binman

Bowey says hi

Do you mean the fella Goody has selected two weeks in a row at a critical point in the season?

You might well be right. Over the journey, i've been one of Weed's biggest critics. But the the role really requires someone who is a genuine big tall, which neither JVR or Smith are. With Tmac out, Weed is the only other genuine tall on our list, and it is for this reason i think he will get first crack at the role.

I have no doubt we will select a third tall. I think Weed will come in next week. If he can't make the spot his own, and he won't have more than 2 games to make his case, JVR and Joel Smith are legitimate. options. if Weed can't make it work, it is hard to see where he goes next with the dees, particularly given he is contracted for next year.

Agree with all of the above. He obviously was selected with a specific role in mind last week - negate port's two interceptors, aliir and clurey He performed that role well - neither had an impact, which was particularly important in aliir's case as he is key to to Port's scoring method, which is heavily reliant on transition from the hb flank. The dogs also rely on transition from hb for scoring (and scoring from stoppages/clearances). Dale is key to that method, particularly with Daniel out. However, Dale presents a different challenge to aliir and clurey. He is not an intercept marker or tall (though he plays tall). He is a distributor and runs hard off hb for metres gained. A terrific player, and one of the best kicks in the AFL.. Melk will struggle to go with him pace wise.The key will be stopping him getting the pill and when he does smashing him and ensuring he has no time and space. If he gets away melk will need to hand off to, say jordon or langers who will press forward and close down Dale's space. If that is melk's role, goody won't care about melk's numbers - he'll care about Dales', as should dees fans.

I got sick at home once.

You wish you were involved in Norm Smith's sacking?

You weren't involved in Norm Smith's sacking were you? Wouldn’t shock me, given your penchant for criticising the coach that only last year ended a 57 year premiership drought - and the Norm Smith curse.

Or a horse.

Good call. He was picked to play a specific role - defensive forward. Split his time between aliir and cluery . Neither had an impact and critically had bugger all intercept marks. Big tick for Jake.

And by extension, most of the footy media, dominated as it is by bonehead ex footballers, who's ignorance about how the game is played in 2022 makes their analysis all but useless. People would do well to follow the modern player's lead, assuming they are interested in understanding how the game is ACTUALLY played in 2022. If not, carry on listening to King, Lyon x 2, Riewoldt, Brereton, increasingly Lewis and Montagna (who are both following the maxim that ex footballers become more irrelevant every year they are out of the game, because I assume they don't feel the need to keep on top of things), Carey, Brown, Taylor, Ling, 'sellars' (l mean please), etc etc etc. The only ex footballers I rate in terms of their analysis, and ability to communicate it are (in order): Sanderson (who, weirdly, has disappeared from sen), Lauren Arnell Buckley (but, like Sanderson he is a recent coach, so probably shouldn't be on the list) Bartel, Mcguane, Delidio Lynch, Pavlich, Dunstall. And I don't mind Lloyd too much. Daisy isn't an ex footballer, but she is a total gun. Knows the game and critically can communicate information (a skill I would have thought would be a kpi for anyone in the media - though sadly, this is clearly not the case). And I don't mind Jack Riewoldt's insights. I feel like I'm missing someone, but still, that is bugger all given how many ex footballers are paid to talk about the game. It's possible there are some others who do understand the game, but as Axis of Bob sagely noted in another thread, that doesn't mean much if they don't have the ability to communicate and convey complex information in a way the audience can understand. Unfortunately, Jones is in this boat, as is Watson, 'silk' and Hodge. In another thread there was some trolling about footy media appointments and merit. Which is hilarious because there are so many examples of ex afl footballers in the media who are embarrassingly woeful at their job and could not possibly have been appointed on merit. If you retrospectively applied a merit lens to the footy media, 95% of people would get the sack.

That's funny, I couldn't help but think of brereton. He tore up his first finals - had an immediate impact. JVR has a bit of derm's swagger and competitiveness. Plays similarly too. JVR also has some of Breterton,'s taent. Dermie was a fantastic player, particularly his first few years. Like JVR, not that tall for a key forward, but he had great hands, and super tough to beat one on one.

