binman

Then I've got nothing!

De goey probably thinks it the name of some random sex act. Don't google it jordon!

Assuming Bala is Ballarat, and assuming you will come into rhe g via the west gate, my tip is get off at Power Street, turn right onto city road and then just after the first set of lights, turn left at the next set of lights (a 7-11 is on the corner). Right behind the 7-11 is the entrance to the publuc car park underneath the eureka tower. I think it's only $15 for the park (should be half given the ridiculous shortness of each bay!). Great spot for the city and g. You can cross the river right there and walk along the Yarra to the G 15 -20 minute walk tops. And when you leave you are straight onto the freeway again and avoid all rhe crazy traffic around the g on punt road, Alexandria Ave et etc.

Short answer, very.

Where's bala?

I'm a proud twit, but all duck and no dinner is an old school saying. My grandpa used to say it. Back then duck was an exotic meal and saved for the rich folk (save the hunters of course) and probably for special occasions too. And duck doesn’t have a huge amount of meat on it He used to say it when talking about someone he thought lacked substance. All show, no real depth. But I think it means more something like the duck is all well and good, looks great and is tasty. But won't sustain you - not like a proper dinner. In the context langers used it, he is is suggesting their run and and gun style looks great. And works when it works. But by itself it is not enough. He talked about our defensive strength, and from that I take he is implying our game is more dinner than duck. Defence first football us sustainable. I love it, as much as anything that langers chose to use the expression. Less enamoured by the one trick pony jibe, which is closer to a direct criticism, and I'm not a fan of bagging opponents. But either way, his comments won't have any bearing on the result. So, all good theatre.

They haven't introduced tenpo control to their game yet. I say yet, because I'm sure they will at some point. The other big difference to us is they rely on moving the ball quick and aggressively for their scoring. Langers is right - that represents a structural weakness in their method. Take it away and they will struggle to kick a winning score. But they are likely to keep trying to go fast, which means they are likely to turn it over heaps. That might be ok against orher teams, but we will prey on, and punish turnovers. Which is how we generate most of our scoring. The only way to take that away from us is not turn it over. And the only way of avoiding that, if we are on, is play safe don't take risks (eg take on the corridor) and go down the line. Which is what we want. Catch 22. We will smash them.

Do you have any theories that might explain a post bye drop off by one of our aerobic beasts?

I don't think the first scenario will happen. I prefer Hunt with more freedom to run and carry, but you're right, he did some shut down roles, so he could go to ginnivan

Maybe hunt or rivers to daicos? Hibberd to Elliot. I don't like rivers or hunt on ginnivan, so not sure who gets him - though hunt might have to. Our half forwards and mids who push up will be important in stopping ginnivan winning ground balls inside 50.

Agree. So you'd agree that if picked this week (which hw 100% will be) the answer is, yes, his defensive work is his kpi, ie ot 'outweighs his lack of offence'? By the by, on tbat point our defence drives our offence, ipso facto nibblers brilliant defensive work and incredible, often unrewarded, gut running up and down the ground makes an important contribution to our offence.

In response to a comment from MrFreeze that JVR could play Melk's defensive forward role, i just posted this in the training thread, but it probably fits here better: That's exactly what I thought. It would be the perfect role for him at this stage in career as his focus would be on sticking with an opposition interceptor (Moore?) and making sure they don't mark anything coming into our 50. Which given his desire to compete he would relish. Anything else would be a bonus. But to be honest melksham has done well enough in that role to keep his spot. And is obviously more experienced and probably physically stronger too. A couple of questions come to mind: If bb comes in, Melksham stays in, and weed goes out, who would go out for jvr if he is selected? Can bb, Melksham, Fritter AND JVR all fit into our forward line?

I watched last years round 21 game against the Eagles last night and was reminded that melksham played the defensive forward role then too (played mainly on McGovern). By the by, in that game tmac and viney were both outs and bb played as the lone tall forward. Vanders was the medi sub, and came on before half time for Hunt who did the ankle injury that sadly ruled him out for the rest of the season and finals.

That's exactly what I thought. It would be tbe perfect role for him at this stage in careers as his focus would be on sticking with an opposition interceptor (Moore?) and making sure they don't mark anything coming into our 50. Which given his desire to compete he would relish. Anything else would be a bonus. Bur to be honest melksham has done well enough in that role to keep his spot. And is obviously more experienced and probably physically stronger too. A couple of questions come to mind: If bb comes in, melksham stays in, and weed goes out, who would go out for jvr if he is selected? Can bb, melksham, fritter AND jvr all fit into our forward line?

