Binmans PA

If you want to boil it down simplistically, you kick a winning score, based on method. The method is how you get there. And the method got us there 16 times on a season. The method isn't the problem. It's the execution. Fritsch, TMac both missed multiple gettable shots they'd usually get, that's the game right there, before we even mention the 6 other on the fulls.

Nice analysis.

Our strength is clearly contested ball and therefore our ability to get it inside 50. We are number 1 for both in the comp and have been for years. Even 2019. So it was always about getting strength behind the ball and team defence to ensure we could lock it in and play territory. We've done that now and finished top 4 three years in a row and won a flag within that (and still in it this year), and the next step IMV is improving the forwardline personnel. And since territory derived from winning the contest is our strength, we're number one for stopping defensive transition and conceding scores from it. Injury has meant our method hasn't so far been able to go to the next level in the forward half (our main targets Fritta, Petty, BB and Tmac all missing huge chunks of the season), but despite all these injuries, our system has seen us finish in the top 4. So yes, I'd say we're maximising our strengths.

Agreed that it's likely Gus retires now, so we will need to find someone else and it's not JJ. I wouldn't mind trying McVee in Rivers' role next year and shifting Rivers into the midfield. You then have Oliver, Petracca, Viney, Sparrow, Rivers and hopefully Gus can get back. If he goes retire, that would change my position. In the middle of the year, I wasn't sold on Gus being in my 22 at the end of this year, but he proved how important he was at the back end of 23 IMO. So it's a huge hole, if he does hang up the boots.

Exactly. They need picks. I'd happily give them our natural first for Lynch for 2-3 years. Totally worth it if we win 2024 or 2025 IMO.

I just wrote to you about this in the other thread mate. I think these concerns are overblown and we'd hope Rivers and Bowey can step into the midfield over the next 18 months. If we can add a Callaghan type, I think we'd have really good balance in there. Then use the FA window to strengthen our list gap in the 24-27 demo.

Everyone I sat with on Thursday felt Sparrow really lifted (irrespective of actual possessions) in the third quarter and that goal he kicked, gave us a sniff. But each to their own. We also have guys like Bowey and Rivers waiting in the wings. There's no reason both can't step into the midfield in the next 18 months IMV. Our midfield problems are overblown IMO, but I wouldn't mind adding a player like GWS' Callaghan to the mix as well as Bowey and Rivers.

We have a different method to Collingwood as @old55 and @binman regularly say. The way we move the ball given our territory dominance means we need good contested markers. This is why we rely so heavily on Max. Collingwood are very ordinary (aside from the first quarter) at contested possession (13th league wide). They rely on conceding territory, which leaves space in behind for their kickers and runners to penetrate into an empty forwardline. It's why they don't rely on a key forward. They play to their list's strengths, which is what we do too. However, without TMac, BB and eventually Petty to compete in the air forward of the ball, we aren't as potent. As a rule, TMac, BB and Petty are excellent set shots (TMac was unusually wayward, which was a factor in our loss), so IMO we need more genuine class in the air and at ground level. Petty, I think can be one of those dominant threats in the air, but I think we need a second in the short term that will relegate JVR to the third tall and leave Fritta as the 4th banana, and I reckon that'll elevate JVRs game.

I'd go Watson and O'Sullivan, and tempt Tom Lynch over for 2-3 years to partner Petty.

When we play in the wet, we can tend to play the percentages more, which means kicking long as our main mode of entry. I think if we'd tried to chip the ball around more and found a shorter target around the arc or inside 50, we'd have been super vulnerable to slingshot goals on turnover. Against Geelong for example, we constantly tried to chain out of contests by hand when we should have been more about getting territory. Tonight, we were more about getting territory. The problem with that in the modern game is you've got essentially the entire opposition camped in your attacking 50, which makes scoring tougher. At the end of the day though, we're not having these conversations if TMac kicks his 35m directly in front one or Fritta at least scores from his 35m, slight angle kick, Langdon kicks the one from the goal square he took advantage on and the 6 other out on the fulls from our guys tonight.

Demonland hugs then. It's pretty hard losing to that mob and even harder to take when we squandered so many gettable opportunities to not win the game comfortably by 2 or 3 goals.

Hope you're doing okay, @jane02. Maybe we'll get a chance to avenge tonight in the GF.

He might have to try and make it work next week. I can't see a world where Grundy doesn't come in if JVR gets suspended.

The rules are jargon haha. Righto mate.

I'm not sure it would have been a big factor either, although being able to throw Grundy into the ruck in the first quarter, when Cox won the first 9 hit outs of the game, could have shifted the momentum and kept us closer at quarter time. Whoever lost tonight were always going to look at selection and say what might have been.

Nah, you're not being balanced mate. That's silly. Just ask old mate Jimmy.

It actually doesn't matter whether it was a football action or not. Look up the rules mate. Grading can either be classed as intentional or careless. If you're saying it wasn't intentional, then it was careless. There are then four impact grades for careless conduct. 1) severe impact (high is 3+ matches). 2) high impact (high is 2 matches). 3) medium impact (1 match). 4) low impact (fine). Explain to me how that was careless and low impact.

No, I think he'll get off. I've already stated that. Just look at Cripps last year. The letter of the law should have seen him cop 3+ weeks, but he gets off and wins a Brownlow. If we were being balanced, we'd have the rules up and assess that play against those said rules. Now the grading can either be classed as intentional or careless. Let's say it was careless. There are then four impact grades. 1) severe impact (high is 3+ matches). 2) high impact (high is 2 matches). 3) medium impact (1 match). 4) low impact (fine). In what world was that low impact? As I say, to the letter of the law, he must cop at least 1 week. It's all well and good for you to feel something, and you like neggy thoughts and that's lovely, but when you're talking about something that you're clearly not across, there has to be a point where you put your hand and say you've got it wrong. Maynard should absolutely go for this, and you should absolutely put your hand up and say you're writing twaddle, but neither will happen.

It's funny. I went into the game confident and felt if we kicked straight we'd win, and we then had the golden ticket to the GF. My sister was leas confident going in and thought we'd lose. After the game, I felt season over and she is now saying we'll win the flag haha. Funny old game.

Ah, here is. I knew old mate would be back. Hasn't been sighted since our last loss and now he's back defending a guy who failed in his duty of care. He left the ground and make head high contact with another player that resulted in an immediate substitution of that other player. Only nuffies who don't understand the letter of the law here are defending this.

If you look at the rules, he has to go. High impact and careless, and he left the ground to make contact. Players have a duty of care. He has to go. On top of this, Gus' father in law took his own life with CTE (from acquired brain injury in sport), Gus may never player again and the AFL is currently engaged in a law suit with a group of ex players who have suffered similar repeated concussions. We've just had another player retire as a result of this in McCartin. Having said all this, the AFL couldn't give a stuff about anything but revenue. Maynard will get off when he absolutely shouldn't.

So my big fear came to fruition. We kicked ourselves out of it. TMac and Fritta miss montys they'd normally convert and that's the game. 'Win the big moments' and we didn't. I think we've cost us ourselves a shot at the 14th flag.

Sportsbet odds have come in even further this morning. Collingwood paying $1.88 and Melbourne paying $1.92. It's very likely they're even come the bounce of the ball. I've been a little nervous over the past week or so, but can't figure out whether it's more excitement or dread. I think my nerves will start to ramp up between 5-7pm, and my stomach will churn for probably the entire game. If we get our game right, we should win, but if we allow them to move the ball from half back and we're not on the entire night, I think they'll get us.

He did play for Hawthorn though.

Don't you mean "YEP BETTER THAN CHARLIE SPARGO"? Just for clarity...