binman

You always have to start at the beginning. This will be a very therapeutic process for me. This thread will sustain me for some time.

Media person Adam White Medium Radio, breakfast show on RSN Comment Every Monday during the season, White has had the benefit of listening to the excellent analysis of Bartel and Ramanaskus, who have consistently highlighted the dees strengths and likelihood of winning the flag. Despite this, and the mounting evidence, has consistently questioned our bona fides. Unable to shake his confirmation bias, he tipped the lions to beat us. Much to the disbelief of Bartel and Ramanaskus he tipped the Cats to win the prelim. And then, after bartel had made the case the dees would win the GF, cherry picked a brief comment Bartel made about the pressure of playing in a GF to say 'mmm, that has crystalized my thoughts that the dogs will handle the pressure better given their experience in 2016 and i think they' win'. Score

To be fair, there are of course quite a number of people working in the footy media that provide some really excellent analysis and thought provoking insights - most are trained journos but not all. Some of my favorites include Greg Baum, Caroline Wilson, Daisy, Montagna, Bartel, Peiek, Nicholson, Delidio, Arnell, Middlemass, Lawson, Atkinson and Gleeson, who wrote this excellent article recently that highlights our bravery as club, inlcuidn how we went about our internal review: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/four-points-demons-awesome-display-the-moment-that-turned-the-tide-a-reward-for-bravery-20210926-p58uvi.html

Lets agree to disagree. A club with a soft culture would have taken the easy road. Rather then having the CEO do the review, they would have got an external, high profile consultant to do the review. They would have sacked the coach. And instead of looking to improve their governance, they would have ignored problems with their board. Unlike the dees, who, after going 4 zip had the courage to, one, realise they needed to make changes at board level and two make those changes. And they would have completely destabilized the club and put it back 10 years. Just like McClure's joke of a club.

One more thing about the McClure comments. He says: 'Which is the biggest-name player that’s ever been dropped at Melbourne? I can’t think of one. Because it’s soft, a soft culture they’ve got' He can't think of one hey? Well, what about Goody's decision to TRADE Jack Watts - a number one draft pick, a huge fan favourite and by all accounts loved by his team mates. That was a seriously big call. A culture call. (disclaimer: i was completely against that decision. Our biggest weakness was kicking and he was our best kick. But i also made clear that i respected Goody and trusted him to make the right call. And acknowledged that i of course didn't know anything about his training standards or of field stuff, other tan rumours of course. Well, Goody has once again been proved correct. And i have been proved incorrect. As many argued on demonland at the time, it was the right call)

Bollocks. McClure says this about our culture: “Can Jesus Christ deliver at the Dees? No one can deliver at the Dees. “The problem is the culture’s all wrong. Which is the biggest-name player that’s ever been dropped at Melbourne? I can’t think of one. Because it’s soft, a soft culture they’ve got. “What’s got to happen is if the actual coaching staff and the people on the board don’t stand up and start to build a culture of this football club – it’s been 50, 60 years since they’ve won a Grand Final … and they’re still the same. Have they improved? Or have they got worse?” Total rubbish. Sure the players went up level this season in terms of their selflessness and buy in. But the improvement didn't come out of nowhere. Just one more example of false, self serving narrative It takes years to build culture and we have been steadily building since Roos came on board and since Goody took over in 2017. Instead of making jokes about his use of phrases like learnings, if peanuts like McClure bothered to listen to goody, they would have heard him say that the way we ended the 2020 season winning two elimination games was a really important step forward. A point he reiterated in his post GF interviews.

The binman media awards scoring system: One peanut: Often got it very wrong, but no apparent agenda and all in all pretty harmless Two peanuts: More often than not got it very wrong, possible agenda, failed to do the required research and all in all pretty hopeless Three peanuts: The highest award. Counterintuitively sometimes gets it right, but just as likely to contradict themselves a few days later - and sometimes even in the same sentence. But consistently gets it wrong and often doubles down on the wrongness. Often appears to have an obvious agenda or axe to grind. Almost always cannot get past their preconceptions, suffers terribly from confirmation bias and looks for every opportunity to find evidence that supports that bias. Confuses spouting stats with analysis. Highly likely to be an overweight ex footballer who like to wear open necked pastel shirts that at first glance might suggest they are super built.

