binman

Agree on outs and the players to come in. Also agree on Tomo. Live I didn't think he had a great game, but when i looked at his numbers my assessment of his game certainly took a dive. Tomo only had 7 disposals - which for a lock down defender isn't too much of a concern in of itself. But he had five clangers (defined as an error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side) and of his 7 disposals, 4 were turnovers.

Teams have been exploiting it against the Pies. It's why, for such a good team - and very much unlike us - they so infrequently blow other teams away. And also why they have been behind at 3 quarter time in 17 of their last 32 games. My take is the vulnerability has not been exploited (or discussed much - until now) more often for three main, interrelated, reasons. The first is they have been winning - an incredible record in home and away games in the in the last season and a half. Winning papers over a lot of cracks - as many DL posters noted about the dees in the first half of 2022 . Second, their last quarter record has been phenomenal. But again that ability to come from behind papers over a lot of cracks. On that point, a factor in their last quarter record is their deserved psychological edge they have in such situations - they expect to run over teams, and the oppo (and fans and their fan boys in the commentary box) do too. But if that bubble is burst they will lose that edge. They couldn't run us down and they couldn't run the blues down. They ran Port down, but maybe the comp is now looking at Port and wondering if they are that good after all. And third, their style of play, and ability to run over teams in the last, is built on phenomenal fitness and running power relative to the opposition. We saw on Sunday the advantage such relative fitness has when we completely ran the tigers into the ground - they just could not go with us. On SEN, Sanderson has been talking about the Pies fitness advantage all season (and the Crows too for that matter) and has all but said it makes them unbeatable. I have heard him 2-3 times compare their relative fitness and running power advantage to ours in 2021 (which he rightly says is why we dominated the finals series that year). But what's weird about that analysis is the implication the Pies will maintain that relative advantage to the end of the season - particularly the implication we won't close the gap. As we are starting to see, it's a complete nonsense. I think they have more elite aerobic runners. And across the board they are so quick over the ground. It's def their point of difference. And drives a really exciting brand of footy that everyone loves. We have fewer such aerobic runners (Nibbler, Spargo, Hunter and langers) but more elite power athletes (Tracc, Oliver, Viney, Salem, Sparrow). I would argue we have a better balance of athlete types for finals, but leaving that discussion aside, there is no way (assuming we have got our program right and don't have injuries) that come finals, the Pies will have a fitness edge over us - and increasingly perhaps not such an edge over other teams either (and it remains to be see if the Pies have got their fitness program right). Take that advantage away and the Pies come back to the pack.

It's not the swarm that makes them vulnerable. We swarm too - it is at the heart of the method we adapted from the tigers (I dislike hardwick, but he deserves huge credit for changing how the game is played) - pressure and get numbers to the contest, win the ball and sweep forward in a rugby like line and have players run hard to get ahead of the ball to create options. The pies perhaps commit more numbers in that swarm, but what makes the pies vulnerable is the risks they take and their defensive system. They expose themselves to turnover because they flick it around trying to get the ball to the outside and when they get it outside take on high risk kicks - often into the corridor. Looks great when it works, but place the kicker under enough pressure and/or get numbers into the corridor and they turn it over, and often in very dangerous spots (and their handballs to feed it out can be turned over too). But it is the second vulnerability, very much interconnected with the first, that really hurts them. Their defensive lines pushes so high on transition, and in one flat line (ie no goal keeper) that when they turn the ball over they are at massive risks of goals out the back on the counter. That is all true of all teams using that swarm method, but our defensive sytem protects us on turnover. We have been experimenting with a similar approach to thstvof the pies in the last 3 games, which is a big reason why we have scored so much - but also why we have leaked so many goals. The dusty goal where he was left alone in the goal square was the perfect example. We rarely give up such goals. I'm sure we will revert back to something more like our normal defensive system come finals, including greater use of tempo (we saw a bit of borh in the second half against the tigers) - but the new normal will retain elements of the method we are experimenting with atm. We can play both styles. And a hybrid. Hard to see how pies can adjust theirs so late in the season given they havent experimented in games with alternative methods.

