binman

We were on top this time last year too.

I could not agree more. I'd add that framing each game as some sort of marker for our premiership chances makes it harder to objectively assess the performance on its merits. The Suns and Tiger's games are perfect examples of that phenomena. Many mark our performances in those games down based on where the Tigers and Suns were on the ladder. But both teams brought super pressure and played out of their skins, much like Port. Assessed in isolation, they were impressive wins by us. It matters nought that that both teams have struggled since. Applying some sort of retrospective weighting to our performance based on their current ladder position (or even their prior position) means the games are not properly assessed on their merits. And does a disservice to the Tigers and Port for that matter too. A similar dynamic will play out if Tigers roll Port this weekend - 'see that's how poor we are travelling, even the tigers can beat Port'.

I agree most posters would have them ahead of us in terms of who is more likely to win the flag. But theirs to lose? If you are right, and most do in fact agree with you, this would be the perfect example of what i mean by them being overrated. The Pies are currently $3.75 to win the flag. We are currently equal second favorite with the lions on $5. Personally, if I was to set a market, i'd have the dees favorite at $5, the lions at $5.50 and the pies at $6. But that's me. So, lets' say the market has it got it right and $3.75 for the Pies to win the flag represents the 'true' odds ie they accurately reflect the actual probability of the Pies winning the flag. At those odds, they still fail to win the flag more often than they win it. One only needs to revisit our 2022 season to reinforce that point - at the corresponding point in last year's season we were about $3.75 to win the flag too.

Yep. in fact, that win is probably a better example than the dogs win for the point i'm trying to make. The Swans game is swept up the narrative that the dees haven't beaten anyone, eg 'who have the dees beaten - the dogs, who were poor, the swans who are big sliders, the tigers who are 14th, the underachieving Suns and competition easy beats, the Hawks, Roos and Eagles' blah blah blah. When in reality, the Swans and Dogs wins were both impressive and the Tiger's and the Suns brought serious pressure and heat, played super well and our performance in those games was also very impressive. Even the Hawks and Eagles brought heat.

Yep, fair points.

Not being facetious, but have you watched their games this season? They have not played every game at finals like pressure. Nowhere near it, as evidenced by the fact that they are currently 8th for average contested possession per game (we are 2nd behind the Saints). I have watched all of their games and would argue they were only fully wound up against the Cats, Port, Tigers and the Bombers (and then only in the last q). Their pressure was average in their wins against the Saints, Crows, Giants and Blues. Of course I rate the Pies. But I also think they are well and truly overrated. In my opinion, the probability of us winning the flag is higher than the Pies winning it. In fact, i think the Lions are a better chance of wining the falg than the Pies.

