binman

That's true actually

That's a good point. He was excellent too against the roos. So perhaps 'that's exactly what will happen' was a bit strong. That said I think Bedford is still a better option because he can cover the roles you note that harmes plays ie on ball minutes, high half forward who can snag a goal and up and down the ground running as a quasi winger. Not sure Dunstan has the same flexibility - particularly forward craft.

That is exactly what will happen. Why? Because Bedford is next in line. That is how goody had used the medi sub role. And given they are clearly following last year's successful template for all manner of things, then that is how he will continue to use the medi sub role. I find it perplexing when posters who have followed us in the last 18 months suggest we will do things like rest players, drop nibbler (or kozzie, or spargo) because they are not kicking enough goals, change our approach when playing bottom of the ladder teams (eg by giving some young players a shot) etc etc etc. (Note: a caveat on the comment above, I acknowledge there is sometimes some grey between what people think should happen and what they think will happen. I'm referring to what people think WILL happen). By the by i think Bedford might also do some midfield minutes too, as he has been splitting his time at Casey between the midfield and high half forward.

If you put Dr d on ignore you will miss out on hours of entertainment

He is still a kid, so that's OK. That said, his attack on the ball was ferocious. Won a number of 40-60 (against him) contests. Took a dukes out screamer too. Nice, neat kicking for goal action. Not too many moving parts.

Would you believe......

Not me. I went and stood at our end each quarter. So watched all our forwards closely, particularly weed and rooey. I thought weed was excellent. His intensity was really good. Took a fantastic pack mark, rucked well in the front half, used the ball super well in general play and took his chances, including the late round the corner goal in tbe third, which was brilliant because the wind was howling in that quarter. Rooey played super well too, but he is neither fit enough, or big enough for the AFL. Thst said, roey is the real deal. Wants tbe ball, is super vocal and plays like a caged lion. Reminds me such of a young David Swartz. Will be scary good when he fills out.

Lets I'd love them to keep them to zero. Dont worry too ,much about our score - just don't let them score

Spot on. And I'd that the combination of his skill, brilliant one one marking ability (particularly for a player who is neither tall or super strong) and his importance to the side mean that the opposition simply have to put a decent defender on him, and they have to play him pretty tight. Which is tricky on a number of fronts. He will thrash most small defenders in the air, so you need a medium or big on him. But they also have to cover THREE other talls. Thisls adds to the match up challenge as how many tall defenders do each team actually have. It is one reason why the dogs struggle to contain us And making things more of a challenge is that having to play him tight makes it hard to zone off him - which in tun makes or harder to stop our other talls. The other ace up fritters sleeve is his brilliant field kicking that often create score involvements and goal assists.

The Burgess mantra is resilience. I prefer to think it is more related to the players all being demons. No rest for the wicked.

Yep. But wet coke's biggest issue is that defensively they won't be missed at all.

No Bedford?

Hurn rested? WTF?

Consider it on the agenda

We need the extra day to watch a replay of that brilliant win and try and find an improvement to discuss. My improvement flagging the need for a defender to take opposition smalls may have already become obsolete - Hunt is doing a great job in that role. Smashed Higgin, did well on wingard and did a great job on Bolton, who is up there with Cameron in terms of a quality small forward.

Totally agree. Deserves a game in the ones. But if history is anything to go by, then no one will be managed or rested. Only players with an injury are likely to come out

That's one part of the equation i reckon. The other is that going into control mode from say half way through the 3rd when havw a 3-4 goal buffer actually increases our chance of winning. The only way realistic way an opposition team can peg back a 3 plus goal deficit latish in a game is for there to be speed on the game. If we get aggressive and look to bury opponents then we are giving them what they need - a fast flowing game. And if we try to pile on the goals we inevitably will take risks. Risk create turnover opportunities and therefore opposition goals. If an opponent gets a couple of quick goals they can get some momentum. And maybe get back into the game and sneak a win Playing slow to protect a winning margin is a key strategy in the NBA and in assuming the EPL and other eite soccer leagues. The reward of going for a big win is percentage - which is not much reward for a team that us likely to win 18 plus games. The risk is losing a game we would otherwise win.

