binman

Yes, that's the team I'm talking about. The same one, bar Georgiades, that beat the Swans the previous week by, checks notes, 136 points. Not quite sure of your point? I said we were undermanned and did very well against the side sitting second on the ladder. I didn't say they had their very best side available - though it's a stretch to compare their outs to ours - no AAs in that lot, let alone one of the best players of the last 30 years. And arguably, of those five only Georgiades and SSP are in their best team. And only SPP has a case for being one of their top six players, whereas we have three such players out. Am i right to assume you don't agree we did well? Before the game, did you think we were a realistic chance of winning on Saturday night? That's to say, did we perform above or below your pregame expectations? Do you think we did a better job against port than the Swans, the favourite to win the flag, did the previous week? Some might argue we did 134 points better.

What does it matter we knew before the season started they couldn't play? We couldn't replace them, so no different to losing two best 23 players to injury for the whole season. Bowey is definitely in our best team. I'd argue smith and spargo are too. But for the sake of argument let's say they're not. So Tracc, May, Gus, Bowey and Windsor from our best team - all starters. Nearly a quarter of our very best team we could field with no injury. Four premiership players, May and Tracc multiple AA, three top 10 draft picks (2, 3 and 7!), 600 odd games of AFL footy and I'd argue three of our best six players. As young blood notes, it's semantic siliness to debate if that equals severely undermanned. But surely there's no debate any team missing a comparable number of their best, no injury 23 would struggle. Collingwood for instance. Isn't the key point that we did very well against, almost beat in fact, the team sitting second on the ladder with an undermanned team?

There was also bowey. And gus and smith. So six best 23 players not in the side. A quarter of the best team available. Seven if you include Spargo. Take six or seven best 23 players from any team and they'd struggle. Even more so if you add two or three key senior players carrying injury.

I'm not sure I agree about jvr, but clarry back def hurt us. Forward would have been a better option That said, Goody was trying something different. It's not always going to work. His choice of sub has been a worry for mine in the last three weeks. I'm guessing Turner was cover for Max, but still. And Melksham didn't make sense, if for no other reason than we could have done with a player with his skills, particularly a senior player.

I think our kicking skills have been poor for a decade or more. And that's definitely true of the Goodwin era and the current list - Even our very best players can be hit or miss by foot. Take multiple best 23 players out and our skills are really exposed. Fatigue, like wind and rain, impacts skill execution, particularly for players with average skills. No doubt it was factor in our poor skill execution last night.

Spot on. On the board they show the players at the quarter time break, in the reinforcements/solutions section they had the word corridor at quarter time (along with the pressure rating 1.83, conquest and contest). Presumably that was to reinforce the strategy to deny port the corridor. I'm not sure exactly what some posters expect - particularly those who don't rate the playing list or coach A bit of perspective wouldn't go astray sometimes. Many posters expected we'd get flogged. As did the punters - we started @ $3. We are clearly cooked. Multiple players are clearly carrying injuries, including 4 of our best 6 players (Lever, gawn, viney and clarry - whose hand is causing him obvious issues). Including smith and gus (and it makes zero sense not to),we were missing six of our best 23 (7 if you include Spargs) - one of whom is arguably the best player in the AFL (tracc) and another is arguably the best KPD in the AFL. Therefore we were missing more than a quarter of our best 23 and half our best six players (gus is/was in my top 6). Those players are replaced by, as tou suggest, vfl level players. And we are having to play a bunch of kids who are clearly paddling Our elite midfield is missing tracc and Gus, maxy is labouring and clarry struggling What would have been the point trying to take on the corridor and try and go fast? We didn't have enough players with the skills to execute the sort of high risk kicking and split second elite decision making that method demands. And more crucially, we also lack the all team running power and speed that method demands. Port would have demolished us if we tried to play any other way. Opposition teams have been looking to run us of our legs and spread us wide Port are one the hardest running teams in the AFL from their back half. For pete's sake they scored 148 points against last week doing exactly that to the team on top of the ladder. 148 points. We kept port to almost a third of that score on a perfect night for footy, with as you say plenty of VFL standard players running around, a bunch of kids, multiple players who'll need post season surgery and a team who are collectively gassed. And we almost beat them. Top work goody.

Yeah, how crazy to sub a kid who was clearly gassed,and had - a player rating bested only by hore and the sub - 25 supercoach points - 8 disposals at 25% efficiency (meaning only 2 of his disposals were effective) - only three marks on a perfect night for footy - no hit outs - one score involvement - only 5 pressure acts - zero tackles on a night where we had 18 tackles inside our 50 (probably our season high) - and as our key forward had one shot at goal for the grand total of no goals and no points. But sure, let's sack the coach for subbing him.

What I find annoying is it always goes around in circles.

How about: Dan stick with the plan and be a Dee. If you don't, Houston, we have a problem.

Or at the very least his ankle.

