binman
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by binman
-
-
-
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).
-
7
-
-
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.
-
9
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Wells 11 said: I hate to be pragmatic but I don’t think playing finals is the be all and end all in 2025. Imo It’s more important that we’ve gone close, beaten some top sides on the way and proven our style of play. Worth remembering we missed the finals in 2020 in those circumstances.
Be great to make it of course but I don’t think we’re going to win it in 25 even if we do make it. 2026 might feel like a different beast.
I was thinking something very similar this arvo.
Like all dees fans I hated the thought after our loss to the bombers that finals were our of the question. Uggh
Of course i hope we make finals, but just being in the frame for finals now creates an energy and buzz.
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, binman said: Just watched the Wednesday night First Crack.
At the top of the show, Montagna's 'first crack' was the Demons and pushing back on the ridiculous notion that something magic happened after our loss to the bombers to turn our season around.
(@Demonland any chance you could put the clip in this thread?)
He showed a bunch of key stats comparing round 1-6 and 6-11 to make the point the game plan and method has not changed and that our wins are a result of more successfully implementing the game plan (a game plan David King correctly noted we began developing in 2024).
He noted what has changed is our pressure and contest which has resulted in increased turnovers, which in turn has driven higher scores (he said we averaged 60 points per game rounds 1 to 6 and from round 6-12, 97 points)
Actually there was one interesting tweak, one that is perhaps a little counter intuitive given the improvement in our scoring.
In the last six games we are using the corridor a lot less.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
Edited by binman
2 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said: Exactly what I was about to say the notion we turned this around in a flight back from Adelaide, a recovery session, 1 main session, a captain’s run and a few review and strategy meetings is laughable.
There’s a lot who don’t understand the background work which goes in over a sustained period to implement a plan and break ingrained habits is huge
Just watched the Wednesday night First Crack.
At the top of the show, Montagna's 'first crack' was the Demons and pushing back on the ridiculous notion that something magic happened after our loss to the bombers to turn our season around.
(@Demonland any chance you could put the clip in this thread?)
He showed a bunch of key stats comparing round 1-6 and 6-11 to make the point the game plan and method has not changed and that our wins are a result of more successfully implementing the game plan (a game plan David King correctly noted we began developing in 2024).
He noted what has changed is our pressure and contest which has resulted in increased turnovers, which in turn has driven higher scores (he said we averaged 60 points per game rounds 1 to 6 and from round 6-12, 97 points)
-
4
-
4
-
5
-
-
Edited by binman
1 hour ago, Pennant St Dee said: Exactly what I was about to say the notion we turned this around in a flight back from Adelaide, a recovery session, 1 main session, a captain’s run and a few review and strategy meetings is laughable.
There’s a lot who don’t understand the background work which goes in over a sustained period to implement a plan and break ingrained habits is huge
Exactly. Does my head in - particularly when such ignorance is the starting point for criticisms of goody and the club.
Just one tiny example of how long it takes to implement new strategies is our use of long handballs and handball chains.
I noted on the 2024 preseason pod that in our practice match against the tigers at Casey we seemed to be practising using really long forward handballs and handball chains. We used both a little bit in the 2024 season but they weren't a feature of our method.
Track watchers noted we were practising long forward handballs and handball chains this preseason, which I noticed too in the 2 preseason sessions i went to.
And now, after 2 full preseasons of practice, long forward handballs and high risk handball chains have become a key feature of our method.
-
7
-
1
-
-
Edited by binman
22 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said: A knock on or handball counts as a score involvement and will contribute to the player ratings. A forward crashing the pack causing the ball to come to ground, or dropping a mark but still preventing the defender taking possession/mark, doesn't count as a score involvement nor does it contribute to the player ratings.
Which makes AJ's player rating of -2.7 even worse given it includes 2 score involvements (both goal assists i think) that im pretty sure were both from tap ons - one to set up a Sharp goal and the other Salem's goal.
Not wanting to bag AJ, but I noted in another thread that he only had one kick.
I watched the replay again last night (such a fun game to watch) - AJ's one kick was on the full (so therefore a turnover and clanger).
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, jnrmac said: We did hit the post 4 times. Split that and it looks a lot better
Two of which, Melk and Koz, just shaved the inside of the post (which by the by if i was AFL CEO for a day would count as a goal).
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
Edited by binman
Just now, He de mon said: Interestingly, both Langford and Lindsay have seemed to fit in seamlessly. I wonder if it is because they haven’t been exposed to the old game plan.
That, and in their junior footy career they were probably playing in teams using a transition-based method, one that puts a premium on kicking skills (which is a factor i reckon in how many of the high-end draft picks in the last 2 seasons are elite kicks).
