binman

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].

Prophylactic prognostication phil on your part. A common self-protective strategy among dees fans. Dees lose and its ok coz that's what you expected, A win is a bonus. Ok strategy, except when combined with telling every person and their dog the dees will lose, and then celebrating a victory with not a trace of irony. Credit for not going down that path Phil. You are forgiven. By the by, i think there is every chance the cats will beat us.

Clear gap in capabilities...... But, but the COVID!!!!!

Well back on Saturday would certainly explain jack's expression! I thought i recall there being some rule players can't be expected to be at the club on weekends when they are not playing. Might well be imagining that.

Maybe, but much the same was said about Kennedy. But i don't mean to say JJ will be as good as Kennedy. The comparison is more about perhaps needing to leave the dees to get the AFL minutes he deserves.

A dislocated shoulder IS just a stinger for jack.

You can only do your best. But a heads up, you might want to up your ratings as you are not currently favoitite to win the Osilik. Perhaps do a bit of load posting on Big Footy to build your troll tank for the back half of the season.

I saw Viney interviwed post game and he wa sasked about the break. Said they have four days off, but had a curious expression which suggested to me that they maybe the players are not thrilled only having four days off. In the Mcrae presser he was asked the same question and he said their players would have the week off and back fresh next Monday. That sounded a better break than we have. But when i thought about it, it is the same as us. That's to say the dees players get the rest of this working week off (four days), have their weekend and back on deck next Monday like the Pies. So a six day break away from the club for both teams (inclusive of the weekend). The difference is our players come back from their break and play three days later! The Pies don't play their post match bye game until three days later than us with a game at the G against the Crows on the Sunday. Meaning the Pies get a 13 day break between their pre and post bye games, compared to our 9 days. After our cats game, we then have another nine day break into the Giants game in the Alice. Must make planning their prep and training super tricky.

He was also our fourth highest player for individual pressure points: (Weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/) Petracca: 74 Viney: 65 Neal-Bullen: 59 Pickett: 43 Sparrow: 40 Chandler: 40 Langdon: 40 van Rooyen: 37 Brayshaw: 33

Points for the double sledge. Impressive in only 17 words. Bonus points towards the time-honored annual DL troll award - the Olisik - for the excellent use of the underrated backhanded compliment technique. It's a crowded leader board Cranky, but you're in with good shot of winning this year's Olisik if you can stay focused.

Thanks wheelo - makes sense. But for the purposes of my over under competion (that i was the only competitor in), i'm using them just this once because they make my prediction look really good.

My take too. I felt like we were bit nervous and perhaps too wound up. We gifted them those first three goals as all were from turnovers that were a result of missing targets under not much pressure. But around those goals we were winning territitory and stuffed up a few potential scoring chains with some poor skill execution that should have resulted in us scoring. A good example is the Gus handball behind Grundy as he was streaming through the corridor. If we nail that play we are inside 50. Instead it goes deep inside their 50 (did they score off that turnover? If so that is a potential 12 point swing)

I think JJ is better than an ok player, but leaving that aside you're right he hand Spargo play compeltley differnt roels and i cant see JJ being a good fit for the Spargo high half forward role. And the end of the day JJ is used as a Mr fix it utilty, but his best spot, IMO, is in the middle. A totally natural mid, whco can find the pill and makes excelent decsiins under prerssure. The probelm for JJ is how deep we bat through the middle. I have made this comparison before, but he really reminds be of Kennedy at the Hawks. His talent was evident, and the Hawks would have loved to keep him no doubt, but they were loaded for stars in the middle and Kennedy had to go to the Swans to get a regular gig as a mid at AFL level. And once he got regular minutes it soon became clear he was a top shelf mid.

Yep, goody did highlight it is a young forward line that is still building synergy. But my take was he was simply responding to another silly question about forward half connection and didn't want to point out for the millionth time we are the highest scoring team and/or it is just a blip re accuracy. But leaving aside trying to interpret goody speak, the quality of entries was objectively not an issue yesterday. There are always going to be missed opportunities going inside 50 that could be highlighted. But if the quality of our entries was poor, it would be reflected in a low number of scoring shots - and to a lesser extent, where the shots are from. We missed alot of easy set shots, so the latter point wasn't a factor. And 26 scoring shots is probably close to our season average (and again we are the best scoring team). So a tick there Another relevant measure for the quality of forward entries and connection is marks inside 50. We had 15 marks inside 50 to their 7. Another tick. 15 is a lot of marks inside 50 - evidence of quality entries And taking 8 more marks inside 50 than the pies is a significant differential. The actual shots on goal, inclusive of out on the full and kicks that fell short were: Dees: 28 shots from 59 entries - 48% efficiency Pies: 19 shots from 49 entries - 39% efficiency When you consider those numbers, and the fact the pies only had seven marks inside 50 on a perfect day for football (albeit a little swirly wind wise), the picture I see is the pies struggling with the quality of their entries and connection not us. Yet i have not heard anyone suggest this to be tbe case. That's what I mean about the way the media frames things and create self reinforcing false narratives. And on that, here's my tip. Some clever clogs footy media person will be fed those numbers by champion data, or some such, via their producer and start questioning the pies forward connection - which by the by has been average for weeks. We'll easlily beat say the giants, because we kick straight, and our 'connection issue' will deemed to have been solved. And the narrative will switch to the pies' connection and scoring issues.