binman

All reasonable points. It is clear burgess had a particular philosophy about playing through injury and not resting players, and it would appear that Griffith has the same philosophy. Under Burgess lots of players played though niggles and soreness - maxy being an obvious one. From memory in that Burgo-Brucky podcast he speaks on this very topic and why he thinks it was factor in our success. I find it hard to assess that philosophy, but see what you are saying, particularly in regard to playing players who are hampered when there are players who appear less so at Casey - though presumably that is more Goody's call than Griffiths, who would just tick of, in collaboration with the medical staff, that a particular player is good to go. That said i have total confidence that no player's welfare is being put at risk (not suggesting you are saying it is). And i reckon Burgess and Griffith could both point to the remarkably low number of soft tissue injuries we have had in the last 3 seasons as indication the program is effective. How many have we had this year?

Its pretty long bow to be accusing the fitness team (and by extension the club) of being reckless, particularly given i'm assuming - and i stand to be corrected - that you don't have inside knowledge of their program or specific expertise in sport science.

Binman hoping harmes comes in.

I'm calling Garry Baker as we speak. Seeing if we can work something out.

No harmes, no foul.

No changes

Carlton name cripps. They are a poor man's Collingwood

Good points, and i don't disagree with them. By similar game plans i mean the philosophy of forward half, territory football. Get it inside 50. Trap it inside 50. Win contested ball and in post clearance contested ball. Turn it over with pressure and score. The Cats have basically acknowledged their chip and hold style that West Coast perfected will no longer cut it and have gone all out territory. Same for the pies - which is not surprising given McRae's' time at the tigers. I'm not quite sure about the Swans, but they definitely look to get territory, as do Freo

Brilliant posts AoB. Three reflections. The first relates to your comment that 'everyone is setting themselves up to win against the prevailing style'. I have been reflecting on the idea that other teams 'have worked us out'. Sure opposition coaches might look to tactically negate our strengths, but that had always been thus in footy. It seems to me that it is less about being worked out, more about other teams adopting our method, just as we adopted and adapted that of the tigers. So, the top 3 teams on the ladder (and arguably the fourth team) with only 2 games to go, have very similar game plans, at least in terms of philosophy. And they do so because it is the premiership model atm. Last year, arguably only the tigers and the dees fully employed that model (all teams value contested ball). I am more and more of the opinion that goody recognises that other teams have adopted our successful model and is making changes to the way we play to increase our chances of winning the flag this year. Goody had often said the finals is a different season. It's worth remembering in this context that for much of all three finals last year we played ballistic, high tempo, high scoring football. A style not dissimilar to that of the pies this year, and very similar to how we played against the dogs and in the first half against the pies. The second reflection relates to your zigging and zagging idea, sort of. The pies use Nick daicos ad a weapon off half back with his incisive kicking. That's not a radical move, we have salo for example, but daicos drives their offence more. I think we bafly need bowey's kicking skills. The final reflection was how much I love the phrase 'find the seams in the defence'. It perfectly captures the key challenge in all team sports The pies certainly found the seams in our defence.

Maxy , Fritter, Kozzie and Tracc all say hi

He didn't get much love on here for that goal. Stood up when needed and the team should have made sure it was a winning goal.

A similar logic has fundamentally changed how basketball is played in the NBA. In simple terms, the data showed that teams score more on average by shooting a higher ratio of 3 point shots, despite the much lower percentages of them being made compared to 2 point shots. The highest percentage shot in basketball is from under the hoop. And so for a long time the NBA model involved working it inside to monster centres. I read it years ago, but can't recall the specific ratio (axis of bob or George will know). But for illustration lets say in the 80s and 90s it was 80% 2 point shots and 20% 3 point shots Now it is a three point shootathon, with maybe a 60-40 split (again I'm guessing here). Scores have gone up and the type of players making the NBA is changing in terms of their role and physique. Fewer crazy big centres, more athletic players who can play multiple positions. To be honest, I don't like watching the NBA as much now as I liked the more physical crash and bash style in the 80s. It was more like footy. Funnily enough, you could argue footy has gone the opposite way, and perhaps for the same reason ie data driven. The premiership model now is forward half, territory football. Get it inside 50. Trap it inside 50. Win contested ball and in post clearance contested ball. Turn it over with pressure and score. Get shots on goal. Often from congestion, stoppages, or crappy angles. If you miss, set up and trap it in. The first 10 mins of the third quarter against the pies was the perfect example of the model. That model jibes with the data above re increased scoring over the journey with increased scoring shots. Why I say the AFL has gone the opposite way is that the best type of player for the forward half combat model is strong bulls who can compete in the clinches. Almost like rugby players. Sure you still need some silky skilled players, but not as many as say 10-15 years ago.

Indeed. We weren't particularly impressive in that game at all. As you say Fritters 3 late goals were in tbe last 3 mins, the last two in the last 90 seconds of the game. I watched the suns game ahead of the freo game, and they were witches hats for almost all the game. Their season had already finished. The two corresponding games this season have been far more impressive performances.

I'll see what I can do.

I was speaking to pretty committed doggies fans a few weeks back, just after Ugle Hagan had been dropped, he said the big knock on him was his defensive work and that he sometimes got knocked out of contests too easily, and lacks a bit of mongrel The former is probably a very common issue for young gun forwards who dominated as juniors. The latter is common for all young key forwards. Since he has come back in to the side he seem to have improved a lot in both areas, which is huge positive i reckon ie improve weaknesses in a short time frame. He looks to be flying at the ball more aggressively. The kid can play and in 3-4 years will be scary good.

