binman

To be fair, the same could be said of the AFL

Agree on bolded bit (and the rest actually). She is such a clever footballer - exhibit A was her decision to play on immediately after marking about 45 out, running to 30 and kicking the goal. She would never have made it from 45 and gave them no time to cover the line. Also loved how she kept running towards goal on the off chance the ball stopped before crossing the line. That is a smart footy brain at work Speaking of smart, it was a good move putting her forward i thought as she is natural footballer, like Tayla, and as such reads the ball in flight super well, which gives her a big advantage over lots of defenders, many of who it seems me struggle one on one against such players. Libby Birch stands out becuase she is one defender that reads the ball so well. I'm starting to think she is up there in our top 2-3 most important players.

She is such a fantastic player to watch. What she lacks in skills and finesse she makes up 10 fold with her intensity and attack on the ball. In that sense she reminds me a lot of Viney. And she reads the play so well and times her attack her on the ball and when to zone off brilliantly. I'm guessing that is part natural ability but also large part her experience of playing Gaelic footy all her life and playing that sport at the elite level. I wonder if that that is perhaps the most transferable skill from Gaelic footy? I also wonder if Goldy playing further up the ground might negate that skill a bit as at half back she has more time to watch the ball coming at her.

A super enjoyable game to watch. The skills were great, in large part because of the brilliant conditions and surface A good example of my point about the need to play all the AFLW games on AFL standard grounds with stands to provide protection from the wind.

No, not tongue in cheek. I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media. But in the second half i think she got a few things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option. Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space. But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, ironically, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac). If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage. Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward. Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky. As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me. At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare') But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have. I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we 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 the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top. The dogs carried that pressure into the third, 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 Daniel. We were back grinding. This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst. There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF. The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front. In both games our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us. What Daisy, and all the other commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter. Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more. It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities - they only had 2 scoring shots in the third, both goals, and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score. We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence. We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second The dogs lost the game by not finding a way to score more goals in the third quarter. They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in. In fact if anything i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch more often perhaps or try different match ups. Instead they just played into our hands and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to. They were the critical points that needed to be made.

I think she is fantastic - and for all the reasons posted above the best special comments person in the business. But I don't think she had a good grand final - specifically the second half.

Agree with both paras. Watson11 makes an really good point about those three tough goals you mention - all involved our strategy of going to the pockets In terms of the third quarter center clearance goal, my sense is that they were examples of what i mean of being aggressive and consciously dialing up the risk factor. And also an example the point i made earlier in this thread about the way we look to really take advantage of periods where we get the momentum by kicking bursts of goals, something that we did all season - time and again we withstood opposition pressure and then in 10 minutes took the game away from them. One, they went against what they would normally do in such circumstances, which would be to put Max in the center for those bounces. Instead they left Jackson in there, which was definitely risky given his inexperience, the critical point the game was at, and the fact that max is the best ruck in the game. The safe option was definitely to put Max back in there. Two, i think the mids took up pretty offensive starting positions. And three, related to number two, i read somewhere on DL (in this thread perhaps) that after the first of those goals Tracc and Oliver considered going more defensive but decided bugger it lets go for it. Now perhaps that is apocryphal, but it gels with the outcome.

I totally agree with the bolded bit. My feeling is that rather than it being about Brown etc it was more to do with conscioulsy deciding to being more aggressive - turning the risk/reward dial to risk for longer. Our scores from round 20 through to the ground final reflected this aggression (something like an average of 120 points a game, which is just nuts) But that sort of aggression is pretty taxing, and i think that part of the logic of being less aggressive through the season is about load management and being cherry ripe for the finals. And perhaps also not showing all your attacking cards too early. My feeling is we will see a similar pattern next year, which some will find frustrating no doubt as for much of the season we will win games in the four to five goal range again, as opposed to going all out and smashing teams. But the pay off is unleashing the beast come the last couple of rounds of the home and away and finals. Also totally agree with your last paragraph. I'd add that in addition to being ok with losing possession so long as we had numbers behind the ball, we were also happy to give away free kicks and basically stop the game so we can set up our defensive system - something that became apparent for me when watching the replays in the last month or so.