-
5
-
-
Edited by binman
9 minutes ago, PaulRB said: I’d add a third critical element, the return of Picket, McVee and Windsor, all of which had delayed/interrupted starts to the season.
Kozzie outright gun but our kids are all recruited for this new game style. Langford and Lindsay have slotted in seamlessly.
Great call - i completely overlooked that.
Having Koz in particular, but also Mcvee, Lever and Windsor back in the team, and having so few injuries atm, is probably the single biggest factor in both our capacity to implement our method and our improved performance.
Rome wasn't built with second string architects and engineers.
-
3
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Farmer said: I agree with your post and can’t be bothered reading the 1000 earlier ones. The last two recruiting sessions have concentrated on quality of disposal. The bunch of youngsters ,recruited for last year or this year, on top of McVee , Bowie and Chandler, offer a much greater chance of the new gameplan, compared with the previous . In retrospect, the first 5 rounds were not a surprise. Langford and Lindsay were new, McVee was out, injured, Bowie still recovering from his long term 2024 injury. Windsor, such a success last year on a wing, was turned into a HBF. We are now seeing the benefit of first rate, well planned recruiting which has enabled the new game plan
100% agree about our recruitment - and we probably still need to bring in at least one more gun runner with elite foot skills (trade one in?).
And as you suggest, the improved ability to implement the game plan is also a function of time and practice. Rome wasn't built in a day.
-
3
-
-
Edited by binman
57 minutes ago, Dee Boys said: 
Ta.
On a semi related topic, that article comes close to echoing an irritating narrative that some in the media are running with, one i hope dees fans push back on when it's parroted to them by football nuffies.
Sure, we've made some tweaks, most notably with selection, and we have adapted our tactics in individual games to negate oppo strengths (something goody has been criticised in the past for NOT doing yet is getting zero kudos for doing so this season).
But we didn't change our method after our first 5 losses.
I mean, that's just dumb - as if we are going to change a game plan and method that has been 2 years in the making (I maintain we began the process of moving to a more transition based game plan in the 2024 preseason) five games into a season.
What we've done is improved how well we are implementing the game plan, and key to that has been two interrelated factors:
Improved capacity to run out quarters and games
Massive increase in our pressure and contest (which has driven an increase in scores from turnover, particularly forward half turnovers which in turn has driven higher scoring)
-
9
-
52 minutes ago, Watson11 said: Binman, we have had at least one game since 2018 with a higher score. In 2021.
Would you believe.... home away
-
4
-
-
On 25/05/2025 at 19:49, Gibberish said: I'm happy we're winning, but I'm still not convinced. Seems like we've just found a different way to waste inside 50s.
They say that to be a good game plan it needs to hold up in finals.
To me it just looks like Ross Lyons St Kilda and Fremantle teams where they won a majority or the game a majority of the time but never made enough scoreboard pressure to withstand the minority game when the pendulum swung the other way.
The previous game plan never looked far away, it was the forward line and forward entries that let us down. Call me the pessimist but I don't see that much has changed.
Never made enough scoreboard pressure?
You're a hard marker given the 131 points we put past the Swans is our highest score since 2018.
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, DubDee said: Not happy with 36 shots on goal from 64 entries?
That’s the highest % from the weekends games
I think I heard that in the last six weeks we are top 3 for scores per inside 50.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 13/05/2025 at 10:07, Bring-Back-Powell said: A loss to the Hawks with 7 of their best 23 players out, all of whom would absolutely be in their side if a final was played tomorrow.
Another last quarter fade out.
Continued inept inaccuracy on the most perfect day of footy.
The same old deficiencies rearing their head on our biggest test of the year to date.
He's simply out of form as a coach and has been for a long period of time.
Two weeks ia a long time in football.
-
5
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Demonstone said: This is an old post of mine, which may give you an indication what a dreadful place it was.
In round 20 of 1982, my Demon mate and I went to Victoria Park for the first (and last) time to watch Melbourne play Collingwood. We found standing room in a packed outer but soon realised we were surrounded by a seething mob of dirty, ugly, loud, abusive, obscene, smelly and toothless black and white supporters. Almost without exception, they were drunk, smoking like chimneys, swearing like wharfies and even at this early stage of the day fighting amongst themselves. Rather than relinquish their spot in the crowd, they were peeing where they stood. Some of the men were just as bad.
We started well with the wind but the Pies had regained the lead by half-time. The third quarter was all ours with eight goals and in the last, we kicked another eight to finish all over them by nine goals. Glenn McLean was magnificent that day, marking everything in sight and earning the three Brownlow votes. Collingwood were so impressed that they traded for him and you will rapt to hear that Glenn went on to have a wonderful two-game career with the Pies.
