binman

There is no trick, no illusion. There is no house of cards. Admittedly we have had some luck, but we haven't been gifted some fortuitous draw and fluked our way to 9 zip. We are the real deal. I can't see us bringing our full heat today.We don't need to. They will dial it back a bit im sure. We need something in the tank for next week. But we will bring enough to get the job done. The line in this game is 25 points. We will make that not getting out of second gear. But that line is predicated on the crows bringing their very best pressure game. If they don't we will get on top early and smash the easing up in the last (which will annoy many im sure(. Im predicting a 57 point win. And that I'll read complaints we should have won by 100.

Last year? Try right up to 3/4 time of round 2 this year!

Well, we have the same number of tall forwards this week

Here's another one in a simlar vein. Quite funny actually: https://www.gq.com.au/fitness/sport/weighing-up-the-prospect-of-an-undefeated-melbourne-afl-season/news-story/4f425ea7ab7c7d0712a4b2efe2d98c26

So you don't plan on dressing up?

Has not aged well. One of those players has played every game this season in the best team in the AFL. And is an integral part of that team. The others, bar one, have, not The others, bar one, are not. One of the others can't crack a team in said best team. And one other did. And was dropped after one game, four possessions and negative 10 metres gained.

Brilliant design. Been meaning to buy one in previous years. Will buy this one

Is that you Donald?

It is not about optics. Though one person's optics is another person' leadership. Obviously he had the talent and was appointed on merit, but the only reason Mick Stinear was in a position to land the dees AFLW seniour coach job is that there was a coaching pathway for him, the opportunity to gain experience and infrastructure to support his development as coach. He captain-coached St Kilda City from 2012 to 2013, then coached Oakleigh Chargers for three years before being appointed the inaugural coach of our women's team. I don't know Mick, but i reckon it is safe to assume he has aspirations to coach at AFL level. The AFLW job has provided him a pathway to say an assistant coach role, and perhaps ultimately a senior AFL coaching job. It goes without saying that it is important that the pathways Mick Stinear benefited from also exist for women. And currently they don't. And it goes without saying that both women and men's football will be much better for having women in coaching and development roles at all levels, from junior football, country footy, ammos etc. etc - and of course the AFLW and AFL. Why? For the same reason the AFL works so hard to get kids to chose aussie rules over other sports, which in large part to increase the talent pool and by doing so increase the standard of the players playing at the elite level (and of course grow the game and supporter base). By building the infrastructure and systems and developing pathways for women to coach at AFLW and AFL level you increase the pool of talented coaches and therefore the over all talent level of coaching. And more women stay involved in the game because there is a pathway. Think of someone like Daisy. I have no doubt she would be a brilliant coach. She is whip smart, has incredible understanding of the game and is a brilliant communicator. As it stands what is the pathway for Daisy to a senior AFLW coaching role - or senior AFL coach for that matter? It is crazy that we might lose her to the game for wont of a pathway. Or Paxy for instance. I don't know how many women are assistant coaches in the AFLW. Not many i would think, and likely not one in AFL (Peta Searle was a development coach for the saints 2014-17, making her the AFL’s first full-time female assistant coach - and as far as i know the only one then or since). Peta Searle is the only women senior AFLW coach after Bec Goddard resigned after two years and a flag at the Crows. Surely no-one could argue that we need more women involved in coaching, particularly in the AFLW? The demons and dogs were leaders in driving women's football to the establishment of the AFLW, with our annual matches that started way back in 2013. Appointing a woman to coach our AFLW team would be be natural extension of that leadership and particularly apt given we have the the first female president in our 165 year history. And by the by there is no way Mick Stinear could be considered the coach of the year last year. Not making the grand final was a fail, pure and simple. His game plan, that worked great in the home and away season, broke down under the Crow's heat. And to be honest he has escaped scrutiny. Given the talent we have had and the head start we had on the rest of the competition, to not have won a flag in five seasons is also a fail (noting of course 2020 was abandoned and we had made the GF). Here are two interesting, relevant articles to the topic of pathways and women coaching in football: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/nov/10/lisa-alexander-afl-netball-coach-job-experience https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-25/hawthorn-names-all-female-vflw-coaching-panel/12920762

