binman

A fascinating thing about those comments is one of his responses when asked about them on 360 the following night. At the end of his anwer, he said that he was only discussing the topic becuase a reporter asked him about Selwood's comments about a heavy block of training straight after the game. He said it was Selwood's 'prerogative' to make those comments, but he (ie Scott) wouldn't otherwise discuss or raise the topic out of respect to their opponent.

Max probably argued to the club he was ready to go against the lions!

https://demonland.com/forums/topic/53244-postgame-rd-15-vs-brisbane/?do=findComment&comment=2152755

100% agree. And it was 'un Melbourne'. Worried me at the time, in terms of our attitude. Brown burnt, I think nibbler, really badly later in the game at the punt road end. Easy handball to a player in oodles of space for a certain goal, and instead he tries an off balanced snap on his non-preferred - and missed.

As for this point, it really interests me too why the 'experts' (many of whom have coached and played at the highest level) wouldn't be giving loading and its impact a lot more air time through the media. I have a theory, but i know you don't like my theories so much, so if keen to know my response, you can read one of my previous posts that address that very question.

Do you mean the same side who were coming off an 11 day break (including the mandatory four days away from the club), to our 9 day break? I'm no sports scientist, but i'm guessing they might have recovered from their 'big month of travel' by last night's game. As for the second point, not sure if you are serious. Did we watch the same game? We were ferocious in the first quarter from the get go - and clearly energised. And we sustained that energy from minute one of the game 'till the end of the game. Did that mean we smashed them from the start? No of course not - the lions were terrific in the first 20 minutes of the game and their pressure was formidable (which makes sense of course, as the first 20 minutes of the game would be when they would feel the least impact of any loading, just as was the case for us in our three losses). We had a clear strategy to use handball to chain away from contests (a strategy we employed in our Anzac eve clash against the tigers last year) - and under the lions' pressure we missed quite a few and handball chains broke down, creating turnovers. But that wasn't a function of us not being enegerised, it was a function of the pressure and heat the lions brought. As i noted earlier in this thread, it was clear to me we were fresh and energized for this game, when in the last 10 minutes of the first quarter we were able to first blunt the lion's momentum, but more importantly, then lift our rating, start closing the vice and suffocating the lions, as we do when we are at our best. And in this same period the lions started to fade. The lead up to the goal Harmes kicked with 90 seconds to go in the first quarter was incredible. That was right below me, and the dees fought like caged lions to trap it inside our 50 and scrap for the ball that eventually kicked out to Harmes. Do you want some more evidence of our high energy levels in the first? At the end of the first quarter, we led forward-half groundballs 17 to 6 and forward-half contested possessions overall 26 to 11. We led inside 50s 12-10 and clearances were even at 7-7. I don't know the end of quarter contested possession numbers, but the lions had 31 fewer contested possessions in the first half, their worst first-half differential since Round 5, 2016, which would suggest that that we were ahead, or at the very least break even for cps in the first quarter. But i would be very surprised if we were not ahead for CPs at the end of the first quarter given the half time CP differential and the fact we were 26 to 11 forward-half cps at the end of the first quarter. Hardly numbers to suggest we lacked energy in the first quarter, or that the 'loading theory' didn't kick in till the second quarter. But hey, we all see the game differently.

Yes, you're right. We were brilliant in the second, and all game really. In my honest opinion, even if they were at their very best we win that game by 4 plus goals. It is likely we will have some more sub optimal performances in the next 3-4 weeks, perhaps as soon as next week against the crows (maybe, hopefully, before a freshen up ahead of the Cats?) But that was a taster of what we can expect in the last few games of the H&A and into the finals. No other team can go with us when we are playing like that, as the last 40 odd games we have played demonstrates. No doubt, the other teams know that too. It is why are odds for the flag never drifted out past $3.60, even after three straight losses. It is also why we are now, after one win, back into $2.80 to win the flag. For context we were $2.70 at the start of the season, and are almost at the same price now.

news.com's take: ‘He’s astounded’: Demons star snubs teammate in ugly moment Hilarious article, particularly read with the knowledge of how the game played out 9whcih the article doesn't reference - it must have been written and posted almost immediately after the incident

Jackson - still a kid Jackson - an absolute jet

Agree with your points about the things we addressed. We were able to address them because clearly we were not fatigued in the way we were in the three losses. You can see that in the way Jackson, Lever and Brown, in particular moved. For one thing Brown could actually jump off the ground. The other 'tell' was how trac, Sparrow and viney were able to power away from a contest, something all three struggled with in the three losses But I wasn't fully confident we were fresh until the last 10 minutes of the first quarter when we were first able to blunt the lion's momentum, but more importantly, then lift our rating and start closing the vice and suffocating the lions, as we do when we are at our best. On the lions, I have zero doubt they were shagged. The interesting thing is the philosophy as to why. They are in a very similar position to the cats, in so far as for the last few (3?) years they have finished top 4 but struggled in finals, and in the lions case, have gone out in straight sets. And perhaps, like the cats they have reached the logical conclusion that they have haddes chance of beating a side as fit and relentless as we were in the finals last year or the tigers were in their premiership years. Remember, we played the lions week one of last years finals, and they simply could no go with us. The contrast in fitness and ability to run out quarters and the game was stark. The lions may have thought, even at our very best, if the dees are at their best, we are only a 40-60 chance of beating them on their home deck. So, lets keep smashing our players on the track, and be prepared to lose a game that we are a better than even money chance of losing anyway. And by doing so, let's maximise our chances of being competitive against this same team come September. I put very little stock in that performance in terms of providing a guide as to how big a threat they are. Leaving their performance last aside, they are a good team, with an excellent list, but in terms of the contenders, I rate the dockers ahead of them, and perhaps the cats as at least an equal threat. And the reason is that I don't think their defensive system is up to it. The dees, freo and the cats all have far superior defensive systems, that involve all team defence and brilliant zoning off and intercepts. The lion's defensive stem is too old school, too one on one to work in 2022.

