binman

A terrific site.

Both are a couple of seasons away from being able to cope as full time inside mids, particularly Jordon who needs to build his strength a fair bit.

We are now a true destination club. Sure Dunstan would get more minutes at the Suns, and probably more coin, but he is zero chance of playing in flag there. Staying in Victoria AND having a chance of playing in premiership team would be a very attractive combination to many players i suspect. No doubt a factor in Weed signing on again.

You'd think that opposition coaches would be immune from from being influenced by outside noise, particularly given they more than anyone know how much rubbish the footy experts spout. Be that as it may, i'm sure goody was more than happy for that sort of shut down lever, shut down the dees misinformation guff to swirl about. Same goes for the shut down Maxy, negate the dees guff. The discussion on Lever was funny because it centred on the idea of either putting a defensive forward on him or isolating him one one one with a key forward. The experts were banging on about Schahe's role on Allir as if it was a masterstroke. And suggested he might play similar role on Lever. Allir still had 15 odd intercepts possessions. But with the ball coming inside 50 quickly with no pressure on the kick he was always gong to struggle to be the damaging AA rebounder he had been. And the experts pointed out the dog's efforts in round 19 to engineer a match up on Naughton. Lever still had 15 intercept possessions and Naughton only kicked 2. But more to the point, in the two previous finals - and the round 23 game against the cats - Lever still got his intercepts but played a more traditional one on one role. And he is so much better one on one than he was last year (i suspect he is stronger and more confident in his knees). So goody would have been more than happy for the dogs to waste energy trying to engineer a match up for Lever. Same goes for efforts to negate Maxy. I know maxy told Goody to leave Jackson on the ball in the third, but I have no doubt goody always planned to use Jackson more often in the ruck than he had previously. And doing so really muddled the Dogs tactically i think. Leaving aside the 3 quarter goal blitz, Jackson rucking allowed Maxy to drop back into the dog's half and made it super difficult for them to get a contested mark inside 50, or an uncontested mark for that matter. It also helped May defend Naughton (who King said would be the dog's most damaging player). And the experts told everyone to watch out for Daniels and flagged the need to shut him down. It was actually quite interesting from a tactical perspective how they managed Daniels. In the first half he had 26 possessions, and by in large they let him run free. I thought he did very little with those possessions and i only counted one effective inside 50 kick (English marked it - and the proceeded to kick it into Petty on the mark). Despite that Goody sent Sparrow to him (i think) in the second half and completely shut him down. Maybe that was always the plan (ie let him go in the first half, shut him down in the second) as not only did we take him out of the game , we ran off him as he tired and exposed him for lack of pace and run. Meanwhile, coming into the game, the experts didn't really highlight the danger Salem posed. He was our best player in the first quarter i think. Or at least our most damaging. And that is when we won the game. He was allowed to sit free forward of center and he had some crazy amount of inside 50s and score involvements. Why wasn't he tagged? All week the media were banging on about Beveridge being a tactical genius able to spin goaled from thin air. Throughout his coaching tenure Goody has never been given credit for his tactical acumen by the experts, and many dees fans i have to say. That script was followed in the two week lead up with barely word said about his tactical ability. But i reckon Goody smashed Beveridge tactically. Beveridge had no strategy to deal with Jackson in the ruck or Maxy dropping back. He let Salem run wild in the first quarter. May was clearly hampered yet he didn't try to make him run or stretch out - for example by playing Naughton higher. Yes it's how they defend, but surely he had to tell his defenders to stop setting up 5 metres in front of their opponent as we exposed that all day. And most of all they needed to be aggressive in the third quarter, for example try going thought corridor, throw caution to the wind, and get that lead out to 5 goals if possible. Goody, on the other hand, used Jackson brilliantly, isolated their defenders, didn't worry about the Lever match up (more than happy for Petty and rivers to be the attacking interceptors), had Salem playing super aggressively, shut down Daniels, negated Libba, shut down Naughton and shut down Mcrae (25 possessions for a player who averages 35 or something crazy). He also completely shut down two of the key players in the Port game in Smith and Hannan, rendering the latter basically a spectator. Despite all of that very few experts gave Goody any credit for winning the tactical battle. And i didn't hear a single expert criticise Beveridge for his performance, othe rthan questioning why he didn't do more to stop the goal blitz in the third. Which is ironic, becuase there is not much he could have done, if anything about those center square clearances - they were all on their players.

I hope if that comes to pass she gets a somewhat more threatening nickname first.

No they weren't

I got it thinking it was the pre game record. Got home and realised it was 100% dees. Brilliant

I want to do thanks and love emoji. Landed on heart. So a million thanks

Really looking forward to the AFLW season

Spud Dullard

You're rosacea is even wore than mine andy!

Mmm - i didn't see that. Might need to give her a second peanut!