Really good points. For me it comes down to whether they do in fact have another gear they can go to, as they were by far the most impressive opponent we have played this year, the cats included. That said everything that could go right, did go right for them. And we still nearly won. But if they are anywhere near their physical peak atm in terms of preparation sustaining that ballistic style of football will be extraordinarily difficult. In that sense they really remind me of us in 2018. The super high tempo, players rushing off the half bank flank, high press model we employed in the back half of that season was always gong to be hard to sustain - and we hit a massive wall on prelim day (and were outclassed by the eventual premier). The other similarity was that like the pies this year, we rode a wave of momentum and fan support into the finals. That first final against the cast was insane. The closest thing to that experience for me was last Friday's game. Unfortunately this time the wave was black and white.

No there is not. There is however something wrong with willfully misrepresenting people's comments and opinions. For example suggesting i, or anyone else for that matter, has suggested we lost against the pies because of the differences in our loading/tapering Let's leave it there shall we.

Absolutely. If the pies have another gear they are going to be tough to beat.

Please. That's enough. It is getting ridiculously tiresome. I could not have been clearer- I'm not blaming the loss on the loading program. In case you missed it, i'll say it again - to be crystal clear loading is not an excuse for the loss. Please stop misrepresenting my comments. It is so very frustrating. I never said the loading program guaranteed we would win the flag (for clarity, and to avoid the need for a rebuttal, not saying you said i did). I did say i thought we would go unbeaten after the dogs game and win the flag. I was obviously wrong about that, but that doesn't mean i was wrong about the loading program. Was the loading a factor in the pies loss? What do you think? Who ran out the game better? Was running out games an issue for us in the finals last year? It was for the dogs in the gf - which is completely unsurprising because their no doubt carefully calibrated physical preparation program (because you know, they a professional sporting organisation playing in the highest level of a fully professional sport) was thrown into chaos when they fell out of the top 4. As it will for us if we don't finish top 4. I actually think the crowd was a bigger factor in the loss than our physical readiness or any loading program. No one is revising any theory to match the results. It is equally frustrating to be accused of doing so. To be frank, suggesting this is the case indicates you don't actually get it. In fact, there is no need to 'revise' the theory. Quite the contrary. The pies game is evidence the 'theory' is CORRECT. You are confusing performance with winning. The fact we lost doesn't disprove anything. Our performance indicated we are on a clear upward trajectory. Our performance was better than that in the freo game. The fact we lost doesn't change that. We just happened to play a team who was better than us on the day. Our performance against the pies was way, way, way more impressive than our corresponding game last year against a much weaker Eagles team. We were level pegging for much of that match, had 10 mins of dominant football in the third and then slowed to a walk (for whatever reason) and nearly got run down in the last. So you could argue we are tracking better from a physical readiness perspective than last year. Anyway, that is it for me on this topic. I've had enough. Believe what you want to believe.

Yep, I was just picking a number as an illustrative tool. It wasn't meant to be exact. It could be 90%. The point being the pies are probably close to their peak readiness. And we are getting closer, but still seven weeks away from ours. The analogy I used is an Olympic swimmer who has a gold medal race in 7 weeks. She is swimming brilliantly, the best times she has since prior to commencing her big training block she finished two weeks back to maximise her chances of winning gold. Every day she feels better, and her times reflect that. On these times she'll beat almost every other swimmer in the world. Her current time isn't matching her own PB, is not close to a WR, and she knows won't win her gold in 7 weeks. However, she is confident she is on the right track and is confident of winning gold. As she did at the last Olympics. But she knows there are no guarantees. She has the fastest PB of any of her likely competitors, but is experienced enough to know someone else might have gone to another level, or might pull out the swim of their life in the final. Or maybe she'll blow her start like she did at the nationals. Maybe that upstart swimmer from abbotsford, whose times have been dropping at an alarming rate, has another gear and will pull something crazy good out come show time, like she did at the nationals. Or maybe her new conditioning team hasn't quite got the training program right. Maybe the little niggles and distractions she didn't have last time might have an impact. Maybe she will have some bad luck. No guarantees. She is raging even money favourite, but even at $2, if the race is swum 10 times, she loses 5 of them So, as i said on the show, if you think the pies are legitimate flag contenders, then by extension logic says so are we. Hard to argue we should have won that game. Should have doesn't pay the bills, and they fully deserved the victory. We had no excuses. But on expected scores we scored 13 more points than them. For the first time this year, goody was noticeablely furious. And that no doubt was because we should have won. If you accept we are not at peak physical readiness yet (even if we are at 90%), then it is only logical that we have another gear to go to. That, after all, is the whole point of a periodisation training program. Swimming your best time, even a world record, seven weeks out from the Olympic final means nothing if you don't win gold. No one cares about your scintillating performance at the nationals. I'm hoping tbe pies don't have another gear to go to, but even if they do I'd be confident if we played like we did last week we'd beat them.

Invested pretty heavily already at 3.75. So 4s not that attractive. Even a super impressive win against the blues won't move it under $4 I suspect.

If we don't make top 4 might go out after only one set. The thought just made my head spin!

The goal of their training program is to peak on preliminary final day or grand final day. That is still seven weeks away ans it would not be possible to maintain peak physical readiness for that long.

This.

Ambivalent about thread.