binman

14 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

Is no disrespect to those awesome Demons to acknowledge Max as GOAT. Madden was very very good, but also played one out, We would win by cricket scores if Max played one on one in the forward line.

He's starting to mount an argument as the best ruck in the modern era.

Def the best ruck at Melbourne, and that's no disrespect to White, Jimmy and Baker.

19 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Not sure about the fixture point. 

We still have Collingwood twice, Fremantle twice, GWS, Port, Essendon, Brisbane in Brisbane, GC on the GC and the Dogs at Marvel.

Still four more interstate trips (Essendon by contrast have just two).

We’ve done well enough given the early travel but there are plenty of challenges on our fixture still to come. 

Agree we still have a pretty tough run home.

(But I'd add we have games against the Eagles at roos at the g to come)

But that wasn’t my point.

My point was our run home is not as tough as our first 11 games.

Two five day breaks. A six day break.

Four interstate games.

Both Adelaide teams at home.

Have played the swans, port, cats and blues, meaning 4 of our 11 games have been against teams currently in the top 8, 2 against top 4 teams. 

And we are 4th.

The ladder doesn't lie (well perhaps for the bombers it does).

As much as some on here might try to convince people otherwise, you can't magic up 4th on the ladder after 11 rounds with the fixture we have had.

Had a family lunch, so had to watch the game as live. Just finished it.

Great win.

Haven't read this thread yet.

I assume posters, even the ones convinced we are hopeless, have given us full credit and not putting some sort of asterisk on it.

The ladder doesn't lie.

Fourth on the ladder close to the halfway part of the season with our toughest games and schedule behind us.

Go redleggers.

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

$3.40 wowee ala Roaming Brian 

someone who does not follow Melbourne is very confident.  Like last week.  It’s games like this that we should win easily that we indeed do not turn up to play until half time. 
Game Over.   That first quarter 

still not confident 

No, not someone.

Thousands of people, including professional punters risking serious coin, have backed us to win, which explains why we are 1.33 to win. 

Of course that doesn't mean we will - you only have to go to one harness meeting to understand 1.33 favourites can get rolled.

But the thing I like about the betting market is we punters do our best to strip out emotion and be as objective as possible.

After all it's cold hard cash on the line not a throw away prediction or a lead tipping comps.

(And even if there are some emotion driven punters adding a drip to the pool, a big chunk of them are probably woe us us dees fans backing the saints)

Which is why the betting market is by far the best predictor of the probable outcome of any given match.

13 hours ago, binman said:

Essential viewing:

The Scott press conference.

Old mate Scotty didn't disappointed.

I admire his confidence.

He could have gone safe in his attempt to win the coveted Poor sportsmanship- coaches division award (or as it is colloquially known, the sour puss).

After all  he has a handy lead over mcrae, who has surged of late, scoring big with his patented go to passive aggressive routine.

But, no, Scotty decided to attempt the rare triple pay the opponents no respect move - and totally nailed it. Respect.

The cats apparently played poorly for 3 quarters against the giants, port and dees - and still almost won (he got bonus points for using the under a goal line - the judges loved it).

Though he missed a chance to try the even rarer quadruple disrespect trick by not disrespecting the suns a bit more.

Though he did pick up some easy points by acting if having 160 points scored against them is no big deal.

And really, probably didn't need the extra points after totally nailing his signature 'no disrespect with a backhanded compliment twist' trick.

As scott noted, a big factor in the game was the giants taking contested marks

But, with 'no disrespect', the giants' old school strategy of kicking long to a contest was very basic - but only worked because the cats marked poorly.

And the judges gave Scott extra points for that trick for the litte twist only the true sour puss aficionados would have picked up - that backhanded compliment was the ONLY time he mentioned the Giants.

Personally, I loved how Scotty slipped in the tried and true trick of, apropos of nothing, mentioning that the cats have young players (all 3 of them)

A bravura performance.

Essential viewing:

The Scott press conference.

5 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

No one in their right mind.  You iron it before you hang it out ...

No.

You hang it up to iron.

2 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

I completely forgot about this, indeed we scored huge numbers from stoppage and ran dry on scores from turn over. Maybe Goody is turning the game plan around already 🤔

Easy to do, such is the power of the Demon myth spell. 

31 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

Absolutely, they whooped us in a number of areas, especially centre bounces. 

#Demon myths

We smashed them from centre clearances:

Summary

Loving the pies tears about the free on the radio.

22 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Sure, I rambled a little. I'll sum it up. 

