binman

That's right. And a big reason is, no matter how good your ruckman it is extremely hard at center bounces to execute the perfect tap to a mid who is moving at speed and can get out the front of the stoppage and kick cleanly inside 50. But that is exactly what max is trying to achieve when he does win a hit to advantage. A clean hit to a mid who, coming from 10-15 metres, hits it at pace and gives it off to another mid out the front of the contest, who kicks deep into our forward 50, or if possible to a leading forward. There were two perfect examples of this against the hawks that resulted in Viney kicking the ball deep inside 50 (unfortunately both to a hawks defender). Another great example was the goal we got in the Port game where Nibbler got a clean possession out the front of the centre bounce and drilled it to Tmac. If he can't execute this set play (becuase the bounce is not straight, the mids are blocked, he doesn't time his leap, can't get a clean tap etc etc) he more often than not hits to the defensive side of the contest and/or drops it close to the contest. Either way it rarely goes to advantage becuase Oliver and Trac, when in the centre, stand well away from the bounce. This doesn't mean it goes to an opposition player - it is often just a scrap. If it does go to an opposition player, or we lose the scrap, the resulting disposal is under pressure and that's where our defensive intercepts come in to play. I'm sure the club could could increase max's hit out to advantage stats should they wish to. For one thing Oliver and tracc could set up much closer to the contest. In 2018 Max was number one in the AFL in hit outs to advantage. And on the back of that we were the dominant centre clearance team. But those hit outs to advantage were often to a Viney or Oliver right next to him and their kick inside 50 was under pressure and often swallowed up by the opposition defenders. Which was a big factor in why we lost some games where we dominated centre clearances and had way more inside 50s than the opposition. By the by, i'm assuming that hit out to advantage stat is for centre bounces? If it is also for around the ground stoppages, then there is an another obvious reason for max's ranking in the hit outs to advantage stats - as everyone now knows we are at a numerical disadvantage at every around the ground stoppages because we send an extra back. And more often than not opposition team send an extra to the contest. Makes sense then that it is harder to hit to advantage. Max is good but he is not a magician. Again, if we simply wanted max to win more hit outs to advantage we could achieve that by bringing our extra to the contest, as King has advocated (which i think we did against the bombers after half time). But as Montagna said in response, that's not our game. Looking at stats like hit out to advantage in isolation can be misleading. Same goes for centre clearances. As Hardwick has pointed out, what is important is what happens after winning the clearance. I might be wrong as i don't have the stat at hand, but i recall reading or hearing a couple of weeks back that we are in the top 3 for scores from clearances that we win. If so my assumption is that clean hit outs to advantage of the type Nibbler set up Tmac from are a big reason why.

Interestingly they also had a higher, albeit only slightly, pressure rating than us in that game. Something like 170 to 167. I was surprises after the game when i saw that stat on fox as watching it live it felt like we we were applying far more pressure. Perhaps we just handled it better. to win this game it is important we: stop their fast transtion game from half back make sure their forwards have no clear lanes to lead into (which they wont if we make it hard for them to move the ball quickly) minimise their scoring chances from center clearances Other teams have been doing these things pretty well in the last 6 weeks and they have struggled. The key though of course is applying max pressure. I reckon their game plan is suspect under intense pressure becuase it relies so much on lots of quick handballs and precise kicks. In the games against sides that have really applied crazy pressure and intensity - the tigers, the dees and the Swans they have struggled to kick a competitive score and duly lost. In those games they could only score 55, 59 and 60 points respectively.

What a load of tripe

Yep, fully vaccinated people can transmit covid, so all the same safety measures would still need to apply. But the likelihood of anyone who does get it getting really crook or being hospitalized is very low. But speaking from a personal point of view i'd prefer to sit in stand where i knew everyone was fully vaccinated. I could just chillvax, kick vac, and enjoy the game.

Just great. Have been looking forward to this game since we played them in an empty stadium in round whatever. Games in front of no crowd are awful, even on TV. Was also going to the President's lunch for this game. A zoom event does not have quite the same appeal.

Why would having an area put aside for people who had been vaccinated, or giving them free tickets, punish you (or anyone who, for whatever reason, is not vaccinated)?

Sure. But i'm not proposing that ONLY people who are fully vaccinated can get a ticket. Just that they (we) can sit in their own stand, should they want to. As i would if the option was available. That said anyone over 18 get an AZ shot if they want to.

One relatively easy option would be to have one stand for fully vaccinated people only. Of course there are some technical issues (and maybe some ethical ones), but lets say at the G to get a ticket in the Ponsford you have provide your vaccine digital certificate identifier. You would still need to have all the systems in place (eg masks etc), but that group of people would be at very low risk of catching it or transmitting it to each other. Not no risk, but acceptably low. And if they did get it they are unlikely to get crook. Lets say there were 5, 000 people in the Posnford, all vaccinated. This is 5, 000 people less people crowding into other areas. And that group of people could relax in the knowledge that everyone around them is fully vaccinated. Id love the AFL to offer those tickets for free. Maybe in the finals. Create some incentives for people who are wavering about getting vaccinated. 350, 000 people attended the three days of the British F1 just gone, including 140k cheek to jowl poms going crazy for Lewis Hamilton for the race itself. To purchase a ticket you needed to have been fully vaccinated (ie two shots) and pass a PCR in the days prior to the event (not sure how many days). This is the way:

[censored]

My wife's family and many of our friends are in Germany. A long, long way from life as normal. Unless of course you count the rise of right wing nationalism in rhe east

Are we playing one short?

Given we are playing gc next week why have we not headed to qld?

Game on. No crowd

Good call. Was excellent for the dees. Smooth mover and accumulator. Good kick too, which is my number one metric! Who did he paly for before us? The saints?

