binman

I agree. Personally i reckon his two biggest weaknesses are: He often seems to have a half second delay in reacting when a second effort is required. He often makes a second effort (though sadly not always), but because of that delay it usually doesn't impact the contest. Going again just does not seem to be instinctive, unlike say JVR He often seems to misjudge the flight of the ball and therefore the ultimate landing point. Compare him to Fritsch, who reads the flight so well and puts himself in the right spot to mark it. Someone in another thread mentioned they thought he might need contact lenses. I'm sure he would use use them if he needed them, but i get where they were coming from as he seems to have issues with depth perception

I don't expect him to be different. I hope he will be different.

Yes, that is what i mean. BB is better in these contests - which are the majority of the contest our talls are involved in. Agree Weed is much better when he gets a chance to run and jump at contests. He looks so much better when he has space. But with our method (ie kick to big packs, little separation for forwards, crowded inside 50s etc etc) he gets bugger all opportunities to run and jump at contests. Weed has got maybe one, two max, chances to lock in the second tall positions. I hope he takes his chance.

Because, as I said, he competes hard in the air and rarely gets outmarked when up and about. Weed doesn't compete hard on the air, and often gets outmarked, even when he is up.and about.

I see Smith is back this week. The more I think of it, the more I like the idea of Smith playing the second tall role. He is everything weed isn't - high intensity, hard at it and loves the contest. And I've always liked the idea of him as a forward - his chaos style, speed and athleticism suits what we need down there, which is almost the forward equivalent of a zone off defender ie get across to aerial contests and either take a big grab or failing that make sure the ball comes to ground. And Smith could also be used as defensive forward to nullify players like Aliir. At 191 cms, he's six centimeters shorter than weed (but 3cms taller than fritter), so obviously he's not going to be a genuine tall. But that is offset somewhat by his huge leap. Accurate kick for goal too. And perhaps creates a match up issue as he is pretty quick and with his height and leap, probably needs a reasonably big defender.

BB's pressure doesn't worry me so much as he competes hard in the air, which i'm not even sure if that is factored into the pressure rating that has been bandied about Weed's pressure absolutely worries me - on the ground and in the air. Weed just disappeared in the second half against the dogs in terms of possessions, marks etc. Which wouldn't be such an issue if he applied big pressure in the air and on the ground. Which he didn't - not even close.

I'm still convinced we will end up with the two talls - not sure if that wik be this week now as i cant see Mitch Brown coming into the side, and JVR is a long shot to be selected, at least this week (i have sneaky feeling he might get a shot on the eve of finals). If BB is right to go next week, and Weed plays ok, i suspect they will both be selected next week

I used to care about players wanting to leave. But not since Gerard Healy left the club to go to the Swans. Outside of Robbie, our best player in that team by a mile. I still wonder how 1987 would have turned out if he didn't abandon the club and his brother. Turncoat. I was furious at the time. He still left. Now i could care less - if Gus wants out, see you later. He is not playing in our midfield. So if that's what he wants, its not going to happen I don't begrudge him trying to to maximize his contract, or explore his options. But i would lose a bit of respect for him, as the great teams always have gun players who have to take a pay haircut to help the cause, Hodge being an example if IIRC. And are celebrated for that sacrifice post career.

This post is funny coincidence. As you posted, i was just writing this on another thread: I was pretty confident our odds would drift a bit (from the 1.86 available yesterday), at least into even money (which is how we opened for this game), particularly after the news BB was still out. But i just checked then, and we have actually come in and are now into $1.80 to win. Which, given we are only two days out from the game (and therefore the pool is pretty big and somewhat immune from big price swings) suggests the pros considered the 1.90 opening quote and the 1.86 available yesterday were both overs, and have invested accordingly, forcing the price down. We still might drift a touch, and maybe even back to even money, but only if the pros think the 2.05 you can currently get for Freo is overs. Given we are playing this game on their home deck, and their form over the last few weeks is at least on par with ours, 1.80 favoritism suggest the market is pretty bullish about our chances. (nb: as i noted in another thread, odds are just an expression of probability. So of course the fact we are favorite for the game doesn't mean we win, or if we do the bookies have got it wrong. At 1.80 favorites, if we play this game 10 times we win aprox 5.5 times and LOSE 4.5 times. Even money is 50 50)

