binman

Agree cranky, calling for violence is a red line for me. I understand the anger, though to be honest any residual anger I feel is directed at the AFL for the sham that was his non suspension and their role in the shameful thug washing of maynard"s reputation. I'm happy for the karma bus to hit Maynard. Then stop, reverse, and back over him.

Out of interest i just listened to some of the podcast. Firstly, leaving aside her feelings about the dees, after earlier saying in a different context that the saints only had 2 decent players, she picks the Saints to win. Nothing wrong with that on its face - as I've noted earlier in this thread it's definitely a danger game. Given it supposedly a podcast focused on tipping the winners in the upcoming round I had expected some analysis, and certainly the rationale for selections. Birch's rationale for setting the Saints? That the our record on the 10 games we gave played ar the Alice is four wins, six losses. I mean c'mon, that makes zero sense - for one thing those games cover a 10 year period. Perhaps, at a strech, you could say last year's flogging by freo is relevant (she didn't) but any further back has zero relevance to our chances this week. Actually, it probably does a little - but in a positive sense for the dee as we have 10 years experience of travelling there and all that entails. Surely that's an advantage over the saints who I dont think have ever played there. And that was it. That was her sole reason for selecting the saints - that our record at the Alice is 4-6. Though she tipped her hand as to the real reason a couple of minutes later. One of the other hosts said he thought Melbourne were 'starting to play really good football.....' before Birch completely cut him off to say contemptuously 'oh, they're still pretenders'. The co hosts were surprised, noting the dees are her former club, and after expressing their surprise, one asked for her 'analysis' as to why she thinks that given our current form Her response? Because, and this is a direct quote, 'the only reason they are playing well is they have nothing to lose'. I mean please, that's pub level rubbish.

It was posted in another thread. I won't/can't speak for Andy, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mind other pods etc being promoted or shared. I certainly don't. The more the merrier when it comes to dees stuff. Is it a good interview (I plan to watch it)?

This game be like: How did we lose to the bombers? How did we beat the lions?

Ta Stu, that's interesting. You're spot on that will hinder the Saint's ability to claim up our forward line. And even if they flood back into our forward line (which they will) if we're on we are smashing teams when the ball hits the deck inside 50.

Though to be fair, it's an accurate headline. Maynard does perfectly embody the mindless thuggery and low IQ that is in the DNA of the Collingwood Football club.

I reckon there's a reasonable chance you're right - it would make sense on a few levels. One, as you suggest the timing works in terms of the breaks they have. Two, again as you say they can afford to risk losing a game or too (just as we could in 2022 and 2023) Three, and this one hurts a bit - they might have assessed us a game they could take that risk and still win. As i noted above it would be ironic if we are cherry ripe in that game and they are fatigued from loading.

Yep, i can see that logic, and of course i'm just guessing so there's every chance i'm way off base. I just wonder, given how poorly we have played in the Queens, Kings birthday game in the last few years (ironically, in large part because, IMO, we have been loading at this point in previous seasons) if the idea might be to be cherry ripe for the game.

Nup, was referring to us.

Wotcha ya talking about Willis? When i have i questioned that the big change since round 6 has been our pressure and contest? The answer to that question is never. As you note, i made that exact point after the Freo game and have banged on about it since, both on the pod and on DL. As i have said many times pressure is the most important stat in footy - doesn't matter what game plan a team uses it won't work optimally if the pressure is not high enough. Take the lions - everyone knows what their game plan looks like. In the last quarter against us they applied woeful pressure and as a result could not come close to implementing their method ad looked nothing like they do when they are up and about. The next week they applied relentless pressure again the Hawks for the whole game and hey presto were able to implement their game plan. You are correct to say our increased pressure has been a catalyst for increased time in forward half, forward half turnovers and in turn higher scores. Those improvements are not possible without getting our pressure right - they are symptoms no causes. But our shift to applying elite pressure is not an example of us changing our game plan or method, it is an example of playing in a manner that is nonnegotiable, a fundamental, if teams want to be competitive in the AFL, regardless of their method. It's a minimum standard - one we did not meet in round ones to five. Bottom line is you are wrong - there hasn't been a 'significant shift in our ball movement', or for that matter our method or game plan, which you have implied is the case in previous posts. Which was Joey Montagna's exact point as evidenced by the data he highlighted. Again, it doesn't matter what game plan a team uses it won't work optimally if the pressure is not high enough. Applying AFL standard pressure has simply enabled us to execute and implement a game plan they started developing in the 2024 preseason and for much of the 2024 season (before reverting to straight line footy later in the season, i suspect to minimise losses and try and eke out some win - something Goodys publicly said he regrets doing, ie he thinks he should have stuck fat with the new game plan).