Spot on. He is no chance of getting selected in the seniors unless he addresses these issues. And it is very hard to see him doing so given he had both an incredible incentive AND the opportunity to do so this season. Which is fine in of itself in terms of being depth at Casey. Except for the fact that he is a senior player who should be showing the sort of leadership Jones, Jetts and Mitch brown did playing at Casey. And he is no doubt on pretty good coin. I think a move and reset would be good outcome for a both parties. I was thinking the Suns would be a good option. But on reflection they probably have enough highly skilled players with question bale intensity. I wonder if the Saints might be a good option. I know they have a number of older players but they need some silk and finishers up forward and he would be un upgrade on Kent and Higgins. And the Saints might work for Melk as they are a Melbourne based team and will be pushing for finals.

Media person Caroline Wilson Medium Print, Radio, Podcasts Comment Much argument amongst the judging panel her as to the rating - with anywhere between zero and three peanuts being pushed. Debate centered on the definition of axe to ground and how harmless she is. Also how much to bring old Caro grievances into the mix and whether there has been a continuous, unbroken chain of wrongness since her attacks on the dees in her coverage of the tanking saga (and arguably even further back). The fact I stopped watching Footy Classified 2 years ago makes assessment harder. That said has been relatively benign in her 3aw slots as it it pertains to being wrong about the dees. But Caro's old fashioned pre grand finals beat up by claiming on FC that the dees had instituted a curfew on its players earned her a nomination. Totally made up and an attempt at creating some unnecessary, albeit pretty harmless, fugazi. The clincher was two fold. One - despite the club never using the term curfew, in fact explicitly saying it wasn't a curfew, she backed up her beat up by claiming 'players' had said it was a curfew. Implied multiple players and that she had heard from them directly. Two - she gave Ross 'I'm withdrawing my interest in the Carlton coaching job, despite there being no interest' Lyon the platform to claim the dees are treating their players like children, not adults. On Ross 'the Boss, defence wins finals (editor note: but only of you can also score more than 30 points)' Lyon, he has been nominated for an award and i'm confident he will receive one. Score

You always have to start at the beginning. This will be a very therapeutic process for me. This thread will sustain me for some time.

Media person Adam White Medium Radio, breakfast show on RSN Comment Every Monday during the season, White has had the benefit of listening to the excellent analysis of Bartel and Ramanaskus, who have consistently highlighted the dees strengths and likelihood of winning the flag. Despite this, and the mounting evidence, has consistently questioned our bona fides. Unable to shake his confirmation bias, he tipped the lions to beat us. Much to the disbelief of Bartel and Ramanaskus he tipped the Cats to win the prelim. And then, after bartel had made the case the dees would win the GF, cherry picked a brief comment Bartel made about the pressure of playing in a GF to say 'mmm, that has crystalized my thoughts that the dogs will handle the pressure better given their experience in 2016 and i think they' win'. Score

To be fair, there are of course quite a number of people working in the footy media that provide some really excellent analysis and thought provoking insights - most are trained journos but not all. Some of my favorites include Greg Baum, Caroline Wilson, Daisy, Montagna, Bartel, Peiek, Nicholson, Delidio, Arnell, Middlemass, Lawson, Atkinson and Gleeson, who wrote this excellent article recently that highlights our bravery as club, inlcuidn how we went about our internal review: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/four-points-demons-awesome-display-the-moment-that-turned-the-tide-a-reward-for-bravery-20210926-p58uvi.html

Lets agree to disagree. A club with a soft culture would have taken the easy road. Rather then having the CEO do the review, they would have got an external, high profile consultant to do the review. They would have sacked the coach. And instead of looking to improve their governance, they would have ignored problems with their board. Unlike the dees, who, after going 4 zip had the courage to, one, realise they needed to make changes at board level and two make those changes. And they would have completely destabilized the club and put it back 10 years. Just like McClure's joke of a club.

One more thing about the McClure comments. He says: 'Which is the biggest-name player that’s ever been dropped at Melbourne? I can’t think of one. Because it’s soft, a soft culture they’ve got' He can't think of one hey? Well, what about Goody's decision to TRADE Jack Watts - a number one draft pick, a huge fan favourite and by all accounts loved by his team mates. That was a seriously big call. A culture call. (disclaimer: i was completely against that decision. Our biggest weakness was kicking and he was our best kick. But i also made clear that i respected Goody and trusted him to make the right call. And acknowledged that i of course didn't know anything about his training standards or of field stuff, other tan rumours of course. Well, Goody has once again been proved correct. And i have been proved incorrect. As many argued on demonland at the time, it was the right call)

Bollocks. McClure says this about our culture: “Can Jesus Christ deliver at the Dees? No one can deliver at the Dees. “The problem is the culture’s all wrong. Which is the biggest-name player that’s ever been dropped at Melbourne? I can’t think of one. Because it’s soft, a soft culture they’ve got. “What’s got to happen is if the actual coaching staff and the people on the board don’t stand up and start to build a culture of this football club – it’s been 50, 60 years since they’ve won a Grand Final … and they’re still the same. Have they improved? Or have they got worse?” Total rubbish. Sure the players went up level this season in terms of their selflessness and buy in. But the improvement didn't come out of nowhere. Just one more example of false, self serving narrative It takes years to build culture and we have been steadily building since Roos came on board and since Goody took over in 2017. Instead of making jokes about his use of phrases like learnings, if peanuts like McClure bothered to listen to goody, they would have heard him say that the way we ended the 2020 season winning two elimination games was a really important step forward. A point he reiterated in his post GF interviews.

