Akum

Families apparently get along really well too.

Good (and very coherent!) thinking.

Wasn't there a comparison chart somewhere that said NicNat was stuck on 146? How good would it have been if he & NicNat could have played their 150th in the same game?

I agree, but they were much much better than I expected. Looks like they've been trying to get to a game plan similar to ours, and if Monday was any indication, they're far closer to it now than they were earlier in the season. If they keep up that trajectory, they'll beat some good sides, and Round 23 will be another great contest.

Must admit, when I thought of someone seemingly close to you-know-who, who would invest in a victory for demons, I kinda didn't bring moral fibre and integrity into the equation. So you can see how I immediately thought of Georgie-boy. Especially as it seems that he now holds the keys to the treasury.

Was going to "like" this post, except for this bit. Do you mean that they'd want a first round pick for Trengove? Agree that he would be a great fit. He'd be a tall-forward-second-ruck, which is exactly what we need and we haven't got on our list into the future, and in the event of injuries to our key talls, could pinch-hit very well as KPF, KPD or even first ruck, like he has at Port. Otherwise we're going to struggle for this sort of "spare-parts tall", especially after Pedo ends up, though Trengove could even be an improvement on Pedo. Then again, if Gawn, Hogan & T-Mac are all fit and firing for the next 3 seasons, he could end up playing a lot of games for Casey. As it seems to be getting increasingly likely that we'll delist our Jack Trengove, I'm tempted by the symmetry of swapping Jack Trengoves, though we'd have to give them a decent (not first round!) draft pick too. On the other hand, the Toump might have put them off taking any more returning Croweaters from us.

Nailed it. But reality isn't popular in these types of threads so prepare for backlash!

Something else I've wondered about the play that led to Phillips's goal. Moore could have easily marked over Lewis by just holding his ground and not jumping into his back, and he knew that a teammate was running into space behind them. By putting his knee into Lewis's back, he took Lewis right out of the contest, but didn't complete the mark. If that ever happens in a pack, the player who gets taken out of the contest usually gets a free, unless the guy coming over the top completes the mark. There was no question that Moore was trying to mark the ball, but there was equally no question that Moore was far more effective at taking Lewis right out of the play (and therefore gifting his teammate an easy goal) than he was at actually making the play himself. Would have been a very soft free, but no softer that the ones that Pies supporters have been bleating about all week.

You mean George Pell??

We badly need to win the clearances. That's not necessarily the same thing, though of course a fully fit Gawn gives us a much better chance of doing that. Spencer, not so much. The best argument for playing Spencer is that he allows us to play Pedo forward & T-Mac back for most of the game, rather than trying to improvise.

I think they're trying to avoid "shallow" entries into the f50, because they're too easy to intercept, and if they're intercepted, it's a bad place to turn it over. If we're going to bomb it in, it's best if it's on a fast break and it has to be to within 20m of goal. As you say, at the very least that gives us a chance to set up a high press and lock it in. Preferably we get either a contested mark (in short supply at the moment, of course) or bring it to ground and score. If we lock it in, we can sustain pressure and score.

To start with, I reckon our game style is very different to what he's played for however many years under Clarko. For what it's worth, I don't think Melksham has really adapted to our game style either (Hibberd, on the other hand, is playing more or less the same role for us as he has done previously, so it's much easier for him). He's also being played in an unfamiliar position as a spare in defence. I think he - and Bernie for that matter - are better on in the midfield than in defence, but we need them to play amongst a young & inexperienced defence for their composure (that word - yet again; intensity is fine, but without composure, it's just ADHD). Vince & Lewis don't look as good in an unfamiliar role, but they're prepared to play out of position for the sake of their new team. I'm kinda fine with that. For what it's worth, I don't think we've found the best spot in our team for Lewis yet. I don't think we've worked out how to best use him. That's probably something that is just going to have to evolve, or maybe it won't. Some of Lewis's passages of play have been superb this year. I think it was against St Kilda, there were a series messy handballs in the centre square, each one taking us closer to a turnover, until it got to Lewis under pressure. But he'd noticed out of the corner of his eye Watts charging forward away from the congestion and hit him perfectly with a bullet 20m handpass off his wrong (right) hand, with Watts not having to break stride and goaling from about 40m out. Another where he was free on the wing and instead of chipping it into the corridor, did the unexpected and belted it 50m down the ground to an unmarked Petracca over the back of the oppo's defensive zone, who marked unopposed (the defenders tried to scramble back but couldn't get to him in time because of the quality of the kick) and goaled. It's a combination of being in the right place at the right time, vision, footy smarts, and knowing the right thing to do, and the best time to do the unpredictable. This isn't "adulation" - Lewis like all players has his strengths & weaknesses, always has - but it shows what he's capable of contributing as a player. But straight after his worst game for the year isn't the time to judge his usefulness or otherwise. If he has another couple of shockers, then of course it's different.

Nah, we're not gonna need him. Wasn't he the [censored] who made it clear in the press that he refused to be interviewed by us when he indicated he was leaving GWS?