Good point, well made. Fixed

Easy fix Nev - don't open this thread. There are any number of peanuts in the media who have got things completely wrong about the dees. And many on here have parroted those same peanuts (apologies for the alliterative mixed metaphors) and used their arguments to bolster their own wrong headed arguments. And that white noise of [censored] almost has disastrous consequences as there is no doubt it almost resulted in Goody getting axed. I don't need to go back 12 months either to find examples of so called experts (almost universally ex players) making ill informed comments that were based on their own preconceptions of the club, issues they have with the club or key personnel at the club, and their complete lack of understanding of what Goody was doing. And it drives me nuts, becuase even some passionate demons fans as evidenced by this forum, swallowed the [censored]. Just once recent example was the almost universal lack of proper pre game analysis of the grand final and likely outcomes. So many 'experts' had the game as a toss of the coin when all evidence suggested we were clear favorites. And that a blow out was very much on the cards. No surprise that the betting odds reflected that reality. We were 1.65 to win. And only 5.50 to win by more than 39 points. The betting pools are in the tens of millions for the GF. Most of that is money from professional punters. Who lose money if they get it wrong. Unlike the footy experts. An even more recent example is the 'one goal from breaking narrative' around the third quarter. The dogs were fantastic in the first 10 minutes of that quarter and their pressure was off the charts (210 at the 10 minute mark). But unlike the second quarter we were matching them for pressure. We were struggling to transition it into our forward half and had to repel multiple inside 50s from them. But that's what we do. As the stats clearly show (lowest EVER opposition scores to inside 50 ratio at only 35%) no team is better at dealing with opposition inside 50s, and no team is more comfortable with the ball in their defensive half. We have shown this all season. We have also shown in the last six weeks that our offence can be devastating. For Pete's sake we had just decimated one of the best defences the AFL in the prelim, having touched up the lions in the QF. And of course we had run down a 44 point lead in just over a quarter against the cats in round 23. And we are the fittest side in the AFL by a mile and as a result our record in last quarters this season - and even more so in the finals - is simply phenomenal All this is basic knowledge. And the experts should have been pointing all this out- before, during and after the game. Why? Because that is their jobs. And it would help fans, neutral and otherwise understand what was was likely to happen, what was happening and what happened. And they should have pointed out that the issue wasn't us folding, the issue was that the Dogs threw everything at us and could only score two goals for all that work. Given all the evidence i note above, the dogs were the team that was on the brink. They simply had to to put more goals on the board in the third. Two was never going to be enough - and so it proved. And i'm not being harry hindsight. In my match preview post in the game day thread i noted: 'We are fitter and stronger than the dogs and will run out the game better. As we have shown all season, if the dogs have a lead at 3 quarter time they will struggle to hold us off. Conversely if we have a lead, which i expect we will, we will be very hard to run down..... The major issue for the dogs is that we are unlikely to concede more than 70 points. Which means they have to keep us under 70 points to win. On a perfect deck, in perfect conditions and with our offensive weapons' and ability to generate repeat inside 50s on back of forward half pressure, they will struggle mightily to do so.' Unless they are driving an agenda or are well out of order, I don't have an issue with fans getting things wrong about the dees. We all have had to develop our own coping mechanism to deal with our decades long lack of success. Catastrophizing was no doubt helpful for some, just as my relentless optimism that each season was a new dawn has helped me for 40 years (and driven my demons mate nuts and given non demons mates plenty of fodder for getting stuck into me). But people paid to express opinions about our club should be held to account when they are lazy, do not do the work and allow their own agenda to colour what they write or say in the media. Note, that i didn't say they have to be right, Being wrong is ok. Just not when that opinion is based on a quick sand of [censored]. So I for one am going to take this thread as opportunity to vent some of my frustration and highlight some of the so called experts who i think got things egregiously wrong.

