binman

This is absolutely relevant. A massive factor and is the key reason I expected us to win. I applied this same proviso to our port game. So only fair to apply it in tgis game. Like us v port you could see their fatigue from the get go. Mentally flat too. The all team zones both (In fact most) teams employ simply don't work if every player down At do the massive running required or apply sufficient pressure on the ball carrier. Ironically the port loss to cats was a carbon copy of ours to them. They simply did not spread or pressure close to the level required. Think of how many one out opportunities Hawkins had. Probably more than he has had all season combined. Port were as flat as pancakes after their win v the tigers

Fritter is important for the forward structure. And (I think) is our leading goal scorer. And would be pretty high on our list of goal assists and score involvements. And would probably be only behind the weed for rhe number of both contested marks and marks in general inside 50 per game. Zero chance he gets dropped.

Agree LH, Daisy is the one shining light on 7.

100% agree. And that is my issue. Not gaddy's opinion about the club. At least when they are being expressed during a game.

Exactly. Well almost. The opinions about the cub don't bother me at all. Great he is passionate. Same goes for the ox. But, like the ox does, he should save his supporter stuff for his radio show. Not all commentators are are poor as him though. I don't mind Hudson. He at least knows his stuff and has done research. Like the fact fritter is not a dead eye from set shots like that peanut del Santo said (And hilariously Healy responded with top call del) And even though he shares Lyon's blokey style I actually don't mind Brayshaw. In large part because he also seems to do some research and understands the game.

No he is not. At least not when he is in the role of professional football analyst. In that role he is not a fan like us. Or shouldn't be. If i want a lack of understanding of the modern game and uninformed, poorly researched, emotive rants about a demons game I can read demonland.

The things I always find a little confusing about the changes thread is its often not clear if the changes are ones posters think goody will make or ones they rhink he should make. Of course it is my issue, I'm not knocking anyone. But I like how this post makes the distinction clear. And for what its worth I agree 100% with all of it. I also think they will go in unchanged. Give maxy a good break (And they may have no choice). Hopefully cherry ripe for the saints game, one he will be desperate to play in given it is the Alice. Preuss will benefit from another game and we need him fit and ready if needed. Not a forward though so can't replace tmac. With the unfortunate injury to jackson tmac has to remain in the side Thought he worked super hard again. His contests inside 50 were important and he battled hard in the ruck. Sure he is not clunking his marks but the issue for him is his lack of mobility, speed and agilty. But I have no doubt that is fitness/injury/condition related. He needs to be playing to address those issues i reckon. Not playing maxy means they can run tmac in the ruck a bit more too, which helps. Sparrow played a bit in defence and a bit forward. And centre. Classic utility. Jones as pretty good I have to say. Another utility that provides goody some flexibility. But slow Harmes was better. George on the outer made an excellent point on the podcast that playing him as a hard tag on a gun mid, say Sidebottom, robs goody a mid spot. With the need to rotate viney, tracc, Oliver, Brayshaw and spollow through that doesn't work. So hb it is. And he performs or rivers gets his spot. Wasnt required to do much and didnt do much ok. But Tomlinson is just not a defender. Was on miocheck and signs were concerning. Reads and reacts slowly and gets caught behind. But I think he'll stay in defence against at least the dogs. But not in a key post deep. Ultimately I'd like him to take Jones's spot. Though he's want to increase his tackling pressure. I have to say I really like may as the deepest key back. I reckon he is a bit heavier than last year and so deep back is a good fit (as opposed the more mobile hb role they had in mind for him last season, and where has played thus year too). Looks super comfortable there. And if they keep May deep I can't see omac coming back in, unless we come up against a team with two really good key forwards like west coast (neither lever and tomlimson are good enough on one one). Melk had his best game of the season i reckon. Body language much better. When weed, kozzie, friiter and spargo (who was terrific) are up and about he becomes a very dangerous forward. I noticed vdb was the only player in the song with a tracksuit top on. Hopefully he us not injured. Injury is the only reason he goes out. Of a very low bar, his kicking was better. And there is no stat for the fear of god.

