Akum

Why the Cessna? Couldn't you take Thunderbird 1?

As they say ... to err is human, but to really stuff things up you need a computer.

You could preserve them for posterity OD!

Tyson & Vince = Johann Cruyff

I assume it's based on European (German?) soccer since about the 1970s. Passing it around the back, finding an opening, then quick attack. What I like about it is that it's a game style that's not easy to pull apart, even though it's blindingly obvious what it's trying to achieve. Think of the "rolling zone", the "flood", the "press" - once teams learned how to counter them, they all lost a lot of their effectiveness. We need to find a couple of Beckenbauers. And a Gerd Muller or two wouldn't hurt either.

Should be less than that 'cos it's freeways almost all the way. The hardest part could well be finding parking.

This is a good post, and I both agree and disagree with it. In the NAB practice matches, Roos would want them to get as much possessions as possible, preferably under as much pressure as possible, in situations as difficult as possible. It's the only way to learn the game plan well enough so that it won't fall apart under the rigour of games that mean something. The overpossession of the ball was part and parcel of that learning ("over-learning"?). He would have been much more pleased with yesterday than he was against Richmond. The conditions were as adverse as they possibly could have been, we butchered the ball on many occasions & gave up 8-10 goals through turnovers, and Geelong played pretty well and put a lot of pressure on us. Yet the game plan held together surprisingly well in spite of it all. I'd expect (hope?) that in the season proper, we'll go about it in the more balanced way that you suggest. But while we're still learning, overdoing it is OK.

Nah, 15th - they're not allowed to win anything, including a wooden spoon. Besides, Saints won that fair & square.

After watching the game, that was a much better performance than I thought. Most if not all our terrible turnovers happened trying to kick across the ground into the teeth of that strong crosswind. The conditions could not have been worse to try to execute the game plan, especially against a top team. Yet the game plan stood up remarkably well ... in fact, probably BOG!

Having just watched the game for the first time, my biggest impression was that we got far more out of that game than they did. We gave up at the very least 9 goals from turnovers (all of them horrendous mistakes, not just "oh well" mistakes) and another 2 goals from head-ducks straight out of the Selwood playbook. Yet we only lost by just on 2 goals to a team that has set the standard over recent times. This implies two things. The first is that Geelong may well be in big trouble this year, unless they improve. Were they cruising? Well, they seemed intent on putting a hard tag on Jones, who could hardly take a step with the ball without getting buried. What sort of coach of a top team tags the best player of a bottom team in a practice match?? And they seemed intent to exploit the lack of our best 2 tall defenders by bombing it high to their tall forwards - what they could possibly have gained from that in a practice match I have no idea, except to show that it will never work against an intact defence; it was a great lesson for us in how not to use tall forwards. And they were also intent on trying to niggle the likes of Tyson, Watts & Nicho, and holding back their opponents to stop them getting to the contest ... again, in a practice match. OK, this is just being a "professional" team (for want of a better word), but how far did it get them - 2-goal win against last year's easybeats! It's not as if they played badly, just that something's missing. They'd have to be concerned. The second is that we committed hara kiri - complete with ritual disembowelment - over and over in that match, yet still only lost by 2 goals. Add to that, the conditions were the worst possible for our game plan. Many turnovers were the result of trying to kick accurately into the teeth of the strong wind blowing across the ground, and the humidity prevented the same level of relentless running and presenting and blocking of the previous game. We've all feared what might happen if this game plan should fall apart against a top team. Well, with our mistakes, the conditions, missing tall forwards (and therefore our "get-out-of-jail" option) and tall defenders and support rucks, against a top team intent on undermining us - it was made to look very shaky indeed against a (supposedly) top team. And we only lost by 2 goals. So just how robust can this game plan be???

Love this! Roos: "Stop being a tool!" Dunn: "Oh ... OK"

I don't think the players will be overawed by "the Geelong factor" any more, when we meet them in the real stuff. There were 2 or 3 times during the game where Geelong threatened to bust the game wide open like they usually do, but we were able to not only limit the damage but actually rally and take ground off them. And as pointed out by someone on another thread, this was in blustery, humid, slippery conditions - the worst possible conditions for our game plan. We're unlikely to encounter such adverse conditions against a top side again this season. It's now within the realms of possibility to actually beat Geelong (and perhaps other top sides), rather than "the best we can hope for is an honourable loss".

Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I really get the feeling that what we saw against Tiges was just the foundation of a structured approach. There is so much more to it.

Excuse the ignorance but I'm not sure what you mean by "V-leading".

You got that right!It was also why I never got scroterical about her.

Wondered why this Monday felt really flat! What's a Monday without the usual mass panic? By the way, I can't let the word "hysteria" pass without mentioning that my ex used to complain about the implicit put-down of women in the word. So, to describe anxieties that were specifically masculine (including anxieties about sports teams), she coined the words "scroteria" and "scroterical"! Does this apply here?

I'm confused about Gawn. Not on the injured list, yet from the reports of the intraclub match, he's not fit enough to be played in the ruck either. I know he needs to build his tank to see out a game, but surely that's improved since last season? Is he in a similar situation to Jamar, who's also not fully fit yet not on the injured list?

Effect ............................Cause!

Hard to work out what's wrong enough with Gawn & Fitz that they couldn't go against Spencer at least a few times. Unless they're so far from being right for R1 that it's just not worth it. Is it just a matter of match fitness?

I think the game style of passing it around until we see an opening means that when an opening comes (an we can hit it), our i50s are going to be more effective overall than the more speculative i50s. So perhaps the "goal-per-i50" stat might be a better indicator of our effectiveness than the i50 stat. On the other hand, losing the match while getting lots of UCPs without much i50s would indicate that we're overdoing it and not getting the openings. Rpfc? And if our defenders pass it back into the opposition's forward 50 in order to switch it, does that count as an i50 for them? Yeah, the 14.4 after 0.7 was really interesting.

Have always loved Crossy as a player, and I don't think much of Martin. But if Dusty hadn't been able to flip his feet out from under Cross's body at the moment of impact, and his feet had stayed trapped under Cross's body as he rolled forwards, we could have had an incident that made Gary Rowan's look like a mere tweak. Hate to say it, but I don't blame Martin for being angry about it.

But can Demonland withstand such a drastic change???

Gold.

If Gawn is fit, he's #1. End of story. If he's not fit, and Clark gets a bionic foot, and Hogan & Dawes are tearing it up so much that we don't need to play Clark forward, then Clark's #1. If neither of these, we're stuck with Jamar or Spencer. Spencer gives marginally more (still not much) around the ground. Jamar gives more at stoppages, his body use is far better at ball-ups and in packs, and he doesn't make nearly as much mistakes (a few times on Friday, Spencil wrongfooted our entire midfield by winning the tap but hitting it somewhere else then where they were all expecting). So much here depends on fitness.

And how long has it been since we've had a decent on-field performance of any kind to discuss?? Instead of club politics or coaches or pro-or-con-player-X.