I think the last para is spot on. No doubt conditioning is a big issue, so it's hard to judge our method. But there is no doubt that out relative lack of foot skill (and handball skills?) hurts us big time with the turnover game. We give it back too often and players like salo and bowey have dropped off in terms of their ability to hit high risk kicks coming out of our back half. In our back 7, or mid for that matter, who would you trust to hit a high risk kick to the corridor? For me, probably only mcvee and tmac now. That ain't gonna cut it. Which is why i think our greatest need is flankers who are elite kicks and elite runners not mids.

No, is the short answer. Contest and defence are still fundamental Particularly if contest includes pressure. Teams that can't apply elite pressure are not going to win a flag. Sure fast ball movement from the back half is now more important, but pressure is what creates turnovers. And it's really all about turnover now. The pies are a great example. Last year they combined pressure, contest and speed (though they often lost the pressure count in the first two thirds of the season- that changed come finals). It's this combination of needing quick players with decent foot skills and applying crazy heat in the contest that makes the game so taxing now. My feeling is this is a big factor in why performance had been so variable this season acrrosd the competition. I can never remember a season so volatile and unpredictable in terms of results and margins. Take Sydney's loss on the weekend gone. Ten years ago they would have been written off as a flag chance. But does anyone seriously think they're not still a red hot chance of winning the flag? That said our high performance program no doubt reflected our playing style and personele in the last few years- anaerobic power athletes like Jack, trac and clarry crashing into packs. Perhaps the greater emphasis, and need for aerobic athletes like nibbler, langers and Windsor has created a challenge for our program. And found us out as perhaps we don't have enough such players. As layzie notes, come finals contest, defence and pressure becomes king again.

Euphemism?

At the top of my list of dees I'd love to have dinner with. Good on ya langers.

I 100% agree In fact I'd say they are the the two key reasons. Won't stop Selwyn getting some heat but.

Agree. And both teams really looked to exploit that when they played us.

There's a few reasons why we are 15th for turnover diff I reckon. Number one is fitness. It's an incredibly taxing style of play aerobically and I don't think we have ever got fit enough. The pies have struggled on turnover for the same reason. I think our poor skills is another key factor - we give the ball back too easily and often don't take advantage when we win a turnover. That's exacerbated by not being able to field our best 23 often enough. And implementing a new model is hard- particularly for the defence which has found it hard im the back half of the year to cover entries (though to be fair that's more on our inability to consistently apply pressure to the kicker or slow ball movement- see point one).

I don't think the bolded bit is correct (nor the orher numbers). Just doing a quick search, it's actually 17 of the lasy 18 flag winners have been ranked top 3 for scores from turnover differential- and im 99% sure we were the outlier. From this article: In 17 of the last 18 seasons, the premiers have sat in the top three for the score from turnover differentials competition-wide. Champion Data’s Daniel Hoyne defines a turnover as: When you win the ball back off the opposition and your ability to score off that. Or when you cough the ball up to the opposition and how well you defend that opposition possession. “People hate that I keep saying this, but I’ll back history until history changes,” Hoyne said on SEN’s Sportsday. “The number one go-to that we constantly refer to is: how is your turnover game and where is that actually poised? “So the points differential from turnover is the ‘real ladder’. “Why is it the ‘real ladder’? Because 17 of the last 18 premiers have been top three. Not top six, not top eight, but top three in the turnover game. “So it’s 60 per cent (or more) of your score (being from turnover).

Robbing peter to pay paul has been an underrated issue for us this season. JVR, riv and koz all playing in the middle when we'd be better off if they were allowed to play their best positions.

I reckon they've gone up, but only because at the beginning of the season whilst he was regularly going to centre square bounces it was often only 5 or 6 times. A few times of late it has been 10 plus timed.

You'd think hannebery would know if Swans are loading or not. I assume he still has connections with ex teamates. Still probably not good enough for the how come it's not ever mentioned by ex players, head in the sand crew but. The swans must have been found out! Agree no good for the so called analysts (how to explain an historical huge loss for a team on top of the ladder). Good for punters though. Now's the time to back the swans for the flag. They're now $6 to win the flag. That's outstanding value.

Which would be ironic given the number if doggies fans calling for bevo's head just 5 weeks ago.

Fair points. Getting flogged by port by 112 points when on top of the ladder near season's end is nuts.

I agree that is very likely, and said as much last week. As you say, not an excuse just a factor. (And I wouldn't sleep on the blues or pies for the same reason- I reckon both have got upside in terms of their running power) But even so losing they probably win a couple of those games if not for injury. And certainly not torched by 112 points. On loading, teams that can't cover the ground (either because of loading, or as i think is the case with us just not fit enough) are getting torched this season with all teams playing transition, turnover football. Running power, stamina and ability to cover the ground at speed have become absolutely critical. As hoyne has frequently pointed out on sen, 16 of the last 17 premiers have been top 4 in scores from turnover (we were the exception in 2021). Our opponents have ruthlessly exploited our lack of spread in the last few weeks as evidenced by the huge diff in uncontested possessions. As someone who punts on line bets, I closely follow margins and the margins this year have been extreme. So many good teams getting blown out by really big margins. @WheeloRatings do you have any easily accessible data on margins this year compared to previous years.

He's just no good one on one, never has been. Looks to have hit a wall too.