Akum

According to the article: "Looking closer at centre bounces in particular, the figures start to become even more compelling. There have been a total of 327 centre bounces over the 12 Melbourne matches thus far - Jamar has been involved in almost 80% of those bounces, Moloney just over 70%. Youngsters Jack Trengove (32%), Jordie McKenzie (38%) and Jordan Gysberts (11%) have all been thrust into the middle this year, showing good signs for the future of the Demons’ midfield success. Interestingly, Tom Scully has attended only nine centre bounces in 2010 as he has been used primarily off the wing." This actually bothers me. This all looks great in the light of possibly Moloney's best game for the club, but our centre clearances have been poor over much of the season, especially in games where we've done poorly. Opposition coaches don't tag Moloney, because they know he's unlikely to hurt them, unlike Davey, for example. Interesting too that if Sculgove had played against Geelong, Thompson planned to put a hard tag on both of them. Would be interesting to compare the Scully & Trengove figures to the young mids from other clubs - Dustin Martin, Melksham, Cunnington, Bastinac. Scully & Trengove were always the obvious 1st & 2nd picks, well ahead of these guys in the draft, but may have had less time at centre bounces. Not to mention others like Ziebell & Hannebery & Stephen Hill who had not played much before this year due to injury. The club seems to show much more faith in what's left of the worst midfield in the comp in 2008 & 2009, than it shows in the young talent that was drafted specifically to improve that midfield.

There's sort of a spectrum of interpretations of HTB, from "protect the guy with the ball at all costs" at one end to "rewarding correct tackles by being really tough on incorrect disposal" at the other end. I think for most of us it doesn't matter so much which interpretation on this spectrum the umps choose to apply. It's more important to apply the same interpretation throughout a match, irrespective of who the actual players are (i.e. no favours for home teams or certain Brownlow medallists), and as long as both sides are aware of which interpretation is going to be applied for their particular match. It doesn't really matter if the interpretation changes week to week - in fact, that's probably a good thing, because if, for example, players know that the umps are going to protect the guy with the ball for the next few weeks, there'll be more staging for frees with every week that goes by. As long as the interpretation is applied consistently across a match for every player on the field. It's the consistentcy that seems to be missing. It needs the AFL (or Gieschen or whoever) to stand up & admit that yes, there are different ways to interpret this rule - instead of trying to maintain the fiction that different interpretations aren't the issue and the umps get it right every time - but that from now on the umpires will choose an interpretation and strive to be consistent with applying it over the course of a game, even though the particular interpretation may change from week to week and from game to game within a round. This is one area where the NRL has it all over the AFL - they aren't nearly as precious about criticism of umpiring or refereeing, so long as it avoids criticism of a personal nature aimed at a particular individual.

Playing interstate, it's important to keep the crowd as quiet as possible by getting in front early & staying there. It's just about impossible to play "catch-up", because if the home team is in front the crowd gets involved and carries them along, where if they get behind the home crowd is silent. So it's even more important that we jump them at the start. If we start like we've been doing for most of the season, we'll really be shovelling it uphill.

Some of the defenders even started their careers as forwards or midfielders but found their "home" in defence. Harvey, Lyon & Roos started as forwards. Malthouse & Scott & possibly Thompson (not so sure about him) started as mids. And I thought Bailey also started as a mid but played most games in defence. Eade (and Sheedy, for what it's worth) went the other way - started in back pocket & ended up in midfield. But again, no forwards - even those who started out as forwards did better as defenders. IMO this makes your point even stronger, Nasher.

But would Ablett jnr be anywhere near as good in a team that wasn't as good? In a team that finished low on the ladder for year after year? In a team that couldn't apply sustained pressure all over the ground? Doubt it myself. Not saying that Ablett isn't good, but he's playing in probably one of the best teams of all time.

Said it before and I'll say it again - Morton is much more damaging as an attacking weapon rather than a defensive one. He has a great engine, an amazing ability to find space, and on the occasions when he's decisive (an important caveat - his indecisive moments will decrease over time), he uses if well over 40-50m. We need to get him into the game in an attacking sense, not take him out of the game by making him have to play defensively. And I'm beginning to think the same about Grimes. I long for the day when Strauss can take his role in defence & release him into the midfield.

