binman

7 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Our senior mids were the culprits. Trac, Viney and Clarry. They all dump kicked repeatedly inside.

Now they're learning to give the hands or go shorter.

A good example is trac handballing sharp in the seans game to set a running goal rather than bombing for goal himself.

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Sam Ting Bin

No it's not.

2 minutes ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

I thought he was very good today in his work rate, clean hands and quality kicking. I am still unsure how he fits at AFL intensity but if he keeps presenting and making most of chances like he did today he could well develop an AFL career.

Yep, back to back solid games with good intensity.

Times his leads super well.

10 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Anyone? Bueller?

Neat

Noah yze kicks a beauty

30 minutes ago, Heart Beats True said:

The umpire whistles coming through the effects mic from the surrounding grounds is bloody annoying.

Sound is nor synced properly with the vision, at least it is for me, meaning the whiistle is slightly ahead of the play, which very annoying.

25 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Razor has clearly explained this on numerous occasions. Basically if you kick it up the line (regardless of the type of kick and where it's being kicked from / to) and it bounces roughly parallel with the line (doesn't have to be perfectly straight ie; it can move around left right or whatever...it's a general rule not judged on a ruler's edge as such) then it's not deliberate. So if you kick it from near the line and it runs / bounces a few times and happens to roll over the line, it's not deliberate.

You have to be kicking it in board (starting well away from the line eg; 20 - 30 meters or more inside) and angling it towards the boundary line for it to be any chance of deliberate. It's the angle you kick it on that matters.

However, there's also the situation where players may intend to kick up the line or even in board but are swung around or impacted in the tackle off balance and it just happens to to go out. The umps need to use their common sense and understanding of the nuances of the game in these situations. Trouble is their understanding is often hit and miss or poor here as well!

Unfortunately umps adjudicate it very diff between themselves and depending on which team's doing the kicking.

There's also the situation that the ball can start off bounces parallel to the line but then the line curves inwards because it's an oval and the ball can't help but go out. That shouldn't be deliberate either.

me posting to the wrong thread mono

It's not deliberate.

Its insufficient intent to keep the ball I the field of play.

50 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Swans are 20th on the ladder (out of 21 teams) with only one win for the year.

We're 13th on 3.5 wins (1.5 games out of 8)

Should be a comfortable win but as usual I'll be looking for system and particularly forward movement and delivery.

Tholstrup is probably the key watch.

All true.

But it should never noted that whilst we have 15 AFL listed players they have 11.

17 hours ago, Dees_In_October said:

Demonstrating how he keeps reinventing himself?

1 hour ago, KC from Casey said:

Look forward to your on the spot reporting. 😃

Any truth in the rumours you are reporting from your studio in South Melbourne?

19 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

By my calculations, across the first nine rounds Petracca had 47 kicks inside 50 with one resulting in a mark for a teammate. Through 11 rounds, he is three from 58 with two of his kicks against Brisbane being marked.

Here are the Melbourne players with 15+ kicks inside 50, sorted by mark percentage and then retention percentage.

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a mark, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Mark	%
2	Charlie Spargo	18	9	50.0%
12	Christian Salem	21	8	38.1%
20	Kysaiah Pickett	28	10	35.7%
36	Jake Melksham	25	8	32.0%
70	Trent Rivers	27	7	25.9%
74	Jack Viney	28	7	25.0%
86	Caleb Windsor	25	6	24.0%
103	Kade Chandler	27	6	22.2%
129	Harvey Langford	25	5	20.0%
164	Xavier Lindsay	18	3	16.7%
233	Clayton Oliver	27	3	11.1%
236	Ed Langdon	28	3	10.7%
249	Jake Bowey	24	2	8.3%
253	Max Gawn	27	2	7.4%
267	Christian Petracca	58	3	5.2%
269	Tom Sparrow	22	1	4.5%
275	Harrison Petty	15	0	0.0%

Kicks inside 50 resulting in a possession being retained by the team, 2025, 15+ kicks
Note: includes all kicks where possession was taken outside 50, the kick was taken from outside 50, and the next possession was inside 50.

