binman

IMO the Lions have the second best list talent wise, and on that alone are an obvious challenger and arguably out biggest threat. But like the Blues they also struggle to stop opposition teams scoring. In the last 5 games they have given up 27 scoring shots against the Hawks, 21 against the lowly crows, 10 against the Eagles, 24 against the Swans and 25 against the Suns. And in the game they are playin now they have conceded 5 goals in the fir 15 minutes. I amazed they haven't retooled their defensive system because that sort of defensive weakness is simply not going to get it done against us - and as their finals record under Fagan demonstrates their model is not going to get it done in finals. They have bugger all chances of containing us to under 75 points and so therefore bugger all chance of beating us.

The forecast dry weather and the fact it is day game (so little risk of too much dew), albeit a late arvo one, will help Weid's cause.

Its funny you should say that. I watched the replay of the roos game and when they got within 6 points or so in third, i wondered to myself if there has ever been a team that can regularly have a lead whittled down from say 4-5 goals to one latish in the game, yet there still be no sense of being in trouble in terms of losing the momentum and the match. In 2018 i would have been having kittens if a team kicked multiple goals to pull back a decent lead.

Yep, good call. he can cover Harmes minutes in the mid field and is natural forward so can cover Harmes' half forward role. I have been as big a critic of Melksham as anyone over his time at the dees. My main criticism has been his lack of intensity, particularly in 2020. But i have seen some really positive signs in that regard at in the Casey games i have watched. He is perhaps fortunate to keep his spot on the back of a pretty quiet game last week, but the fact he has tells me he applied sufficient pressure and played his role to a level acceptable to Goody. So, that's good enough for me. It wouldn't shock me if getting him to 200 games is a factor in his selection. And if so, as someone noted, that would be in keeping with the culture of respect we have built. I think it was factor in the decision to pick Tmac for his 200th game ahead of Weed. That said there is no way Goody would gift anyone a game. If Goody figured he was not up to he job he wouldn't select him. Again, that's good enough for me. I hope he has a ripping game and shows off some his undeniable A grade kicking skills.

100% agree. Goody has been banging on about the three phases of footy (defence, transition and offence/forward) and the need for us to be in good shape across all three phases So many pundits just focus on our defensive system and its effectiveness. And totally ignore how effective our forward line is and how damaging our scoring power is. Earlier in the season i heard Jake Niall question the dog's chances this season becuase they rely on their forward line and don't have a strong defence. Which is true. In making that case he said the template for success now is the sort of system the tigers developed and the Dees have implemented. But in making that case he argued the dees, unlike the dogs, have an average forward line with no real stars because our focus was on recruiting star defenders like May and Lever (suggesting the dogs needed to have done the same). And last night on 360 Nick Riewoldt argued that a 'chink' in our amour was our relative inefficiency in terms of converting inside 50s to scores, noting we were mid table. Both arguments are nonsense. From round 17 last season to the end of the season, inclusive of finals, we averaged something like 107 points. And in Fritter we had the player who kicked the most goals for the full season. More than Hawkins who only played one less game. We are averaging close to 100 points a game this season, and in addition to Fritter we have Brown who has been a runner up in the Coleman twice and Kozzie who is averaging 2 goals per game across his career as a small forward. Throw in Jackson, a resting Gawn, Tmac, Spargs and Nibbler. And Trac sometimes rest forward. By any measure that is an impressive forward line. On Riewoldt's point if we get more efficient we will be even more impossible to contain. But his point ignores, unsurprisingly because he is yet another ill informed football 'analyst', the key driver of a mid table conversion of forward entries (which by the by is not that bad - and is roughly the same as last season) - which is that we are a forward half territory team who looks to overwhelm the opposition with the sheer number of inside 50 entries. And if we don't score a goal, keep it trapped in our half of the ground. Many fans find it frustrating, but our go to tactic of kicking it deep to the pockets is part of this strategy. Again, you only need to actually listen to Goody - he has made the point any number of times this season that we are not looking for perfection. We want the game to look like the Melbourne way, which in regard to forward entries involves prioritizing getting it in there over surgical passes. If those passes are on, sure hit them if possible. But if not just get it inside as quickly and as deep as possible and as Goody has also said a number of times let our smalls go to work. No other team, not even Carlton, will beat us in a shootout. And if we are anywhere near close to being on, even the best teams will struggle to score more than 75 points against us. Which means that to have any chance of beating us, opposition teams have to keep us to a minimum of 75 points. Unless the blues improve their defence dramatically, which is very hard to do in season, they have pretty low chances of holding us to 75 points. In fact the only team who i think does have the defensive system to do so is Freo, which is why i rate them a bigger threat than the blues (though the problem for freo is the opposite of the blues - they struggle to score heavily). The other big issue for the blues is that they are not fit enough. And these days fitness is one of the biggest factor in how effective defensive systems are because of the huge amount of running involved to keep zones in shape, zoning off to impact contests and to cover outlet kicks. Another issue the blues face when playing us is their weapon is their forward line, and in particular their ability to take contested marks inside 50. As we have shown against Naughton and King this year, no other team is better at shutting down opposition tall forwards (we are number one for fewest opposition marks inside 50). Their other big weapon is their terrific midfield and how physically strong they all are. They have been smashing teams at the contest and are number one i think for score from stoppages. But at the very least we can neutralize that advantage because in Trac, Oliver, Gawn and Viney (and solid back ups in Sparrow and Harmes) we also have a beast of midfield that can match it for power and strength with any team.