Please Bing, you said you were a researcher. Surely the mountain of evidence in this thread alone is enough for you to accept that the loading period is somewhere in the 8 week range. And even if you refuse to accept that fact, surely you can't believe elite athletes could do two weeks of hard training in June and confer ANY benefit three and half months later on grand final day. That Scott was referring to a couple of weeks of some extras at training when he said the goal was to be cherry ripe come finals, even if that risked finishing ninth? Why would a top 4-5 team be impacted so badly by two weeks of hard training in June that it might cause them to miss finals? I mean c'mon. By your two week of extra training theory, the lions would have been up and about tonight. Did you watch the game? We could won that game by 15 goals. Do you honestly think we are a 15 goal better side than the lions, the team who were above us on the ladder coming into the game. The lions were out on their feet. Blind Freddy could see that. And they were fatigued as far back as their round 10 loss to the hawks, and have been in every game they have played since. That is six weeks. They are doing what we are doing this year, what we did last year in this same period, what the tigers did in their three premiership years in this period and ditto for the Eagles in 2018. As a researcher, how else would you explain such a clear pattern? It simply defies logic that it could be a coincidence.

Because that's not how it works. Read some of the excellent, detailed information on this thread from posters like coach (the clue's in the name), stu, eo and others. Periodisation is an exact science. The goal is to be in peak physical condition on preliminary final day. Delay the loading for 2-3 weeks and they reach peak condition on their post season trip to bali

Yeah, so hard.

Do you mean like Brisbane? The team who were top of the ladder, have now lost 3 of their last five, barely got past the giants (giving up nearly 100 points), were appalling in their low scoring, mistake ridden win over the saints (who lost two players before half time, and were down to one on the bench for the last quarter) and just got smashed by 10 plus goals?

Great win. But they were clearly super fatigued. I had my binos on their bench for a bit in the third, and then at their 3/4 time huddle. They were completely exhausted.

Do you mean Hunt medi sub?

Hunt out there

Reminds me of the 'what did the Roman's ever do for us' skit in Life of Brian

Nine now

Can someone who us at tbe ground tell me if the top level of the Ponsford is open please. Thanks in advance

Agree.

As others have noted, bailey out is huge. One, he is a total gun. Two, he is the exactly the sort of forward we struggle to contain ie gun small to medium goal kickers. The lions usually really stretch us in that regard, because they have bailey and Cameron (not to mention half forwards McCarthy and this year raynor, and mids like mccluggage). With bailey out we have more options for Cameron. On that, you'd think hibbo gets first crack on Cameron.

Great post dazzler. It's of course hard to quantify but I reckon that reconnect to ex players and that 'whole club' vibe it helped create, was a huge factor in our flag ladt year. And a positive unintended consequence was that it was a factor in how well tge club connected with fans after the team had to leave Melbourne (the city) because of the lockdown.

That's exactly right. And critically, it's not just our forward who are not getting back quickly enough, or in enough numbers, it's the mids, wingers and half back flankers. No swarm and wave running. When you look at that footage showed, it is all one on one in our forward line as theball arrives The point montagna fails to mention, is our offensive model relies on our swarm and running in waves of mutiple players, some of whom get ahead of the ball and create a numerical advantage inside our 50. So, often, mutiple free Ayers inside our 50. No swarm equals forward entries and forward line not working. As an example of tbat swarm, a poster (apologies to them I can't remember who) pointed to that brilliant goal Sparrow set up for fritter in the goal square against the lions. Ironically, montagna showed that vision at the time to highlight the incredible running the dees do ' Sparrow started that scoring chain from deep in our defence, and tracked the ball all the way down the ground running flat out. As did 3 or 4 other players. He also pointed Sparrow's opponent simply could not go with him, and mutiple giant's players were haunches over completely spent. This was in round 3, so the giants would have been at peak fitness I think it was nibbler wee o kicked it deep to tbe pocket out in front of Sparrow, but whoever Iit was had three free option he could have chosen. That is how our offence worked. It is so simistic to simply blame our forwards, as montagna did in thst spot the other night - particularly given selwood broke the rule and dared to mention the impact of loading. I mean c'mon , montagna knows that's the cause, but doesn't say it because fox, seven, the radio stations and the afl fear being honest with footy fans will hurt ratings.

I think they are meat/potatoe