What I'd like to see today is for Dees to show as much faith in their young players as Richmond, Freo & Essendon have and have at least 3 of these 4 on the ball at all times during the game. No chance of it happening, but I'd like to see it.

Great to see that in the year we're supposed to be developing our young players, we're putting our faith in Dunn & Miller, instead of Watts & Bennell, in our biggest match of the season. Not.

The trouble with trading is that anybody tradeable and tradeworthy is likely to be offered much more by GC than we can afford. Unless there's a "niche" player who fits our needs in a way that wouldn't be so appealing to a side starting out. Hard to see where, though.

Geelong are also good at kicking intelligently to one-on-one contests, forward of centre, in such a way as to give their man a chance to either mark or get the ball to ground to crumbers. There's a huge difference between kicking intelligently to a forward-line contest and just bombing it. The goals to Green & Watts came from intelligent kicks to contested one-on-one situations (out in front of Green & over the top for Watts to run on to), but it didn't happen too many times.

Helluva OP, great work. I think Strauss will be great in time. IMO he can be a potent weapon with his disposal, and he can also play defensively (though perhaps not quite as effectively at this stage). But the bar's been set very high for him, because he's being asked to learn to do both at the same time - to be tight on his opponent, while at the same time zoning off to use his elite kicking skills to take risks in order to break lines, with the knowledge that a slight miss could result in a bad turnover. It's a huge ask, and guys like Hodge & Gilbee & Josh Hunt took a few years to get it right, but I'm sure he'll get there. Your comment about contested marks is interesting too. The reason why J-Pod takes a lot of contested marks is that his teammates are good at drawing their opponents away so that he's usually one-on-one without a "third-man-up", and the kicker kicks it into space on his side of the contest, so he's always in by far the better position to either take the mark or bring it down in a controlled way to the advantage of one of their crumbers. There's a way to kick to a contest that gives your team a much better chance of winning the ball, and Geelong have mastered this. For us, if there's no-one on their own to give an easy pass to, we just seem to bomb it long (which used to be called "kicking to position") to where we're outnumbered. IMO there's a huge difference between "kicking to position" and kicking to a contest in a way that gives your man the advantage.

His 3 games last year were Pies on QB, Brisbane and Dons and we got smashed each time then too. IMO at this stage in his career we can only really judge how he plays when the team does well. It's ridiculous to expect him to do well when the rest of the team is doing so badly.

Totally agree. If we want to begin games with our 2008/2009 midfield, we shouldn't be surprised if the result's the same as it was in 2008 & 2009. Before the end of the season I'd like just once to see us start a game with our 2012 midfield - Scully, Trengove, and either Gysberts or McKenzie.

I think you mean "The few times we have started well this year we have gone on to DO WELL, win or lose ..." And you're right. If we start badly, we continue badly - once we've lost our mojo we don't seem to be able to get it back. We can tell after 10 minutes whether we're "on song" or not. Surely this implies something seriously wrong with the preparation. No other team gets so regularly (and predictably) jumped at the start like we do.

Only if Jack plays like a spud when the ball's coming well into the forward line will I agree that he deserves to go. So far, the only game he's played where the ball's come in well was against Port, and that's been his best game. Only champion KPFs at the peak of their career can be effective when the ball's being butchered into the forward line. And Jack's not that yet.

These two are NOT going to influence games playing as flankers or wingers. They seemed to get very little time on the ball, and when they did, they were targeted and got no help from teammates. We recruited them to boost our midfield, which was the worst in the AFL; they're already our best on-ballers, why not play them there?

Great OP. What gets me is that we repeatedly seem to be surprised by how other teams attack us at the start of the game. Carlscum have been doing this off-the-ball stuff for decades. They know that the umpires never catch the perpetrator, they only turn around in time to catch the retaliator, and they sucked us in real good. The coaching staff don't seem to anticipate that other sides are going to do this and we get surprised by it. That's what gets me, we select dumb and we play dumb, especially in games we need most to win. We've won very few first quarters this year, and when we have, we've done well. The first 10-15 minutes of the game are the most important for us this year. It's stupid not to expect oppositions to go for us at the start.