Fair enough - and i think that there is every chance that there is an element of dialling up and dialling down of intensity based on the relevant importance of the match and at what point of the season the game is played. (by the by, on this later point, in the DL interview Selwyn Griffith made the point that by half way through the season fatigue becomes a real issue – he didn’t make this point, but it’s reasonable to assume younger players struggle most with fatigue). But I’d make couple of points. If the dees went at finals like pressure against top 8 sides and contenders, that’s maybe 10 teams you go full tilt at, some twice if we play them twice. So maybe 15 games at final like intensity. I doubt that is feasible if being cherry ripe in the finals is the goal. Secondly, if a team has targeted a specific match to dial things up, teams must have to plan for that, impacting how hard they can go in the 2-3 games prior. So, for example. Let’s say the dees want to be in optimal readiness for the Pies game. Maybe to achieve that, they have to go harder on the track now, increasing fatigue for the Freo and almost certainly the Blues game (on that game, we have a 10 day break before the Kings birthday game and so I suspect they will go hard on the track ahead of the blues game to be in optimal readiness for the Pies – so we might see a scrappy average performance against the blues). So I agree with you about bringing the finals like heat to specific games, and think that is exactly what they do, but I suspect they limit their focus to genuine top 4 and flag contenders – which personally I think are the Lions Pies, and to lesser extent the Dogs and maybe Port (in that order) And again, I’d point out that our pressure against Port was good. Not as manic as Port’s, but not far off. By the by, if you rate Port as a genuine contender this season you must also rate the dees as a genuine contender. I mean people can’t have their cake and eat it too on that front (i’m not referring to you here Watson – i mean ‘you’ in the generic sense). The fact is, Port played fantastic and their pressure was immense. They were the better side on the night and fully deserved the win. But facts are facts. We only got beaten by four points and were in the match right up to the final siren. If not for some extremely dubious frees we may well have won. But some see the loss as evidence of us perhaps not being a genuine contender. Doesn’t make any sense. Well, not if you rate Port. We played a team who had won 6 straight games, is widely considered a genuine finals (maybe even top 4) contender on their home deck, off a six day break, in conditions that favoured their method and who were awarded some very significant home town umpiring decisions. And we really only played one quarter anywhere near our explosive best. And we went down by less than a goal! People who are objective are not fooled. Evidence to back that claim up? Well, for a start we’re playing a team this week who have won three on end, are coming off smashing the reigning premiers (albeit a weakened one) and if they beat us may end the round in the top 8. Yet the clear eyed punters who are betting real money, have us as prohibitive 1.37 favourites (standard disclaimer here – I understand that doesn’t mean we win). For context, the top of the table lions are 1.73 to beat the Crows, who are coming off a crushing loss. And Port, who are 4th on the ladder with 8 wins (having won seven straight) are playing the tigers who are 14th (with only 3 wins and a draw) and are paying 1.77 for the win.

Yep, that's my take too. If true, it would be one example of prioritizing finals success over home and away wins.

You'd have to think it is the degenerative nature of his knee injuries, something Goody said last year he would have to manage for the rest of his career. I worry TMac is now in much the same boat with his foot injury.

We beat the dogs in round one by 50 points. Narrative - maybe the dogs are not contenders this year, asterix on that win. Dogs get beaten the next week by the Saints, who at that point are tipped to finish bottom 3 by many, and certainly not considered the serious finals contender they are now. Narrative - the dogs are struggling, are not a top 8 team, double asterix on the dees round win. Round 3 the dogs beat now top of the table Lions, but at that point their round one drubbing by Port still has pundits questioning where they are at, their victory of the dees notwithstanding. Narrative: the double asterix remains on the dees round one win Cut to round 10 and the dogs smashes a team in the top 8, everyone's favorite bolter, the crows, for their 5th win on end, and cement their spot in the top 8 on the same number of wins as us (albeit with 30% less percentage - a massive number for two teams on equal wins). Pundits are starting to wake up to the fact that the dogs are a serious team. Narrative - the double asterix remains on the dees round one win because it is too long ago for the media fishbowl to compute.

But therein lies the challenge - and the folly - of looking at each individual match in isolation as some sort of assessment of our chances of winning a flag. It is not possible to play each home and away match at finals like pressure. Well it is, but then teams' risk having no gas in the tank comes finals. It is probably this very reason why so few premiers are on top of the ladder at the halfway point in the season. It was definitely a factor for us last year, with so many final like pressure games late in the season. The pressure Port applied in this game was full on, and definitely finals like. It's simply not sustainable for 23 rounds. Besides our pressure was good in the Port game - not as good as theirs, but not far off it (keep in mind a score of 180 is AFL average and 200 is considered elite): Melbourne v Port Adelaide https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20231001 Note: first number below is Melbourne, higher value is bold. Pressure Q1: 182 - 203 Q2: 200 - 203 Q3: 189 - 198 Q4: 205 - 219 Tot: 194 - 205

Well, given we are 1.37 to win this game - not much more than what winx was running around at - you should load up on freo. You win either way then.

So he was wrong the previous week having us as favourites to win the flag? A week's a long time in top end football analysis.

That's a plus for the dees given our struggle against quality mid sized forwards and winning ground ball inside D50.