Having kept very, very quiet all day for fear of attracting the wrong sort of attention, the beers (ice-cold cans!) finally got the better of me and this is when I did the craziest thing in my life. As Mark 'Jacko' Jackson kicked his seventh to seal victory, I let rip with a loud "Go Demons!!". Things then went eerily quiet in the outer as hundreds of pairs of beady eyes bored into us. I looked at my mate, he nodded and we turned and ran as fast as we could towards the exit and kept going all the way to Johnstone Street where we jumped on the first bus we found. It didn't matter that it was heading in the wrong direction, we just wanted to get away from that horrible joint. Only my drycleaner will know just how frightened I was that day.
True story.
One of the very first game I went to was dees v pies at Victoria park with an adult cousin. I was 9 or 10 , so perhaps it 1976 or 1977.
I was sitting, so not in the outer I can't remember much about the game, including whether we won or lost. But i vividly remember an older lady sitting in front of me turning around and telling me to tone down my language.
Haven't sworn at the footy since.
-
2
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, beelzebub said: He has to show why. He needs to be banging down the doors with b.o.g. type games in the magoos. Not one, a string of them. Let him be the better choice because atm he isn't.
As ive said, I'm happy for AJ to get a block of games in the ones, and like everyone i love his energy and competitiveness. But let's not carried away - it's a big stretch, even with his energy, to say he is playing better than JVR has this season.
Take the game just gone. Let's accept AJ played his role, but it's hard to argue he had anywhere near a good game. These were his numbers:
Six pressure acts and 13 pressure points (against his average of 30) - only Sharp (who was sub) and May applied less pressure on a day our pressure was through the roof
He had 15 ruck contests and had the grand total of 1 hit out (not to advantage)
6 disposals - 5 handballs and 1 kick
I tackle
0 marks
5 contested possessions (Fritter had more!)
2 score involvements
2 goal assists (his best comparative number as 2 assists was an equal game high)
The lowest player rating of any player on the ground with -2.7 (i know that doesn't tell the whole story)
-
5
-
1
-
57 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: Not so Bin, I’m on the Picket train and would replace AJ with JvR.
In four games AJ has had 23 disposals, two marks, 2 goals and 18 hit outs. I said it about Fullarton and I think the same with AJ; people are looking for positives but the reality is he’s not AFL standard yet, he drops marks he should take, he isn’t clean below his knees, his disposal is poor and when teams play two rucks against us because of Max he isn’t competitive. He was quite poor against Callum Brown as well.
Like everyone I love his attack on the ball, but you need more. IMO JvR is a better player all round and if you compared the two players JvR is clearly better. What people are doing is saying that JvR is well below his best so shouldn’t be in the team. Even well below his best JvR offers more.
To those that say AJ has played in winning teams and JvR hasn’t I say it is correlation not causation. Our results would have been the same with either.
It probably comes down to JvR’s mindset. If he believes he needs another game at Casey then fine but if he’s got his confidence back it’s a no brained for me.
I actually agree with you SB - ultimately JVR comes back in.
Kid is a total gun whose numbers in his first two seasons stack up to the very best tall forwards in the modern era, and better than his peers in the AFL (eg JUH, Amiss, Amartey, Logan McDonald, Cadman). I have zero doubt he will make it.
But like you I'm happy for JVR to cool his jets at Casey for say 2 to 3 weeks and allow AJ to play a block of games so he can settle and play with some freedom (so perhaps I'm catching the Picket train for one stop).
A benefit of taking that approach is it helps fast track AJ's development, which in addition to improving his game will help ensure he's better prepared if he gets a call up at future point and will give the coaching staff a better sense of where his ceiling is.
-
8
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Disco InTurno said: Could be wrong but I feel like there might be a bit of a disconnect for some here in terms of what the coaching staff seem to want our forwards to do versus what forwards have historically done in footy.
Have found the game plan thread and Binman’s recent comments there really helpful in trying to understand this.
Petty and AJ certainly aren’t Hogan or Cameron but the way they play largely negates intercept marks in the forward 50—which both prevents those really frustrating fast transition goals through the corridor that killed us earlier this year and allows for ground balls that either let Kozzy do Kozzy things or starts those inside 50 handball chains to try to get to the open man.
Given that we do not have a dominant key forward at the moment, it honestly seems like a brilliant move by the coaching staff.
I really think a challenge for JVR had been adapting to this shift for our key forwards towards being more focused, as a starting point, on ensuring their direct opponent does not intercept mark.
I wonder if that helps explain why he kept on getting in wrestling matches with his opponent, something that must be a real challenge for a 22 year old key forward battling with bigger, stronger opponents.
