binman

Agree. But also the way we used our handballs was different. We used long handballs to get it away from the contest, almost like a shirt kick. But that won't stop King saying something like: 'See i told you the handball game Melbourne employed, you know the fundamental change to their game plan i pointed out, would break down under the tigers finals pressure'

Fair comment. But I reckon it has been ok tgis season. In large part because he's not trying anything too cute, which was his big issue as a defender. Been kicking short or for distance, and generally down the line. Tmac is almost playing as a second winger already. Lots of marks and possessions are up around the wings and both flanks. No issue with Brown coming in terms of tbe two playing together.

The tigers dogs game is a fascinating game from a tactical perspective. Two distinct approaches. I have tipped the tigers because I suspect their pressure will disrupt the dog's high in close handball/throw game. I hope it does, because ot will be our blueprint too to beat team

Teams will definitely start trying to find a way to reduce the impact of our intercept marking, particularly lever, just as we did to the tigers. But I'm not sure about tagging as such. It's a big call to basically give up one player to tag a player, even more so when that player is a defender. I reckon our defensive structure is quite different to the tigers. And less susceptible to mitigation strategies like the one aob highlights (use of handballs etc). Also i reckon a lot of our intercepts come post losing a clearnce as opposed to transition. That is hard to stop, other than not actually going forward from a clearance. Which would be a win for us. Catch 22

Exactly right AOB. But we also exploited that gap with a lot of short, low risk kicks. Low risk because they were short, so more chance hitting them. But critically they were generally along the boundary line, so if the possessions chain were broken it often went over the boundary line and we got stoppage (giving us the chance to set up defensively AND take advantage of our two dominant rucks). And if the tigers won possession it less likely to be in the corridor. I reckon Langdon has really improved his kicking this year, which is important as it is often him kicking down the boundary line (and Gus on the other side). But Salem is super important wit this kick. And i think Jordon is really important in this regard too. Very reliable kick who often goes short. It's interesting actually because i think (but admittedly don't have the evidence) we are playing much more along the boundary line all over the ground than we have previously. Think of how often we kick to the pockets in our forward line. And as noted above along the boundary line in transition. We still sometime use the corridor to attack but i suspect we are using it much less than in previous seasons. Again i don't have the evidence, but also i don't think we are crossing/switching as often. Which would make sense because we are playing through Max wherever possible. And less switching would probably create more predicable transition patterns (and i reckon they have tried to be more predictable in lots of other ways - something Tomlinson alluded to i think, in his footy show interview that is on the MFC website - ie that we have simplified our game plan).

And we made that line. By two goals. Bananas

100s of people would know. Extremely unlikely it has come from the club. Would you still be upset if it was 'leaked' by his second cousin?

Nor is Huge contract offered to petracca. He has gone from one of the best players in tbe AFL. To one of the best 5, arguably 3. Max must be in the conversation for top 5 too.

I was actually thinkin the same thing. An own goal

Unless kev was referencing Miranda.....

Gold.

100%

Yep, you've convinced me. Brown in. A bonus of Brown in is that it really creates a match up problem. Every team has strong lock down bi down back. We have two in Tomlinson and May. The opposition have no alternative to send that player to brown as he will monster a smaller player. Bu then they have to send a big, or at the very least a strong , defender to Tmac. That pretty much wipes most teams in terms of big defenders. So who goes to Jackson. And what about when max goes forward and LJ goes to the ruck? The hawks had McEvoy follow Max, but who then rucks against an ever improving Jackson. And then you have Fritsch, our leading goal kicker - a natural forward who is a brilliant mark for his size, not least because he uses his body so well in the marking contest. He demands an experienced and skilled medium defender. Anyhring less and he will get off the chain. I'd keep him close to goals for that reason (as opposed to pushing uo the ground). Complicating match up issues is TMac and Jackson already push well up the ground, get the bulk of their possessions around the wings and run up and won the ground all game. Brown plays much the same way. So their opponents have to have tank to go with them. If they do go with them it drags a big defender out of our forward line and creates space for the other forwards. If they stay deep TMac, Jackson and will take easy marks up the ground all game. I agree Melksham is the obvious out. But i just can't see him being dropped. Who does get dropped is anyone's guess. But it won't be Spargo or Nibbler. And I agree that it is unlikely they will drop Jones after his 300th - and his best game for the season.

