binman

Scans this morning

Feeling sick. Just plain sick. One thing helping me not panicking is a few years back at on of our preseason qld camps maxy hurt his knee. He was devastated, with vision of him looking similarly dejected ad he was sure he had done his ACL. Turned out he was wrong.

Agree, not likely to finish that low. But a handful of players, including Jackson and Darcy, dont look AFL level fit. And they only need a couple of key injuries to start getting the wobbles, particularly if there is any disharmony (not suggesting there is....but).

My take on tonight? We win by 6 goals plus Why? We are in absolute peak shape at the moment, fitness and injury wise (salo being the one exception) We seem to be in grate psychological shape Can' speak to their fitness levels, but being hammered round one is not a great sign re: their psychological shape They seemingly haven't addressed their two biggest issues - leg speed and a modern defensive system We killed them for leg speed when we played them last season and in 2021- with the second half of the semi being the outlier when we were out of gas We have added leg speed, they haven't and Coleman out hurts big time on that front We know how to exploit their game plan (win contested ball) and our game plan matches up really well with theirs They don't looked to have adjusted their game plan at all - whereas we have tweaked ours so they will need to do more tactical homework One example of above is the decision to bring Foote into the side - considered plan or desperation? We travel well They are the ones under pressure, not us We are a 4 goal better team For punter, there are two bets that appeal. The line is 4.5 our way (was 3.5 an hour ago). That's crazy. Way too low. Money for old rope Kade Chandler is $34 to kick most goals. Good value With Kossie out, Chandler will be our main crumber and will get his chances. if he can sort out his set shots he can snag 3 or 4, which might be enough with Fritter back in spreading the goals

No, not a huge difference. But there is a difference - well two really. The first difference is the time the dees player has with his kick inside 50. From a stoppage (scenario two) the player can take his full allotted time to determine exactly where, and how to kick it. He's not rushed into a dump kick. That also gives the dees forwards time to set up in designated spots - often seemingly 20 meters out straight in front (but not always - the kick to Brown that set up his banana goal is an example of set play where the forward runs into the only available space - the pocket). Our forward 50 is still crowded (because the oppo have used the time to get back in numbers) but the defenders gravitate to the same spot as the forwards to make sure there are no free players, no one on ones and to maximize their chance of winning the ground ball. In scenario three, the dees player has little time to dispose of it (because he hasn't marked it or got a free) and so has to kick quickly, meaning the forwards don't have time to set up in their predetermined structure, and are more likely to be spread more evenly in the area inside 50 - as are the defenders. On a related note, you are spot on about us kicking harder, flatter and straighter inside 50 on several slow/congested entries in the Richmond practice match. I think the idea is to make it harder for defenders to zone off and disrupt our talls attempt to mark. They did it against the saints too - i didn't notice it so much against the dogs. They also seem to have been practicing the weighted kick into a hole between defenders - the kick to BB reference above is an example. Hunter is brilliant at such kicks and Langdon seem to have developed the knack of nailing a sort of soccer like cross kick from the boundary line into a hole. His beautiful kick to Spargo to set up a goal being a good example.

Some terrific posts in the last little bit. Some random reflections on some charry picked comments from EO, layzie, DFA, Flash and george, starting with EO's post above (i'll get to other comments through the day): What I am interested in now is about the last point - and the delivery and 'positive risk' to now seemingly to deliberately choose to NOT kick to pockets and play the percentages of minimising options for the defence should they obtain the ball with choices of lanes to get out of the D50. I don't think it accurate to say we will be choosing not to kick to a pack in the pockets. Kicking to the pockets will still be the go to depending on the type of entry inside 50. I can't recall which coach it was, goody or yze maybe, but in response to a question in an interview about our forward entries they said something to the effect that there were three entry scenarios. Scenario one, the ball is in motion, and we are transitioning from the back half at speed (and i guess also from center square clearances). In this scenario we create free players inside 50 because we run in waves and create outnumbers ahead of the ball (which is where the running power and high cruising speed of players like Nibbler, Spargo, Langdon and Hunter is so critical). This method creates or best chance to score, particularly if they go via the corridor - as it is the best chance of creating free targets or a leadup hit (forwards often have leading lanes in this scenario because the defence has not been able to get set). In scenario one, we will try and hit a free player, or kick to a one-on-one contest - of which there is likely to be several becuase we have got it inside 50 quickly making it hard for oppos to set up their zone or get numbers behind the ball (and impossible in the case of clean center squares clearances). The video of the week, which starts with Tomo winning the ball at half back and ends with Spargo kicking a nice goal after being free just outside 50 is an excellent example of this type of entry (on Spargo kicking that goal rather than passing to a free Brown, my take is that is another example of Goody playing the percentages. I suspect players are under instruction to go for goal in such scenarios more often this season because it is almost as hard to hit that pass to brown as it is to kick the goal - and if he does hit the pass, brown still has to kick the goal from a tight angle. So the percentages favor Spagro going for goal. There was almost exactly the same scenario in the tigers praccy match, with Gawn completely free in the pocket and Spargo instead opting to kick for goal and/or chandler running into goal. There were several other similar examples in the 2 practice matches) The second scenario is kicks inside 50 from a stop play (not sure what the right term is - i mean the kick after a mark or free with an oppo player standing the mark). Based on the two practice matches and last weeks game, this scenario is the one where we seem to be kicking more often to the top of the square. The kicker can take his full 30 odd seconds to decide where to kick and the tall and small forwards can set up how they would have trained all preseason to do. And Tmac can do what he does so brilliantly - block for BB, Maxy and/or Grundy. It is still a risk because if we lose a ground ball contest the oppo win that ball in the corridor and have three lanes to choose from to exit their defensive area. But the dees have put a big emphasis on forward pressure this season (after being pretty average with that last season) which mitigates that risk because we are more likely to win the ground ball, but if we don't we put the kicker under tonnes of pressure, often creating a turnover. And of course, we press up and create our wall and often win the ball back (which flummoxed Daniel at least twice - costing at least one turnover goal). The third scenario is we've trapped the ball in our front half, front half is super crowded because oppos have flooded back, they win the contested ball, but we put them under mega pressure forcing a dump kick outside 50 - but we have set up a wall, win a turnover, the ball stays in motion and it bounces straight back inside 50. But it does so into a super crowded area. Goody plays the percentages, so the high kick to the pocket is the go-to play in this scenario (unless there is an obvious free player). It's the percentage play because the kicker often has to kick it quickly (so little time to consider options), the ball is in motion, it's chaotic, the forward line is packed and there is no time to orchestrate a set play (eg talls blocking for each other, smalls positioning themselves, dummy leads etc). And the forwards know where the ball is likely to be kicked - as they do in all three scenarios. Predictability is key. If we can't clunk a mark, a boundary line stoppage is the most likely outcome, with us winning the ground ball hopefully the next most likely outcome (which wasn't always the case in the second half of last year). But if THEY win the ground ball, they only have one realistic exit lane option - the lane they are in. And we can set up accordingly. Sure, they can elect to take the corridor on or switch across to the outside lane. But both options are super risky, and the dees sweat on that kick - particularly against the dogs who used to love taking those options (i think they will do so less this year).

