binman

Had to do a mountain more work in the middle against the pies than what they would have planned for. Can't help. I'm surprised they didn't use Laurie on ball at all. Even 5 or 10 minutes would have given tracc a chop out and chance to play forward. Laurie played as a mid at casey all season after all.

Exactly. It absolutely had a major bearing on the result. I mean c'mon how could it not? Leaving aside the very real impacts you've noted (I mean our worst cp diff in a quarter since round 8 in the first quarter of a QF for the number one cp team in the AFL? - please) the bottom line is we lost one of our best 5 players in the last six games on player ratings, and a key part of our midfield, for nearly an entire match. A player who averages aprox 90% TOG, top 5 for possessions and top 5 for pressure acts out for an entire match and replaced by a sub who only played 50% TOG, played no time on ball and could only manage 5 possessions for an entire match. Of course we could have, should have won. Shows how good we are. Just needed to kick straight. But I mean how could that not impact the result? It's old school nonsense to suggest otherwise. They were slight favorites to win that game at 1.86. Some bookmakers have in game betting. After Gus went down (noting we scored a goal and so the pies lead was only 6 points) the pies would have come into something like 1.40 prohibitive favourites to win. We would have blown our to 3.00 outsiders. Thought experiment. Let's say coming into the game you knew that Gus was going to do a hammy at the 3 min mark of the first quarter (meaning none of the emotion or psychological impact of the head trauma). Would the consensus be that we have less chance of beating a very evenly matched opponent? Or that it likely would make no difference to the outcome? Or alternatively, you know the pies are going to lose Adams after only 3 minutes. Would the consensus be that we have a greater chance of beating the pies? Of course it would.

No coincidence she is a lawyer. And leaving the legal dimension aside, as football manager she knows that the white noise of ex footballers and media that only care about numbers (viewers, listeners, clicks, mentions etc etc) is a dangerous furphy in terms of the future of the game. The 'optics' on this could not be worse. Particularly given the success of the Matildas at the world cup and the buzz they will generate at the Paris Olympics. How many parents of young boys and girls will want their kids to play a sport that gives short thrift to serious head trauma? Kane has earned my respect that's for sure (not that i didn't respect her before).

Try: 'Tell me, what do you think it means?'

Damn, you'd hate me me then.

Serious question. Two actually It's youwho accidentally knocked out a player. You want to go around to see him asap to apologise. But of course you are aware emotions are running high, particularly only two days since the incident. And given the seriousness of the injury, being a reasonable and relatively smart person (or at least having such people around you giving you good advice) there is every chance the player you have knocked our cold for two full minutes may not be well enough to receive visitors or may have medical staff, family, friends or teammates with him who a very likely not wanting to see you. So two questions: Do you drop in unannounced ie without calling ahead? Do you ensure the visit is kept secret because you don't want people to misinterpret the reason for your visit, question your sincerity or create any more media noise that could be upsetting to the victim? Oh, and one more question. Do you bring a bottle of wine when you visit as a gift for a player who has had a significant head trauma?

Herein lies the disconnect. Bracing for contact with a hip and shoulder is reflexive in the circumstances? Maybe reflexive for someone putting their own health and well being over the victim over someone they are about to land on having run and jumped at them. Not reflexive for someone dong their very bets to protest the victim over someone they are about to land on having run and jumped at them. Again i'd point to Kozzie's efforts to not poleaxe Hoskin Elliot. Funny how his reflexive instinct was to do his best to avoid contact

Are you ok?

Really?

Ta. No perfectly clear. I just didn't read it! So. for example, against all teams we concede on average 41 points from turnover. But in this game we conceded only 40 points

Ta. That makes sense. Isn't a million miles away from their average rating so i've been using it in the right way. Sort of. Geez we had lot of players not meeting their predicted rating. Another question @WheeloRatings In the tables with for and against, (eg points from defensive half) does the SEASON column for our opponent refer to their season average or the average we concede for that stat So for example, the match column has the Pies scoring 26 points from their defensive half. The season column has 26 points - is that what the Pies average from the back half or what we concede on average against all teams from the back half?

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for Maynard if it only came out in the off season that he called gus to check if it was ok he came round to visit and apologize had gone and visited Gus. You know, keep it between the players, no need to big up myself for being a decent person who checks on the welfare of a fella i knocked out cold, no need to broadcast my decency to the world. But no, he visits in what appears unseemly haste like he is family or a teammate and the Pies make sure everyone knows about it. I mean seriously does anyone really believe that wasn't stage managed? And a bottle of wine? For a fella probably in a dark room avoiding all light with a raging headache. And he brings a bottle of wine? FMD.