Not these days

Well that's better than Robbo. He can't recall Roos being on the show...

From the AFL site: The big question for the Demons is whether Ben Brown returns to make his club debut against his former side in his home state. It would be a fairytale inclusion for the key forward, who kicked four goals from 12 disposals in a VFL victory over Richmond last weekend. Sam Weideman also pressed his claim for a senior return with 13 disposals and three goals, but, like last week, it will be hard for Simon Goodwin to change a winning formula. Jake Melksham was held goalless against the Tigers and could make way for one, while Charlie Spargo was also quiet but plays a pivotal role as a pressure forward. James Harmes is an outside chance to return from a wrist injury. Young defender Jake Bowey (26 disposals, five marks) was impressive in the VFL, but will likely need to bide his time. R6 medical sub: Kade Chandler (unused) Verdict: Brown to make his club debut against the Kangaroos, replacing Melksham in a taller forward line. Weideman to be made to wait another week. – Riley Beveridge

Fair points. I think Brown will come in. But if he does Weed won't. Not yet, any way In terms of them, and in particular Weed, getting their chance, we are not even a quarter of the way through what will be a brutal season, particularly for teams who made finals last year and had less preseason to put a fitness base down. Having say a fresh Weed ready to come in when needed will be gold. And represents a big advantage for us over other sides who are struggling with injury already. I disagree using Weed in this way is saying he is filler. It is reality. Tmac is the incumbent and simply is playing to well to be swapped out for Weed. tough for Weed, but there it is. If that means he feels he has to explore other options than so be it. Patience grasshopper.

Cancel culture!!!!

Agree. His kpis would all relate to pressure. And perhaps distance covered and pressure in our defence (like his terrific tackle in their forward pocket early in the game that saved a likely scoring shot). And perhaps less a kpi, more and expectation, for him to maintain his elite disposal efficiency, which is up around where salam's is at 80%

Yep next time don't reveal the source until a bunch of people like me have said something along the lines of - how reliable is your source, my second cousins best friends' barber told me..., source or i'll disregard etc etc. And you missed the chance to make a joke along the lines of - sauce? i don't know. Tomatoe i assume. Isn't enough to know the unnamed player had a veggie pastie?

Fair points IT. But i don't think we are in disagreement as such. I'm not averse to them bringing Brown in. I see the logic for doing so, which you make a good case for, but granted, I won't be too fussed if they don't. But for me bringing Brown in would be not be a major change, although it would result in some changes to the forward structure. As i said i'm fine with some minor management changes. By that i mean keep the changes to a minimum numbers wise. I don't want them to suddenly make four or five changes. And i certainly hope they don't experiment with players in different positions as Better days ahead suggests. We need to take the opportunity over the next four games to solidify our system and maximize the likelihood of going 10 zip. Leaving aside what that means for out top 4 chances, the psychological boost that will give the players, the club and the fans is pure gold. You don't mess with that alchemy. Look at the Dogs. They made four unforced changes to their side against the Giants. Sure they still won (and pretty easily in the end), but it was scrappy game and the Giants were in it at 3/4 time. And one of the players they brought in to get up to speed with a view to their best 22 comes finals, Lin Jong, did his hammy and is our for 6-8 weeks. The concern I'd have if i was a dogs fan is their system looked out of whack for most of the game, which is not great preparation for a game against the reigning premiers coming up. The final thing i'd say is that sure we should beat North. But the Swans are currently a top 8 team, the blues are competitive (but for horrid 2nd quarter against the lions might well have beaten them) and the Crows at home will be a challenge. We are nowhere near in the position to flirt with selections or make fundamental structural changes (Brown isn't one. Brown AND Weed is). Doing so would send the wrong message to the players and opposition teams. Doing whatever it takes to win these next four games has to be the sole focus.