You must have a set against burly ex roos.

Rubbish. Way too late.

For clarity, I had my second az dose in Monday. Have had literally no symptoms. And no blood clots. I reckon anyone who has had two doses of vaccine should be able to go to the footy. And that is not a joke.

Sorry Kent, not specifically footy related, but as of Monday I'm double AZ dosed . Not a single symptom. Apart from my recent blood clots. Jokes. I had a runny nose

Once you get past Super's say top 25 - 30 then it is diminishing returns in terms of contribution to the demon cause. It's a reminder though of how much more movement between teams there was back in the 70s and eigthies. I hate to say it, given his talent, but i would Harley Bennell at the bottom of that list just about. And for me thee is one glaring omission, a player i have in my top 10, almost top 5. The 1982 Bluey winner, Steven Icke. Awesome for the dees. Such a competitor and never left anything out there. My favorite type of player. As primarily a center half back at the dees, in a period where Templeton was the protoype build for a CHF, played out of weight division every game. He kicked 13 goals in 1983 so must have played forward that year a bit (something i had forgotten - thanks demonwiki. I do remember him being a forward at the Roos) and polled 12 Brownlow votes. That year he also came third in the bluey behind Alan Johnson (one of all time fav dees) and Robbie.

That's all true, however IIRC correctly we doubled our play on rate in the second half, which had to be a conscious reset as playing on can be done even when the opposition is set ahead of the ball. We played into their hands in the first half by not playing on more often and holding it too often an for too long, meaning the game was played more on their terms. I can't recall the game, but there was another with an almost identical dynamic.

Agree to an extent, particularly in regard to the importance of winning contests (perhaps the key part of our game plan) and the opposition not using a sweeper role, or holding defenders deep (which few do really because it means you are down one player somewhere). But they can also create overlap by playing on quickly and either kicking long or having a player run past for a handball. And also by using more handballs to move the ball. The phrase the players most used in when talking about the first half of the Lions game was they played too safe. In the second half they played on much more quickly, had a real focus on players running past for a handball and had heaps more many handballs. They were much more aggressive and played much less 'safe'.

Wow. Just wow.

Perhaps. But i reckon in the pies and GWS games the issue was not the forward line, it was that our ball movement from the back half was was too slow and we were not creating any overlap. And we were also not creating any of that swarm pressure that generates so much of scoring when we are on. As i have noted before i reckon this was a function of fatigue, rather than abandoning the game as such, that's to say were no physically able to properly implement the game plan In the Lions game fatigue wasn't an issue. However we were 20 odd points down at half time, and in trouble, in large part due to the fact that we were not generating enough scoring opportunities. A heard a number of players say after that game that we had been too cautious and slow in the first half and Goody had encouraged to get them the ball moving more quickly. It was really noticeable that we did so - we played on more quickly and handballed more aggressively and often. And swamped the Lions. When we play like that, as we did against port for much of the game, opposition defenses often get all out of shape and we get goals out the back like two of traccs goals (or even friiter's long range goal - they had no one at all inside our 50 metre arc when he marked that ball leaving a completely open goal - and he actually had Spargo running toward goal he could have elected to give it to) The other thing i think is worth considering is the idea of what being more attacking. It seems counterintuitive, but perhaps kicking to he pocket IS the more attacking option as it gives us two bites at the shots at goal cherry. First bite is we either mark it in the pocket, it comes to ground and we crumb it or it goes over the boundary and we score form that stoppage. Second bite is the opposition desperately try to clear the zone and dump kick it under pressure and we intercept that kick and come back inside (often with a little 20 metre kick to an open player) for another scoring opportunity. With kicking it to the hotspot this second bite is less likely as it is harder to defend a dump kick from the corridor. Much easier to defend a dump kick from the pocket as as i noted they really only have one option which is down the line and so we can saturate the likely drop zone with players pushing up.

I remember hearing someone talk about this on the radio a few years ago (and again a few months back). Specifically they were talking about the crows (maybe Neil Craig) coming to the realization (because someone tracked him?) that even though Ricchiuto was getting the ball 30 plus times a game and was their best player, in 120 minutes of football he only had the ball in his hands for 2 mins. The comment was that this realization changed football because from that point the crows, and then the rest of the competition, had a much greater emphasis on what was happening for the other 118 minutes. And this shift ushered in the era of all team defensive running and spread that is a fundamental of today's game. And key position players, like forwards, staying in the one area all game for that matter. Which in turn has shifted the game away from one on one battles so many people seem to pine for.

Max has played forward enough this year to provide enough evidence of how Goody, Yze etc assesses those percentages. And on that evidence the answer is no, the percentages don't change enough in our favour to kick it to the hot spot, because they don't' do so even when max is there. Which make sense because even with max there statistically we do not take many contested marks inside 50. The percentages might even favor a kick to the pocket because with max there there is an increased chance that the ball will be at least brought to ground, which is what we want and are set up for. On that, if a defender spoils a marking attempt in the the pocket it would almost never be hit toward the corridor. The first option is hitting it towards the boundary, or if that is not possible at least no worse than directly in from to the pack. Again this is predicable and we can practice it. And when the ball hits the ground in that scenario, it is the defence that is under most pressure. Even the best defenders can panic a bit and try and hack kick it out, or give away a free to one of our smalls. The free and goal Spargo got against Port was the perfect example of the benefits of our system. I reckon one of the strengths of our back six (and helpers like Langdon and Gus) is that they don't often panic. They are quite comfortable working it to a player under less pressure with handballs to work their way out of the defensive 50 and avoid a dump kick. But when that is not possible they are also ok with the dump kick because they are confident of winning the next contest, or if they don't, getting back into shape quickly to protect the re entry kick