It looked to me like Maxy was trying to milk a free. And i wonder if that was what Daniels was saying. No big deal. What was impressive is Max gets up, having given himself a head knock. Jackson takes the boundary line throw in. Brian Taylor, having made a legitimately clever and funny comment with his Daniel and Goliath quip, instantly reverts to form and says Maxy is coming off for a rest. But maxy isn't coming off for a rest. He is running down the wing towards our half forward. Which is interesting in itself given we were three goals down, because he was looking to create a marking option should we win the clearance, as opposed to pushing into defence to intercept a dog's inside 50 kick if they win the clearance. Tells me a lot about their mind set - expect to win the clearance, be aggressive. And we did win the clearance and the hack kick forward (which is hard wired into our game plan dna) was heading straight to Williams, who was poised to take an easy intercept mark, until an exhausted maxy did enough to spoil and bring it to ground. The ball gets over the boundary line. Jackson takes the ruck. Viney hits the contest at speed. Bailey ('when i was at school i aspired to grow a mullet') Smith fumbles under the heat. Harmes collects and puts a beautifully weighted kick in front of Fritter. Fritter marks and kicks the goal. We don't look back. That goal doesn't happen if Williams marks that ball.

Doctor is a banned word?

Fit, brilliant skills and perfect for the skilled medium forward role that has become a key role in the AFL circa 2021 (eg fritter, papley, Martin, Cameron, rohan etc, etc). Surely gets picked up. That said, his lack of defensive effort and tackle pressure is decidedly not AFL circa 2021.

Osilik, /Dr d et al:: a good team would have won thst game by 734 points. It will come back to bite us

Such a good point. Me too. My head nearly exploded. In years to come I will remember round 23 and tge grand final as a package almost. It all felt it was destined.

I had a solid bet on the dees @ 5.50 to win the flag after the dogs beat us in round 19 because I knew from that point our odds would drop every week. We started 1.60. Resisted the urge to lay off. Well, to be honest didn't really seriously consider it. Backed tracc and Oliver to win the Norm Smith. Icing on a sweet cake.

Such a funny narrative. Because the more logical argument would be the cats game (which built on the round 23 and qf games) was not some random, freak event. Rather, it was evidence of our form and what we are capable of. As evidenced by the grand final.

Or concussion to enjoy it

Spot on. And it is a really important point. We bat deeper.

Just a quick post match review comment. I'm hoping the dees came back from the dead narrative does not take hold, as I fear it might. I loved daisy's work, brilliant. And kudos to 7 for giving her much more air time. And even credit to bt for deferring to her often. But I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we were looking shakey and desperately needed a goal just for confidence. We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising they lifted their rating but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top. But despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of daniels. We were back grinding. And 3 goals is nothing for a team that had proven its ability all season to score super quickly and multiplegoals in bursts.. We had done exactly that in our previous three games for Pete's sakes. Against quality opposition. Wasn't anyone watching? We were by far the most potent team over the last part of the season, having averaged 100.5 points in our previous 6 games (that average has jumped up to 106!). Of course I was nervous half way though the third. But I thought all of the above watching live. And my thoughts were reinforced when watching the replay. And good lord. When we lifted our rating, when we did flex, it was incredible. They simply could not go with us. No team could.

