binman

It funny you should say that, i was gob smacked. I can't recall who it was, or whether was half time or post-match analysis, but it was fox. And as you say they accused Fritter of being a stager. Which is pretty harsh accusation given the implication of being a cheat. Then they showed the video, which to me showed the Pies player (murphy?) bumping Fritter pretty hard, and certainly when he wasn't expecting contact. As you say, absolutely a free very day of the week. Maybe it was Dunstall who then said blocks should be paid, but otherwise they all simply ignored what the video showed - Fritter did not stage for that that free. And so not did not retract their accusation of staging. Yet another example of media narrative not supported by evidence - in this case Fritter is a stager. That was such a stupid free to give away. Completely unnecessary. I would have thought a much more relevant discussion for people supposedly analyzing the game would have been to question the discipline of the Pies or whether they were frustrated about the strategy to have Fritter shadow Moore and were trying to break that tag.

Goody has banged on about our lack of connection EVERY post game talk? What alternate reality is this? One, the only thing he was asked about in relation to our forward line up until after the hawks win is what our best line up looks like. Connection NEVER came up! Why? Because we were a scoring machine, having scored more than 100 points in five of the nine games we had played after demolishing the hawks (when we again broke the ton - with only 2 less scoring shots than against the pies i might add) - including scores of 115, 135, 126, 139! Oh, he was also often asked about, and spoke to, our stunning accuracy (still #AFL 1). Actually now that I think about it, he also spoke about our nuts spread of goal kickers (AFL#1), including our record breaking spread in the hawks game. In his pressers since the port game, in response to ignorant questions about our forward line and supposed connection issues, Goody has pointed out MULTIPLE times that we are the highest scoring team as evidence of good connection and a forward line that is functioning well. And again after the pies win, when asked about accuracy, he couldn't have been more emphatic - it was 'the least of our problems', noting that accuracy had only been a problem in the previous 3 games. By the by, it is worth noting that in those 3 games (port, freo, blues) we still had more than 20 scoring shots, which again makes a lie of any supposed connection issues. In fact the only time I can recall Goody talking about forward connection in anythimg but a postive way was in the presser following the pies game. Having already said scoring is not an issue for us (we had just had 26 scoring shots for petes sake), he was again asked a stupid question about connection and he said something about the new mix of players and young players taking time to build synergy. King is not making it up or pulling it from a rabbits hat? Of course he is. That's my point. When I talk about why it is an issue when the media pushes some stupid false narrative that the objective facts completely contradict, it is because it distorts fans understanding of the game. And the problem is compounded because fans accept and then reinforce the false narrative. And in this example (the connection myth), ignore the objective facts. It is mind boggling.

Nibbker can't play down back? He should stop spending so much time down there then. And Smith can play down back? I think it's fair to say that's not the consensus on demonland.

I like to state the bleeding obvious in 10, 000 word or more.

I don't like much of King's analysis (as i think i might have noted previously - i'll have to check), but he mixes some average analysis with some really good stuff. In particular his use of video is terrific, as per the Rich example. I think that plays to his strengths, which is knowing footy from a playing and/or coaching perspective and being able to articulate key issues (as opposed to analysis using data as a foundation). That's his strength - and he has shown lots of genuinely really interesting footage and he uses it really well to make a point - often about set us, structures or pointedly individual player weaknesses or issues. I love the down the ground footage, and how he uses it, and would love if that is what he focused on.

Other: The final siren.

I reckon they should fo a sweeping review. Of all 37 reviews they've had in the last 10 years.

Very much underrated. He is an excellent kick, and with turnovers being such key scoring source in footy atm a really important skill for defenders. Hibbo and May can both be a bit hit or miss with their kicking. Tomo offsets that a bit. He can also be relied in to take kick outs too because he has good depth on his kicks, and as you say can hit short targets (sounds silly, but it is amazing how many AFL players regularly fail to hit 15 - 20 metre kicks under little pressure).

I thought so too. I was really worried about how he we go on Cox and Cameron, but he was fantastic. He really got on his bike too Fantastic to see how much more agile he is than last season. He hasn't had much love on DL for that mark he took on the member's wing. I thought he had no chance and it was so clever how, one he didn't give a free away and two that he was able to mark it. It was a critical point in the match, stopped a certain Pies forward entry and set one up for us. As i noted before the game, if Petty plays forward on his return, there is a permanent spot for Tomo in defence there for the taking. An on that performance he'll take it.

I know. Just played it with the old straight bat. Good gag - as a card carrying pedant, i'll pay any such jokes.

