binman

That was God awful. Paid $90 for a crap seat in a glorified shelter shed, and the dees serve that up. They smashed us.

It not binary. I'm not saying we can't improve up forward. Just that that its not really a big issue. It wouldn't even be discussed if players like trac and nibbler were not such poor shots at goal. My big worry about the forward line is not the method, it no Tmac.

One answer to that question, as it relates to the dees is, that our kpi is the number of entries, not goals per entry. We are all about getting it inside 50, if we don't score trap it inside 50 and if the opposition do get it out, setting up a wall so it bounces straight back in (often of course into a relatively small area that might have as many as 30-36 players crowded into it). Chaos ball. By definition, this method will result in a lower goal to inside 50 ratio, then say the lions who are less about territory, and more about maximising the goal to inside 50 ratio. And as we know it also means lots of points. On the goal to inside 50 ratio, the lions are number one in the AFL. Super efficient. It is a method that works really well against most teams. But not us, or freo for that matter, because against us they simply don't get enough inside 50s. The last three times they have played us they have been pretty efficient in terms of goals to inside 50 ratio. But they haven’t got within a bulls roar of us because they have not gone inside 50 enough, and the dees, whilst not as efficient, have smashed them in inside 50 differential. Without wanting to sound smart, the goal is to kick more goals than the opposition and our method has proven to be brutally effective, as demonstrated by our crazy good win loss ratio since round one 2021. I just think the whole debate around the forward line's effectiveness, a debate thst also raged most of last season, feels like a solution searching for a problem - as evidenced by or win loss ratio and percentage this year.

No, lets not.

Childish gotcha rubbish nev. But, if you are going to bother using quotes from two different posts of mine to make some sort of point, at least quote me correctly. I did not say he is not in form. In the very quote you picked, I said he was not in GREAT form. Please don't bother rebutting, but they are two different things. So, I could say something like Brown is in form, but not great form. The point I making is his form is at a level that his coach deems acceptable. You don't think he us performing at the required level, which is fine. No disrespect intended, but I'll go with the premiership coach on this one.

Spot on. He does that sort of work mutiple times a game. Goody doesn't mind which player scores, just that one does. They are a collective. In that example it is trac, but it doesn't happen without Brown's involvement. Didn't get a stat for it, but Brown played his role and because he did we scored. Role execution and selflessness (for instance no Hollywood attempt at a screamer). The key point is he continues to be selected. That is sufficient evidence for me that he is executing his role to goody's satisfaction. Tonight's game is a legitimate blockbuster. We are primed and will be desperate to make a statement. If his performance was as poor as some are suggestingd, does anyone seriously think goody would select him for this game? When he had two fit forwards in weed and m brown (who both played alright in tbe previous match) he could select instead? Surely goody has earned a bit more credit than that to suggest he is willing to play an under performing player in the hope he will suddenly perform well or he could play him back into form. If goody is ok with bb's performance, im ok with his performance.