Rank	Player	Kicks	Retained	%
28	Kysaiah Pickett	28	17	60.7%
30	Jake Melksham	25	15	60.0%
46	Kade Chandler	27	15	55.6%
46	Charlie Spargo	18	10	55.6%
78	Christian Salem	21	11	52.4%
87	Jake Bowey	24	12	50.0%
114	Max Gawn	27	13	48.1%
139	Ed Langdon	28	13	46.4%
162	Caleb Windsor	25	11	44.0%
162	Harvey Langford	25	11	44.0%
192	Tom Sparrow	22	9	40.9%
195	Trent Rivers	27	11	40.7%
206	Jack Viney	28	11	39.3%
240	Harrison Petty	15	5	33.3%
259	Christian Petracca	58	18	31.0%
261	Clayton Oliver	27	8	29.6%
275	Xavier Lindsay	18	4	22.2%

And people wonder why Spargo is a best 22 lock.

3 hours ago, Dee Boys said:

Yep the deebrief guys are always complimentary about demonland, don’t think anyone does or should see it as a “rivalry”.

Yep, no rivalry at all.

To the contrary, its terrific there's two good dees pods and i reckon they compliment each other really well as they are both a bit different in style.

All power to the dee brief team (by the by it's a great name for a dees pod)

1 minute ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Pedantic point: We beat them in Alice by 3 points in 2020 https://www.saints.com.au/matches/2859

I forgot about that. That's another black mark on that podcast and in particular Birch's 'analysis'.

They actually implied Saints hadn't played there (but i was dubious which is I added the i dont tkink caveat) and as a result didn't point out an obvious flaw in Birch's 4-6 rationale - ie, the dees might well have lost 6 of their games at Traeger Park, but one of their wins was against the Saints (who may have lost 100% of their games there?)

17 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

The most surprising thing in this thread is that people have been bothering to listen to a footy podcast produced by The Age.

I won't be making that mistake again I can assure you.

13 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Am I the only one who finds this endless comments about injuring or crippling players for revenge quiet appalling.

Agree cranky, calling for violence is a red line for me.

I understand the anger, though to be honest any residual anger I feel is directed at the AFL for the sham that was his non suspension and their role in the shameful thug washing of maynard"s reputation.

I'm happy for the karma bus to hit Maynard.

Then stop, reverse, and back over him.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

i listened to her on the real footy tipping podcast

she makes her disdain for the mfc clear

Out of interest i just listened to some of the podcast.

Firstly, leaving aside her feelings about the dees, after earlier saying in a different context that the saints only had 2 decent players, she picks the Saints to win.

Nothing wrong with that on its face - as I've noted earlier in this thread it's definitely a danger game.

Given it supposedly a podcast focused on tipping the winners in the upcoming round I had expected some analysis, and certainly the rationale for selections.

Birch's rationale for setting the Saints? That the our record on the 10 games we gave played ar the Alice is four wins, six losses.

I mean c'mon, that makes zero sense - for one thing those games cover a 10 year period.

Perhaps, at a strech, you could say last year's flogging by freo is relevant (she didn't) but any further back has zero relevance to our chances this week.

Actually, it probably does a little - but in a positive sense for the dee as we have 10 years experience of travelling there and all that entails. Surely that's an advantage over the saints who I dont think have ever played there.

And that was it. That was her sole reason for selecting the saints - that our record at the Alice is 4-6.

Though she tipped her hand as to the real reason a couple of minutes later.

One of the other hosts said he thought Melbourne were 'starting to play really good football.....' before Birch completely cut him off to say contemptuously 'oh, they're still pretenders'.

The co hosts were surprised, noting the dees are her former club, and after expressing their surprise, one asked for her 'analysis' as to why she thinks that given our current form

Her response?

