Dr. Gonzo

Still waiting for the Melbourne v Richmond GF that was meant to happen in 2014 EDIT: I did enjoy the article though, love reading positive things about the Demons

Just like Treloar and Shiel I wouldn't believe anything muttered by kb he just spruiks for the tigs

And the booze

He may be holding out for the CBA which may see him get a little boost. I agree we are undersized down back which is the only reason I'd fret about him leaving. Realistically he is not an A-grade player or anywhere near it. He had a good 7-8 weeks at the start of last year but has been inconsistent since then. He is a good mark, OK kick but absolutely terrible decision maker which often kills us with his turnovers across half back.

Don't want to open a can of rotten worms - I'll PM you.

I agree, it's quite an attacking tactic and I like it. Better than watching dour footy, if it's not working you can always readjust.

It's definitely been a teaching role as coach for Roos. I think you need to bed down your own structures and style of play first and once your comfortable with that you can then tinker around the edges to try and combat the opposition plan. No doubt we've done some of that but the major thing for Roos/Goodwin is to try and teach the players how we want to play and how to get the opposition playing on our terms. Otherwise we'll always be playing to the oppositions strengths by letting them dictate the terms of the game. I think you'll start to see us combat opposition game plans more next year once Goodwin takes over. You can't deny Roos has pretty much accomplished what he said he would in the 3 years by moving from a defensive to a more balanced game. We are 3rd in the comp for points for, unimaginable over the last 5 or 6 years.

Bwahaha what a horrible ridiculous article OK mate - Hogan runs his opponents into the ground going up and down the field all day yet he doesn't work hard? What a knobhead.

One of his last posts on here was ridiculous - posters called him out and legitimately queried some of his stances suffice to say he never responded and the thread was closed. Time to let it go though. On a brighter note, congrats to Petracca, amazing he is now favourite for the RS despite only playing 4 weeks! I would have thought some others might be ahead (including our own Oliver) but the injury to Weitering probably dampened his chances. How funny would it be to see the Blues crying this year again after Hogan beating Cripps in what was a mere formality.

Yeah but it wasn't his exaggerated number, he was parroting comments by Sanderson. I've watched games and wouldn't necessarily notice a stat like that and if someone said after the fact thats what it was I'd be inclined to believe it.

Sorry mate, can't figure out how to link the interview on its own - was more linking to the article anyway

Realistically I think it should probably be used more as a tactic than a strategy in the future, being deployed on occasion or against an oppositon where we think we would have the advantage. Obviously if we're getting killed in the centre clearances there's no point as we will leave ourselves wide open. Going back to "zoning" in general and teams employing 18-man zones, I've thought for a couple of years now that a good way for the AFL to combat zoning (if that's what they want to do) and try and get teams playing man-on-man is to reduce the number of players on the field. The size of the oval means that with only 14, 15 or 16 players it would make it pretty difficult to implement a zone as it would be stretched too thin with the gaps between the defenders too big to cover. If you have a player on the back flank and have 18 men zoned in front and to the side of him about 50-60 metres it makes it almost impossible to work through with kicking. Removing 2, 3 or 4 links in the chain would make it less effective and I wonder whether clubs would continue to employ it. The other factor is we have the same amount of players on the field as we did at the turn of the 20th century when players were amateur and nowhere near the elite fitness levels of players today. This means that we have the same number of players on the same sized fields but now able to cover a far greater area of the ground in a shorter amount of time and for longer periods with elite endurance. Even just 15-20 years ago the interchange was used nowhere near to the extent it is today. The "quick burst" style of play encouraged by the explosion in interchange numbers from sub-20 numbers up to 130 (now limited to 80) in under 15 years has seen the evolution of the defensive style of play as clubs have now been able to push players to their limits in covering ground and running back hard to cover space. The reduction in interchange has limited this somewhat but the numbers are still ~400% greater than they were when the Lions three-peated.

He's been better this year than people give him credit for, especially since being allowed to roam up the ground and use his strengths instead of plonking him in the goalsquare and trying to turn him into Plugger 2.0

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/jesse-hogan-on-track-to-better-2015-output-after-another-starring-display-for-melbourne/news-story/861c3e28baf69de23a86bf700107eb86

Do you keep notes of every possession each time you watch a game? Easy mistake to make without accusing someone of exaggerating.

Only goals are reviewed I think cos there's a stop in play. Reviewing points would take too long and stop a team from kicking in.

Since "Clarkos Cluster" maybe even earlier, usually teams will have an 18 man zone across a portion of the field. This would only be when the opposition have the ball and usually in a static position (free kick or mark). There was some footage of Geelong vs Adelaide last week where the Cats had an 18 man zone across the midfield down one flank/wing side and moved across as the Crows tried to switch play. Not sure what teams do when the ball is in dispute, I'd say they're more likely to have a traditional defence (man on man) with one or two loose men dropping back rather than a zone because like you said previously it's too hard to zone off the big field while also trying to win the ball and attack yourself. So zones are likely only used when the opposition gets a free kick or mark.

They've always said that every goal gets reviewed anyway since the introduction of the review system. It happened in one of our game's a couple of years ago where the ball was about to be bounced then was called back as it was overruled as a point.

I agree, threads like these are why I sought out footy forums in the first place! I guess one aspect of "zoning" in AFL is you really can contract or expand the ground if you are good at executing a zone. For example, you don't need to zone the entire field, only the area between where the ball is and how far the opposition can kick it (so about 60 metres in any direction). If a team is stagnant and finds themselves stuck on a flank or back pocket it is easy to contract the ground and suffocate a teams ball movement - this is why teams try switching the play but it only works if it is down quickly and aggressively. Otherwise you just end up in the same position on the other side of the ground. This is why zones often break down from fast ball movement off half back because clubs have been in "attacking" mode and haven't had the time to reset their zones. It can also fall down during open or 50/50 play towards the corridor of the ground because the entire front half of the oval is open and difficult to defend with a comprehensive zone while also setting up players to attack.

So - anyone at the game taking notes yesterday? Did we utilise this setup? Was it at every centre bounce or just haphazardly through the day? Was it only when Gawn was rucking?

Yep - and the only vision that is close to accurate is the goal line one to see if a ball is touched/marked before or over the line (see Tippett example from Friday). But the amateur AFL won't even fork out to ensure the goal post cameras are installed at every ground! What a farce.

No ads on Foxtel plus 2 kids means I had to a bit of running around in between as well.

Couldn't believe it I got inside switched on the TV and saw Petracca kick a goal. Went to the toilet came back to see Lions lining up for "their 4th in a row" according to the commentators. Had to rewind it to see what the hell happened

Yep- watching the game there were things to tear your hair out But looking at the scoreboard and stats sheet and there's not much more you could ask for .

I only saw the second half but we looked shocking at times and their kicking let us off. However you can never complain about a 10 goal win. Should've been 100+ but you bank the points and look to next week. Turn up with that attitude though and Port will do us.