My take on Ben Brown. Is he is great form? No. Will he be dropped if he has a poor game stats wise this week. No Is his form over the last 5-6 games related to being fatigued. Yes, the eyes suggest that is the case. He was more mobile and energised against the lions, but noticeablely sluggish in the other games, including last week. For example, he struggled to jump in those games. To be honest any assessment of his game based on stats is next to useless. Have people not been listening to goody over the last few years? Goody has made it crystal clear that in terms of the expectations on performance there are three fundamentals - selflessness, team first and role execution. Those are the club's KPIs. So, judging a player on numbers is all well and good but goody has said literally dozens of times that players are not judged on them. Sure you could dismiss that as spin, but then you have posters periodically calling for, say kozzie or spargo to be dropped because they have had mutuple weeks in a row with single figure disposals and/or no goals. Thankfully such calls are less frequent now, because people now better understand that spargs and kozzie's role is pressure - and that is visible. So, I try to assess performance on tbe metrics the club uses. Of course, we don't know exactly what Brown's role is. But we can have a pretty good guess (to be clear this a guess, so please don't come back with a how would you know spiel) First and foremost, his role is to be involved in aerial contests - up forward and up the ground. These contest invariably imvve big packs of talls, including our talls. The number one priority is bringing the ball to ground. A mark, either up forward or on tbe hbf is a total bonus. The next part of his role is the incredible up and down the ground running he dies. This is critical on a number of fronts. It means, foe example that May's standard 60 metre kick out goes to a pack that includes at least two of our talls. Again, the key here is that the opposition don't mark it. If we can't mark it, our mids and defenders know where it will likely hit the ground (watch how brown palms it forward if he can't mark it) and win the resuting ground ball. The running he does also means he can create one on ones on the wing for a bail out kick, or a long searching lead from the 50 yp to the wing, or turn us opponent around and runs back inside 50. But his running also messes with the opposition defensive system. On a basic level, if his direct opponent, always a big, has to go with him and if he is not as fit, may blow up. But Brown's run also stretches the defence and messes with their structure and zone. For example they need to decide whether his opponent goes with him up the ground, or as we usually do stay inside 50. If they go with him we have forced Brown's opponent to go one on one with him. And then they also have one less defender inside 50, which messes with their ability to set up an effective defensive zone If they dont go with him, his opponent has to make sure they hand off to a teamate when he goes up the ground, and there needs to be another handoff as he runs back towards our goal. All game. Up and down the ground. And all game the opposition have to sort out how to cover him. For context, brown is in the all tome top 10 of distance converd in a game (sculls heads the list). That was whilst he was at the roos. And no doubt is a key reason why we recruited him. Brown is regularly, with langdon and nibbler, in our top 3 distance covered in a game. And that's it. If he does all that to goody's satisfaction he has executed his role. And could do so without recording a single disposal. And playing rhat role is also completely team first and selfless. Which is Goody's non negotiable It's also a role that is super impacted by fatigue. So what about goals you might ask. Surely a kpi of a forward is to kick goals. For fans maybe, but not goody. Again, as Goody has pointed out he doesn't judge individual forwards on the goals they kick. They are part of a collective. Which was partly his point when he said the forward line had had 60 scoring shots in the last two games. Brown is part of that forward line. But if you do want to judge him on goals, well I'm not sure why tbe fact he kicked two last week seems not to register - or worse are perhaps discounted because one was a crumb and the other right at tbe end of the game. BB will get fresher and fresher and will remain a critical cog in tbe machine.

I don't believe my actions can have any bearing on how the dees perform. Which is why I'm not worried posting this picture will in anyway jinx our chances tonight. Not worried at all. Not even a bit. Seemed the appropriate day to post it. It takes pride of place in my tv room and is the first thing I see when I walk in (we converted the garage into a sound proof TV room with huge TV etc etc - perfect because I can watch footy and not annoy the family or neighbours!). Thanks @Webber for the brilliant, beautiful art work. It looks amazing And thanks @joeboy for the stunning framing. Love it

That's simply not true. As if goody would pick a player who is not contributing

Weed will come back into tge side soon enough.

Cameron and Curnow are top 2 in the Coleman NOW. They were both excellent junior players, as was JVR, but until they started playing senior footy all they had was potential to be stars in the AFL. JVR is in his first season of AFL football and hasn't yet done a full AFL preseason. All he has is potential too. But there's not much skill predicting a player will be star AFTER they have become one. Don't get me wrong, they are both stars, but McKay and Curnow would face exactly the same problems Brown face if they played for us: constantly having to fly for the ball in big packs that include both two key forwards and often the resting ruck too super crowded forward line and therefore no space and no clear leading lanes (they both, like Naughton, get a lot of their goals from leads) lots of kicks to the pockets, meaning even if they are able to clunk a mark in a big pack of players, the resulting shot is from the boundary And if McKay and Curnow played for us, both would have to get much, much, much fitter to match the distances Brown and Tmac have to run every game. They would also both have to be prepared to sacrifice their own game for the betterment of the team. Brown and Tmac spend a fair bit of time well up the ground and running between the 50 metre arcs. They are often gassed when they get back inside 50, which impacts their forward craft, but it also means they are not going to kick as many goals as key forwards, like McKay and Curnow, who spend more time inside their 50.

Both 1.90 at the moment, but you're right they could well start favourite. Which says something about the home game advantage they get playing at Kardinia park. We have beaten them the last four times we have played them, including a win down there. With Jackson and Gawn both confirmed ins, we are only missing TMac from our best 22. Whereas they are missing arguably their most important player in Stewart, an out that is compounded by Kolodjashnij also being a likely out. We would be something like 1.60 favorites for this game if it were at the MCG (for context we were 1.60 against the lions, despite coming off 3 losses and them being on top of the ladder).