On Brown, and weed for that matter, it is a very long season. And as is the case every injuries will play a huge part in which club wins the flag. We are fit, in good shape injury wise. And playing well. And I'm firmly of the view that the next four games are critical for our chances of winning a flag. Why? We need to win all four. Failing to do so would be a huge missed opportunity. If we go 10 zip, before we have to play port and dogs, we are a lock for top 4. With what our percentage would be and how the ladder is shaping up, 15 wins will get us top 4. Meaning from 10 zip we will only need to win 5 of our remaining 12 games. Now is not the the time to make any major changes. Sure some minor management changes. But Iets bank these four wins and then at the mid season mark and around the bye we can give some players a chop out. Particularly the younger ones. Brown and weed will get their chance.

Really? No club would give any player such an assurance. Let alone one who got shopped from a cellar dweller, has knees injuries and for whom we were seemingly the only serious suitor.

Like nibbler, spargo is going nowhere. Both best 22 locks. All season. Both are critical factors in our system. Critical. On 360 last week goody was asked about improvement. He emphasised leadership - and when listing the leaders he included the usual suspects, max, Jack etc. And nibbler.

I'm not convinced that we changed how we played or our game plan. In fact i would argue that we didn't. Why would we? Like the tigers we have system that we will back in against any opposition. And when you have that mindset you don't flirt with a new game plan. And more than that Goodies philosophy (and other system based coaches like Beveridge and Hardwick) as it relates to the game plan is a system that is predictable and based on repetition and role clarity. You don't mess with the system Was that David King opinion on that show the last bounce, or whatever it is? If so I'll watch it, and I'll listen to the clip EO linked above (thanks EO). Perhaps it is matter of semantics. By that i mean sure we made some adaptions. We put hard tag on Dusty for one. And we definitely played more tempo footy than we have thus far (though we have employed tempo footy in every game so far), with lots of patient build up and chipping it around - hence how many more marks and uncontested possessions we had. Is that changing the way we played? I would say not. The system and fundamentals remained exactly the same. A tweak yes, but not a significant change to how we play. And smart too as the tigers want pace on the game, so our tempo footy frustrated them and simultaneously allowed us to make sure our zones and structures were well set up. . On face value more handballs is not proof of a change to how we play. i would argue that it was a logical response to how the tiger play and the incredible pressure they put on the ball carrier. And it is [censored] that we used more handballs so that when we turned it over we would still have numbers around the ball that would provide coverage. We are territory team like the tigers, but unlike them we are more focused on connecting with players in transition (the tigers are just happy to take ground and back their players to win win one on ones). And we use handballs to give to a player in space to make the connecting kick. Its just that other teams put pressure on so fewer handballs are needed to get it to a player in space. So far from being a negative those handballs were a positive. Which team transitioned the ball better? Which team had more efficient inside 50s? Which is why it is weird furphy the comment i have heard a few times in the media (and from Hardwick in his post match presser strangely enough) about the tigers having plenty of inside 50s (60 to our 56) as evidence that they were no too far off the mark and that next time they were score more. Bollocks. They only had 18 scoring shots from their 60 inside 50s. That wasn't a function of bad luck, that was a function of how we played and our system smashing theirs. I don't rate King at all. He just regurgitates stats. And often draws strange conclusions from them - as he seems to have in this instance. And I have to wonder how closely he actually watched the game. The pressure was off the charts all game. Our system stood up. Our players stood up to that pressure. We are built for September finals pressure. The tigers are the ones who struggled with the pressure, not us. They looked like they ran out of ideas on how to transition the ball. And got frustrated. So any comment along the lines that the Tigers would break down our 'handball game' is stupid on two fronts. One, because we didn't employ a 'handball game'. We simply used handballs more than we have to respond to the tigers pressure. A clever adaptation by the players. And two, the tigers, despite their manic pressure, failed to exploit our high number of handballs and force turnovers. Their whole game is based on pressure on and around the ball carrier. They win so many of those contests. So often hey break down opposition possession chains. And they couldn't against us. The question King should be asking is will the tiger's game plan stack up against ours in Spetember?