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

I guess I shouldn't say the hawks are in good shape injury wise and Rampe and McInerney are doubtful for round 24

The Kangaroos expect Goater to be cleared to play in Sunday's clash with the Demons, despite being subbed off last week. Bonar, Hall and Perez could all return at some level, but will also need to undergo fitness tests. The club is still awaiting more information before clearing Coleman-Jones after a second concussion of the season. Shiels and Wardlaw are still at least a week away. Charlie Lazzaro (back) and Tom Powell (knee) made their comebacks through the VFL last weekend.

On the injury front, the blues are pretty hard hit. In terms of our game against them, best 22 blues plsyers who are def out are Cerra, McKay and Kennedy. And Walsh is listed as one to two weeks, so in doubt. Big outs - particularly if Walsh doesn't get up as their midfield is their key strength and their game is based around winning stoppages. No Cerra and Walsh, and hopefully clarry coming back in, gives us a big edge in the middle.

It was actually quite swirly at the g

And it was a tough, close game too - which won't help their cause.

I totally get the don't disrespect the oppo argument as think it is a very valid one. And I would probably not advocate managing plsyers earlier in the season. But playing the roos is a unique opportunity in the sense that for all the any club can win one the day, that does not really apply in this scenario because they are historically bad and the gap between where we at right now and them is huge. We have finals in 5 weeks. Hard to see us cruising, and so f ir helps us in any way in our tilt for a flag then the I think the potential benefits out weigh the risks. We didn't have this opportunity last year. The cats did.

Fair points. I guess that comes down to communication and expectation management.

Personally, i'm in the managing players camp. As Demon Dynasty notes, any best 22 player managed won't be doing any resting. Like Smith doing laps after the Tigers game, they will still have to the ks they would have otherwise done in the match. But the advantage is they don't have to be on and off a plane, or stay overnight in a hotel. And the risk of injury is much, much lower (ie no risk of impact injury). And perhaps even more importantly they don't have to worry about post match recovery (eg from bumps, bruises and soreness) interfering with their prep and program heading into the challenging - and likely super critical (re chances of top 20 - Blues game. They also get a chance to freshen up mentally - which might benefit some players. Get the load without the risk. There is another important element too i reckon - its give the club the opportunity to reward players at Casey for good form and/or give some young player some exposure at AFL level. And given any player coming in will have a specific role in the system, they get chance to practice that role at AFL level, (which might useful in the even we cop some some injuries ahead of finals) and that mitigates some of the downside of new players coming in And potentially a couple of fresh, motivated players who want to impress might actually help us put the Roos to the sword.

Much like life.

Sure, but i think his role has to be factored into any such analysis. Not all turnovers are created equal. Apples and oranges and all that. Nibbler is an endurance player who runs 16-17 kms per game, much of which is at high speed. So he would be gassed much more of the time than power, burst athlete like tracc - which logically has to have an impact on his turnover numbers I don't know what their turover ratio numbers are, but at the dees the only players who run his sort of distances and higjh speed, repeat sprints are Hunter, Langers and to lesser extent Spargo. At other clubs, Toby Bedford would have similar profile (the giants recruited him to play Nibbler's high half forward role). Those players would be better comparisons.

No i got that. I meant which post did you add the possessions data to. And, der, now i realize what you meant - you added to your initial post! Ta. Very relevant

One is worse than the other. And it seems posters often conflate them.

Where old (ie where did you add the possessions data)? Funnily enough, i was just thinking about that. For example, Melksham only had 9 disposals - and 33% were turnovers (the rest, bar two, were goals!). And Tomo had 7 disposals - and more than 50% (4) were turnovers.

Ta. So 4 of nibbler's turnovers did not result 'in a negative result for his side'. And from that list Langdon also had 8 turnovers, Viney 7 and Pickett 5. It's also worth noting that four dees players - Langdon, Gawn, Tomlinson and Melksham - had more clangers (ie turnovers that result 'in a negative result for his side') than Nibbler. Don't recall reading much criticism for their errors this week. Hell, the silky skilled Shai Bolton had more clangers AND turnovers than Nibbler. https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=10918#t2

Source? Where do you get 8 turnovers from? I'm not saying you are incorrect, but he had four clangers for the game, not 8. This is the Champion data definition of a clanger: Clanger: An error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side. Disposal clangers are any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over to the opposition. Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers.