Too distracted to post much of late. I think we win, and win pretty easily in the end. Objectively the bookies have got the price right at 1.65 (it has been the quote for two weeks now). We have won our last six matches, including 3 wins against top 4 sides. In doing so we averaged 100.5 per game. In that same period the dogs have gone 4 wins and 3 losses and averaged 80 points per game. In that period we have significantly improved two key elements - we have been scoring from stoppages and starting fast. All season the dogs have been terrific in both these areas, but have fallen away in the last 6 weeks Even with the two week break to freshen up, the dogs are playing two players that are the very least suspect fitness wise in Keath and Martin - and that is always a huge risk in a Grand Final. The Martin selection was tacit acknowledgement the model they have used all year of basically no ruck and sharking the opposition ruck man just won't cut it. At least not against us. By contrast, we could barely be fitter. We are fitter and stronger than the dogs and will run out the game better. As we have shown all season, if the dogs have a lead at 3 quarter time they will struggle to hold us off. Conversely if we have a lead, which i expect we will, we will be very hard to run down. Despite reports to the contrary, Beveridge is not a coaching savant who will magic up tactical moves that will bamboozle Goodie and his coaching team and overcome our advantages. Many are suggesting the two week break really helps the dogs. Not sure why. Who knows what impact it will have, but we were able to have a full scale hit out las Saturday arvo. They couldn't becuase they needed to freshen up their weary troops. Also the dogs get an advantage from the two week break narrative cuts against the us against the world palaver Beveridge loves to engineer. And the dogs would have probably preferred to keep going given their momentum - and bevo could also play the we have been in quarantine and the dees haven't, look at them at the beaches and cafe, card. Our preparation has been perfect, we have established a routine over the last month - one that as Pert noted on the Demonland podcast, was planned with exactly this scenario in mind. Our game is built for the g and Optus oval is almost exactly the same dimensions. It suits us and with our defensive system and running power of all players, gives us a considerable comparative advantage. And this will be third time we have played there in the last 2 months. And in that time we have probably trained there at least 5 times Many seem to be considering the dog's performance in the prelim to be the equal of ours. I don't. Port were woeful and bizarrely did not bring the heat in the first quarter. Perhaps it was something to do with the fact Port thrive on the energy of their home crowd and there was on 26, 000 people there. The Cats were hard at it all game as evidenced by the pressure rating for the match, which was something like 185 to 175 our way. That's a really poor preparation for the blitzkrieg they will face tonight. And there is no way we give Hannan and Smith the space to run into Port did. And it's worth noting Port beat them round 23 in a cut throat, must win game And prior to the Port win, they were very lucky to just get over the top of the lions. A team we touched up by 7 goals (could easily have been 10) in our first final. I'm surprised more people have not pointed out the advantage we get of having already experienced the insanity of packed Optus Oval with its colour, intensity and above all deafening noise. That will all come as a shock to the dogs as might the fact it will be a very pro demons crowd. The major issue for the dogs is that we are unlikely to concede more than 70 points. Which means they have to keep us under 70 points to win. On a perfect deck, in perfect conditions and with our offensive weapons' and ability to generate repeat inside 50s on back of forward half pressure, they will struggle mightily to do so. I think we will come out of the blocks and blitz them. They might stick with us for a quarter, maybe even a quarter and a half. But i expect we will get on top and be better place to take advantage of periods in the first half when we get the momentum. I can see us with 4-5 goal lead at half time, with the dogs pressing super hard in the third quarter but not being able to significantly bridge the gap. So a 4-5 goal lead at three quarter time. Last quarter the dogs have spent there petrol tickets and we keep rolling to a 43 point win. Tracc or Viney for the Norm Smith. Good luck and super positive vibes to the Demonland posse. Thanks to all for your fantastic posts and for the dees community vibe. I've loved that aspect and its gone along to way to mitigate the impact of the game not being here at the g. I hope everyone has wonderful days. See you on the other side. Go redlegs.

Wrong thread

Wrong thread

PSA Supermercado on SEN right now

Lena Lovich is a huge Steve may fan as her lucky number is one

Perth 28-Day Rainfall Forecast Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 23 24 25 Updated advice - High chance of grown adults crying 26 Hig 27 Med 28 Hig 29 Hig 30 Med Oct 1 Med 2 Med 3 Low 4 5 6 Low 7 Low 8 Med 9 Low 10 11 12 Low 13 Low 14 15 Med 16 Low 17 Low 18 19 20 Low 21 Med