Interesting data luci. I was thinking ladt night during the game that for such a good player his kicking is woeful - and it was particularly bad last night. He had a terrible kicking technique and fatgue exacerbates poor technique. Given his game time perhaps you're right and fitness is an issue. If so, that's two of their 5 most important players not in optimal shape - the other being Hawkins. There's no catching that up, so that's a huge drag on their chances of winning a flag this season.

Agree. A bit of an issue with that theory (whcih i agree with) is if Melk has to come on early in the game to replace an injured player.

Me too! Amazing the impact of one smart, classy goal. Again, i like Melk as a sub, but to be honest it's a bit of worry that he didn't register a tackle given the emphasis this year on getting back to 2021 inside forward 50 pressure levels - not to mention lack of tackling has been a n issue for Melk, and was one of the key reasons he got dropped from the seniors in 2021 and missed out on a premiership medal.

No sure why they would do so given in a quarter of footy, where we dominated, he only got 2 possessions - albeit both being a score (one super classy goal, one point). And he had zero tackles and zero clearances. He also had 83 metres gained, which isn't too bad if you don't factor in that about 70 of those meters were from the goal he kicked from inside the center square. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of melk as a sub, but jeez he got plenty of plaudits for 2 kicks at 50% DE in one quarter of footy.

Just had look at our fixture. We play our first three games, and four of our first 5 games at Casey, which is a nice little leg up.

My three favourite players have great names to yell - westy, paxy and goldie.

Fair comments. And for what its worth i don't' reckon we will see more such hits THIS season. But i could see it happening again next season after everyone has forgotten about the Kossie bump. But i'd counter that Kossie would have still copped a week for that hit prior to the change, so the disincentive was there already. Is adding just one week to a potential penalty that much of disincentive? He only got one more week, and that was essentially discretionary - Christian could have decided that Kossie turned his body to avoid head contact and the potential for injury wasn't actually that great. And he then would have only copped a week. So, plenty of roll the dice potential as it stands atm (eg i might get away with one week for this hit). Make it concrete. Ban the spearing action and jumping to bump. Make both minimum two weeks as starting point with the option of adding more weeks under the potential to do harm. Send it to the tribunal if unsure how to assess the potential (as they have done with McAdams). Even consider something like adding week(s) for any subsequent report for the same actions (for example Kossie might have an extra week hanging over him for a spear bump or for leaving the ground to bump - so almost a targeted diincentive). That way players know that at minimum they will cop a two-week suspension and be at real risk of more. That should mitigate the roll the dice potential.

The question i'd have if i was lions fan is why in the heck are they still running a 2010 style defensive system. I might also ask why they didn't address their lack of leg speed - which we ruthlessly exploit when up and about (and are even better placed to exploit this season because Kozzie is playing more mid time, so is around the ball more and we have added mcvee and Chadler who are both quick and Hunter, whilst not super quick over the first 5 metres seems to have good cruising speed. Added to that bowser looks even quicker than he was, and the team all look super fit)

Yep, fair point. In a subsequent post in this thread, after hearing about the change to allow potential harm to be factored into the MRO decision i noted that shift. But as i noted in that post potential impact is still a super grey area, and of course subjective by definition. With concussion, for example, there are any number of factors that make it super difficult to assess potential impact - luck, comparative size of the two players involved, history of previous concussion etc etc. As far as possible they need to take subjectivity out of the equation. If for instance they outlawed leaving the ground and bumping and had a set penalty, eg two weeks, for breaking that rule Kozzie would have copped his two weeks and there would have been no need for all the media palaver and/or no need for a big debate it. I think 2 weeks is ok - but it is reasonable question to ask whether Christain's thinking on giving the extra week was influenced by all the external noise, Take the subjectivity out of it and that's not an issue. If there was concern two weeks wasn't enough for a specific incident because of the potential to do harm they then could do exactly what they have down with Mcadams and send the player straight to the tribunal.