Last week i made the case that dees at 2.10 were overs and therefore represented value. I also made the point that thinking we were value is not the same as thinking we would win, but that in fact i did think we would win. Putting my punting hat on again for our game against the Saints it's sort of the opposite scenario. I do think we'll win but the current odds of 1.49 is unders (ie under the true odds) IMO - and therefore the 2.64 you can get for the Saints is overs (but i still wouldn't back them because a good rule of thumb is not backing flakey teams you can't trust - and the saints are well and truly in that camp). All things being equal, the plus 11 points Is better value. But all things aren't equal. As I noted last week, I don't bet on dees games, but if i did I would stay well away from this match (for any bet) because there's just too many variables, which taken together make this the very definition of a danger game. Despite being in much, much better form than the saints I'm actually less confident this week than i was against because of these variables: Lyon will coach to nullify and negate - no chance he goes with a fast ball movement game plan that would advantage us Further to that point, Lyon will be focused on disrupting our method (look for us to have a huge number of uncontested kicks and marks accross our half back line as I reckon Lyon will flood back and not press up on the ball carrier) This creates a problem for us as, unlike say the Pies, our method is a woekk in progress and we don't have much experience dealing with scenarios where our opponents are hyper focused on disrupting our method as opposed to focusing first and foremost on their own method The game is at the Alice - unique ground, unique environment, both teams travelling etc I wonder if our high performance program is geared towards being in optimal shape on Kings birthday at the potential expense of this game (ie bigger block of training into this game then taking advantage of the 8 day break to taper into the pies game) After three huge matches in a row, and one coming up next game, Is there any risk of players subconsciously not being fully switched on? One variable I was really worried about was the weather. Heavy rain was predicted in the lead up which risked making surface really spongy as it doesn't drain well apparently. And of course rain on game day would not help our cause and conversely help the Saints. Bur fortunately i dont think there's been any hige downpours this week and apart from 1mm forecast today it's dry up to, and including, match day. This is a huge game for us given how important the 4 points are to any chance we have of making finals. Bur I'm really nervous about it. Key will be taking our chances early and putting scoreboard pressure on them. If we do i could see us opening them up and putting a big score padt them. If we don't, and the Saints stay there,vor thereabouts, i fesr we are in for a very anxious watch.

I was thinking something very similar this arvo. Like all dees fans I hated the thought after our loss to the bombers that finals were our of the question. Uggh Of course i hope we make finals, but just being in the frame for finals now creates an energy and buzz.

Actually there was one interesting tweak, one that is perhaps a little counter intuitive given the improvement in our scoring. In the last six games we are using the corridor a lot less.

Just watched the Wednesday night First Crack. At the top of the show, Montagna's 'first crack' was the Demons and pushing back on the ridiculous notion that something magic happened after our loss to the bombers to turn our season around. (@Demonland any chance you could put the clip in this thread?) He showed a bunch of key stats comparing round 1-6 and 6-11 to make the point the game plan and method has not changed and that our wins are a result of more successfully implementing the game plan (a game plan David King correctly noted we began developing in 2024). He noted what has changed is our pressure and contest which has resulted in increased turnovers, which in turn has driven higher scores (he said we averaged 60 points per game rounds 1 to 6 and from round 6-12, 97 points)

Exactly. Does my head in - particularly when such ignorance is the starting point for criticisms of goody and the club. Just one tiny example of how long it takes to implement new strategies is our use of long handballs and handball chains. I noted on the 2024 preseason pod that in our practice match against the tigers at Casey we seemed to be practising using really long forward handballs and handball chains. We used both a little bit in the 2024 season but they weren't a feature of our method. Track watchers noted we were practising long forward handballs and handball chains this preseason, which I noticed too in the 2 preseason sessions i went to. And now, after 2 full preseasons of practice, long forward handballs and high risk handball chains have become a key feature of our method.

Which makes AJ's player rating of -2.7 even worse given it includes 2 score involvements (both goal assists i think) that im pretty sure were both from tap ons - one to set up a Sharp goal and the other Salem's goal. Not wanting to bag AJ, but I noted in another thread that he only had one kick. I watched the replay again last night (such a fun game to watch) - AJ's one kick was on the full (so therefore a turnover and clanger).

Two of which, Melk and Koz, just shaved the inside of the post (which by the by if i was AFL CEO for a day would count as a goal).

That, and in their junior footy career they were probably playing in teams using a transition-based method, one that puts a premium on kicking skills (which is a factor i reckon in how many of the high-end draft picks in the last 2 seasons are elite kicks).

Great call - i completely overlooked that. Having Koz in particular, but also Mcvee, Lever and Windsor back in the team, and having so few injuries atm, is probably the single biggest factor in both our capacity to implement our method and our improved performance. Rome wasn't built with second string architects and engineers.

100% agree about our recruitment - and we probably still need to bring in at least one more gun runner with elite foot skills (trade one in?). And as you suggest, the improved ability to implement the game plan is also a function of time and practice. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Ta. On a semi related topic, that article comes close to echoing an irritating narrative that some in the media are running with, one i hope dees fans push back on when it's parroted to them by football nuffies. Sure, we've made some tweaks, most notably with selection, and we have adapted our tactics in individual games to negate oppo strengths (something goody has been criticised in the past for NOT doing yet is getting zero kudos for doing so this season). But we didn't change our method after our first 5 losses. I mean, that's just dumb - as if we are going to change a game plan and method that has been 2 years in the making (I maintain we began the process of moving to a more transition based game plan in the 2024 preseason) five games into a season. What we've done is improved how well we are implementing the game plan, and key to that has been two interrelated factors: Improved capacity to run out quarters and games Massive increase in our pressure and contest (which has driven an increase in scores from turnover, particularly forward half turnovers which in turn has driven higher scoring)

Would you believe.... home away

Never made enough scoreboard pressure? You're a hard marker given the 131 points we put past the Swans is our highest score since 2018.

I think I heard that in the last six weeks we are top 3 for scores per inside 50.

Two weeks ia a long time in football.