I think the coaches believe it is optimal and i very much doubt we will change the tactic much. As flash notes above kicking to the pockets as opposed to more centrally supports our model of trapping the ball and the opposition in particular areas, in this instance tour forward line, and making it super hard for them to transition. As Flash also notes, it is a trade off - sure it is harder to be accurate but that is offset by the fact that teams simply do not hurt us on transition (I'm pretty sure we conceded the least number of points from our back half). This really hurts teams, like the dogs, that rely on scoring on transition. So many of our strategies are underpinned by a philosophy of playing the risk/reward percentages. For example playing along the boundary, kicking long to Gawn after a point, getting territory and our (much anaylsed) clearance system are all examples of playing the percentages ie approaches that statistically over the journey will concede less goals and create more for us. Kicking to the pockets is in the same boat. The other element, one that i hadn't thought of last year, relates to my comment on the previous page in this thread about how we use the clock as a weapon. That's to say we suck time out of the clock and in doing so give the opposition less time to score and less opportunity to seize and/or take advantage of any momentum. I'm guessing at least half the time the ball is kicked to the pocket we get a stoppage of some sort. And then we crowd our inside 50 zone and often there is a secondary stoppage. If the opposition win and dump kick it out it often comes straight back in. All of this sucks heaps of time from the clock. And no doubt is super frustrating for the opposition, again particularly at team like the dogs, who are used to winning the ground ball in their back half and sweeping it up the other end of the ground. And if a point is kicked, we allow the short kick to the pocket but then make it super hard to clear the zone, usually forcing frustrated opposition players to kick long down the line to one of our talls. How many times last year did we see frustrated defenders holding onto the ball for ages looking for options. Again all this sucks valuable time from the clock and doesn't allow the opposition to get into any rhythm or to play fast. There was a fantastic example of our approach in one of the late season games i watched recently (i can't recall exactly which one, but i think it was the hawks game). One of our players had the ball at center half forward (Fritter?) and there was no one in our 50 metre arc expect Kozzie who was running toward goals, with a defender on his hammer. The ball could of easily have been kicked out in front of Kozzie in the corridor and there was every chance he would have run on to it and scored an easy goal. Instead it was kicked towards the boundary, had too much on it and went over for a throw in. BT was flummoxed. But going to the boundary was the percentage play because whilst Kozzie might have been a 70-30 chance of scoring if the ball had been kicked into the corridor, if his opponent won the ball it would have been easily rebounded as it would haver been in the corridor, and all our forwards had pressed up to help our defence so there was no help. Instead, whilst we had lower chance of an easy goal, there was still a good probability of doing so (maybe 50-50?) and when we didn't, we got a stoppage, reset, gave our forwards and mids time to crowd the forward line and gave our defenders time to press up and create the wall to stop transition. Goody's comments are interesting about looking create more scoreboard pressure, and perhaps being more offensive. My feeling is that rather than than that being an indication we will use the corridor as the go to spot, it will mean we look to surge and go all out attack more often, and in doing so turn the risk/reward dial to risk for longer. Which will mean more kicks to the corridor, but also perhaps more rebounds and scores on transition from the opposition.

Agree that accuracy is an area we can improve - particularly by non regular forwards like Oliver and Tracc (Brown, Fritter and Tmac are all statistically very accurate i would have thought). But i think it is actually pretty hard to compare teams because the pure accuracy number does not take into account where the shots are taken from. Much to some fans frustration we often kick to the pockets, meaning many shots are from difficult angles. I suspect that Brisbane and Sydney (who top the accuracy table) go more centrally and therefore have more shots from better angles than we do. The other issue is how close to goal kicks are - obviously if you get lots of goals running into open goal squares your accuracy is going to be better. When we open up sides, as we did in the Grand final, we swarm teams and get more of those goals where we tic tac and get it to a free player running into an open goal. I reckon Jackson got half of his goals that way last season and fritter also got a bunch of them. When on top we also use the corridor more often, as we did in the GF. There was discussion about us kicking to the picket in this thread back in April last year. This post from that discussion covers why i think we go via the pockets so often.

The change i would make is to the timing of the season. I know the timing of this season is a function of COVID, and I know the AFL don't want to run the AFLW head to head with the AFL, but starting the season in the heat of summer is stupid. They should start the AFLW season in say early Feb and play the grand Final in the first week of the AFL bye rounds, which this year starts 3 June. Yes that would mean the AFLW would go head to head with the AFL for three months or so, but they would get two months of clear air until the AFL season proper starts and then the opportunity for stand alone Grand Final at a time when the AFL season gets a bit stale. That set up would affect the state women's comps i suppose but if the finals started early May half the players (ie the ones not in final's teams) would be available by mid may for their local teams. And in any case the current set up impacts the local teams in so far as the women have to train for their local teams and then kick of training for the AFLW almost immediately those seasons finish. Which can't be helpful for either comp. The other change i'd make is that all games should be played in AFL venues or on grounds with proper grandstands and AFL standard surfaces. To support this they should advance plans to make Princess park (or Arden street perhaps) into the Victorian AFLW hub (but with Geelong could continue to use Kardinia Park) and replicate that model in the other states as far as possible. Play all games at these hubs. They need to create a playing environment where the effects of the wind are minimised, because if there is a strong wind the game becomes really scrappy and crap to watch because they use smaller balls and obviously they are not as powerful as men so the ball doesn't penetrate. it often becomes a territory game and poor skills get exacerbated. So of course that would mean no games at Casey. Or Punt road oval The other problem for the AFLW is that each team has adopted AFL defensive systems and the mantra of pressure being fundamental. Which is all well and good, and it is incredible the ferocity the women crack in, but the defensive systems and pressure impact the skills too much and as a result many games are devolving into scrappy combat with huge numbers of players around the ball and crazy numbers of tackles. We can't change that part of the game, its here to stay, but uniform AFL standard grounds that offer some protection from the weather will go a long way to help as more kicks will hit targets, skills will be better and kicks for goal will be more accurate.