Agree. To be honest, i won't be shocked if Port fall in bit of a heap. A bit depends on their physical conditioning and capacity to get their run back - i have this vibe they have emphasized winning home and away games over being cherry ripe come finals. If the Cats beat them this week, they will have lost four in a row. In that scenario, they will be under massive pressure to beat the Giants next week. Yes that game is at AO, but if the Giants beat the swans this week, which they are favorite to do, they will be shooting for 10 wins on the trot against Port (and 11 of their last 12 games). They are in red hot form. What genuine contender loses 5 on end at this point in the season? They then have to travel to Perth to play Freo, before, as you say finishing the season against the Tigers. Won't happen, but imagine how nuts Port fans would go if they lost their last 7 games of the home and away season! Worth remembering they still haven't resigned Hinkley.

I'm not a Doctor, and a 1,000,00% agree with all of the above. And that's the point. Anyone, and i mean anyone, who watched that collision would have immediately assumed both players were concussed - for precisely the reasons you detail. Watching live, i felt sick seeing that collision. Jones looked out cold by the time he hit the ground. But i was even more concerned for Allir because of those body movements you describe (i feel sick just thinking about it). I felt so uncomfortable i started watching the bombers game because i didn't want to watch the 100 replays i assumed 7 would show. A little while later i started watching the Port game again and i was completely shocked that Allir was playing - in fact at first i was confused. I was watching on kayo and initially thought that perhaps the i had restarted it from earlier in the math. Because i hadn't been watching i had no info on whether there had been a test or not, just assumed there had been and Allir had passed it. Beggars belief. And what the hell was Hinkley talking about in the presser? I mean he says he is no doctor, but then says Allir sounded just fine to him? Just shut up for Christ's sake. Just sounded like amateur hour. Impossible not to at least have the thought, despite Hinkley's denial this would ever happen, the importance of winning trumped protecting players. Now you'd hope that is not true (hope being the operative word becuase the evidence is pretty damning), but that doubt goes exactly to your point about the integrity of the medical profession. This is a big deal.

Who were you sitting with?

I think we need to win all four as Port will be deserved favs to beat gws at home.

Agree with all of that. One thing i find annoying in being labeled an optimist on DL, as it relates to my football analysis and predictions, is that it is often used as a pejorative. And it is also sometimes used in the context of dismissing my perspective - like the use of the word but before going on to make some point - eg i hear what you are saying, but..... Whilst i def skew towards optimism as a general rule, i would describe myself in terms of footy analysis exactly the same as you - a realist with a cautious optimistic edge. As an example, some time back - aprox mid season during our form slump - i posted that if i was framing a betting market i would have us as $5.50 favs and the pies (who i said then, and still maintain, are ridiculously short) and lions as equal second favs at $6.50. At that point we were $8 to win the flag. My prediction could easily have been dismissed as being 'optimistic' (and IIRC was by some). But i'm a hard nosed punter, and in my opinion $5.50 was realistic and reflected the 'true odds' (nb: there are two fundamental skills of punting - being good at assessing the 'true odds' of an event happening and getting the staking right) because i was factoring the fact our drop in form was load related and that we would follow a similar pattern as previous years and see a dramatic improvement in form as we neared finals. In other words, like any decent punter (or analyst for that matter), i used multiple data points to inform my assessment, including form and historical patterns. That is being realistic. My mid season assessment of where we were at relative to the rest of the competition was not shared by the majority of posters (and perhaps dismissed by some as an example of me being blindly optimistic) We are currently $5 to win the flag (which means the market gives us a 25% chance of winning the flag), and as sure as night follows day most pundits (most of whom had us behind the pies, port and the lions) are now saying we are in their top 2 chances. So my assessment, far from being overly optimistic, has proven very realistic. I would argue that many people who think of themselves as realists when it comes to assessing where the dees are in fact anything but. I wonder if their pessimism is perhaps a form of self protection (hard to get disappointed if we don't win flag if you think there is no chance we will).

At one point in the last, after yet another huge cry for ball after one of our players, rivers I think, actually KICKED the ball, I yelled out at the top of my voice (and that is pretty loud - particularly in the perfect acoustics at the top of the Ponsford!): 'WOULD YOU ALL STOP YELLING BALL!!!!!!!!!!! - LEARN THE BLOODY RULE!!!!' Not witty. Not clever. But very cathartic.