see how this unfolds.

Way too easy to counter. Just have sweepers on either flank and the centre square. Depending how many of your players go into the huddle, you also leave yourself very vulnerable to the defensive 50 space with a turnover or intercept.

Jordon currently shares the wing with Gus. I'd shift JJ to half forward when not in the middle.

Jackson's tank seems elite going by his early season numbers. I'd try him on a wing if we think he's up to it defensively. Think Cox at Essendon.

A consistently elite performer. If you look at his clearance numbers, ground ball gets, tackles and handballs for most of his years, he's elite in all areas. His ability to get first hands on the ball and accelerate into and out of the contest is a very rare trait and his hands are the best I've ever seen in a Melbourne jumper. I reckon he's top 3 best handballers of the 21st century. He might be one of the greatest handballers of all time.

Yep, this is what I'd do. I'd play Viney majority forward with only a few centre bounce stoppages, to keep him fresh for the Bulldogs, but also to give our centre stoppages a bit of extra zip and improve our inside 50 tackles.

Absolutely. Some real clutch marks, but also clutch contests, and just takes the game on and runs through forwards to get ground balls and then clear them.

We did look really dangerous against Sydney with a 200cm giant standing in the goal square. I reckon you might be right.

And I just need to say it again. What a ripping game from Rivers. Star. He's even better on replay.

Brown and Weideman might not have got on the score sheet, but watching the replay at the moment, I reckon we can make this work with McDonald. It might take some time to get this to work and we might have to be a bit smarter about how we use each one, but it was a reasonable dress rehearsal. I liked how we utilised Weideman in the ruck and then higher up the ground and across half back. We also had him from the square on occasion too, so we kept them guessing and kept flipping the match ups to test the Carlton defence. 1v1 their guys are actually not too bad. It's their team defence that's ordinary, so it was good to see Brown and Weideman get a couple of looks each. They really could easily have had 2 or 3 each. And if Max doesn't take that off Brown's chest earlier in the game, there's another one. But that's the synergy that's not quite there yet. I also think we need to play Fritsch up the ground. Play him between the arcs. His ball use there is brilliant, particularly entering 50. The old Melksham role. Roll him back to our forward square when we can, but his ball use further up the ground will be very handy. He'll still get 2 or 3 looks a game, the same as he does now, but then exploit his ball use and allow others to get involved. Chandler should get another go in there as a small too, but I think in time it'd be nice to have Sparrow in there. He gives us an extra mid rotation and can play a defensive role inside forward 50. It might also be an idea to try Bedford for a game or two as well before the end of the season. We do need another zippy small like Kozzie though, but that's the for the draft, unless we've got our eyes on a small in the mid season draft. I'd utilise Brown at CHF, deep forward and as the secondary option with Max up the ground. I'd use McDonald deep, CHF, wing and the other secondary option with Max up the ground. Be fascinating to see what we do this week. I reckon we'll go unchanged, unless we bring Viney in for Chandler. It may also be a horses for courses thing against say the Bulldogs the following week, where we might want to go tall to try and target the Bulldogs' lack of quality KPDs. I'd love to see Jackson play as a genuine mid and second ruck too, but that might be a bridge too far. Interesting times.

Regarding our inside 50s and our inside 50 efficiency, I can't remember which poster it was that was complaining about our forward 50 entries and suggesting we change it up, but we are currently 1st for inside 50s and 5th for inside 50 efficiency. That's a monumental improvement for us. We're predictable when we go inside 50. If a player isn't free and the leading channels are clogged up, we'll go into the high forward pocket. It means every Melbourne player knows it. This makes us predictable in the same way Richmond were predictable going to the foot of the square and Riewoldt throughout 2017 and 2018, then getting their crumbers to pressure the foot of the contest. We don't have the same sort of dynamic smalls (outside of Kozzie), but our go is stoppages, so we look to get an inside 50 mark (say Gawn or McDonald) or get it out of bounds to reset and win the stoppage contest from there. This strategy won't change, as I think @binman said, nor should it. It's clearly working a treat.

This is nonsense. Clarry is my favourite MFC player of all time, but you didn't watch Mitchell closely. He was constantly on the bottom of packs and had brilliant hands. He was every bit the extractor. He was not an outside mid.