Gamestyle matters very little and our problem is that the team itself isn't much chop, and that culture and standards have fallen. Plenty on here saw it coming.

You lot are wasting your time throwing theoretical "gamestyle, score source" arguments into the void to avoid coming to terms with the more jarring reality that this list is no longer capable of success. It's easier to blame tactics. I get it. Most EPL club owners do the same thing.

So if this list does achieve success you will reassess?

2 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Honestly this is getting uselessly academic & tiresome. At best, game styles are almost entirely aspirational and depend on what each opposition brings. Add in the randomness of 36 on-ground individuals making distinct and random decisions, as well as external factors like weather and umpires...you get the drift. Some sports have narrower guardrails by their nature - we are pretty free form.

Imo the point of the 'gamestyle' isn't to dictate how and when we execute plays -  but is moreso about imbuing principles - contest, defence, tempo - that players can remember and execute in split second decisions in the heat of battle. 

For a few years there, our principles were strong and clear and suited the strengths of our key players and role players. We also established really high standards and fostered a culture that maintained this. The list build was informed by these principles and standards, and so we were in sync at all levels - AFL through to VFL. 

To take advantage of this, we had several of the best players in the AFL in key positions, and some pretty good players in other positions too. Ultimately this is the most important thing. The best players will always control who wins games. 

Following the flag, the culture and standards started to fall away, and crucially we've recruited individuals who were not suited to our principles (Hunter, Schache, Billings, Fullarton). A lot of our 'very good' players who's strengths agreed to our principles (Brayshaw, Hibberd) either retired, regressed (Sparrow, Bowey, Brown, Mcdonald) or left the club (Harmes, Jordon, Jackson). All these guys had flaws, but were strong at our principles. We've replaced them with players who have some other strengths, but don't align to the Melbourne principles. They become weak links in the chain.

Most importantly, the remaining players who embodied our principles the most (Viney & Oliver) have fallen off a cliff for different reasons.

We look so unrecognisable because our contest is gone. We're no longer winning more than our share of critical contests - bottom 4 at clearances, bottom 10 at contested footy. Our tackling is weak. 

This is not the fault of the coaching staff, who showed they could build the environment and a set of principles that can be successful. It's way too easy to blame our issues on a "gamestyle". 

Our window is over because of our recruiting and list building since the flag, which has been probably the worst of any team in the comp. Other than Windsor this year, we have not added a single player who has added positively to the team. Not a single one. 

There has been plenty of quality on the market in positions we needed. We either can't identify it, can't attract it, or couldn't pay for it because we've locked up so many on long term contracts. 

Why Tim Lamb gets love around here is beyond me - he's done a horrendous job. He wouldn't be making list decisions in a vacuum, but it ultimately falls on him. 

JT, Josh Mahoney, Roos, Jackson, Brendan Mccartney and Goodwin were responsible for our flag, and Lamb is responsible for our stagnation since.

Gamestyle gamestyle gamestyle bla bla - Goodwin no longer has the cattle at his disposal. 

Sorry, not sure i follow. 

24 minutes ago, Tolstoys Nudge said:

Suggest that umpire will get a rest, whilst Nicholls controversy last night gets full AFL Support.. absolute free kick everyday of week and tbh I’m really tired of McRae passive-aggression & hope maybe someone will finally call it out in mass-hysteria-media as his pressers are getting more and more virulently poor.

Funny you should mention that.

He did the half time interview they do walking with the coach to the bench.

Was rude and didmissive. Made some lame joke at the end about Sarah knowing how much he 'loves' those interviews.

Passive aggressive was exactly the thought i had. I wondered waht that was all about given hsi image as Me Media 

Then when they went back to the commentary team Brian Taylor contextualized his comments and tone, saying Mcrae doesn't like in match interviews which is why he doesn't do them often.

What coach does? [censored] poor if you ask me

I have an uneasy feeling.

Backed the pies to win by more than 25. Looking good on that front.

But I still want them to lose.

59 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Yes, Dogs by 5 on xScore

 

5 rushed skews things doesn't it.

Not all of their rushed were misses as such. And rushed points all add to the score, so i don't think it makes sense to not include them in the actual score.

If yoy incude the 5 rushed to the actual score above it's it score 88 to expected score of 92, and their accuracy looks better.

The problem for the dogs was the actual and x and actual score lines diverged the wrong way in the last quarter.

Just now, WheeloRatings said:

That doesn't look correct based on the numbers I have. I have them averaging 30.5 points from defensive half turnovers.