The binman media awards scoring system: One peanut: Often got it very wrong, but no apparent agenda and all in all pretty harmless Two peanuts: More often than not got it very wrong, possible agenda, failed to do the required research and all in all pretty hopeless Three peanuts: The highest award. Counterintuitively sometimes gets it right, but just as likely to contradict themselves a few days later - and sometimes even in the same sentence. But consistently gets it wrong and often doubles down on the wrongness. Often appears to have an obvious agenda or axe to grind. Almost always cannot get past their preconceptions, suffers terribly from confirmation bias and looks for every opportunity to find evidence that supports that bias. Confuses spouting stats with analysis. Highly likely to be an overweight ex footballer who like to wear open necked pastel shirts that at first glance might suggest they are super built.

Good point, well made. Fixed

Easy fix Nev - don't open this thread. There are any number of peanuts in the media who have got things completely wrong about the dees. And many on here have parroted those same peanuts (apologies for the alliterative mixed metaphors) and used their arguments to bolster their own wrong headed arguments. And that white noise of [censored] almost has disastrous consequences as there is no doubt it almost resulted in Goody getting axed. I don't need to go back 12 months either to find examples of so called experts (almost universally ex players) making ill informed comments that were based on their own preconceptions of the club, issues they have with the club or key personnel at the club, and their complete lack of understanding of what Goody was doing. And it drives me nuts, becuase even some passionate demons fans as evidenced by this forum, swallowed the [censored]. Just once recent example was the almost universal lack of proper pre game analysis of the grand final and likely outcomes. So many 'experts' had the game as a toss of the coin when all evidence suggested we were clear favorites. And that a blow out was very much on the cards. No surprise that the betting odds reflected that reality. We were 1.65 to win. And only 5.50 to win by more than 39 points. The betting pools are in the tens of millions for the GF. Most of that is money from professional punters. Who lose money if they get it wrong. Unlike the footy experts. An even more recent example is the 'one goal from breaking narrative' around the third quarter. The dogs were fantastic in the first 10 minutes of that quarter and their pressure was off the charts (210 at the 10 minute mark). But unlike the second quarter we were matching them for pressure. We were struggling to transition it into our forward half and had to repel multiple inside 50s from them. But that's what we do. As the stats clearly show (lowest EVER opposition scores to inside 50 ratio at only 35%) no team is better at dealing with opposition inside 50s, and no team is more comfortable with the ball in their defensive half. We have shown this all season. We have also shown in the last six weeks that our offence can be devastating. For Pete's sake we had just decimated one of the best defences the AFL in the prelim, having touched up the lions in the QF. And of course we had run down a 44 point lead in just over a quarter against the cats in round 23. And we are the fittest side in the AFL by a mile and as a result our record in last quarters this season - and even more so in the finals - is simply phenomenal All this is basic knowledge. And the experts should have been pointing all this out- before, during and after the game. Why? Because that is their jobs. And it would help fans, neutral and otherwise understand what was was likely to happen, what was happening and what happened. And they should have pointed out that the issue wasn't us folding, the issue was that the Dogs threw everything at us and could only score two goals for all that work. Given all the evidence i note above, the dogs were the team that was on the brink. They simply had to to put more goals on the board in the third. Two was never going to be enough - and so it proved. And i'm not being harry hindsight. In my match preview post in the game day thread i noted: 'We are fitter and stronger than the dogs and will run out the game better. As we have shown all season, if the dogs have a lead at 3 quarter time they will struggle to hold us off. Conversely if we have a lead, which i expect we will, we will be very hard to run down..... The major issue for the dogs is that we are unlikely to concede more than 70 points. Which means they have to keep us under 70 points to win. On a perfect deck, in perfect conditions and with our offensive weapons' and ability to generate repeat inside 50s on back of forward half pressure, they will struggle mightily to do so.' Unless they are driving an agenda or are well out of order, I don't have an issue with fans getting things wrong about the dees. We all have had to develop our own coping mechanism to deal with our decades long lack of success. Catastrophizing was no doubt helpful for some, just as my relentless optimism that each season was a new dawn has helped me for 40 years (and driven my demons mate nuts and given non demons mates plenty of fodder for getting stuck into me). But people paid to express opinions about our club should be held to account when they are lazy, do not do the work and allow their own agenda to colour what they write or say in the media. Note, that i didn't say they have to be right, Being wrong is ok. Just not when that opinion is based on a quick sand of [censored]. So I for one am going to take this thread as opportunity to vent some of my frustration and highlight some of the so called experts who i think got things egregiously wrong.