The work experience kid responsible for SEN's social media needs to improve their basic promotional techniques. Assuming of course this tag line in the tweet promoting the audio clip was actually trying to encourage people to listen to the clip (maybe they were trying to protect people and wanted to discourage anyone to press play lest their brain explode - if so that stregy certainly worked for me): What makes this @melbournefc so good? @HawthornFC great Dermott Brereton gives his analysis

Bedford is a ripper. Smart player, good skills, good decision maker and is super fit And has one key attribute that makes him AFL ready - genuine speed.and an ability to maintain that speed over distance.

You're probably right. I was thinking probably ready for senior footy - for another team. And if he were to get spot in another team its obviously not going to be this year. But i def agree he is not ready to come into the best team in the AFL, one packed with gun mids

I'm glad I picked him to play. Ed's not because it almost certainly means hw won't.

Good assessment of his skill set strengths and weaknesses. On weaknesses, his lack of pace is the biggest worry I reckon. Williams is a really good comparison. Mitchell (current and former) for the hawks is another similar player. Not so long ago you could have 2 or 3 such players in the team - ie inside mids, extractor, high possession (mostly handball) types. But these days you really only need one as the best mids now are tall, big and very strong bodies and/or have explosive break away pace. We have viney in the Diesel Williams role. Laurie is probably going to be competing with Dunstan for the back up role. You hate losing players, and I'm certainly not advocating trading him, but Laurie is the sort of player who we might lose because they want to play senior footy. High enough draft pick, good skills, well developed by the best club and is probably ready for senior footy and certainly will be after another AFL preseason. Could see another cluh being keen and unlike say baker, would have a bit of trade value.

Quote not edit

I think what many people miss, and by people I mean [censored] knuckles in the media paid to analyse footy, is that our approach is different. It is not about ruthlessness, for ruthlessness sake. Old school footy rules has a team as dominant as the dees crushing a team from the first second to the last, like a dominant boxer not once slowing up on a hapless opponent. Through that lens, we establish an early lead and the lead grows in a linear, even upward trajectory for the whole game. But that is not how we play - against any team. Stretching the boxing analogy, we certainly look to dominate early and establish a lead. Land a few early blows that rock opponents and put them on the back foot. We then absorb their pressure, take their best shot. Not quite rope a dope, because they don't land that many blows, but the ones they do we absorb. We respond to how they want to play the game. If they want to attack, we repel. We are comfortable with the ball being in our defensive zone for long stretches. If they want to play a high possession game and chip it around their back half, like the Roos and Port did, then we are happy to accommodate that approach too. Hard to score from deep inside their own 50. if they want to go wide and try to stretch us, like the saints did, no probs, bring it on. If they want to flood our forward line and bring multiple extras to the stoppage, like the bombers and GWS did, no dramas. If they want to attack through the corridor and go fast like the hawks (sometimes) tried - then be our guest, attack away. They throw their best punches. And inevitably tire. And we they tire we take over. It is a dance, with two participants. The gears we supposedly have that you hear people talk about is really about this dance. What i don't like about the idea of gears is that implies we are in cruise mode and then just flick some imaginary switch when we want/need to. Which apart from being a wrong characterisation of how we play, is disrespectful to our opponent and totally contrary to goody's philosophy. Like a dance, our game is all about tempo, rhythm (as in the rhythm of the game) and responding to what the opposition bring to the table. The goal is to win. Not win by some arbitrary margin - but win. Our approach maximises our chances of wining. Trying to win by the biggest possible margin doesn't as by definition trying to do so involves taking risks and risks create opportunities for the opposition to score. The key reason why Brisbane were beaten by the hawks was their inability, or choice, not to control and slow the tempo in the last quarter, and instead keep their foot to the floor and continue to take risks. The margin doesn't determine how good a win it was for us. Sticking to team rules, discipline, attitude, behaviors, how well we respond to the opposition's approach - how well we parried - and how effectively we got the game on our terms, to look like how we like it to look, are the key determinants.

