binman

Hello hibbo

Agree on all of the above. But leaving aside whether Smith or Tom comes in for Petty, i reckon Petty will come straight back into the side when fit and available (perhaps after one or tow games at Casey). Who knows how that might factor into the decision about who comes in round one for Petty. But the advantage Smith has over Tommo is that he can also play Hibberd's and River's role.

You're right, I'm sure tomo can play a more aggressive, intercept role. But in my opinion he is in the same position as last preseason where he is in a battle for the third key defender slot. Last season the battle was with Petty, and he won it. This season the battle is with Smith. And he may well win it again. But if it was a boxing match, based on yesterday Smith is ahead on points. Next weeks game against the blues may well decide the bout.

Agree with the first two paras. On the last, I think the answer is yes. Or at least as much licence to zone off and intercept as petty has. Which is a fair bit.

Why is it Tomo's spot to lose? He is not the incumbent. And as I have noted before Petty played a different role than Tomlinson. More aggressive. Less man on man. More zoning off and more intercepts It was noticeable at tbe ground tomo has slimmed down and I think that is so he can better play the role the way petty played. I very much doubt Goody will allow sentiment to cloud his selection decisions. And nor should he They both trialled for the Petty position yesterday. Smith played better. Moe athletic more intercepts, more run and more spoils. And with his leap, he has a weapon that tomo doesn't have, or any other defender for that matter. And it is worth remembering Smith would be a premiership player if not for an ill timed hammy injury, albeit at half back not key defender. So there is no doubt Goody rates him.

Why? He played the lever/petty role today role today and had a better game than Tomlinson l

Maybe. Though he looked good today. But Smith is more suited to Petty’s role with his ability to zone off, spoliation and take intetcept marks. Smith was dynamic today

I have little doubt that in the first instance Smith will come in for petty. Not sure where that leaves thommo

An interesting part of our preparation last season was that we played an almost full strength team in the corresponding practice match against the tigers (which we won, just). And we seemed to approach that game like a serious hit out. In the actual preseason game against the dogs we rested key players and played Jordon and i think from memory Bowey.

Ta. Just turned on kayo. Fair crowd Bulldogs by 11 near end of third

Agree on all of the above. I'd add that i suspect in the last couple of years people have got used to watching games at home and some people may have fallen out of the habit of going to games. I think as result crowds will be down across the board all season. All part of the new normal. I'm thinking we will do well to crack 50k.

Yep, agree.

How ironic. West coke have to sack a player for REFUSING an injection

47, 644

Coaches votes stylee Harris 10 Paxman 7 L Pearce 6 D Pearce 6 Bannon 6 Brownlow stylee Harris 3 Paxman 2 L Pearce 1

Ta. I thought it was Friday. Good thing you posted this!

Yep, a very good comparison. Sean is one of my all time favorite players and i love Goldy for many of the same reasons.

Absolutely. She has a height and reach advantage over many of her opponents, but as you say it is her natural marking skills (eg use of the body, reading the flight of the ball, aggression. marking technique, smarts etc etc) that means she is on another level. And becuase she is on another level we get other benefits, even when she doesn't make it. Opposition temas are too focused on her, as is often the case with such key players - but it means their defensive system is often out of shape. Westy's goal was good example - three Lions players up to spoil Harris and no one the ground. She draws frees too, as often opposition players panic in their attempts to stop her. I went to the Dogs game and was a bit critical of her second efforts. But she has improved immensely since then in that regard, no doubt because she has got fitter in the last few weeks. Taylah was the difference last night - there is simply no way we win that game if she is not in the side. With scores being comparatively low, one player can make a bigger difference in terms of influencing a result than is the case in the AFL. Which as you correctly note, means she could well be the difference at the pointy end of the season.

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.