I'm still confused. You said he is no chance of being picked as a forward, implying he is a chance to be picked in another role (otherwise the qualifier is not needed).

I agree unless JVR needs a rest

Que? Not picked full stop? Or not as a forward despite training as a forward over the preseason and playing forward at Casey for half a season?

The pies or us?

I think i'm right in saying that a couple of weeks back, the Pies were 18th for score from turnover (we are number one). This is a guess, but i doubt any team has won a flag without being at least top 10 in scores from turnover because teams are twice as likley to score from a turnover than a clearance and therfore is it a more important score source. And it's not as if the Pies are killing it in clearances either - they are 10th in total average clearances. We are 15th in total average clearances, but interestingly 3rd in centre clearances (pies are 11th). https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html

After ten rounds of football we have conceded the third least point against, behind the Pies (who have won 2 more games) and the Saints, and we are bleeding in the back half? How then to describe what's happening with the other 15 defences? What's next - we are struggling to score despite being the highest scoring team in the AFL?

Indeed. Funny you should mention 20 20. I am ambivalent about 20 20, though i prefer it to one day cricket, and never watch it. The other night i decided to watch some IPL to give it a go. I know almost nothing about the IPL and could only manage about an hour of it before losing interest. But the coverage was fantastic. The use of stats was illuminating and used to provide context, not just random numbers and factoids. The commentary was clever and the experts really knew their stuff - and what's more could actually articulate their knowlege. And they avoided pointing out what i could see with my own eyes. And none of the blokey, jokey rubbiush that makes the BBL all but unwatchable. In that hour, i learned heaps about the IPL, strategies employed and also got a good sense of how the game has changed tactically. Impressive.

Yep - we played the dogs at home, so no Whitten Oval game. And we play Willy at home, so no game there either (which i'm spewing about - beautiful ground to watch footy at and a 15 min drive door to gate for me)

Sure. And that's essentially what i have done (I have almost completely stopped watching or listening to any footy media – the two ABC radio footy shows on Saturday and the catch up of Sando’s Thursday half hour on SEN are pretty much all I regularly consume). But my comments about how much the football media frustrates me wasn't limited to the 'review shows' – it is the entire footy media eco system. And why shouldn’t that frustrate me? I love the sport, am passionate about it and am always trying to better understand it. So to basically have no mainstream media options that help me understand the sport and that I really enjoy engaging with, is super frustrating, and in my opinion a sad reflection on the industry. I mean c’mon, the AFL and the media love to look to the States as the template. But apart from stupid loud music at games as some sort of manufactured game day experience, they ignore all the fantastic ways their sports are covered. As an example, I haven’t followed the NBA for a few years, so am out of the loop where things are at. But i watched the Denver v Lakers playff games because I love Nicola Jokic and LeBron James is simply incredible. I learnt more about basketball, the systems of the Nuggets and Lakers, their relative strengths and weakness etc etc in the first 30 mins of game one than I have about footy from the football media in 3 months of this season. And that’s just the live commentary – their ‘review’ shows are next level and as a rule, incredibly insightful. I had much the same experience watching the superbowl this year. I havent followed the NFL for 20 years, so am even more out of the loop than i am with the NBA. But the team covering it did a fanstastic job to help me undertsand what i was watching. Ditto for the coverage of the PGA championship. I know footy, but watching the TV coverage makes me cringe and does nothing to help my understanding of the game. It's a joke. And its not as if it is an Australian thing. I love Test match cricket almost as much as football and have played a lot of cricket. I know the game. But unlike the coverage of footy, the way test cricket is covered helps me grow my understanding of, and love for, the sport. The coverage is fantastic in terms of explaining the game, it's use of data to help do so and drilling down on tactics, techniques, stenegths and weakneses.

In Werribee. Great ground to watch footy at - beautiful location too down by the river.

Very frustrating becuase i live in Altona and would def had gone to the gfame. Great ground to watch footy at.