True. But his ruck craft is really improving- particularly his soft taps to advantage. Holding his ground better too at around the ground stoppages and throw ins.

The best contested possession player ever. Under yze he has added something that I think has taken his game to another level, a level that if maintained will put him in not just the discussion about the best ever dees player ever but also in the all time great discussion. Big call I know, but just look at his results in the bluey. He won his third bluey, in a premiership year no less, last season. Three before the age of 24. He must be raging favourite to win his fourth this season. He had made two aa teams (should have been more) and is a lock for the next 5 years at least. And has changed how footy is played by mids. Which is where my comment about yze comes in. Leigh Matthews, who I hate still, was amazing to watch because of his power from the contest - particularly later im his career playing as psmall power forward. Dusty has a similar ability to burst from the contest, not to mention style. But under yze, Oliver had taken the mattews template to another level by applying it to ever contest he is involved in as a mid. He still wins as many contested balls, but now instead of handballing to a receiver, Oliver is now driving from each contest with three or four powerful strides, balances up and, when not handballing to an outside runner, driving it 50 metres forward for a 60 metre territory gain. It is fundamental to our game plan. And increasingly other star mids are looking to rhe same. Players like cripps and neal are the ones that come to mind

The margin will be determined by the level of intensity and pressure the roos bring, and if that level is acceptable how long they can maintain it. I am extremely confident we will bring our minimum base level of intensity of pressure. So If they don't bring it, or do but only for say the first half, then a 100 point hammering is on the cards.

But why then would he replace harmes?

Dunstan is not a forward

Good points, well made. You're right, melksham is probably the closest like for like and will be a good option.

I reckon Mrs DOF is spot on.

Maybe

Bedford is still in the team!

Blimey. Melksham instead of Bedford Bedford medi sub again most likely

If I was a bomber fan, I'd prefer my line in the sand was all team intensity for 4 weeks in a row and some wins. Not 1990s faux tough guy, cheap shot stylee

No he didn't. If that is what he said at the time then i'd have no isse with his comments He stood in front of big TV screen, showed the Parker gestures and then showed the very next bounce, some 15 seconds later. He pointed to the screen (perhaps even slowed down the vison) and showed viewers where and how Shiels should have taken the chance to run through (my words) Parker. He described it as a line in the sand moment. Please Which would have almost certainly resulted in a free and possible report becuase it would have involved Shiels running past the ball to run into parker. Lloyd is trying to rewrite history

Loved the vision. But not sure it made Lloyd's point. He was whining about the criticism from a small handful of people (nowhere near enough IMO) for advocating Sheils run through Parker at the ensuing center bounce (which he actually had the chance to do - but f he did he almost certainly have given away a free as it would have been off the ball). To support his argument, the first bit of vision was may and Oliver taking the chance to hit Jones hard but fair was used as an example. But that is comparing apples and oranges. For one thing May and Oliver bided their time and waited for opportunity to smash into Jones fairly x 3 in the flow of the game and in a way that was legal and no report were on the cards. Neither even gave away a free. And secondly Jones tunneled Langdon and could have seriously hurt him, so that was much more serious than some stupid schoolyard teasing by Parker. I mean how could the incidents be compared? The teasing didn't seem to bother Shiels, he laughed if off. But it certainly did bother all these alpha ex footy meat heads who were incensed by some gestures questioning Shiels courage? No way they would have allowed an opposition player disrespect them back in the day. And it is important to note that parker WAS TRYING to provoke a reaction and mess with Shiel's. Parker would have loved more than to receive a free in the center of the ground becuase he got in Shiels head. The rest of the vison was making a different point - the bombers are not playing with enough intensity (not even close) and the dees are the benchmark for intensity and legal ferocity. Hard to argue this, but at best it is tangential to his push back on the criticism he mentioned he had received.