And for a bloke that has played all his footy as a pure key forward (I think that's right) it's probably counter intuitive and unatural to be defence first, not to mention frustrating.
If I'm correct and goody is implementing a method that involves denying oppo intercept marks combined with manic inside 50 pressure (as evidenced by our off the charts inside 50 tackle differentials in the last six weeks - with an increased average pressure rating arguably the most dramatic statistical change since our first 5 losses) the key metrics for tall forwards are not goals and contested marks they are things like one percenters, spoils, pressure, tackles and above all denying intercept marks and bringing the ball to ground.
All of which points to one of things I most love about footy - the speed at which the game evolves tactically.
Having gone out ans targeted Lever to play the intercept role, we won a flag in large part because of ability to pressure the ball carrier to dump kick and then take intercept marks (a strategy we adapted from Hardwick's tigers and to a lesser eectent the crows)
All teams subsequently implemented variationa of that method to maximise intercept marks in the back half and use them to launch attacks.
Alir, Sicily, McGovern x 2, Vlaustin, Mcartin, Andrews etc etc etc all teams now have the equivalent of a Lever.
So now all teams are going to work on limiting such player's influence - which would in part explain why so few contested marks are being taken by forwards inside 50 atm.
It feels like goody might be going next level with denying intercept marks.
-
4
-
3
-
-
Edited by binman
In another thread @DEE fence noted Chandler's use of low flat passes. I responded with this post, which i reckon fits in this thread given it's about tactics:
Its interesting you should note that.
It's clearly something they have been working on, ie low, flat passes inside 50 -often from near the boundary and kicked into the corridor on the 45.
Langdon does several each game, ditto melk.
And its more than just kicking back into the corridor - the kicks are being kept deliberately low, are often scrappy (particularly langdons) and often bounce before getting to the target.
I'm guessing the idea is four fold:
Get it to the hotspot quickly, ie not floaters to reduce the time for the oppo to get numbers to the target and by doing
Ideally hit a target dead in front of the goal, 20-25 metres out.
But if not marked, either because it's spoiled or because it bounces, it becomes a predictable ground ball which we fight to win or tackle the oppo if they win it.
Reducing intercept marks
In regard to the last point, all teams look to reduce oppo intercept marks inside D50, but we look hyper focused on doing so.
Watching petty on Sunday from ground level in the pocket you could see his sole focus was blunting mcartin. Barely left his side or looked to get separation.
AJ was similarly defensive. Even Friiter was pretty defensive- am I right in thinking he waxed with melksham to defend Blakley?
Ironically, of our medium and tall forwards, Melksham who has been playing the defensive forward role, was probably our most offensive forward (McCartin too big for melk I reckon).
-
3
-
1
-
On 25/05/2025 at 23:12, DEE fence said: Chin's delivery inside 50 was superb:
Hard Flat Passes
Its interesting you should note that.
It's clearly something they have been working on, ie low, flat passes inside 50 -often from near the boundary and kicked into the corridor on the 45.
Langdon does several each game, ditto melk.
And its more than just kicking back into the corridor - the kicks are being kept deliberately low, are often scrappy (particularly langdons) and often bounce before getting to the target.
I'm guessing the idea is four fold:
Get it to the hotspot quickly, ie not floaters to reduce the time for the oppo to get numbers to the target and by doing
Ideally hit a target dead in front of the goal, 20-25 metres out.
But if not marked, either because it's spoiled or because it bounces, it becomes a predictable ground ball which we fight to win or tackle the oppo if they win it.
Reducing intercept marks
In regard to the last point, all teams look to reduce oppo intercept marks inside D50, but we look hyper focused on doing so.
Watching petty on Sunday from ground level in the pocket you could see his sole focus was blunting mcartin. Barely left his side or looked to get separation.
AJ was similarly defensive. Even Friiter was pretty defensive- am I right in thinking he waxed with melksham to defend Blakley?
Ironically, of our medium and tall forwards, Melksham who has been playing the defensive forward role, was probably our most offensive forward (McCartin too big fir melk I reckon).
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1 minute ago, picket fence said: Id have T.Mac FORWARD for Petty any day of the week! Even if I dont rate A.J it seems that the Brainstrust at Demonland have Brainwashed the selection commitee and he will probably stay. Viney for Spargo is a given, the later will spend months at Casey waiting for another game and Sharp is becoming a damaging link player and finisher. So those are my changes and Petty is the sub! Anyone else on board??
Picket, I think your train left long ago - and there's no one else on board but you.
-
2
-
12
-
1
-
PREGAME: Rd 12 vs St. Kilda
in Melbourne Demons
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.