Exactly. We actually defended them really well on transition. They are always going to get some goals out the back just as we are always going to scrounge goals from our bombs inside 50 As Binman's PA has pointed out we kept them below the season average we concede from points from turnover, and half of that was in the first quarter. The problem is we could only manage half our season average of 51 points from turnover. But again the devil is in the detail. We kicked 3 goals 7 from turnovers and they kicked 6 goals 4 from turnovers. If we had kicked 7. 3 instead of 3.7 from turnover we win that game And the other relevant, and interconnected, stat is we we kept them to 26 points from their back half (and only 13 points from their D50) just a tick over the season average of points we concede from the back half. But could only average 16 ourselves (because of inaccuracy and the fact the ball was camped in our forward half for 3 quarters) - less than half our season average of 33 points from the defensive half.

An interesting bit of that article is Horne suggesting Kornes was talking about kane with his never played bulltish. Not that it matters, but I thought kane played for meb uni and was instrumental in getting their women's team up and running. to be honest i reckon playing at the AFL level should just about disqualify anyone talking about it becuase so many ex footballers are so biased and see everything thru the lens of the player, and how they played in their prime. And again i'd point out many such commentators will almost certainly suffer from CTE, if they are no already, i wonder how much denial plays a part

I sat in M55 for the Pies game. i usually sit on level 2 (or 4 in the Ponsford) so not a huge fan of ground level seats. But i had a terrific view. I was in row S, which is reasonably well elevated (the first row is always A)

The bolded bit is true. Partly agree with the non bolded bit, but the pressure factor def gives a sense of how much pressure is applied. I don't think we closed down space enough and i think a big reason was losing Gus, which robbed us of: one of our key pressure players with the gut running he does to apply pressure midfield rotations - which impacted our all team defence and ability to cover space and close down space Together those impacts show up on the pressure factor numbers. They discuss the pressure rating and how they are defined etc in this ESPN footy podcast episode:

Brilliant article. Love this: ' “It’s understood Maynard is genuinely apologetic,” SEN reported. Apologetic for what, exactly? '

Lets say they are the right and there is nothing he could have done to avoid contact. So what? That's is not the issue, the issue is he decided to turn and bump. He had other options to protect himself (and Gus) from being hurt - for example putting his hands out and pushing gus in the chest with them. But he decided to turn and bump. If he had time to do that he had time for other options. Whether contact was inevitable or not is neither here nor there. It is a complete furphy as is the whole football act palaver. Once Koz left the ground to bump Smith, contact was inevitable but that didn't mean he got off when he chose to bump and got Smith in the head. The rules are clear - elect to bump and if you hit a player in the head you're gone.

Yes there is and that is that the game wasn't for all the marbles. We earned a double chance. We now have to use it.

@WheeloRatings what estimated player ratings mean? I had assumed it is their season average, but estimated implies something different.

Minus 10 i think - or at least that was what was on the board they show the players at quarter time. And 100% agree it can't happen again. I think this is where we lost the game actually. I'm convinced Gus going down was factor in this - the players were in shock.

I agree deanox. The term pressure is a bit misleading because it means different things to different people as it relates to a game of football. Few would think of corralling as applying pressure for example. It is actually called the Pressure factor, I assume to pick up your point deanox. I should start calling it that. I'm not sure if you are right that the score will always be between 120 and 375 as i think there are scenarios where no player is corralling, closing or chasing. But even if that's not the case there is a big difference between points for closing (2.25) and corralling (1.2) and chasing (1.5). Closing is a 'higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier' and 'the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately'. So chasing that bit harder, closing space harder, turning a corall into forcing the ball carrier to get rid of it. That is work rate. So, in some some ways it is a better measure of work rate than pressure. For example if players aren't gut running when chasing then it shows up on the pressure factor because that player only gets 1.5 points rather than 2.5 if they got close enough to force a rushed disposal. In the first quarter their pressure factor was higher, one because they won more contested balls (presumably some of those wins involved 'direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball' and so get 3.75 points) and two because I suspect they turned more chases into closing acts. Which I think partly explains some of our poor entries where we kicked to the defender's advantage and some of their clean entries. I also suspect not having Gus was a factor because that sort of work - closing, corralling, chasing and tackling is his one wood and he had the fitness to do it. Laurie only was only 50% time on ground and never did any midfield rotations. His pressure points weren't too bad actually, having the 9th most pressure acts (well ahead of of many senior players like langers, hunger, salo and hibbo). But Gus averages over 35 pressure points a game and has been incredible for pressure in the last month. For example, against the swans he he had the fourth most pressure acts and 48 pressure points (and has been top 5 for weeks). Apart from the psychological impact on the team of gus going down, we lost his run, ability to put pressure on the ball carrier and his defensive nous. And as the game wore on, we also lost tracc as a forward option because he covered Gus. By the by, on that latter point, I'm surprised goody didn't put Laurie on ball and put tracc forward at some point. Laurie played as a mid at Casey, so why not?

If it's any consolation, me too.

No, the dees were never favourite against the pies. We actually came in. I suspect the blues won't shorten a touch but we will still start clear favorites at around 1.75. Deserved too because we will win.

Good point. Get on it BPA. Actually don't. It will just blow my head up.