Agree. It's a bit weird because I think their biggest need, by far, is a couple of high quality big bodied midfield bulls to compete with the bontempellis, cripps and Oliver types. And they don't really have an equivalent to extractors like viney and libba. Their other big need is one or two decent key forwards, particularly given lobb is likely to leave. Jackson would have to improve his forward craft a fair bit to fill a key forward role. They have a number one ruck, and a bloody good one, in darcy. So what need would Jackson fill? Unlikely i know, but maybe they are thinking of him playing as a mid?

As i have noted in this thread before, one of my top 3 analysts is Jimmy Bartel. His Monday morning review of the weekend's games on RSN breakfast is the best hour of footy analysis on radio or TV. And proof positive that the media don't need to dumb things down and can make analysis interesting. This week, Bartel made some fascinating comments about the Richmond v Lions game. He broke down their game styles/methods and discussed what the lions did tactically well in the first half (including an interesting comment about 'corridor bias'). I found it really interesting because our method has so many similarities with the tigers, for example Bartel noted how the Tigers look to play down the line and play skinny. Of most interest however was his explanation as to how he thinks the tigers got back into the match. In short, he said the lions want a fast, high tempo game so they can create space in their forward line for the talls and Cameron to lead into and generate one on ones. And they got this in the first half, in large part becuase of slack all team defence by the tigers - so the game was played on the lions term. In the second half Bartel said the tigers worked harder to spread and stop the kick to the corridor, the switch and the lions' fast transition. And in doing so forced the lions to go down the line. But the thing that really resonated for me in terms of the applicability to our method is the key thing they did, according to Bartel, was take the speed out of the game and control the tempo. Controlling the tempo of the game is a critical part of our method - whether that be to go slow to protect a lead or stop opposition momentum or to go fast when we want to press the button and surge. One of the really curious things about the loss to the dogs is we never once looked to slow the tempo of the game. We let the game be fast and high tempo for the entire match - which completely played into the dogs' hands (paws?) as that is exactly how they want the game to look. That had to be a conscious decision by Goody. And if so, the questions is why? My theory is he wanted to practice some fast ball movement and work on our offence. Anywhoo here's the link. The tiger's game is the first one he reviews. The dees are not discussed till right at the very end, and to be honest it is pretty bland, and brief, analysis. https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=1027378

Needs one more option - the pre prepared 'witty' word play/joke/alliteration etc wedged into some bit of play that doesn't quite fit. Double skol for when, after it clearly nor landing the first time, he tries it again later in the match. Dennis Commeti he ain't.

It is 3.25 becuase that price is close the true odds of us winning the flag and the punters jumped on board after they saw what we did to Freo I loaded up on the dees at the 3.75 you could get prior out the Freo game. I was hoping to get 4.00, but the punters were too smart and understood we are the real deal and the weight of money kept us under 4.00. For context we were 5.50 just prior to our round 20 game last year, which was well overs (as history proved). But the price difference between this year and last year, and the current odds for the flag, reflect the realty that there is really only two legitimate contenders this season (us and the cats), whereas as last year at this at this point in the season the dogs, lions, power and cats were all realistic contenders, as reflected by the betting market at that time (prior to round 20 last season, the dogs were fav, cats second fav, then us and then i think port or the lions). Personally i think the true odds of us winning the flag this year are aprox 2.80, so 3.25 still represents really good value (at least on my assessment of the true odds). I will be very surprised if we don't start the finals as clear favorites, and as short as 2.50 (it is worth nothing that only represents a 40% probability of winning the flag). I think the cats' true odds of winning the flags are aprox 4.00, so an option is laying them on betfair as at 3.25 i reckon they are well unders (ie under the true odds).

I doubt we changed our approach as such - Burgess didn't come to the club till 2020 (though we certainly would have had a lot of learnings!). By that I mean we were no doubt loading, but in 2018 we would have been preparing to make finals, nor a preliminary. Whereas the Eagles, for example, the eventual flag winner, would have been preparing to peak on preliminary final day.

Quote not edit

Yep - to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you dismissed the idea fitness levels wasn't a factor. Even if we were super fresh, mentally it would have tough to back up a third week after our run into the finals and two huge games at the g.

You might well be right. But one of the things I really dislike about not factoring in the impact of training regimes and preparation on a team's performance is how, in the absence of doing so, often the footy media's and fan's default explanation ends up a variation of mental weakness/soft/got ahead of themselves/didn't turn up type rubbish. It's just so mind numbingly simplistic and lacking any nuance.

Exactly. Against west coast Geelong were noticeably fatigued. Other teams were thrashing the Eagles at that point, but the cats just got over line. They won, but it was a sub optimal performance. The cat's method is not as aerobically taxing as ours, and not so reliant on defensive spread for other parts of their game to work, so it stands to reason that they will be less impacted by fatigue. Means they are more likely to win when loading. But still performing at a sub optimal level. Which they did against us - they made almost as many basic skill errors as us that game.

I didn't say they did