Average points scored per match, by source and half, 2024

Team	Kick-in	Stoppage - Centre	Stoppage - Defensive	Stoppage - Forward	Turnover - Defensive	Turnover - Forward
Sydney	3.7	10.2	6.6	20.2	30.5	31.6
Gold Coast	1.9	13.9	6.8	12.8	29.3	27.5
St Kilda	2.2	9.4	4.8	10.8	28.5	16.5
Greater Western Sydney	4.9	12.5	7.5	13.6	25.7	28.3
Geelong	5.5	15.0	7.0	14.8	25.6	27.5
Adelaide	6.3	10.2	4.8	13.4	23.3	20.3
Essendon	3.2	12.3	7.1	16.3	22.4	23.2
Brisbane	4.0	9.9	5.7	18.0	22.3	24.7
Western Bulldogs	5.0	13.7	4.7	21.0	22.3	26.0
Fremantle	2.9	11.3	6.5	14.3	19.8	21.9
North Melbourne	2.8	9.2	4.6	12.5	19.6	19.0
Collingwood	2.8	12.4	6.2	18.1	18.6	29.2
Carlton	3.6	13.1	7.3	17.0	18.0	33.2
Melbourne	3.0	12.6	9.8	14.9	17.9	22.2
Richmond	5.3	4.3	5.6	10.2	17.5	19.3
Port Adelaide	7.2	14.5	7.8	14.4	16.8	29.3
Hawthorn	3.9	7.9	5.5	13.8	16.5	23.3
West Coast	6.5	11.6	6.7	14.8	13.8	18.9

Average points conceded per match, by source and opponent half, 2024

Team	Kick-in	Stoppage - Centre	Stoppage - Defensive	Stoppage - Forward	Turnover - Defensive	Turnover - Forward
North Melbourne	3.1	17.2	8.7	16.5	37.3	36.3
Richmond	9.2	13.8	6.2	16.9	28.5	29.7
Essendon	3.3	12.2	4.5	12.1	24.9	24.8
Carlton	4.5	13.5	6.9	21.8	24.8	18.8
Collingwood	5.8	8.1	6.6	13.0	23.9	23.6
Greater Western Sydney	2.7	12.2	7.2	12.5	23.1	22.4
Brisbane	3.8	8.3	4.9	15.4	22.5	17.9
West Coast	5.3	16.1	6.9	22.4	21.7	21.4
Geelong	3.3	14.2	6.3	19.8	21.6	19.9
Port Adelaide	6.1	9.8	6.8	13.4	19.9	25.0
Western Bulldogs	4.5	9.8	8.0	10.2	19.7	24.2
Gold Coast	2.6	9.3	4.9	14.2	19.2	31.5
Hawthorn	3.3	14.4	8.1	18.7	18.7	27.0
St Kilda	5.0	7.6	8.1	11.2	18.4	26.4
Melbourne	2.2	8.0	5.3	13.4	18.0	24.2
Adelaide	2.8	11.5	7.3	15.1	16.5	24.3
Fremantle	3.2	8.3	5.0	13.5	16.3	22.3
Sydney	4.1	10.1	3.4	12.6	15.1	23.3

Imagine if the people paid to cover the game did their own research...

5 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Yep.  It’s been our gameplan from 2021-2023.  In 2021 we didn’t get a lot of repeat entries as it was probably a surprise to every other team how we kicked the ball inside 50 (as we flipped 100% from 2020). Result of surprise was we were ranked #1 at shots per inside 50 in 2021 at over 50%. In 2022 we dropped to #9, in 2023 to #14.

Predictability is the enemy of an attacking gameplan, as there is so much data, stats, dissection of opposition etc It’s the new definition insanity.  Ie Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting the same result.

That's fascinating data in the first paragraph. I didn't know that ie the slide in shots per inside 50.

Crazy to think we #1 in 2021 - I'm guessing the swans are number one for that stat atm with an very different game plan (one we are trying for size now).

That's an interesting point in the second para. There was an element of that with the pies last year.

And perhaps part of goody's thinking is mixing it up this year will make it harder for opponents to get a beat on us.

23 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I presume expected score was in the Dogs favour?

I don't know, but I assume so.

The dogs really should have won, swans had stopped to a walk. Though to be fair the dogs had injuries.

That last quarter looked like a dees game with all the misses.

That 50 was a shocker.

52 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

To be fair to other posters, I don’t recall a groundswell saying change from a forward half game plan.  The complaints centred around our attacking game plan which seemed to be a safety first, bomb it to the pocket, create stoppage plan.  

