binman

It's only a 50 minute drive isn't it?

Fortunately for dees fans, his confident prediction a few weeks back that freo would take our spot in the top four is unlikely to prove accurate.

If we get get pick 6, I hope we also get pick 66. Then it will picks 6 66. The number of the beast. With a stutter.

The Slab?

I am entertained.

As goody said in his presser, as much as the media want black and white, they don't need to make that decision yet. Goody has made clear he happy to keep the forward line fluid, pushing back on yet another click bait media narrative that we should have it locked in now. He's also made clear he sees Grundy in his best 22 come finals. They've flagged grundy will be at Casey for at least a couple of weeks. Jvr can have some time in the ones, with bb. Maxy can concentrate on his game. Maybe even manage him at some point, for example swap with brodie for the roos game. See what things look like in a few weeks. It's about the big dance, not the tigers in July. But on jvr v Grundy come finals, Goody makes a good point about big men in finals. And i think we saw on Friday night that JVR still got some development to go, both in terms of his build and strength, but also his tank and forward craft.

As long as it isn't holy grail. The Slab? It'd make a great footy song.

I agree with that. His athleticism looks really good. I more meant he looks like he is still building his tank as he has faded in the second half in the last couple of games.

Posted just now Further to the post above the Lions got on top in the second dominated the second and really dominated the third quarter Yes they were still switching in the third quarter, but the quarter was a more 'traditional' looking quarter, with the lions taking control, forcing more contests and stoppages (which is how the lions like it). And we struggled to get our run and carry game going the way we did in the first and last quarters. So more congestion and less space. I think that is reflected in the pressure ratings of both the dees and the lions in the third (boith teams' highest rating quarters) and provides some evidence for my theory about the pressure numbers in the game being related to how the lions played and how we responded to their method: Quarter For Against 1 169 158 2 150 164 3 181 207 4 174 192 Match 168 180 It's interesting that the Lions pressure was still really good in the last quarter (and better than us for the match). Yes they ran out of legs a little bit bit, but they didn't wilt. And maybe when defensive late by dropping Gunston back (but i think that was the right play to be honest), but i don't think they went into their shells and tried to save the game the way many are suggesting. I just think we controlled the tempo of the game (fast and ball in motion) in the last quarter and they couldn't wrest back momentum or get control of the tempo they way they did in the third quarter. As Fagan said, they just couldn't get their hands on the ball

Go redlegs

Agree. Still looks a little underdone, but if he can get up to full rat power he will be an even more critical cog in the machine. The other thing about BB, with his height and forward smarts, opponents can't really risk putting part time or medium defender on him, meaning they have to send one of their best tall defenders to him.

Excellent point jnr. A real upside of Oliver's injury is the extra minutes and responsibility JJ and sparrow have got in the middle. Also means when Oliver does come back JJ and Sparrow are in great nick. Can only help at the pointy end - and creates options for Goody. For example, if they run a hard tag on Oliver, he can sacrifice his game and drag the tag away from the contest, or go forward if need be, and JJ and Sparrow can pick up the slack. And as we have seen already, also gives Goody much more flexibility in how he uses tracc in terms of his mid forward mix (by the by, hard not to love tracc as as a forward - in part because i love his emotion when he kicks goals. It really pumped up the energy of the crowd on Frida night).

I love this.

Me too.

That's an interesting question, one I've been pondering since i saw that data yesterday and was also reflecting on after the blues game. Was planning on raising on the podcast (we discussed this a bit after the blues game). My initial thoughts is that i think a factor in the low pressure numbers in this game, and the blues game, relates to how both of those teams played - and how we responded to their method. Comparing the Lions game with the Pies King's Birthday game, both games felt high pressure watching, but perhaps on Friday night more in the sense that it was a tense, enthralling contest between two genuine contenders that finished in high drama? But what were the differences in how the Pies and the Lions (and the blues) played and how we responded. And how might that impact the pressure numbers. These were the pressure numbers from the Pies game: Q1: 176 - 180 Q2: 174 - 172 Q3: 201 - 206 Q4: 186 - 177 Tot: 183 - 186 The big difference in the way the two games were played is the Pies played their game against us and ran at us they way they like to do - chaining handballs until they find an outside kicker in space to take on a high risk kick to the corridor. We responded to that method by denying them time and space by: having our defensive zone set high to create density take the corridor away from them and force them down the line really getting up in their grill as the Pies went forward with frontal pressure (ie dees players ahead of the ball peeling of their man and running at the ball carrier) Sweating on their mids and flankers sitting on the outside waiting for the ball to be fed out From wheelo def, pressure points for players are the weighed sum of pressure acts. I assume the same true is of the team's pressure ratings (i also assume the teams' ratings is the players ratings aggregated?) Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. The way we responded to the Pies method by denying them time and space ticks all the above boxes in terms of how pressure points are accumulated. But against the Lions and the Blues we didn't press up nearly as aggressively or apply the same level of pressure frontal pressure. And out zone wasn't set as high. The Lions came with a plan to use the width of the G to move our defensive zone around, i think to pull Lever and may apart to minimize their intercepting ability and to expose them one on one. To that end, they switched more than any team against us since perhaps the first half of last season. We let them do so, and never really pressed up. The blues did something similar, but more i think because they couldn't get through our zone going in straight line. And now that i think about it, the saints also did something similar and tried to control possession of the ball - and the pressure numbers were low in that match too. So, with the ball getting switched side to side, fewer opportunities to aggregate pressure points because there is less corralling, closing acts and chasing acts. And less contests. And added to that we went fast in the first and last quarters, with the ball in motion and lots of wave running that creates space around the and ahead of the ball. Very much how the Pies love to play. But unlike us against the Pies, the Lions didn't really look to deny us space, for example by pressing up or frontal pressure - which meant fewer pressure acts like corralling, closing acts and chasing. So, to your question about my analysis of the ‘pressure ratings’, i think they are really useful indicator as evidenced by the fact clubs use them during games (which surprised me), but like any stat only tell part of the tale. I've been looking at them all season, and my overall impression is, as a rule they pass the eye test in the sense they reflect my sense of the pressure in the game. That was not necessarily the case in the blues and Lions games - or for that matter the Saints games - in the sense those games didn't feel low pressure as such. That said the pressure numbers in those games do point to the strategies of switching and denying us the ball (though its not then really possible, unless you have intently watch the games, to compare say the lions game with a run in the mill actual low pressure game).