I'm perplexed by the decision to melksham. But as Wadda we sing quite rightly noted at 9-zip you have to give the selection committee credit where it is due. And as nasher has pointed out of course we are not privy to roles, kpis, plans etc That said I don't understand the comments that he is in because he is better option than chandler. It is complete false equivalence. He's nor replacing chandker. For one thing, chandler's role was a small pressure forward. They might have thought they needed an extra one last week in the likely slippery conditions and to offset Brown and weeds lack of inside 50 pressure. Melksham is decidedly not a small pressure forward. I have a vague memory that he is, or was, a plumber. If so I'd never get him to fix my water pressure issues. He'd be clueless as to what base line pressure is. And secondly there are a other options that could have been selected. Captain Jack sparrow for one. He has been in the best at Casey for the ladt two games. And if he was a plumber I would get him to fix my shower. And if they wanted a small forward who could pressure, what about Bedford?

I have an idea where we could meet to celebrate on rhe Sunday after a grand final win. Like other clubs they will celebrate at their home base. We could all go out to Casey wirh all the demon fans. If we all wear dees colours we will be able to spot each other

Mint condition. Virgin vinyl.

Fair call.

Sure. But lets say he plays well against an inexperienced, young backline? What does that prove in terms of his ability to play say the dogs the following week. He better lay some inside 50 tackles and apply elite pressure. If he doesn't and he stays in I'm just not sure what message that sends to the rest of the squad.

Good call. Macrea is rated highly, but still under rated i reckon. A gun. And with Caleb Daniel the best kick in the AFL in my humble. An important payer in the way they move the ball, so reducing the number of clean possessions he gets would disrupt their system a bit. As you say Bont is too big to stop to an extent. Key will be trying to ensure he gets any clearances under pressure and if possible on the defensive side of the stoppage. That said i'd sit Hibberd on him when he goes forward.

Melksham in? On what basis?

Can't have too many fortresses

Agree. It will be fascinating to to see if Goodwin runs a tag on one of their mids. You'd have to think he will be tempted to run Harmes on one of them given the importance of negating their impact from clearances. Who would you tag?

Like it. I think you EO and AF are all right, in so far as model has elements of the three systems you each describe. The model you describe has many similarities to tacti's employed in basketball, particularly forcing the opposition to have their possession in places that are easy to defend - which in basketball is the sidelines and the end of court lines. Using the lines as extra defender is basketball 101 and it has the added benefit of reducing the exit options, so making any exit easier to defend (eg by squeezing with numbers) and more predicable. The other benefits are that it slows transition and makes any attempt to 'cross' the ball to other side of the court or middle lane side risky in terms of turning the ball over. And if it is turned over in that scenario it often results in a fast break and easy lay up basket, something that we replicate sometimes (eg our third goal of the game against the blues that started in a defensive pocket up against the boundary line and ultimately went end to end with Clarry roving and kicking a goal from 2 meters).

Fair points. You're right they are by far the best kicking team in the AFL. And yes, really good kicking technique will stand up to pressure better than poor technique. But as the tigers showed apply enough pressure and even their skills will crumble. They turned the ball over time and time again in the second half that game. The advantage we have over the tigers is we have a much better defensive system in place and all teams have struggled to transition the ball, which means we can get our defensive system in place. And as King noted in the vison that was discussed earlier in this thread, even when a team does transition the ball quickly, our structure means they often have to hold it up at their HF line because we have our deep goal keeper back, who is often supported by our two wingers (particularly Gus) and flankers. So even with their kicking skills. they, like all teams we have played, will struggle to hit a target inside their 50 becuase our zone is so strong and we give opposition forwards so little space. They will struggle to hit up leading forwards because their forwards will not have any space to lead into, particularly at the docklands. And Naughton will have to deal with May one on one and Lever floating across the contest. Good luck with that. We were playing ducks and drakes with the dogs in the preseason game. But that game gave a glimpse of why they will struggle to score against us as we did well to contain them without 3 of our best mids in. The challenge for the dogs is similar to the challenge the blues face (albeit of a different level of order) ie that they have defensive weakness. So they need to score 80 plus point to win their games. Whereas we are defensively much stronger. We can beat them without clicking offensively, whereas i don't think the reverse is true, becuase with their defence, even if we are not 100% on offensively they will struggle to contain us to under 80 points. We can bet them even with a score of say 70 points.