I can't lie. I would love to see him tear it up on a glorious spring day at the G.

But that's not our game plan. Wasn't last year, and isn't this year. Create an aeriel contest, if no mark make sure an opponent doesn't mark it and bring it down to a predictable spot so your mids, half forwards and small forwards can score or create a stoppage. Failing that, put huge pressure on the defender who wins the ground ball and force a turnover - either a missed handball or a dump kick. Which we bounce back inside 50 because we have set up our wall. Rinse and repeat. As you note, seperation for the forwards also means seperation for the defenders. That creates more space and one on ones, which is fine if that is your method. That's how Port like to set up, so they can isolate their three key forwards.The blues have a similar set up. But that set up doesn't work for us because we want congestion not space from those long kick to a crowded forward line (as opposed to the kick to a player all by themselves inside 50 we create when are swarming forward from hb The two methods were on display in Sunday's game. Our defensive sytem renders their sytem next to useless, as evidenced in our last 3 or 4 games. That's because, like freo and the cats, we zone off brilliant and have a goal keeper role. But once we turned up the heat, our method started working, we got rolling and they couldn't stop our offence . The method worked, in large part due to Brown's work rate and contests. Most of kossie's goals were a function of our method, as were several others. My favourite was Jackson's goal, that started with nibbler's desperation and crazy smart handball to viney. All that said, we will need a second tall who can play tmac's role. We have sorely missed his up and down the ground run and his smarts in aeriel contests, for example the blocking he does for bb. I reckon weed will come back in, not this week but perhaps round 20 or 21. He'll be super clear on what his role is and goody will give him his shot. Maybe two games to prove it's his spot. If he doesn't make a compelling statement, goody had jvr, or even Smith as options.

In terms of a forward second tall option, i forgot about Smith to be honest. I've always liked him as a forward, but goody seems to have locked him in as a defender. But with Gus staying back, bowey to come back in potentially, and tomo looking good, Smith will struggle to get a spot in defence. But he has the tank to replicate tmac's run and the leap to replicate his role in bringing the ball to ground. In that sense he plays tall. So whilst he is not the answer long term to the second genuine tall conundrum, he might represent a short term solution to the problem. He is also very quick and athletic, which provides a match up challenge for the opposition

The bounce was def weird. I reckon we did OK from it though. One of kossie's goal came after every other player seemed to assume it was going to bounce over the boundary. And another was set up when the ball looked for all the world like it was going to go out, but stopped in its tracks and we won the contest and got a renrty

Spot on The other element is predictability and repetition. Sure, when things are so predictable the opposition also know what we ate going to do. But, when we are at our very best, which we can all agree we aren't atm, it's one thing knowing what we do, and another thing entirely to stop or take advantage of it. The predictability can be boring I guess, though I don't find it so, but i assume in goody's assessment it increases the probability of us winning a flag. In finals, under huge physical and psychological pressure, predictability and repetition supports instinctive behaviours, good decision making (eg players just 'know' there will be teamate to handball to, even if he can't see him) and clarity of role. It simplifies things and supports getting into a flow state. Which, i reckon, is one reason why goody makes so few changes tactically or structuraly during the home and way season.

Sorry, we didn't get to this. I think Jordon was excellent in this game and has been all season. On being slow to release the ball, i suspect it is function of his role to a large degree. He and langers are often used as outlet, bail out options on the wing when we are transitioning the ball. In that scenario he often has nothing to kick to forward of the ball as our forwards have pushed up to help the defence and are madly trying to get back to the forward line. So langers and Jordon are forced to hold onto the ball, or in langers case run with it. Also, i'm sure it's a team rule to only kick the ball quickly if there a clear option ahead. Better to be tackled, and get a handball off under pressure, then dump kick straight to an intercept defender. Holding onto it also allows the forwards to get set. And when they are forced to kick, they kick as high and as long as possible. Salem does this all the time (hold onto the ball), as does Hibbo and Gus. Interestingly they are half back flankers, and Jordon and langers often play as quasi HFB flankers as well. So perhaps it is also something about the defensive role that means it is more likely they don't kick the ball quickly if it risks a turnover. Which would make sense becuase any turnover from inside the defensive 50 metre arc is likely to result in a scoring opportunity. That approach reflects goody's defence first philosophy. Sure going quick increases the chance we will score. But it also increases the chance of the opposition scoring. Defence trumps offence, so when in doubt hold onto it.