Because, and this is a direct quote, 'the only reason they are playing well is they have nothing to lose'.

I mean please, that's pub level rubbish.

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Did anyone listen to the DeeBrief podcast with Robbo's Rundown the other day?

Robbo said we're doing absolutely everything we can to keep him and the podcast's host "Naughtsie" was told second hand from a Melbourne best 23 player that it's clear and obvious that the club is going absolutely above and beyond for Kozzie.

Robbo has us at a 60/40 chance of keeping him. But my question is: was he talking about 60/40 keeping him next year, or 60/40 extending him when his contract expires. That part wasn't clear.

Robbo also revealed that he personally received offers from other clubs that were so far in excess of what we offered him back in the day. He brought those offers to the attention of the club, the club refused to budge and yet he remained loyal to the MFC. The MFC treated him like family since he moved over from Tassie and he therefore couldn't leave them.

I'd post a youtube link of the episode, but I feel as though the podcast producer is a competitor of Demonland so I decided not to.

It was posted in another thread.

I won't/can't speak for Andy, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't mind other pods etc being promoted or shared. I certainly don't.

The more the merrier when it comes to dees stuff.

Is it a good interview (I plan to watch it)?

This game be like:

How did we lose to the bombers?

How did we beat the lions?

8 minutes ago, Stu said:

One thing to consider is the dimensions of Traeger Park make it difficult to flood/congest. It is 9 metres longer and 3 metres wider than Marvel. If Ross wants to try to congest the contest, he risks us getting on the outside and leaving lots of space for our forwards to work in.

7 out of the 10 games played there have had at least one team that scored over 90 points.

Ta Stu, that's interesting.

You're spot on that will hinder the Saint's ability to claim up our forward line.

And even if they flood back into our forward line (which they will) if we're on we are smashing teams when the ball hits the deck inside 50.

10 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Serious question, can anyone walk me through how it has come to pass that since The Brayshaw incident, the desire to incessantly rehabilitate the image of Maynard continues in certain sections Of the media? As in, why him. He’s a middle of road player. What gives, what am I not Understanding?

Though to be fair, it's an accurate headline.

Maynard does perfectly embody the mindless thuggery and low IQ that is in the DNA of the Collingwood Football club.

6 hours ago, Colm said:

@binman I know it’s getting a bit of topic for this thread but I wonder if the opposite might be true for Collingwood heading into the Kings birthday game. They have a 10 day break before that game and a 12 day break after.

Would you be thinking that they will ramp up their loading ahead of our game and look to put in a really good block over that 22 period? They are top and can afford to risk losing one or two to be cherry ripe for the business end.

We might be getting them at a good time is what I hoping for.

I reckon there's a reasonable chance you're right - it would make sense on a few levels.

One, as you suggest the timing works in terms of the breaks they have.

Two, again as you say they can afford to risk losing a game or too (just as we could in 2022 and 2023)

Three, and this one hurts a bit - they might have assessed us a game they could take that risk and still win.

As i noted above it would be ironic if we are cherry ripe in that game and they are fatigued from loading.

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I hope that's not the case

I'd be prioritising the game we have a better chance of winning, otherwise we run the risk of losing both games.

Yep, i can see that logic, and of course i'm just guessing so there's every chance i'm way off base.

I just wonder, given how poorly we have played in the Queens, Kings birthday game in the last few years (ironically, in large part because, IMO, we have been loading at this point in previous seasons) if the idea might be to be cherry ripe for the game.

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I think he’s referring to Collingwood upping the training not us

Nup, was referring to us.

12 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Again, the stats don't support this. A significant shift in our ball movement, defensive pressure, territory and forward half intercepts all started from round 6 onwards. I find it amusing that Binman questions this when the first thing on the Freo episode of the podcast he mentions the change in our pressure rating which has clearly gone through the roof since round 6.

Wotcha ya talking about Willis?

When i have i questioned that the big change since round 6 has been our pressure and contest?