I was pretty confident our odds would drift a bit, at least into even money (which is how we opened for this game), particularly after the news BB was still out. But i just checked then, and we have actually come in and are now into $1.80 to win. Which, given we are only two days out from the game (and therefore the pool is pretty big and somewhat immune from big price swings) suggests the pros considered the 1.90 opening quote and the 1.86 available yesterday were both overs, and have invested accordingly, forcing the price down. We still might drift a touch, and maybe even back to even money, but only if the pros think the 2.05 you can currently get for Freo is overs. Given we are playing this game on their home deck, and their form over the last few weeks is at least on par with ours, 1.80 favoritism suggest the market is pretty bullish about our chances. (nb: as i noted in another thread, odds are just an expression of probability. So of course the fact we are favorite for the game doesn't mean we win, or if we do the bookies have got it wrong. At 1.80 favorites, if we play this game 10 times we win aprox 5.5 times and LOSE 4.5 times. Even money is 50 50)

For the love of god (the deity, not the much loved rock band from Geelong, or the much loved ex Geelong player for that matter) please don't encourage Andy to go anywhere near a ladder predictor. Andy is flying across to Perth to watch us. I fear that if we lose, by the time he touches down back at Tulla he will have done every possible combination and somehow landed on us missing the finals as the most likely outcome.

Sums up my feeling well. I'd add a comment. I think there is a risk of seeing last year with rose coloured glasses, and stretching the ophthalmological analogy, seeing the whole season though the lens of our performance in the finals. The GF was the best football we played all season in 2021. none of our games this year have come close to that mark, not even the lions game. So lots of performances, even our wins, that have been miles of the standard we all know we can play at. That is frustrating. Last year we didn't have the finals and GF as benchmarks. Every win was gold, but we collectively feared our best would not be good enough. And not without some justification. In reality, up till the corresponding point in last year's season we played a fair bit of average footy. And i don't just mean in the winter of our discontent phase. I also mean during our unbeaten run in the first half of the season. If there is any doubt about that you only need to revisit the post game threads for most of our wins. In my opinion, up to and including round 19, there was only one complete performance that came within coee of our finals level - the round 11 game against the doags. The losses speak for themselves, but even many our wins were scrappy affairs where struggled with many of the same issues we are struggling with this year - eg forward line connection, inaccuracy, not putting teams away etc etc, But a big difference between this year and last year (after 19 rounds, not the full 2021 season) is last season we came from behind in a lot of games. Which is, always super exciting, and makes for memorable wins, as pies fans can attest this season In many of our win this year we have got a lead and then just controlled the match. Much less exciting. And certainly less memorable, becuase often the result has not been in doubt, And in some of our losses the result has not been in doubt halfway through the last quarter (eg the freo game). So again, not very exciting. For whatever reason, we never really tried to control the tempo of the dogs game (or did and failed to do so - which i don't buy to be honest), and lost as a result. But it was arguably the most exciting game of the year.

Ouch, BB out is a blow

Depends what metric you want use - the Demonland hand wringing metric or the betting market metrics. On the former, we are no chance this Friday night. On the latter, we are currently 1.86 favourites.

I've backed that horse. Looked a million dollars in the gates. Looked a frozen chiko roll in the race

I would

I agree we weren't any more aggressive with our ball movement, at least in terms of rights risk kicks eg through the corridor. We were aggressive with our approach. I reckon the key difference to our normal method was that they didn't try control the tempo - either when we got a lead or to stem their momentum. Instead they just allowed the game to become a shoot out, and in doing the game looked like how the doggies like it I found that fascinating, as it had to been an instruction - because there is no reason why thet couldn't slow things down if tbey wanted to. And if so, why? I suspect the idea was to work on our scoring and offence. The aggressive centre clearance set ups is further evidence of their aggressive mindset. When you consider that hibbo took quite a few kick ours and we kicked to the opposite side a few times from kick outs, it's hard not to think thus was goody experimenting a bit. I find it hilarious that right up to tbe port game, apparently our big weakness was our offence. Two weeks of decent scoring and suddenly a whacker like king thinks our defence is the problem.

I thought he was just shaded by Chandler as BOG. Killed us in the ruck and was super around the grounds in conditions that didn't suit. Nice mark and goal too. Looked in good nick.

Sorry, I'm confused. Why do you think we should draft him?

True nuff.

Agree with all of that. I'd add that another variable is that, as implied by Scott's comments, is that we go harder in this phase. Would fit the Burgess philosophy

We won't be. Did someone suggest we we would be? Leaving loading aside, no one would disagree that the goal for the contenders is to be playing your very best footy prelim final day. Lets assume that Dees, Freo, Lions and Cats make the prelims, all have most of their best 22 up and about, all are equally well prepared and are all playing their very bets footy. The question then becomes whose best is the best? For me it is a no brainer that the answer is the demons. Which of course doesn't mean we win the flag.

Their forrm line is as poor as ours. They have a home ground advantage, mitigated some what by our form there. But agree, we likely drift. I like the even money bet as im super confident we'll win, so if they drift that's even better.

Against what odds? Both teams are even money. So the bookies have this as a 50 50 game, despite it being at optus. I guess they don't read demonland

One person's optimist, is another's realist.