Sure. Anything is possible. But there is only 2.8% separating us atm and the Pies' run home is as tough as ours was last year, so they will struggle to increase their percentage by much. And our run home is as easy as the cats was last year. We finish the season with games against the roos, blues, hawks and swans (by way of comparison our last four games last season were Freo away, Pies, Blues and Lions away).

I all seriousness, I'm with the pies fan on this one. Rubbish fans are rubbish fans whoever they barrack for. And frankly, when they are Dees fans i get embarrassed. I had a fella a few rows back from me on Monday who was yelling abuse at the top of his lungs at Dees players all game. Not unlike me, he had a very loud voice and he wasn't afraid to use it. From the start of the game to the very last seconds, he was relentless in his vociferous attacker on any Dees player that crossed one of his imaginary red lines - too soft, can't tackle, hopeless, clueless, how did they allow that to happen yada yada yada. He was Dees fan.

Me too. One reason why my throat is still stripped and sore - the other reasons were the 100 times i yelled other stuff!

Noted. Edit made. Ta.

A rating of 200 is considered elite, so 201-206 is pretty high.

Bit of poetic license from me jimmy. Was supposed to be an irreverent, post win watching the replay post. But i think you might need to re watch that segment. We have a different interpretation of what he said. Not that it matters. Personally, I don't mind one little bit if he is critical of the dees - assuming the criticism is supported by evidence, he is not disregarding evidence that counters his view and he makes a solid case to back up his opinions. All power to him. And i don’t dislike him at all. I always liked him as a player and he seems a decent enough bloke. I really respect the position he has taken on head contact, particularly given how he played, and how he has navigated being a media person and issues relating to the Roos. But as an analyst he is decidedly average. And he contradicts himself with such frequency I wonder if he can recall what he has previously said. Listen to his slot on Whateley on Tuesday just gone if you want more evidence of why he is an average analyst. I mean his analysis of the KB game was mind bogglingly one dimensional and just a hodge podge of thought bubbles strung together. One example of him being an average analyst of the game is he continues to bang on about our supposed scoring and connection issues. I mean, it is beyond ridiculous given the objective facts completely contradict such a position. Past the halfway point of the year, we are third on the ladder with the second best percentage in the AFL (just behind the scoring machine, the pies – who have won 2 more games) and nearly 13 % clear of the next best, the lions. And 15% clear of Port, who are above us on the ladder, having also won 2 more games than us. We just played the scoring machine and put 26 scoring shots past them, 9 more than they could manage, and we have a scoring and connection issue? Please. By the by, the discussion about scoring should be focused on how high our percentage is, because as is the case every year, percentage will end up playing a critical role in the final order of the ladder and therefore who plays who week one of the finals - and perhaps more importantly where they are played. Our very strong percentage will be a VERY big factor in shaping the makeup of the finals, particularly with our soft run home including games against the Giants, Roos, Hawks, Blues and Swans meaning it will only go up. King should be pointing out that being 13% and 15% clear of two key rivals in the Lions and Port is almost a worth a game in hand. There is almost no chance either team will make up those percentage gaps, meaning even if we end up on the same points we will finish above both teams, likely ensuring we play on the G week one of finals not away at the Gabba or Adelaide oval. That's a big deal. And we will almost certainly finish with a significantly higher percentage than the PSM (Pies Scoring Machine) given our soft run home and their much tougher run (Crows, Suns away off a six day break, Dogs at Marvel off a six day break, Freo, Port away, Blues off a six day break and travel, Hawks, Cats off a six day break, Lions and the Bombers). If we end up on the same points - which is a real possibility given the run home of both teams (unless of course you are drinking King Kool aid) - we will likely finish top of the ladder or second on percentage (depending on how Port finish off the season), possibly forcing the Pies to have to play Port or the Lions on their home deck if they slip to third on percentage. That's a big deal. A much bigger deal than the dees' mythical scoring issues. And while I'm talking about what some helpful analysis might actually look like, I wouldn't mind hearing some analysis from King on the Pies' record in big games. If you include our round 22 game against them last season, their three finals last season, and Monday's game, they have played five huge high pressure, finals or finals like games against real contenders (im not counting their blues win late last year because they didn't make finals and were never contenders - but I am counting the Freo final win even though it was decidedly low pressure match and Freo were cooked). They lost three of those five big games! And if you take out the Freo final, that is three losses from four games that were finals, or finals like, games against real contenders. Spin it however you (generic you) like, that is a very poor recent record in big games - one that no TV analyst has yet raised (but I'm tipping eventually will). But it is a record that I am extremely confident is exercising the minds of the Pies coaching staff. What were the consistent elements in all three losses? Their inability to execute under pressure, coughing the ball up at critical moments (cost them the Swans and Cats finals games) and a clear defensive vulnerability. Their game plan, which everyone seems to just love, has major vulnerabilities. I wouldn't mind some analysis about that topic. Or even some talk about the PSM's record this season against current top 8 teams. With Monday's loss they are now 4-2 against the teams currently in the top 8. Doesn't sound too bad and is better than ours (we are 2-4). But hardly earth shattering, and includes a scrappy close win against the saints, same same for their bombers' win and they could only manage 59 points in their lucky one point win over the wasteful Crows (who kicked 7.16 to throw the game away). Of more concern to the PSM coach would be their record against contenders ie top other 4 teams. They are 1-2 in their games against Port, Lions and the Dees (we are also 1-2 against top 4 teams). Given their poor 2022 finals series, the question for analysis should be are they good enough to beat the best teams? Yes, yes I know I don’t have to listen to King. But I am also allowed to if i want to. And as this is a footy forum, King's opinions about footy are fair game. If posters don’t want to read me knock his analysis, don’t read my posts. My main issue with how wrong he gets things is his opinions are regularly parroted by the lazy footy media. One example - Jordon Lewis on Monday’s nights 360 talking about our supposed scoring issues as if it they are an accepted FACT. Worse, his opinions are parroted even by some dees fans. As an example, you only have to do a brief scan of DL for plenty of evidence of posters, who I presume actually watch us play, parroting David King’s talking points about our supposed forward connection and scoring issues. And believing them hook, line and sinker! If you agree with what he says about us, that is your prerogative. I obviously don't, but we all see the game differently. Which is fine. Different strokes for different folks. As for the ‘vast majority of what he says is respected within the industry’, what industry are you referring to? Maybe his opinion is respected in the insular, boy's club footy media industry, full of ex footballer boneheads who talk about footy like it is still 1994 and clearly do little or no research about games they are calling or supposedly analyzing. Because it can’t be the AFL industry, and specifically club land, as his analysis rarely holds any water and it is clear his talking points are given to him from Champion data.