Just watched Goody's presser. Was asked about our forward line. All but scoffed at the suggestion we were struggling up forward, noting we have had 60 shots at goal in the last two weeks, including 35 against one of the best teams in the AFL (was actually 36). 'Our forward half is operating at a very high level' From 5.31: https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1166179/rd-17-media-conference-simon-goodwin?videoId=1166179&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1657064517001

Exactly. They may decide not to go with Weed this week given it looks like it might be a bit wet and slippery and Kardinia park is a narrow ground with tight pockets. But I have zero doubt we will ultimately go with three talls (two key forwards and the resting ruck). And as you say if Tmac is not in the side, the second key forward really has to be Weed. JVR is too small for that role, not to mention probably not AFL ready - yet. And Mitch Brown is simply not strong or big enough for the role. But, whilst ive not listened to the presser, i suspect they will go with Weed tomorrow night as goody will want to trial the set up against a contender.

Not to mention may playing a grand final with grade three tear to his hammy!

Except the actual quote is: “I wouldn’t be playing them if they weren’t 100 per cent. They’re ready to go,” Semantically, a very big difference.

Just saw this thread. Coincidentally just posted this in the VR thread: It's interesting you mention Curnow and McKay, because I actually think they represent a systemic weakness for the blues. By that I mean, the blues fortunes are completely linked to how well those two are going. Limit their impact and the blues have few other scoring options (their small forwards are pretty good, but seem to have dropped off a bit) - as we saw in their loss to the saints on the weekend. This creates a significant systemic problem, one the dees and freo are well placed to exploit - stop those two and you stop the blues. Our strength is our defensive system, which as has been proven is all but impossible to disrupt. The blues two strengths are their ability to win clearances and their gun forwards. The former is hard to disrupt, unless, like the dees, you have an even better midfield. But the latter is relatively easy to disrupt if you apply all team pressure on the last kick inside 50 and have a first class defensive system that uses sophisticated defensive zoning - like the dees and freo. The dogs face a similar issue with their reliance on Naughton - again as demonstrated on the weekend. Everyone sees the blues forward line as being the ants pants. And it has become fashionable to bag ours. Apparently our connection is terrible. Well you'd expect to see that supposed gap between the two forward lines reflected in the scoring shot/inside 50 ratio. Yeah, nah. The AFL average for that measure is 43.4% Carlton, with the forward line to die for apparently, is 9th in the AFL, scoring 43.5% of the time when entering their 50. The dees, with the supposedly dysfunctional forward line, is 8th in the AFL at 43.6% If you use the shots at goal measure instead, the gap between us and the blues is even greater. The blues have a shot at goal 46.8% of times they enter their 50 (below the afl average of 47.3 and 12th on that table). The dees have a shot at goal 47.7% of times they enter their 50 (10th and above the AFL average). The blues goals to inside 50 is below the AFL average (23), but better than ours, albeit not by a huge margin (22.8 to 21.9) - and the gap is probably explained by our method (ie so many kicks to the pocket). This delusion about our forward line was brilliantly demonstrated straight after the lions win. As I was leaving the ground, I was listening to the abc post match wrap. Not sure who it was, but he said words to the effect that, yes the dees were impressive, but he is really concerned about our forward line (Brown down on form, poor 'connection', low contested marks inside 50 yada yada). Our score to inside 50 for that match was something like 67% - 20% more than the AFL average. Against the team that coming into the match was on top of the ladder. The dees might have 99 problems (96 of which are related to Bartlett) - but the forward line ain't one. I think the cats have been smart how they use Cameron to avoid the issue Carlton and the Dogs (and arguably also the lions) face. And Hawkins has slimmed down and gets up the ground more than he did. It's no coincidence they top the inside 50 scoring ratio table, scoring 46% of the time they go inside 50. Stats from this excellent site: https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html