Great posts AF. Has some comments and qustions in response but on phone so will make them later. In regard to the last question I think you've nailed it in large part yourself. As you say in the last few games we have been much bafter and moving away from stoppages. Oliver has been key to this by not giving a handball straight away and instead running for a burst of say 5 metres and kicking long. Another noticeable change has been a greater emphasis on long handball forward from stoppages. But I reckon the key from those stoppages is tracc. He is involved in an insane amount of our score involvement. Is be guessing he'd be averaging over 10 per game. And o suspect a high percentage of them are forward of centre and last kick inside 50 (going to EOs and deanox's point about stats it is a complete joke how difficult it is to access decent stats - its like the all don't want people to develop am understanding of the game) Watching him on all pro at stoppages he often starys moving just as the ball is about to be tapped and more often than hits the contest moving. If he doesn't win he often gets his hand to the ball and helps a teammate get it, or at least stop tbe oppos6getti h ut If he does won he is often devestating - moves forward and kicking inside 50. I reckon he is just about impossible to tag too given his strength and movement.

I take it you believe in reincarnation coach?

Fair comment

That's the knock on him isn't it. The roos game was a great example. Had a strong first quarter. Then completely disappeared. Given how dominant we were in the ladt quarter, how many inside 50s we had and how stuffed the roos defenders appeared he should have been filling his boots.

