Adam The God

The thing about bottle episodes is they're often divisive. People either love them or hate them. I have a bunch of friends that hate that ep of Seinfeld and hate the Breaking Bad episode of the 'Fly' (another bottle).

Yup, 'The Suitcase' is a bottle. Breaking Bad had some incredible bottle episodes and many of its early episodes verged on bottles, because of the lower AMC budgets, but as the show went on, it got more expansive. One of the best bottle episodes ever written IMO is an episode of Homicide: Life On The Street, titled 'Three Men and Adena'. Fontana is a bloody brilliant writer, who created and wrote Oz too. He won an Emmy for this episode that was also directed by New Zealand director Martin Campbell, better known for directing Edge of Darkness in the 80s, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. It's an episode where the detectives interrogate a suspect for the entire episode. If you get some time, it's totally worth it. Genius.

I've done a bunch of Googling and they still say he's unidentified.

The term is a bottle episode. Some of the best episodes ever written were bottles.

Who was he?

I really love how Lockhart's settled into this role, so maybe in time, Sparrow could play there too, along with the likes of Jordon too.

I'd prefer him playing forward and midfield with bursts in the ruck, but it really depends on how he develops. I'd say at 18 there's a chance he could still grow a little more, but even if he's done, he's got a great leap.

Haha, I think of the Woo Hoo Mystery man as the same guy as the Oh Ho Ho Mystery man.

I don't think he'll get one this week.

I'm not going to be able to interpret this without a best 22.

Absolutely. He could be an A+ grader, but that'll come. He's 23 years old, as you say.

I'll stick with my opinion that we have the cattle now in the midfield to tear teams apart on the inside and the outside. Langdon's running power is really important to our midfield, but Gus, Oliver and Petracca can call play inside/outside as well.

I reckon there are a few on here that need to acknowledge this as well. Yeah, great, he can improve areas of his game, like all players can, but the guy is still putting together a very, very good season.

Disagree with this mate. He hasn't been getting the ball. That's why he's been a big detractor. He needs to play in the guts, because his influence is as great as Oliver or Petracca when he's in there.

But ironically, I'd say our defence is playing together as a unit in a much more solid way (see the scores against for the year as an example - leave out Port) than our mids are. This is the problem with our set up. Our biggest weapon, in our midfield, is not playing as a cohesive enough unit, otherwise IMV we'd be near the top of the ladder, given so much of our attack goes through the midfield.

I think he needs to take the game on more with his kicking. Because he has the kicking ability, I'd much prefer him turning it over occasionally, if he was making us better with his kicking in an attacking way. Using angles and looking for the corridor wherever possible should be the go. Gus' kick into the middle of the ground to Jones last night was a perfect example of an attacking kick and we so often score when we attack the corridor as a team. He's not wasted in the backline, because I don't think he's a natural ballwinner and he's not a good enough tackler (at least at the moment) to play in the midfield, but we/he is wasting his kicking attributes by not seeking to be penetrative enough.

Completely agree. You could be right. On both counts.

I thought so too, but apparently he attended 5 centre bounces in the first half. Still, not many and Viney was playing midfield for many of these.

As for Woo Who Mystery Man, still my favourite Woo Who came when Clarry goaled from that snap in the pocket a few years back (2017?). So good.

I reckon he held the hand of the Crow and then the jumper. The combination of both, meant that it was a clear sling tackle IMV. But I don't think it was intentional, but he should cop a week for it, as Burgoyne should have.

Great post, mate. I think the midfield group has been stuck between being overly attacking and being more accountable to their opponents if the opposition sharks Max's taps. Thing is, it's ironically meant that we're not active enough at stoppages. I sometimes wonder if we should occasionally spread the mids out in around the ground stoppages, as in, have them stand back 5 metres, and vary this at every stoppage, so that Max can become more aggressive with his tapping and if the opposition ruckman taps it, our mids can still close in on them being 5 metres back and affect the quality of the clearance. Would also give our guys an ability to 'hit' the stoppages at pace a bit more, with essentially a run up. I'm not saying I'd use it every time, otherwise it becomes predictable, but I think our stoppage set ups could do with a bit more innovation.