I said at the start of the year that i could se it working having all of Brown, Tmac, Weed and Jackson (and Fritter) in the same team - but did make the point it was unlikely the club would run all four. My thinking was that Jackson could play as high half forward, essential a medium, such is his agility, pace, skills and ability to win ground balls. In that role it would be similar to the role Melksham played. So it remains the 3 talls. Tmac could also play as high half forward, which is essentially the role he is playing now. However for that mix to work my thought was that Brown and in particular Weed would have to apply really high levels of pressure. And Brown doesn't seem agile enough to and unfortunately Weed doesn't seem keen to, as evidenced by zero inside 50 tackles last week (and rubbish pressure rating). But if they are ever going to try playing Brown, Tmac, Weed and Jackson (and Fritter) in the same team, this is the week to do it. So selection will be fascinating at 6pm tonight.

On the above, one can only imagine how the pre show phone call between McGuire and McClure went: McGuire: Sellers, mate, WTF? I've got a show to run here and our resident princess is all worked up and in tiz about you and what you bloody said on that joke of a show you are on - football from all angles, there are no bloody angles in a 360 degree circle! McClure: yeah, i know, the bloody snowflake called me and was practically in tears. Look to be honest, i actually can't really remember who said what, i'd had a couple of bevvies with Robbo pre show, well more than couple if truth be told and of course they wanted to talk about how pathetic the blues are. I watched your rubbish show with all your suits and i was sure 'Matty' said something about the coaches McGuire: Sellars, mate, it was that private school [censored] everyone thinks is your son, you peanut McClure: my son? who? Oh, you mean little Sammy boy. My son? Would have disowned him in primary school. Actually, now you mention it, it was him. Can't really recall what he said though McGuire: Jesus H Christ, Sellers, don't you think i have enough on my plate getting Browny in as Pres of the pies and all that [censored]? Alright mate, leave it with me, i'll sort it. I'll calm the princess down McClure: thanks mate. Lets catch up on the weekend for a beer.

McGuire is one of the most self focused people in football and trades on the old school, boys club network of 'mates' to have his back and in return he has theirs. All well and good. Except when a president of a football club If you want to get an understanding of how he operates check this clip out: https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/matthew-lloyd-fumes-over-mark-maclure-claims-reagarding-carlton-coaches/5eac0ec8-9933-4660-8a32-b2f909eab364 Despite the fact that Lloydd is beyond upset AND IS A COLLEAGUE of McGuire (on the show eddie hosts), McGuire all but dismisses his concerns. He also tries to put the whole to thing to bed a couple of times by stating how great it is that McClure (who he calls a great bloke) has apologized. All nothing to see here, Sellar's a great bloke, let's move on And he blurts out that he called McClure right before the show to check it out what happened. I'll bet he didn't check with lloyd before doing so (Lloyd said he called McClure immediately after the 360 aired). Then defends him by saying he got his wires crossed and it was Sam McClure who supposedly made the comments in question. Which actually makes it less defensible, not more (ie he attributed the comments to Lloyd and implied his brother leaked him information)! And he tries to wrap it up by, predictably making it about Collingwood and the supposedly false rumors Buckley has lost the players. Classic Eddie deflection. Tone deaf and utterly pathetic. The clip end with a clearly seething Lloyd responding to Eddie's deflection with 'i know he's your mate eddie' but it is not on. if i was Lloyd i would be just as angry with McGuire. Surely the Pies can't let McGuire get back into the club via his mate, Brown. He is poison.

In terms of our pressure and how important it is to our game plan, i just read this in the Age: the Demons are ranked No.1 in the pressure factor and in post-clearance pressure

Thanks. It's intersting port's pressure wasn't at the level it needed to be. Explains how underwhelmed many were about their performance, including their coach. Agree about the importance of not letting them get on top of clearances. And when they do win them, minimising their effectiveness. Key to both, and our chances of beating them is our pressure being off the charts. Which is a potential weakness of our model, particularly in the home and away season, because it is hard to maintain that level. But it is a weakness we control not the opposition. We bring the heat, or we dont. But as you point out the dogs have defensive weakness. And rhe opposition can control that. The focus in the media and on dl when we play them will be on their crazy good midfield, and their damaging clearnces. Which is fair enough. But they really have to worry about our clearances. Because with their average backline and no real star interceptor, and our three towers and fritter we will hurt them big time with clean entries (as of course they will though not as bad becauseour defence is miles better). But unlike them, we will hurt them even with scrappy inside 50s because we will get it to ground, force stoppages and trap inside our forward half. And our small and medium will go to work. Cant wait.