The answer to that question is never.

As you note, i made that exact point after the Freo game and have banged on about it since, both on the pod and on DL. As i have said many times pressure is the most important stat in footy - doesn't matter what game plan a team uses it won't work optimally if the pressure is not high enough.

Take the lions - everyone knows what their game plan looks like. In the last quarter against us they applied woeful pressure and as a result could not come close to implementing their method ad looked nothing like they do when they are up and about. The next week they applied relentless pressure again the Hawks for the whole game and hey presto were able to implement their game plan.

You are correct to say our increased pressure has been a catalyst for increased time in forward half, forward half turnovers and in turn higher scores. Those improvements are not possible without getting our pressure right - they are symptoms no causes.

But our shift to applying elite pressure is not an example of us changing our game plan or method, it is an example of playing in a manner that is nonnegotiable, a fundamental, if teams want to be competitive in the AFL, regardless of their method. It's a minimum standard - one we did not meet in round ones to five.

Bottom line is you are wrong - there hasn't been a 'significant shift in our ball movement', or for that matter our method or game plan, which you have implied is the case in previous posts. Which was Joey Montagna's exact point as evidenced by the data he highlighted.

Again, it doesn't matter what game plan a team uses it won't work optimally if the pressure is not high enough. Applying AFL standard pressure has simply enabled us to execute and implement a game plan they started developing in the 2024 preseason and for much of the 2024 season (before reverting to straight line footy later in the season, i suspect to minimise losses and try and eke out some win - something Goodys publicly said he regrets doing, ie he thinks he should have stuck fat with the new game plan).

Last week i made the case that dees at 2.10 were overs and therefore represented value.

I also made the point that thinking we were value is not the same as thinking we would win, but that in fact i did think we would win.

Putting my punting hat on again for our game against the Saints it's sort of the opposite scenario.

I do think we'll win but the current odds of 1.49 is unders (ie under the true odds) IMO - and therefore the 2.64 you can get for the Saints is overs (but i still wouldn't back them because a good rule of thumb is not backing flakey teams you can't trust - and the saints are well and truly in that camp).

All things being equal, the plus 11 points Is better value.

But all things aren't equal.

As I noted last week, I don't bet on dees games, but if i did I would stay well away from this match (for any bet) because there's just too many variables, which taken together make this the very definition of a danger game.

Despite being in much, much better form than the saints I'm actually less confident this week than i was against because of these variables:

• Lyon will coach to nullify and negate - no chance he goes with a fast ball movement game plan that would advantage us

• Further to that point, Lyon will be focused on disrupting our method (look for us to have a huge number of uncontested kicks and marks accross our half back line as I reckon Lyon will flood back and not press up on the ball carrier)

• This creates a problem for us as, unlike say the Pies, our method is a woekk in progress and we don't have much experience dealing with scenarios where our opponents are hyper focused on disrupting our method as opposed to focusing first and foremost on their own method

• The game is at the Alice - unique ground, unique environment, both teams travelling etc

• I wonder if our high performance program is geared towards being in optimal shape on Kings birthday at the potential expense of this game (ie bigger block of training into this game then taking advantage of the 8 day break to taper into the pies game)

• After three huge matches in a row, and one coming up next game, Is there any risk of players subconsciously not being fully switched on?

One variable I was really worried about was the weather.

Heavy rain was predicted in the lead up which risked making surface really spongy as it doesn't drain well apparently.

And of course rain on game day would not help our cause and conversely help the Saints.

Bur fortunately i dont think there's been any hige downpours this week and apart from 1mm forecast today it's dry up to, and including, match day.

This is a huge game for us given how important the 4 points are to any chance we have of making finals. Bur I'm really nervous about it.

Key will be taking our chances early and putting scoreboard pressure on them. If we do i could see us opening them up and putting a big score padt them.

If we don't, and the Saints stay there,vor thereabouts, i fesr we are in for a very anxious watch.