Only 5? After that pathetic free to king against petty 20 metres out fro goal, I said to mate that if that was the threshold for a free, and it was consistently applied, Max would get 15 frees a game. It's a bloody joke what oppo players get away with in terms of belting Max. Apparently the head is sacrosanct. Unless your name is Gawn.

Going on Goody's presser, your eye test got a big tick of approval. Goody made a point of noting our forward pressure was better, implying it wasn't where it needed to be. On a related note, I am loving Goody's post match pressers this season He is really honest, happy to be himself and often gives real insight into tactical and other related elements of our game.

MFCSS is like herpes. Stays in the body waiting for the chance to flare.

No he wasn't. The stat he used was pressure, ie all ground pressure - not forward pressure. He didn't even mention inside 50 pressure. You might be right about our forward half pressure, but then again you may not be. The eye test is not always that accurate For example we are 16th in total tackles. But we are basically equal third in average tackles inside 50 (Giants are top with an average of 12.3 per game, blues second on 12 per game, Freo on 11. 4 and us and the Swans on 11.3 per game). That's pretty good pressure inside 50. My stats are from this excellent site: https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html

Weed out is an interesting one. If we were playing a prelim on Sunday i'd pick Tmac becuase, head to head with Weed, he is a better footballer at this point in time. Impacts more contests, creates more goals, works harder, is stronger, blocks more and offers positional flexibility as he can go back (though do like Weed in the ruck) So I'm in camp Tmac. But i acknowledge he seems to have lost a yard of pace this season, and he wasn't fast to begin with. And i also acknowledge that there is not a huge difference stats wise between the two this season. So, i would have been tempted to stick with Weed for the next few weeks as he will develop more in the ones i reckon, and get Tmac to work on his pace somehow back in the twos (perhaps on the back of a BBB style mid season preseason). My logic is that might be the best way to ensure both are in the best possible form come finals. All that said happy or Tmac to be in the side. It certainly suggest the coaches don't think Tmac was selfish last week. I'm guessing they also didn't mind him kicking that goal after the sire in the GF!

By the by, I'm not saying the numbers are not concerning. Just that in the absence of context and proper analysis it would be folly to assume they are.

All good points EO. I really like montagna's analysis as a rule - he, daisy, Sanderson and Bartel are my favourite footy analysts. I read those stats on here but hadn't watched the segment, so did so last night. It was weird because he didn't provide any real analysis, context for the numbers or possible factors tha might help explain them. Could the fact that Salem hasn't played this season (bar half a game) be a factor in both numbers (for example Gus seems to be playing deeper than salo does). Or Brown missing three games, a player who now provides great pressure, being replaced by weed who is low pressure. Surely the fact we have yet to have our best back seven play together is a factor in both stats - both in terms of the impacts of elite pressure players like petty, Lever and Salo missing games AND the impact of those players missing on our all ground defensive system (which is is the key factor in disrupting oppo ball movement) . How does he reconcile the drop in those numbers with the fact that we remain one or two on scores conceded inside 50? Or the fact that we are number one in marks conceded inside 50, in spite of the fact Petty and Lever having both missed multiple games. He also didn't explain the numbers. For example is there much statistical difference between number one and mid table in pressure acts or defending ball movement? It was doubly weird because the premise of the segment (made clear by a graphic and pumped up by wheatley at the top of the show) was 'are Melbourne gettable'. Montagna found two isolated stats out of a sea of stats he has at his disposal to make a case we are 'gettable'. Those two stats were the best he could find to make that case? Agree on your comments on context and the fact Montagna provided precious little of it To your comments id add he didn't break down where the pressure had dropped (inside our 50?, defensive zone? mids?) or perhaps that some individual players had dropped off (eg are tmac's pressure acts down?) But more importantly he didn't compare the numbers to those at the comparative point last season. I assume the 2021 rankings he used were at the end of the home and season (or even post gf), but that includes the last third of our season when we really ramped things up. Given we were also 7 zip last season it would have been interesting to see the comparison to that point in time. The analysis would have been completely different if say the rankings were similar ('dees still building') after round 7 last year.