As i said in the OP Engorged Onion posted about this article a couple of weeks back about the tactical evolution in the EPL, a post that got me thinking about creating this thread Engorged onion made the following comment about the article: 'ive just read through this article and cannot help see some similarities as to what Goodwin is trying to do at the Dees... even if you’re not that interested in soccer, this is a great piece on how tactics fit into soccer more generally, and how certain elements fit into our game. Particularly the high press' I totally agree with EOs suggestion it is very relevant for Goodwin's game plan, and in fact the game more broadly. Johnathon Wilson, the author of the article, makes some observations that i think can be applied to Goodwin and Buckley and provide an interesting perspective on tomorrow's game from a tactical perspective. The first is this comment 'at the elite level, two attributes separate the very best managers from the rest: their capacity to manage the transition from attack to defence; and their ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents' I think Goodwin has done a brilliant job mastering the transition from attack to defence. Wilson makes the point that at the heart of the Liverpool success under Klopp is their brilliance at defending, noting that 'after 31 games of the season, the week the title was confirmed, Manchester City had scored seven more goals than Liverpool; Liverpool had conceded 12 fewer goals'. In a nutshell Liverpool defended better. And won the title because of it. Though, Importantly, Wilson also makes the point that Liverpool's success is also a result of their ability to score against much lower ranked teams that go into the match with the sole aim of stopping Liverpool scoring by flooding their defensive zone. Like the EPL, in the AFL a defence first philosophy is the dominant tactical model. Arguably it has been for at least 2 or 3 decades (remember the debates about Blights 'beautiful', yet ultimately unsuccessful, approach at the Cats). But i think the influence of soccer has become increasingly important in the AFL. Wilson credits Liverpool defensive prowess in part to the players at his disposal but mainly to his mastery of the so called 'Swabian school of pressing, of which he is the leading practitioner'. If i understand it correctly a key point of difference of this model is that the press is less aggressive (ie not so high) as the model favored by say Guardiola at Man City (and may other managers no doubt) Since mid 20181 i think Goodwin has moved to a model not dissimilar, at least in AFL terms, to the Swabian school of pressing. His press is certainly less aggressive than it was and he employs a keeper/sweeper role (call it what you will) deep as well. The result is since that time we are one of the hardest teams to score against the AFL. Teams find it extremely hard to transition the ball from their back half (our attack) to their forward 50. And like Liverpool (and unlike Man City and the demons in the 2017 and the first half of 2018) we rarely concede a goal anymore when the ball gets behind the press. I know the roos were struggling, but they were all at sea against us all game in terms of getting the ball forward. They simply couldn't at one point. Which is why even though we were only 10 points up with 4 mins to go of the third (right before Tracc kicked that brilliant goal) it felt like we were way on top and no chance of losing (at least to me). This stat jumped off the page for me: we kicked 14 points and not once could the roos transition the ball from the kick out to inside their 50. Not once. By way of comparison we did so 3 of 5 times. I reckon that is simply remarkable. And a fantastic demonstration of the Goodwin zone in full effect. I have no doubt that the Buckley has similar philosophy and as result they they too are extremely hard to score against. So both Buckley and Goodwin have mastered the transition from attack to defence. The three phases of the game goody talks about. The issue for both clubs is the coaches ability to organise an attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents. However there is a big difference between Goody and Buckley. We get it inside 50, so transition pretty well from our back half. But struggle to score once inside 50. The pies defend well, but don't get inside 50 as often. And their scores reflect this. They are incredibly low scoring for a one time premiership favorite, this year and last. And i know which problem i'd rather have. Much better to get in the scoring zone then not even get the chance to shoot at goal. Which leads me to the second observation; 'Klopp and Guardiola favour pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right, the semi-automation speeding up exchanges. José Mourinho considers football so random pre-arranged moves are pointless; he prefers to generate in his players a mindset that will enable them to make the right decision in whatever situation is thrown up by the game. To say one approach is right and one wrong feels reductive, but what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest.' Thinking about how the dees set up our attacks on goals i have little doubt he has adopted the philosophy of employing 'pre-practised moves that are drilled so they can be deployed when the circumstances are right'. For me this is what he is referring to when he talks about ''çonnection". And it is this semi-automation that can be so frustrating for fans. Think of all the angst about all the seemingly mindless bombing to the hot spot. Perhaps this is simply a function of the belief in semi-automation. Similarly fans (myself included) get frustrated when a player does not take shot and instead handballs or kicks, and sometimes to a spot not a player. Maybe this sort of play could be put down to simply following teams rules but i think it is deeper, more complex than that. Watch where we take a lot of our set shots. form the corridor. It is not rocket science to aim to take shots from the corridor as the probability of kicking a goal is obviously higher the more square the shot on goals is. But some of the sharply angled 45 degree kick back into the corridor look a bit mechanical, not 'natural. By that i mean normal footy instinct would be to kick towards the goal square or a forward leading at you when say 60 metres out. Or have shot from inside 50. But these kicks are increasingly difficult with all the congestion, zones and pressure. Hence the need for the pre practiced attack. And such a set up would need to be drilled over and over so everyone (kicker, multiple leads, player screening, player blocking to create a hole to lead into etc etc) is in their right spot and doing their job. Automated. Deployed when the circumstances are right. There are a number of examples of such kicks that come to mind in the roos game. The kick by fritter to Melksham and even the two darts from Kossie from about 70 to a leading dees player at the 40 (i think the weed both times - he dropped one and missed the st shot with the other), which looked like great vision but may well have been a set play. In basketball teams are drilled and drilled on general sef plays, so much so they become instinctive and teams naturally go them all the time. However teams also practice set plays specifically for clutch moments. The big difference to soccer and footy is the coach can call time out and also have direct the team to run a specif play. The same is true of gridiron. In AFL and soccer the players have to run their own set plays, hence the need for more pre arranged moved triggered by a particular circumstance (for example kozzie is hand balled the ball from a pack 70 metres from goal). Which leads me to a final point. I think increasingly this point Wilson makes about the EPL AFL is becoming just as critical for the AFL: 'but what is clear is that the organisation of attacking is becoming increasingly important in differentiating the best from the rest' And i think Engorged Onion is right about he influence of Klopp's philosophy on Goody. Two years ago he tried to beat the zone by getting past it quickly, before it could be set up. Getting in behind the zone in soccer parlance. And whilst of course we will look to do so when possible more times than not we are still gong to be faced with crowed inside 50s and opponents players guarding space And the more i think about it he more i am confident goody is on the right path and therefore so are the dees. We are getting closer to having the perfect combination of an excellent transition from attack to defence and an ability to organise effective attack, particularly against deep-lying opponents (which in footy is the swamp of players ahead of the ball camped inside our 50). And in terms of our game tomorrow , leaving aside personnel and the difference in preparation, this is the key reason why i think we win. We have extremely similar tactical models but i think goody is becoming much better than the buckley at organising effective attacks.

