binman

Burn the clock swans!

It's a fine balance. I want the swans to win. But by no more than 22 points!

Totally agree last week was unacceptable. We played poorly in our previous losses, but the freo game was different. This is goody's 8th season as coach and that was the only time under goody that we appeared to give up. They have earned the benefit of the doubt. Tommorow is a huge game. Huge. As you say a fierce response is non negotiable. Anything less and we are in trouble. But if we do play fierce, and win, and as you say also come out firing post bye, then we will be in pretty good shape.

Well, nor did we. But if you are making comparisons, we haven't lost four on end. And the cats were every bit as bad in that loss to the suns as we were against the dockers.

Good. i backed them at the line. Tis the season for wacky results. By, the by, comimg into this game the cats have lost 4 in a row, including having had 160 points on them by the suns (who couldn't manage 50 points in their loss to the saints last night). The giants have lost four of their last 5. Is anyone writing either team off?

According to Libby Birch, it sounds as if collectivey clubs are taking a different approach to their high performance programs this year. And then there is individual program differences- eg the cats model of managing players ad opposed to ours of not doing so. But I was more referring to the bye period. Every year for the last 5 years or so there are crazy results around the mid point of the season. A big factor is the accumulative fatigue all teams experience at the half way point of the season. Another is the aforementioned differences in programs, including when they do a big block of intensity and density and how they manage the bye period. It's all made worse by the AFL's greed. They should go back to all teams having their bye at the same time. But that ain't gonna happen because the AFL, nor fox and 7, dont want a football free weekend. So instead we have the ridiculous situation of byes being spread over several weeks meaning it's all over the place in terms of when teams play each other - eg, both coming off a bye, only one coming off a bye, one team not yey having their bye and the other 2 weeks post bye etc etc. And this year it's even more absurd with the teams playing in OR having 2 byes. It is just ridiculous.

I accidentally posted this comment in the pre game thread instead of this one: Tis the season for wacky results. You are three from three so far - and the roos are 8 points up just before half time.

Tis the season for wacky results.

An interesting interview with some good questions - a couple of which goody did the classic politician strategy of answering without actually addressing the substantive part of the question. I always find those examples interesting for what the subtext might be. By the by, it annoys me when media people ask a question with muriple elements, or ask several questions at once. It allows the interviewee to cherry pick which element or question they want to answer - and more significantly the which ones they want to ignore (although that choicr can be instructive).

Good questions - 'll make sure we cover in the pies pod. But a short version of my response is yes, yes, yes, agree. And i think there are a couple of other factors, which I'll save for the pod As I said on the pod I suspect we might revert to our forward half method on Monday as there is a lot riding on the game. And interestingly, the pies, who for the first 5-6 games were playing a front half game (I think because they were not fit enough yet to play their turnover, transition). But since then have reverted to their turnover, transition game - its no coincidence they look way fitter and are covering the ground better.

If we are anywhere near as insipid on Monday as we were on Sunday then even my optimism will take a terminal hit. Hello darknesses, my old friend.....

Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't citing Buckley's comments as evidence of being hyper fatigued from a loading block. I was agreeing with him that we are not at optimal fitness. Which is why I cited it as a possible explanation for our week to week, inconsistency and inability to play 4 good quarters. Perhaps that lack of fitness was exacerbated by a heavier training block, but I doubt it. More likely just the normal accumulative fatigue all teams are impacted by at the half way mark of the season, particularly those clubs, like us, with a ot of young regular best 22 players. I wonder whether it is partly by design ie plan to develop their fitness as the season goes on with the goal of minimising the impacts of training so hard for 6 months that perhaps makes it too hard to be in peak shape in September And there is no doubt the impact of having mutiple players in the team off interrupted preseasons who still clearly are not fully fit yet is having an impact- but are choosing to play them anyway (which intersects with the philosophy I'm wondering about above). As George noted, quoting Libby birch in the age article about the spate of injuries and demands of the game, and length of season, clubs are having to change their high performance programs and are training hard in multiple blocks. For example the pies were def not in optimal shape for the first 5 weeks or so, as evidenced by their method and results, and there was a suggestion that was by design. And that staggered approach might help explain why the cats and giants can look like world beaters for the first 7 weeks of the season then lose 4 and 3 games in a row respectively and look mid table teams. Or help explain why the dogs suddenly look so much more dynamic That's the glass half full take. The other possibility of course is that they have got the program wrong and/or the players have not done the work. If the latter is the case we are toast. Either way, as I noted on the pod the Selwyn and the high performance team deserve scrutiny - scrutiny they are not getting much of on demonland. I'm of the view that the high performance manager is almost as important, perhaps even more important, than the coach in terms of a team's chances of winning a flag. And should be critiqued accordingly.

What a horror show.

Agree, though he is a flip flopper par excellence - he was raving about us after the port win, and again after rolling the crows 5 days later. Nek minnit.....

I've done well to avoid David King for most of tgis season. I just had a reminder why. On the fox pre coverage King declares the dees 'have been credited with performances they don't necessarily deserve' What the flying does that actually mean?

Battle of the backlines: Where the Demons-Dockers clash will be won - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1141258

This article is exactly the sort of analysis I wish there more of. It extensively quotes 'an opposition team analyst with experience planning for both teams'. Really good insight, and it uses stats and data in support of a thesis as opposed to data being used in isolation, as is usually the case, as if in isolation data explains causality. Data is the equivalent of symptoms for a doctor trying to diagnose a patients health issue. Symptoms are not causal factors - they provide evidence, particularly when triangulated and/or aggregated, of the undelying health issue (eg fever, chills, muscle ache suggest the patient flu might have the flu). By the by, one symptom noted in the article provides evidence that does not support the diagnosis from Doctor Demon Myths that our midfield is a major concern: 'For the Demons, their major strength is limiting opposition scores from clearance (25.0 points, ranked No.1)'

Kenty the lurker?

No. Well, almost. I called him The Lurker

And from a tactical perspective freo looked to exacerbate our increased intensity of training volume and density (my new, less triggering phrase) by speading, switching and make us chase tail all game.

We. Do. Not. Need. Any. More. Depth. Players.

Or as the footy experts like to erroneously call accuracy - efficiency.

Absolutely. 100% agree. The fact they haven't felt the need to as of yet demonstrates they don't see our midfield as a big issue atm. And they might even decide they have enough coverage in the middle - particularly if they think kolt can become a midfield gun The reality is the game has changed. Teams now only need 3 elite mids. Ten years ago they needed 5 or 6. They now need 5 or 6 elite high half forwards, half backs or wingers who have elite endurance and speed. Which is why of course we used a critical top 10 draft pick (who knows when we will get another one?) on Windsor. Look at the swans. They have the best performing midfield atm built around three gun mids. One of their starting mids last year, Luke Parker, has been kicking around in the magoos picking up 30 plus possessions and can't force his way into the side. Because he is an absolute A grader Mills will come back in when fit you'd think. But that will create a challenge fir them in terms of the mix of player types as they will he loathe to drop a runner. We have three A graders - oliver, tracc and viney. Understandably given his interrupted preseasons, Oliver is not yet back to his best, though still performing well. In all likelihood he will get back to his best. Even if one was available, is there any point chasing an A grader to trade in? I don't think so. I reckon the go is to try and find a potential gun mid in the next draft.

That's an interesting point about being a ruck option. Would make sense, as we need cover for JVR. And Casey is desperate for a ruck, so perhaps rather than cutting g Jefferson's lunch the lurker can develop his ruck craft by being rhe number one ruck, who rests forward, for the rest of the year at Casey.