binman

Agree. Which is the risk of playing a defensive forward as it is by definition a role that isn't going to generate much scoring, so if you don't stop the defender intercepting you get little postive impact from the role.

Lots of talk about our forward line, but we scored enough to win, even with the ridiculous number of gilt edge opportunities we burnt. But as you say, our defence was the real problem. They were clever how tbey spread our talls, and they moved it quickly - though not crazy quickly i didn't think. Someone on this thread made the excellent point tbat Elliot stayed deep which stopped may being an anchor, but it also dragged hiibo deep and we got no bounce from him. And Elliot killed him for good measure. But leaving their tactics aside, all our defenders had mares. May has been out of form for weeks and Lever looks injured (though I thought he did well on ginnivan). Hibbo had his worst game since coming back in, rivers look flat footed and Salem is nowhere near his best.

Its a good question. Maybe goody thinks we need to win the flag? Whatever the reason, the changes are evident.

The pies pressure was incredible in the last quarter. Finals like pressure is a cliche, but that is what it was. By far best pressure we have faced tgis season. And we couldn't go with them, which is a shock. They deserved to win. If they can sustain that level of pressure through a finals campaign they are a real show of winning a flag. But from our side it was such a perplexing game tactically. It was so much like the dogs game in that we didnt control the tempo like we normally do. We allowed it to be a run and gun for the entire first half. Which was working, except we didn't capitalise. There was only one period- in the first few minutes of the third, where we looked to lock it in, but that was more about stopping their tempo, not us going slow deliberately to take the heat out of the game And there were other weird things. The crazy number of handballs. That wasn't a pressure thing, at least not in the first half. It was clearly a tactic. We almost doubled their handball count. And we went next level with our new long clearing handballls forward into space. So many of them Then there are the other departures from our template - one tall, melk as a defensive forward (though he played that role in a few games late last year), Gus into the middle, harmes as a sub, Jackson and maxy almost 50 50 in the ruck, may only taking 70 odd percent of kick outs and kicking out less often to the one area (no doubt influenced by not having g a second tall forward). It looks like they are trying implement some prety significant changes to the game plan, or at least adding some pretty major tweaks. Lots of people have been calling for less predictability from goody. Well, goody had answered that call. That unpredictability was a factor in tbe ladt I tgought. Yes their pressure was a huge factor, but we often looked unsure of what we were trying to implement.

I was sitting on the city side wing, and in the amount of times we ignored free players inside 50 at tbe punt road end was crazy. They are going inside 50 as of we have our two tall set up. But is that set up possible? It hard to see weed coming back in again this season. But if they dont pick JVR next week, maybe they have no choice but to pick weed as Smith won't be ready you wouldn't have thought. They are playing maxy up forward to cover the missing tall a bit, but to my eye he looks as if he is still carrying an injury. He was amazing lsdt night but doesn't seem to be able to elevate.

This.

Could not agree more. Shirs me to death. I have a reserved seat but prefer sitting at the top of the Ponsford. But the GA seats are way, way up in tbe boondocks. Crap view from up there.

Spargo and kossie are every bit as bad as Ginnivan. And selwood has been doing it for years, just not in front of goal so it has been ignored. I agree they shouldn't get a free if tbe6 demonstrably drop the knees, but personally I'd prefer more emphasis on the tackler not going high. Tackle them around the waist and its not an issue.

The way the poor bugger is being umpired he wouldn't get a free for that!

As has been discussed, the pies go fast and push up hard. They will find that method harder to implement againat us than almost any other team, particularly their and aggressive fast ball movement because we are so good at forcing and punishing turnovers. But if they do get forward, we are also better placed than any other team to get over or through their high press and scoring on transition from our defence. Think of our very first goal last week. The ball was trapped almost on freo's goal line and their half forwards and mids were pressed up high, the way the pies like to do. Once we won the ball we were able to get through ther press and out into space. Handball from trac to viney, back to tracc and a 60 metre kick to kozzie running back towards goal, having started up around the half back flank. His opponent couldn't go with kozzie. Tracc could have chosen other options as all our forwards had pushed up and were streaming forward. Took all of 30 seconds, and only for possessions to go from one end of the ground to the other. Bang, bang, bang.

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?