But the thing is, take out the first half of the first quarter and the last half of the last quarter, we had their measure. And Frawley would have been invaluable today. Most Demonlanders would reckon that Carltank is a team we could take ... in 2010.

Don't know whose idea it was to go the niggle, but it's backfired horribly. The trouble is, when you give away a few "niggle" frees early in the game, the maggots blame you for everything that happens after that and don't pay obvious ones in your favour. It's a stupid tactic and they have been well & truly sucked in.

Gee this is really embarrassing.

It's not so much dropping players that bothers me, it's just that I think we should take note of where we might be vulnerable against whoever we're playing and select accordingly. This week we are vulnerable to the height of Kreuzer, O'hAilpin & Jacobs near goals, and very vulnerable when Jamar needs a rest. If Ratten's smart he won't put Kreuzer against Jamar, he'll leave him up forward where he'll be dangerous, and put him in the ruck when Jamar's resting. He'll be able to give that midfield an armchair ride for 10 minutes a quarter against whoever we put against him (Miller? Sylvia?). That's the "big risk" - we've left ourselves one tall too short, and if they can exploit that, we'll be in big trouble because we have nothing to counter it either around goals or on the ball. This is one we could definitely win IMO, all other things being equal, but I'm concerned about the size of the hole we've left.

Kreuzer/Jacobs both 200cm, O'hAilpin 199cm, Waite 194cm. Frawley 193cm, Rivers 192cm, Garland 191cm, Bruce 190cm. It's not just the risk of two key defenders being outmarked by someone significantly taller (and just as fast), it's also stopping them getting the ball to ground to the advantage of small forwards & midfielders. And it's not easy to run off Kreuzer or O'hAilpin either. It's taking a big risk IMO.

Riv can't afford to "float". If Frawley takes Waite, Riv's got to hold one of O'hAilpin or Kreuzer and in his present form he'll struggle with either of them. Then it's either Bruce or Garland for the third of this trio. If Riv gets spanked, they'll have to pull Miller back into defence. Agree that resting ruckman rarely kick bags as a general rule, but one of the few who's capable of it is Kreuzer. They've taken a big chance dropping two defenders who can take a tall, and their midfield will be pumping lots of ball high into the 50 - one way or another, there's a lot riding on Riv this week.

Good thread, excellent post. It's essential to get some stability in the forward line. IMO we have trouble with disciplined teams who play a defensive zone of some sort - Hawthorn, Weagles, North. Against more attacking teams, we can match it with the best of them. Even Geelong, although they're an attacking team, attack by getting plenty of bodies back on their half-back line, where they win the ball and move it forwards from there. We haven't yet learned to counter the situation where a player with the ball between the defensive 50 and the middle of the ground looks up & sees what must seem like a wall of opposition jumpers about 40-50 metres in front of them, with just a few Demons among them. This is a very difficult situation to be confronted by without a strategy for dealing with it, and it's at these times that we look really ordinary. Teams like the Dogs and the Dons manage to get through the zone by lightning quick precision ball movement. The Pies manage to get around it by hugging the flanks, and by the next link in the chain knowing where to run even before the link before them has the ball. When the other team succeeds in countering the zone, the "zone" team invariably gets absolutely smashed. We need to work out how to beat the zone, or we'll continue to lose to lesser teams like North & WC. I frankly don't know enough about Carlton to know whether they're a "zone" team or not, but I don't think so. But they do have a very disciplined midfield set-up, with many lesser players blocking for the likes of Judd & Murphy, and if we get smashed in the midfield, it could be nasty. On the other hand, these days we usually do really well when teams - even highly skilled teams like PIes & Dogs - try to beat us with skill.

Correction - it took Pods for Hawkins to get a semblance of consistency. Now instead of getting the 2nd tall defender, he only gets the 3rd tall defender.