But those are key elements of our previous game plan because a big part of that method was getting it forward into our front half AND keeping it there. 

Either literally by creating a stoppage, or mutiple stoppages, and trapping it inside our 50.

Or force reentries by setting up a wall, putting pressure on the defender and forcing a dump kick to one of our players.

39 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Hawthorn 2013/14/15.

Not sure what you are referring to here....

35 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Hawthorn 2013/14/15.

Would you believe....

2 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Would you rather be in finals forever but only win a premiership every 11 years?

Or like Brisbane, have a three-peat. Even if that means having to spend 5 or 6 years in the wilderness before being competitive again?

It's a hard decision but as many people say, at the end of the season there is only one winner and all others are losers. There are no trophies for finals or PF played.

Of course I'd rather the three peat and spend 5-6 years in the wilderness.

5-6 years in the wilderness?

To butcher the Monty python gag, luxury, sheer luxury - I followed the dees through 50 years in the wilderness.

But the last of the lions three peat flags was 2003. A generation ago.

The hawk had their three peat in 2013/14/15 - a decade ago - and have been in the wilderness since and you'd think it will be another 2-3 years minimum before they are a genuine contender.  

The tigers almost did it, but couldn't

So i'm not sure your second option is a realistic one anymore.

For someone who has followed the dees through decades of failure and struggles to even make finals, let alone winning a flag, i find the option of staying in the premiership window for as long as possible (like the swans, cats and ironically this iteration of the lions) very appealing.

Goody had said that is the aim, and that is supported by the way we have engineered the demographic spread of our list and playing so many young players.

1 hour ago, greenwaves said:

People are losing hope for this year

Not this person.

7 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The new prototype for mids is high speed, high skills, as opposed to the inside bulls that were so important when we were building our list.

I think a lot of this comes back to the way the game is played now and the extreme scrutiny on physical play, especially anything remotely close to the head. 

Teams still need the bulls, particularly come finals, but agree, also need multiple players like Warner, McCluggae and Zac Bailey. But such players are often hybrid half forward or wing types.

Which is where we have  invested some capital in the last 3 seasons - Hunter, Billings, Windsor, Kolt, Laurie, even Woey and Sestan, who both also sort of fit that bill (ie good foot skills, quick, can play forward of center, bit also as mid if needed for whom KPIs include clean kicks inside 50, score involvements, goal assists and  ideally a goal a game on average). 

On 22/05/2024 at 17:21, titan_uranus said:

This is a parallel discussion to the one in another thread ft. @binman, @Fat Tony and others, including me.

I think it's a touch disingenuous to now say "why did we change the game plan" when multiple times last year, including after the finals losses, Demonland was awash with "we can't keep playing like this". I also think, as @MurDoc516 has said, the way we played in 2022-23 contributed to the inaccuracy we had in finals.

Changes needed to be made to how we play. I'm just not sure now whether we've over-reacted, or our list isn't capable of playing in this modified way, or (as I think Binman would argue) we are just using this game plan to preserve bodies/fitness until later in the year.

The irony meter is getting a big work out.

As you suggest TU Demomnland has been clogged up for the last 2 seasons with cries to change our ugly, forward half game plan. Now we have, and people are pining for the old game plan. 

I don't think we are using the current method just to preserve bodies/fitness until later in the year, though i have no doubt that is a huge driver. Probably the biggest. 

As i noted in the saints pregame thread  i think we will largely revert to 'our' tried and true method, but hopefully retain some of the elements of our current method, eg hitting some high risk corridor kicks, using the lions style 20 metre forward kicks on the 45, and some run and dare off the hb. 

Those elements are important I think in terms of reducing the frequency of reentries back into a crazy crowded inside 50 (which had historically been a big driver of our low score to inside 50 ratio - or inefficiency as it is oft described).

On that point i 100% agree with @MurDoc516 and you that the way we played in 2022-23 contributed to the inaccuracy we had in finals. 

It's an  interesting factor to consider, particularly as it relates to the discussion about us changing our game plan

Last nights game provided another example of a possible correlation between a contested, forward half, high inside 50 game style.

The dogs dominated inside 50s, particularly in the last quarter. For the match, the dog were +12 for total inside 50s (60-48) and were +33 for contested possessions (which is nuts - i don't reckon there would be too many times a team has won being 33 cps down). 

I think there is enough evidence now to suggest the time in forward half model, high inside 50 numbers with lots of reentries into a crowded forward line (ie our 2021-23  game plan) contributes to inaccuracy.