Makes perfect sense. When we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it.

I said last week, I'd drop him for his burn in the cats game. But, you're right goody wouldn't. And won't. The media attention might do the trick in terms of sending a message.

The best intensity and effort I have seen from him. Kudos Jake.

Round 20. Really terrific win today. Super proud of the boys.

Oops. Got the decade wrong. Unforgivable

I appreciate the feedback rpfc, and will take it on board. Ironically, my curse shtick was an attempt to make light of the loading stuff and move on - but probably had the opposite effect. You mentioned you felt gaslighted. That's how you feel, so I hear that. But it's an interesting choice of words, because it means someone is trying to mess with your head with demonstrably made up stuff (came from a film from the 1940s, whose name I forget, where the husband deliberately tries to send his wife crazy by saying the gas lights are on, when they're not). I say that, because i think you have touched on a fundamental difference in perspective. I am firmly of the belief that the loading we have been doing IS the major factor in our from since the beginning of June. I could not have been clearer, that I don't think it is the only issue, or that once tapering us done, all or issues will be resolved. For example, as i pointed out the week before tmac got injured, and several times since, our second tall forward is a problem as our two tall set up us critical to our sytem and weed doesn't look likely to be an adequate replacement for Brown or tmac. Again, an issue I have noted quite often, is our lack of a gun small defender like jetts at his best. But in my opinion, loading IS the biggest factor and I simply don't share your concerns about the issues you highlighted in your first post in this thread (ie connection, forward line, pressure etc etc). Or at least, not nearly to the same extent. This quote from Vipercrunch sums up my perspective perfectly: "The game plan can’t be assessed as working or failing if the players are simply too fatigued to execute it. Any game plan that doesn’t fit a teams fitness level (and skill and experience level) always looks dysfunctional, but because we are wedded to the game plan, we continue to use the same one during this period of fatigue because we want it to be purely instinctive for the players. Yes, there could be better short term outcomes if the game plan is changed while we are fatigued, but only at a possible loss to long term performance.' I understand you disagree with me. But that doesn't mean my perspective is wrong, and certainly is not evidence of me trying to gaslight anyone. If I was honest, perhaps there probably is an element of frustration on my behalf. I made all these same arguments last year. And got hammered on dl for those views, with the exception of a very small handfull of posters who agreed with me. Apparently I was delusional. So confident was i that I had assessed things correctly, I had a sizeable bet on us to win rhe flag the day after we got beaten in round 19 by the dogs. I got $5.50. The cats were favourites and the dogs second favourite. Four weeks later we started the final series as $2.00 favourite for the flag, going on to crush the tired dogs to win tbe flag. I was proven right - though of course the doubters and my many critics would argue we magically addressed the 'real' issues (which were basically the same as those being listed now). Bur it wasn't magic. As viper noted the model's effectiveness is predicated on an optimal level of fitness. And post round 19 we were demonstrably more energised and powerful than when we were in our loading phasse AND in comparison to our opponents. So there was no magic in our form turnaround, no sudden radical changes in game plan, attitude, personelle, tactics, strategies, roles etc. The sudden abilty to score 100 plus points a game and destroy opponents wasn't a function of the connection issue being 'fixed'. It was a function of our ability to maintain our swarm all game and run our hapless opponents into the turf. Which is clearly what Scott was talking about when he said they had to do something different with their loading regime, to go 'harder' to have a chance to win this year's flag. He didn't mention the dees. He didn't need to And of course none of those who jumped on me for my opinion came back and said, ok in hindsight you got this one right binman. And this year, it's not as if I have been smart in hindsight. I accurately predicted the downturn in form before it happened. And said we would struggle in much the way we have. It seems so logical, and tbe evidence si compelling, that loading is the major factor in our current form, that I find it hard to see how anyone could hold an alternative view. But they do - and that's OK of course. But equally my view is valid. But picking up your key point, I'll bang on about it less.