I wonder about this. We've been so successful without a ruck men because we've been able to analyse the oppo ruck's preference for tapping the ball and get to the right place in strength before their mids do. Doing this, it doesn't matter how much hot outs they win; we can anticipate where they're likely to hit it better than their mids (because our brains trust have studied it and theirs probably hasn't). This works best against a ruckman like Jacobs or Grundy who seem to be totally predictable; at half time on Monday it was 35 hitouts to 11, but we had 4 hitouts to advantage against 5. It's not so successful against a ruckman like Sandi who seems to be much harder to pick. The Dogs have had to do this for the best part of two seasons now, and they're probably at least as good as us at it. Spence is more the Jacobs type; Gawn is so good and unpredictable he's almost impossible to predict. While Pedo, T-Mac & Watts aren't good enough to be predictable. Against the Dogs, we might be better to go unpredictable rather than the predictable, but better, Spencer.

Agree with all this (with the disclaimer that you haven't seen the first 20 mins). As for Bugg and to a lesser extent Hannan being the highflyers in the forward line, Pedo's goal was interesting. Watts seemed to be happy to bustle the three defenders in the pack, while Bugg came over the top, and it looked like a pre-arranged play. The Pies (like most teams we've played since our best contested marks haven't been available) were happy to keep Watts & T-Mac away from any marking contests (and only got penalised for it once). Can't remember ever seeing T-Mac struggle to get within several feet of so many marking contests, but it was obvious that they'd marked him out as the main Dee likely to take a contested mark and just kept him away from the drop of the ball. The two times he managed to get there, he had Howe running in behind him. So using the leap of Bugg & Hannan to come over the back while Watts bustled them just enough to make it impossible for them to mark it, makes a lot of sense.

Breathtaking so far ... Even in a "handball supercut", you'd have to include that sublime footpass to Melksham for the goal that put us in front?

Either brilliant and supernaturally subtle irony ... or you're about 3 whipping-boys behind the rest of us. I choose the former.

Wasn't there another one in a more recent match? Or am I losing all track of time?

My theory (which is mine!) is that the generation of PIes supporters since 1990 have become soft. They haven't had nearly as much opportunity as their brethren from 1960 to 1989 to harden themselves up by having to deal with the crushing disappointment of narrow GF losses (and that ball that Wayne Johnson tapped back into play for the winning goal was OOB!!!) They need to toughen up.

I agree, for once in my life, with Terry Wallace, who said on SEN yesterday that Monday's game was "quite comfortably the best game of the year so far". We did an amazing job coming back in the 3rd quarter, while getting even more smashed in the hitouts & contested marks than we were in the first half. And we should have steamrolled them in the last quarter, but they did incredibly well to not let us get more than 2 goals in front. Both sides were the epitome of "hard but fair", but there was heaps of skill too, plus Howe's incredible marks, Jack's goal, Fas's goal after the siren. The game had absolutely everything, and was played in the best possible spirit; every single player put in. And the interactions between the two teams after the game was great to see, possibly helped by Howe and Dunn still being great mates with our guys. If Pies play up to that standard for the rest of the season, they'll be fine. Yet some of their supporters prefer to sook because the umpires didn't hand them the game on a plate.

This. For emphasis. The Collingwood players were trying to "hold the ball in" on tackles to create stoppages. That's fine, but if you DRAG the ball in, you have to dispose of it from underneath you, or it's HTB. Whenever this happened to Melb (e.g. Viney) they always got rid of it. And if the ball is dislodged in the tackle, it's play on. The one I like best in when Vince "threw" it - along the ground. Absolute idiots.

This is really interesting. I haven't quite connected all the dots yet but I think it has something to do with what's expected of a zone defence. Corralling, intercepting & spoiling & smothering are much more important than tackling, contested marking and kicking long down the line. Tackling an opponent gives you a ball-up. Corralling them and covering all their teammates means that you force them into attempting a pinpoint disposal by hand or foot, which will most often lead to an intercept and possible scoring opportunity. Likewise, it used to be that defenders were to stop their immediate opponent from scoring, and if they won the ball, get it to the mids to take it out of defence. Now, the defenders are supposed to run it out with quick breakaways, while the mids are making position in the corridor or running forward to get to the drop of the ball in the f50. Buckley & Treloar have said repeatedly in interviews since that they knew we were the No. 1 "pressure acts" team in the AFL, as if this was the outstanding thing about our game style, and that they were expecting to have to perform under immense pressure. If they're right, this is no accident, but part of what Goody's trying to achieve. I also think this is the style that Buckley's trying to emulate. Again, this is not the total thing, but I think the "low-tackles high-1%ers" is a part of this in some way.

Fantastic pickup. I noticed the effort but didn't pick up who the player was, and meant to go back and check. He came from absolutely nowhere, and if he hadn't, Treloar could have probably run in another 15m and made sure of it. I guess it's what you'd call a "pressure act".

I quite like Sidebottom as a player, but I thought he really went missing for them in the second half when they really needed the likes of him to stand up under pressure. 22 possessions in the first half, only 10 in the 2nd. Got badly caught with the ball a couple of times trying to beat the tackler, and his clever kicks in the first half were too-clever-by-half in the 2nd half.

From what Adam Treloar said this afternoon (Tue) about it, he and the team are rapt to be involved with the Big Freeze. Says for him it's right up there with Anzac Day, spoke admiringly of Neale and the atmosphere. Plays like he's got an ego the size of the Southern Stand, but comes across really well on the radio. Seems to have a regular spot "from the players' perspective" or something like that. Seriously, hit must be absolute hell for the CFC to have to put up week-in week-out with a supporter base like that??!!