And it was a super contested, tough game. Bit of recovery needed for the crows. One less day break and travel doesn't help their cause either.

And with their draw, largely irrelevant in any case.

I think something that is really underestimated in Nibbler's game is his running power. It sometimes seems the importance to our method and game plan of his elite aerobic capacity ability to cover distance at speed is not fully appreciated. Sort of like being a brilliant, elite level athlete is nice, but its not a core football skill he brings to the table Hence calls for him to be dropped and replaced by players simply do not have the athletic attributes to play his role to the level he does. Take Laurie, he is not going to suddenly become a elite level runner - no matter how aerobically fit be becomes. Wasn't as a junior, isn't now. By contrast, Nibbler's elite athleticism was a point of difference from the get go as highlighted in this article from 2018: The 22-year-old finished third in Melbourne’s post-Christmas 2km time trial behind Tom Bugg and Tom McDonald, with Demons elite performance manager Dave Misson giving an indication of his repeat running ability. "He's probably our best game runner," Misson told AFL.com.au. "He's a kid that's turned his career around in the last couple of years and it's as much his mindset and his willingness to work hard on the field as it is his physical capacity." Neal-Bullen has become a vital part of the Demons' side because of his two-way running, work ethic and ability to pressure the opposition. As a testament to his standing within the team, Neal-Bullen has been given a leadership position in the forward line, with Misson saying the unofficial title was indicative of his attitude. Misson said the Demons use a measure called "threshold running", defined as submaximal running or, in simpler terms, hard striding to work out whether a player is putting in on the field. Those figures are represented in Neal-Bullen's running figures from the weekend, with the half-forward averaging 10.1km/h in attack and 9.5km/h in defence (both game-highs). "Rather than looking at total kilometres, threshold running is the biggest indicator of what is, essentially, work rate," Misson said. "It doesn't surprise us that he's punching out big numbers there." "He's just become a really reliable teammate. He plays to all the structures, whatever role he's given he plays that role," Misson said. https://www.afl.com.au/news/92097/running-man-who-has-the-most-kms-in-a-game

Six marks, sixteen possessions and a goal as a forward is nothing to sneeze at. Different level obviously, but his replacement, jvr, had eight possessions, two marks and didn't bother the scorer.

That's a fair point. Perhaps as you suggest it's a directive - be more attacking. And if given a direction he'd follow it. I wonder if some of entries are similarly affected - ie following a team rule, for example who and where to direct a pass to a leading forward.

Nibbler has been involved with the majority of the first 2-3 goals we have kicked in our last three wins.

Nibbker had 5 clangers. And so did Salem and Melksham. JJ, may and jvr all had 4 clangers - and jvr only had 8 possessions! And tracc and Gus both had 3. Nibbler is hardly Robinson Crusoe in our team on the clanger front. Collectively they turned the ball over 72 times

Concidence more likely. But as you say he is always switched on. And maybe he starts deeper than later in the match? A couple of the goals have been from point blank range. And at least one was because he read rhe ball beautifully off the pack and snapped a goal. He's kicked one more goal than spargo this season, not bad considering spargo plays a bit closer to goal.

I've got no evidence at all to back up it up, but I get the same vibe.

No idea to be honest. But they appear to have taken a completely different approach. There's no way they wouldn't have some loading program in place. But they seemed to not drop off in their intensity till the blues game they just lost. Which is weeks later than when we started our loading phase. I'm guessing the fact they managed seven players in this game isapart of their strategy to manage load, fatgue, rest individual programs etc. Bur that is risky, because clubs are loath to make more that 2-3 changes (except for bevo) because sytems are so important. Seven changes is the reason the blues were favourite against a team going for its 14th straight win. They can afford a loss and that was obviously a risk they were happy to take.