It's interesting, because I'd say what he says about Ben Brown is equally applicable to Gawn and Melbourne, in that our strength has become our weakness. Stop Max, stop Melbourne. Hinder Max, hinder our midfield. I agree that we absolutely have to be smarter in a strategic sense for how we protect Max, but I don't think Jennings is right in saying that's the only answer. Sorry, but you can't protect Max in a ruck contest when only Max can nominate and you're not allowed to get in the way of the opposition ruckman. I think that's a bit farcical to suggest being 'more strategic'. But around the ground, I think we've become too dependent and too predictable with the way we use Max. I find it hard listening to Jennings talk about Melbourne, because to me he comes off increasingly biased with regards to our current coaching. It could be argued that Goodwin's comments in the media about protecting Max are strategic and that this places the treatment of Gawn at the top of the agenda for umpires. The guy I'd be trying to stick up for is Oliver though. He is essentially tackled prior to possessing the ball at every centre stoppage. It's as clear as day and yet he is rarely paid free kicks. Last night, the two Clarry received were welcomed, but just imagine he's Selwood, Dangerfield or Ablett. He'd be receiving free kicks all day or players would stop doing it and it'd make him so much harder to play against. The common denominator between those three players is they have a coach that squeals about them being held every week. I think we need to be calling it out in the press far more often. We have an elite midfield now and the best players usually get the best armchair-ride from the umpires. Time our guys got some of that. But back on Jennings' analysis, I disagree to a large extent on Salem. Dinky little kicks from half back to centre wing might help connection from the backline to the midfield, but do nothing to score or help forward connection. I think Salem is a lovely bloke (having met him before), he has got great skills and he has shown a level of hardness that should make for an elite package, particularly, playing him behind the ball and giving him more time. However, I find his possessions don't attack the ground enough and if Jennings is talking about maintaining possession from half back, then that might be a different thing, but in terms of Salem's importance, I don't see it. He needs to be far more attacking with his kicking if he's to be a lynchpin for us. The next thing he talks about is accuracy and how it "doesn't always make you popular in footy clubs when everybody wants to talk about contest". To me, this is another whack at the club. Whilst I agree with him, there's a better, less passive aggressive, more professional way of wording this. In terms of what he says here, our accuracy has cost us a number of games this year, IMV, and there does need to be a balance between forward and defence, but I don't think it's a strategic problem this year, it's simply a lack of polish from the likes of Fritsch, Weideman, our mids and even Melksham. Should that be a focus? Well, as if accuracy isn't automatically a focus. And I think drawing attention to it when it isn't like it's VFL standard, may only exacerbate the problem. So for me, this point sounds like it's big noting himself and very easy to say as someone no longer inside the club. He also talks about the importance of having multiple strings to your bow and to just be a contest team is not enough. He then proceeded to analyse the Gold Coast v St Kilda game as a tale of two game styles, saying neither game style was better or worse than the other. To me, this is a contradiction. One is about getting the ball to the outside and other is about keeping it tight and contested. He then says St Kilda are a great scoring team, well, they play a contested style, so as long as it's not Melbourne playing the contested style it's alright? Is that what you're saying, Jenno?

Comedian and maths wizard, ET? I like the stats focus in this thread, not sure the ground covered tells us a great deal in this case though. Adelaide, like our game the previous week, refused to switch the ball or look in board and constantly went to contests up the line. This meant that there was less gut-running, since we'd continually set up our zone. The fact we barely ran at all the previous week would probably account for the slightly lower kms covered against Port.

Jackson is very Nik Nat in his influence. Doesn't get it a lot, but when he does it's flashy and relevant. I think Jackson's more of a natural footballer than Nik Nat. His game sense and body positioning for an 18 year old playing key forward is very impressive.

He played at Collingwood. Couldn't you tell? ?