And 20 questions. I'm thinking of a coach. Does he like to play tennis?

Cards was joking. They will share a bus......

I suspect goody really values Lockart's ferocity and i reckon he is a lock to come back in. You might be right Rivers could go out. Which would be shame for him. Love that he carries the ball forward and takes aggressive options with his kicks. Confident player who looks a real player. But they are coming off a four day break, whereas we have had six days and i'm sure Goody will look to press home that advantage look to physically smash them. So happy for riv to take break and come back in soon.

You're probably right. He's been good hasn't he. Against Port, his first game back in, he was one of our few who worked hard for all 4 quarters (Langdon been another - i could not be more impressed with Langdon). And has been good since.

Jones out. Tomlinson to the wing. Never to play in defence again Omac in. Plays deep, on Reid. The Omac bandwagon must have broke its axle with people jumping on and off so quickly. Tmac stays in for Jackson. Plays as a forward. Lockhart comes in Viney in. Maxy plays. But Preuess comes if i'm wrong. Two players get dropped. Should be Harmes. Wont be. Should be Melksham. Won't be. A leader apparently. Could be AVB. Wont be. Spargo and Rivers the unlucky ones.

I hate to say it but yet another poor decision? And without banging the drum too much this is why it would have been prudent to rest Gawn for the crows and roos game

I'm totally with nasher about there no chance Goodwin selected max out of fears for his future should we lose. My personal view is that it questioning his integrity is indeed very insulting. And again this is personal view, but i reckon it is not ok to question his integrity, but each to their own. But i think it is ok to question his judgement and decision making, as i have done a bit of late. On that front, why do i think he didn't rest Maxy? Obviously i'm only guessing, but my guess would be that there may have been a number of factors he considered: he had publicly said his plan was, as far as possible, to play his best team right though this period, and playing Max was fully consistent with this plan maybe Tmac wasn't ready to play and he didn't want to expose jacko to a full game of rucking maxy was dead keen to play and wanted to fly the flag after bartlett's very public criticism of his teammates the burgess and the doctors convinced him he was at no risk of making the lat injury worse so maxy was good to go percentage might end up playing a critical role in making the finals and playing maxy would increase the likelihood we have a big, percentage boosting win

Of course. But even without the benefit of hindsight did you think that the selection of a not fully fit max gawn was going to be the difference between winning and losing the game against the crows? Did you think so against a better team, with a much better ruckman, for the roos game?

Agree its not the same thing. But surely we didn't really assess the selection of maxy as critical to a win versus the crows, particularly given we had almost a full list to choose from. They had not won a game. They had a percentage of 55. They made 9 changes. Their one star was out and spargo could have competed against their ruck. The roos are as better team, with one of the best rucks in the AFL and we beat them by the same margin with no max The risk reward ratio was all out of wack. It was a pretty important game for the pies finals chances too. And they had four of their best out. And elected to rest arguably their most important player. And I'm not being Harry hindsight. I said we should rest him prior to crows game.

But kozzie is clearly in goody's best 22. Id say best 11. In a must win game you don't rest a best 22 player.

Then why did rest kozzie?

Agree. But why take any risk. Surely he wasn't worried the crows would beat us.