Akum

Funny how we all assume it must be our meeting that went well, because Collingwood.

Seriously? We were forced to improvise from the Cats game to the West Coast game and we improvised brilliantly with outstanding strategic thinking. It didn't just happen, and it wasn't just a run of lucky guesses. Then from the Swans game on, all that enterprise disappeared. Either it dried up, or it still flowed but was ignored. We became rigid and predictable. Or ... we didn't???

That's my fear too bub. That's what my Dogs guys believe happened. I hope they're wrong.

Sorry bub, I haven't been ignoring you about this, just a busy day at work. His official title is something like "Game Analyst & Education Co-ordinator", which is a bit meaningless. He's actually really highly regarded for his strategic nous and his ability to work out an opponent's weakness and also what we need to tweak in the course of a game to be more effective. I know for sure the Dogs didn't want to see him go. My Bulldog mates are (both) pretty sure that the period early in the season when we had those good games against top teams with all our injuries had CJ's influence written all over it. So it's interesting to hear a number of times in the media during the course of this year about how highly regarded he is within the industry. Which to me begs the question of what happened in the latter part of the season when our game strategy & planning seemed to be all over the place, except perhaps for the Saints & Port games. Which is why I'm anxious at the prospect of CJ being poached.

Very much hope he's happy with us and stays.

Maintain that rage!

Great post binman, I just wanted to highlight this bit. We were sitting up the end of this goal (so of course got a great view of Jack's winning goal). This passage of play was a great effort by Oscar, and looked a lot better live than it does on the replay, because if he'd stuffed up once out of about 4 separate efforts in a few seconds, it would have cost a goal. He got the spoil against Moore I think, but then had to make two or three groundball efforts to keep it away from opponents, and then just as he disposed of it effectively, he was infringed and got the free. He was seriously outnumbered for some reason, under great pressure, and it was just a very very good piece of defending that any top KPB would have been proud of.

Good (and very coherent!) thinking.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Had a great passage of play in the first quarter where he made three or four great efforts in succession and was rewarded with a free. Made a couple of mistakes in the first, hacking it about 30m up the ground with his left foot under pressure, instead of kicking it with his right foot out long to an unguarded flank. Then again, if he'd done that and it had rolled out, prob would have been pinged for deliberate OOB, and this might have been on his mind. Some of his other kicks under pressure were very good. Kicking it to space in front of Harmes (instead of kicking it straight to Harmes) was the perfect play, to allow him to run on to it and move it on to Watts for THAT goal.

In a game where most of the team had well over 80% TOG, Tyson & Viney could only muster 74% each. They were both the lowest except for Spencer & Smith. They've been around that mark or less for the last few games. They can't possibly be fully fit. As for the wisdom of playing 2 key mids who aren't fully fit ...

I really like what he brings, and wouldn't at all be surprised if, when he's ready to step up to AFL, he makes a big impact. He was thrown into the ruck at Casey a few times last year and I was surprised how well he did, considering his height. But he definitely shouldn't be pushed before he's ready.

Clearly needs to learn how to get away with a blatant push in the back to be as "good" as Kennedy.

The other great thing about his handball to Jones is that when Ross tackles him, he makes sure he takes Newnes (#16) to the ground with him. Newnes is closest to Jones and the only one with any hope of tackling him. That's why Jones had that extra second to steady.

So how did that make you feel?? Hmmm???

Apparently you can get pills for that.

Mainly because trade week relies on everybody acting reasonably, because they all have to deal with each other again next year, and the year after that. 17 clubs are usually prepared to do the right thing by each other. They try to not get into a situation with the 18th club where they have to rely on them to be reasonable and to do the right thing by everybody else. But sometimes it's unavoidable.

Yeah they might. But Dodo's not admired on SEN; he's ridiculed. And he may have cost them any number of good trades over the years.

But that's such an easy thing to do. Yet a week and a half and it's still not done. Every time I've heard this trade mentioned on SEN, it's been with the comment that "shows what it's like to deal with Essendon".