I couldn't believe it. Right below me. 50 every day of the week. Text book. I wondered if I got it wrong live, bit on watching the replay when I got home it was even later than I thought live.

Yeah agree. I thought they were really intersting too. A query I have about the pressure ratings is how well it captures the pressure from having all options for a kick blocked. Sometimes the kicker was not under heaps of pressure, looked in board and/or for the switch and couldn't pull the trigger because we had players covering it. With this structural and discipline pressure we constantly forced them to go down the line But i don't the above scenario would generate pressure points. But pressure is being applied by taking away the corridor and forcing them to kick to a contest.

DD, I reckon a more useful stat to compare scoring efficiency accross games than % of inside 50s Goals is % In50s scoring shots. Set shots accuracy can throw up anomalous results, not just missing heaps but a run of unsustainable accuracy like the pies kicking seven goals straight before registering their first miss the last time we played them.

Pressure Q1: 176 - 180 Q2: 174 - 172 Q3: 201 - 206 Q4: 186 - 177 Tot: 183 - 186

Didn't stop him kicking a late goal unfortunately. They are clever with their blocks. And hands too - the handball from hill, to I think lipinski to set up a goal was a brilliant bit of play.

The pies only had four hitouts to advantage? That's nuts. Hard to get territory if you can't hit to your own players. There's only so many oppo ruck taps teams can shark. On that, my sense is we were better at ensuring the blues and pies couldn't shark our rack taps. We gave up a few of them against port and freo - and rhe hawks for that matter too.

That's interesting. Good pick up. I didn't notice and it wasn't mentioned on the replay. I had the feeling we were strong in the second half, but not covering the ground all that well (nor were Collingwood for that matter). Which would jibe with kev martin's fascinating observation from training last week (Tuesday?) that they did more running than he had seen any session all - and that Selwyn was really pushing them. We don't bring an extra up to stoppages very often. I wonder if it was to mitigate the impact of fatigue a bit because playing one mid down is hard yakka. I think our focus on defence, structure and sytem in the last two games may be part of the same strategy. Don't allow the game to become a running contest.

Di you mean we brought one more player to stoppages and had an even number with the pies?

I'm holding judgement on that 'till I hear tracc confirm he was the one who was in the wrong. Cox is a [censored].