I do. The most talented forward we have drafted since Hogan. Takes his share of hangers, an accurate kick, excellent forward craft, clean hands, good when the ball hits the ground, hard at it - and above all desperate to win the footy and is super, super competitive. Agree he is undersized for a key forward in today's footy. Micocek is not a bad comparison size wise, but he plays almost as a pure lead out full forward. I reckon VR's role in our forward line will be similar to fritters - start deep, lead to the boundary, but also get up the ground and sometimes play as a high half forward. To thrive, he will need to have two super talls beside him, as per AoBs explanation about modern forward structures, because the old school lead up forward is history (one reason why Hogan hasn't had the impact I thought he would). It's interesting you mention Curnow and McKay, because I actually think they represent a systemic weakness for the blues. By that I mean, the blues fortunes are completely linked to how well those two are going. Limit their impact and the blues have few other scoring options (their small forwards are pretty good, but seem to have dropped off a bit) - as we saw in their loss to the saints on the weekend. This creates a significant systemic problem, one the dees and freo are well placed to exploit - stop those two and you stop the blues. Our strength is our defensive system, which as has been proven is all but impossible to disrupt. The blues two strengths are their ability to win clearances and their gun forwards. The former is hard to disrupt, unless, like the dees, you have an even better midfield. But the latter is relatively easy to disrupt if you apply all team pressure on the last kick inside 50 and have a first class defensive system that uses sophisticated defensive zoning - like the dees and freo. The dogs face a similar issue with their reliance on Naughton- again as demonstrated on the weekend. Everyone sees the blues forward line as being the ants pants. And it has become fashionable to bag ours. Apparently our connection is terrible. Well you'd expect to see that supposed gap between the two forward lines reflected in the scoring shot/inside 50 ratio. Yeah, nah. Tha AFL average for that measure is 43.4% Carlton, with the forward line to die for apparently, is 9th in the AFL, scoring 43.5% of the time when entering their 50. The dees, with the supposedly dysfunctional forward line, is 8th in the AFL at 43.6% If you use the shots at goal measure instead the gap between us and the blues is even greater. The blues have a shot at goal 46.8% of times they enter their 50 (below the afl average and 12th on that table). The dees have a shot at goal 47.7% of times they enter their 50. The blues goals to inside 50 is below the AFL average (23), but better than ours, albeit not by a huge margin (22.8 to 21.9) - and the gap is probably explained by our method (ie so many kicks to the pocket). This delusion about our forward line was brilliantly demonstrated straight after the lions win. As I was leaving the ground, I was listening to the abc post match wrap. Not sure who it was, but he said words to the effect that, yes the dees were impressive, but he is really concerned about our forward line (Brown down on form, poor 'connection', low contested marks inside 50 yada yada). Our score to inside 50 for that match was something like 67% - 20% more than the AFL average. Against the team that coming into the match was on top of the ladder. The dees might have 99 problems (96 of which are related to Bartlett) - but the forward line ain't one. I think the cats have been smart how they use Cameron to avoid the issue Carlton and the Dogs (and arguably also the lions) face. And Hawkins has slimmed down and gets up the ground more than he did. It's no coincidence they top the inside 50 scoring ratio table, scoring 46% of the time they go inside 50. Stats from this excellent site: https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html

Disagree completely with the first paragraph, but won't elaborate as to why so I can honour my vow (suffice to say you make my case in the last sentence of your post) . Agree with the second paragraph

Intersting post AoB. A comment and a question. You've nailed the shift in the game in terms of forward system and structures. Can be frustrating to watch as there are so many kicks to a contest. There two other related shifts. Territory is now king and keeping it in your half of the ground is critical. Kicking to a contest inside 50 supports achieving this. Pressure has always been important, but is now completely critical. Without it teams can't trap rhe ball inside their 50 - or at the other end can't disrupt the last kick inside 50, making it super difficult to stop opposition marks inside 50. My question - what is the switch everything style in the NBA?

Done. I won't mention loading again until round 10 next season, on dl or the podcast. (except to say our lack of connection up forward is directly correlated to loading, because it is is interconnected to our swarm - and just like last year, like magic, the issue will suddenly disappear. Same applies to freo' recent defensive struggles)

Cameron is a fantastic footballer. Great hands, one of the best kicks in the AFL (including his field kicking), high footy iq, athletic, huge tank and great hands In terms of his goal kicking, a challenge he faces against us is he is at his most dangerous when he turns his opponent around and runs back inside 50 with the flight of the ball and marks. Which works great against most teams. But we always have our deep spare, meaning instead of running back into an open 50, Cameron is running straight towards may, petty, Lever or Gus. Good luck with that.

I heard an interview with Richo either just before the pies game, or in the following few days, and he said we were going better than last year, noting that too often last year we were down at half time and had to fight back in the second half. Whereas this year we have started better and controlled leads more effectively (clearly a big focus this season). Richo also noted we had won more quarters than than at the corresponding stage last year