Tommo was terrific. Reliable, strong one on one, a terrific kick and a key part of the structure and system in the first third of the season. But i reckon it is important to note that he and Petty played pretty different roles. Tommo was really much more a lock down defender that played tight man on man. More often that not he was also the deepest player in the goal keeper role that Omac played. With Petty in the team, the structure is much more fluid, with May often being the deepest, but Petty also rolling back into that slot, and less frequently Lever too. As result Petty gets up the ground more than Tommo did. And Lever, Petty and May swap opponents more often than was the case with Tommo in the team. But the big difference is Petty was much more offensive than Tommo, much more likely to zone off his man and of most significance much more likely to take intercept marks. I suspect they will want to replicate that same system (ie the one with Petty in the team). Tommo might be able to play in a similar fashion to Petty, so he might slot straight in, but i wonder if they might go with Smith. Where that would leave Tommo i'm not sure, but i have little doubt Petty will come straight back in once he is ready to go, so perhaps they are better to find another role for Thommo anyway.

Nic nat? In all the time I've watched footy, he is the most over rated player i have ever seen. Super talented, crazy athleticism for such a big fella and does some freakish things, but that package distracts from his low numbers and the fact he has never been elite level fit. Watched the wc game the other night and gawn destroyed him - in large part because nic nst was totally gassed after 10 minutes each quarter.

No hate. No care either. But any metric that does not rate the game's best ruck (by the length of the Flemington straight) as elite is flawed.

Forget covid, the biggest medical mystery confounding the world's best medical minds is the rohan syndrome. What to make of an otherwise fit young man, an elite athlete no less, coming down with a debilitating sickness every September. Cause? They don't know. They only know the symptoms - an inability to perform his job to anywhere near a satisfactory level and a violent allergic reaction to leather forcing him to avoid the football at all costs. Confounding.

I wonder if it was related to tjhe game time being shifted. Someone forgot to update the automatic starter?

No. Very frustrating. And no free to air coverage

Scott seems pretty unpopular, even with his own fans, but I've always quite liked him. But I lost a lot of respect gor him after the prelim when he made his vague references about excuses. And then later revealed the supposed illness players were suffering from. No doubt in my mind, in spite of his 'take nothing from Melbourne' crap, that part of his motivation was to diminish our victory. Can't stand that sort of disrespectful rubbish. Such poor form And now I've lost more respect for him. Raising the issue now, some four months later, is pathetic. Why do it? The dees will look forward to playing that bunch of whiners I'm sure. There is a chasm between us the cats - both in terms of talent, but perhaps more importantly, a game plan that can win finals. In addition to dalhsus and narkle being available, I'm pretty sure Higgins (a player they could surely only have traded in because they thought they were in the premiership window) was also available. Higgins is almost a like for like for close. So as you say they had options. And elected not to use them. That's on Scott.

If you are in Melbourne 'till the end of Feb the dees are playing a practice match against the roos at Casey fields on 24 Feb at 11am. It will be open to the public.

I've been cancelled!

No, i think only kangaroos

I hadn't heard that either! It certainly reinforces the idea that the team consciously try to control tempo. All teams do to an extent of course, but controlling tempo and dialing up and won how aggressive/attacking we are seems to be key part of our tactics.

I hadn't heard that (about goody coaching from the bench to get a feel for momentum). Makes a lot of sense and gels with one of the key things i've picked up watching the replays from last season - how dam good we are at absorbing sustained opposition pressure and negating any momentum they have. So many times teams have stretches of relative dominance, but don't hurt us on the scoreboard. I watched the Port game the other night and the third quarter was almost a mirror of the dogs' third quarter in the GF. If anything Port were even more on top than the dogs, but like the dogs threw everything they had us at us. But for all their effort, Port, like the dogs, could only manage two goals in the third. They got within 5 points with their second. We then kicked an answering goal, against the run of play, and seized the momentum. We had a shot at goal for a point almost immediately and then 3 minutes after our first goal of the third, kicked our second to take the lead back out to 3 goals. And it was game over. Port had fired their best - and last - shot and we held them at bay in the last. What was incredible about that game is watching it again, Port had good stretches where they were on top, yet we looked in control all game. How good we were at absorbing sustained opposition pressure and negating their momentum was evident watching the games during the season. But what i have really noticed more watching the replays in the last few weeks is how we go about doing so. Which is where your comment about goody coaching from the bench to get a feel for momentum intersects. Most teams try to wrest back momentum by scoring a goal themselves. Footy 101. But we seem to be happy to simply absorb pressure and make it hard for teams to score. And a big part of that, an element i think is unique to the dees, is we are really happy (well happy is probably the wrong word - prepared?) for the ball to be in our defensive half for long stretches. Unlike most teams we don't panic or take big risks. And we are happy to dump kick it out of our 50, even if it is likely to come straight back because the other team have a wall set up. We just deal with it again when it comes back inside 50. So, we negate. But what i have really noticed is what we do once we score and stop the opposition's momentum - we attack, and switch from a defensive mindset to an aggressive one. Like holding your serve in tennis after getting a break, we lock in the change in momentum with one or two quick follow up goals. It reminds me of boxing. Absorb pressure, let your opponent tire, land a punch that stops their momentum - and then attack and get all the momentum. But unlike your opponent, take full advantage of that momentum Another key element in that battle for control of momentum athat i really picked up on is how we use the clock as a weapon, something I hadn't fully appreciated. It reminds me a bit of how soccer teams look to manipulate time left. Its like the clock is another team mate. Control is the key word. We control the tempo and the clock so much and so well. A big difference between the home and way games and the finals is in season often once we have got the momentum back, and got the lead out to 3 plus goals we go back to control mode. Which explains why so many of our wins were in the 3-5 goal range. But in the finals, particularly the prelim and GF, once we got momentum we never went back into control mode. We just kept attacking - which explains how high our scores were. I expect we will see exactly the same pattern in 2022. Which can be frustrating to watch in season as you want them to put teams away and get a percentage boost. But watching the replays you really get sense of how much energy they conserve by not going all out attack wire to wire. Again, the Port game is good example. We won the game only kicking 4 goals in the second half (though frustratingly we kicked 10 points in the second half!). As i noted we absorbed their pressure in the third. Despite it only being a 3 goal difference at 3 quarter time, Port never looked a chance in the last and we were happy to control the tempo and and suck time from the clock. Port were stuffed and if we had gone all out attack we could have beaten them by 10 goals. But at what cost? Save your legs.

That's my take too. The goals you mention is i think the same one i noted that Jackson tapped it forward to trac who was on the move, received it well forward of the center and took a few steps before roosting it.

You make an excellent point about Jackson, his post hit out work and his scope for his improvement. I hadn't really considered that in likelihood he is going to get better! I watched the Port game the other night and one of goals came from a center clearance, where Jackson was in the ruck. The ruck contest was halved but Jackson managed to tap the ball forward with an open palm to Trac, who was on the move, took a few steps and launched in deep inside 50. So clever from Jackson. I love the way Jackson and Gawn coordinate ruck duties - it look really organic and fluid. And it means Gawn can be really flexible in terms of dropping back into defence or pushing forward. As you suggest Jackson will only improve his ruck craft and will get fitter and stronger. A scary thought. And to your question about changes to clearances, this improvement may well bring some changes. For one, Jackson will be better and with his leap might win more center clearances. Two, as he gets stronger he will become even more a weapon at around the ground stoppages. So he is likely to be more effective and win more clearances around the ground. And he might take more of them. And lastly he may end up doing more minutes in the ruck which might mean for instance gawn takes more throw in up forward. As for Gus, no i can't see them moving him from the wing. Watching the games again has really reinforced how important he was to our system and structure last year. Goody loves consistency and i think he will refrain frorm too many changes. The other thing is we a have a surfeit of contested ball winners, so he is not really needed on that front. Makes it pretty hard for Rosman and Baker to get into the team. You're right about Thommo. I can't see him taking Petty's role. So where does he play? I wondered the same thing about Hunt. Watching the games again i was reminded that he was really unlucky to get injured as Bowey made it impossible to drop him and its hard to see how they both play. I really liked what he brought tot he side last year and i'd love to see him back in the team. And Jordon is in the same boat. He was fantastic for us last year. But he he has to force his way back into the side all over again.