binman

2 hours ago, Bendigo_Demon said:

Its been steadily raining here in Bendigo all day. What are the conditions going to be like at the 'G' tonight?

Light misty rain here at the g.

3 hours ago, Skuit said:

LinkedIn just sent me a reminder that today is the Carlton president's ten-year anniversary at the club. 

https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/8767/luke-sayers-faces-heat-over-pwc-whistleblower-complaint

 

At most clubs you might get a new watch, or some such.

At Carlton they get a paper bag with a silhouette of John Elliot and his bulbous nose.

2 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

The death of musician/recording legend Steve Albini is all the loss I can take for one day. Therefore the Demons must win by 33 (& 1/3) points. 

Steve albini died? You're kidding. 

He can't have been that old. That's a shock.

Legend is thrown around too easily in my humble, but there's no debating his status as one of the all time great producers, particularly in the rock space. 

Righteous fella too.

Vale Steve.

13 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Against Geelong , Carlton conceded 10 goals from their first 19 entries (into their D50)

Their defence is their weak point. McGov helps enormously but teams have gone to work on Weitering and dragging him up the ground. A role that I expect Disco to take. 

Carlton remind me of us when we pushed so high up the ground and were vulnerable to the checkers/leapfrog  attack out the back.

Collingwood nullified Carlton's stoppage game by pushing Cripps and Walsh away from every stoppage

Will be some interesting tactical ploys tonight.

 

Dees by 17

JNR, why do you think they have reverted to the territory front half, trap it inside 50 game (basically much the same as our 2021 to 2023 model)?

I mean, they used that model for the first half of last year and  were woeful.

They turned things around by implementing a turnover game, making a prelim after looking certain to miss the finals at the half way point of the season.

3 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Great comments, can I use them on my mates?

We are better than last year when we gifted the game.
Bowey in makes us better.

Petty usually keeps his form once he is up to speed.

and we have Leb on a wing.

and Disco is providing an alternative to our Mr Smith.

and I do not think the Captain’s run took much fitness away from us.  Just a loosen upperer.

more angst on the keyboards than on the field 

Go Dee’s 

 

Good point about the strength of our team compared to our last game against them.

I mean, in addition to losing melk and Petty late in the season, having no bbb and a half fit tmac, we had lost both Gus (injury) and JVR (suspension) from the previous game.

Gus was a massive loss because he was one of our most reliable big game players. And losing him the week before made it hard for someone to come in, get up to speed, and play his key mid - defensive role.

And jvr was also a huge out, one because he was really the last man standing in terms of key forwards, and two he was our key back up ruck.

It's remarkable really that we dominated most of that game.

On the team running out tonight, it's arguably very close to our best 23 (salo is the obvious one missing and Melk and McAdam are both in the mix too i guess).

As for your blues mates, I'd be getting into them abour their [censored] weak defence.

When they start bleating about Marchbank, saad and McGovern tell them great defences are built on sytem not personell (and remind them we have had three kids down back).

If they still bleat, remind them the cats put 20 goals past them two weeks back, but could only manage half that against us a week later (let them worry about innacurate goal tallies- if they are quibbling about how bad they are defensively you have made your point and are in their head).

12 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

The head says Melbourne get it done tonight despite our shorter turnaround, but the heart isn't so sure. 

Funnily enough I'm the exact opposite.

25 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

..... that's three for me.

Us or them?

5 hours ago, Rossmillan said:

Time for some payback for last years final

I don't really feel like we need payback. Pies, yes. Blues, not so much.

Which is not to say I don't love the chance to beat the blues, but they didn't steal that final, unfortunately we lost it. 

I was really confident we'd beat the cats. And i think we win tonight. But I'm not nearly so bullish 

Head to head I think we are a better team.

And I think we have targeted the cats and blues games in the same way we did the port and crows double.

We can at least nullify their one wood - their midfield and contest - whereas they can't do much to disrupt ours - our defence, which blunts their other key strength - two gun key forwards.

And they are doing a good job themselves of blunting that strength by not, for whatever reason, playing a turnover transition game that means McKay and curnow get fewer one on one opportunities than they did in the second half of last season.

All things being equal we win most games we play against them.

But all things are not equal. I don't bet on dees games, but if I was a neutral I'd leave this game well alone as there are way too many variables:

- impact of the 5 day break (even if we have planned our program to be fresh and ready as possible, there's no guarantee it will work - we were running out of steam in the quarter against the crows)

- yes the blues only have 6 day break, but that one day can make a big difference 

- what is the impact of the blues compressed scheduling of their last 3 game?

- the blues likely have set themselves for the pies dees double

- I hate to say it, but I rate the pies and increasingly think they are a contender (though will struggle big time to make top 4)

- yes, the blues lost that game, but really should have won, and if I rate the pies then it's folly to under rate the blues (though their defence is suspect)

- the impact of our respective last games:

The blues lost a physically taxing, contest heavy, dramatic finals like game against a bitter rival in front of a heaving crowd

We won a finals like intensity game against an unbeaten, likely top 4 side. The big difference was our game was a low stoppage, low contest, high uncontested mark game that was not as physically taxing but more aerobically taxing because of all the running we did

- how ready are the blues 4 ins: will they help bring fresh legs or will they blow up first game back?

- what is the impact of making four changes, something coaches usually hate to do?

-  we have only made the one change: is that a risk in terms of not bringing in some fresh legs (it's not Griffith's style to do so, and it's probably a sign he is confident all are good to go, but high performance is part science part art)

- leaving aside issues related to readiness or fatigue, do the blues ins improve them more than our one in (I think not, Bowser in is awesome. Straight to hb to improve our transtion, with woey a super sub)?

- how will goody approach this game tactically:

Try and beat the blues at their territory, time in forward half, contest game (unlikey)?

Run them ragged with uncontested marks like we did against the cats (unlikely, mainly because I doubt we have the legs)?

Be more attacking from the back half, use the corridor more and take on high risk kicks to exploit the blues' defensive weakness?

(even though a turnover game might help Curnow and McKay get some good looks, I think this is the most likely scenario. Attack. Hopefully get a 3 goal plus lead by 3 quarter time and control the tempo in the last so they can't exploit any lack of run from us and get back in it)

- how will Voss approach this game tactically?

- it is likely to be dewy again, what impact will that have (it may favor the blues given their ability to win contests and ground balls)?

- what will the impact of a big blues home crowd be?

- what, if any, impact will the umpires have on the game?

- as we saw in our last home and away game against the blues, luck is always a factor: which team will lady luck smile on?

5 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

I did see it and I did actually respond 😊 I included some numbers in the post with several qualifiers - let me know if you'd like me to dig deeper or cut the data a different way.

 

 

@WheeloRatings Oh, sorry I completely missed that. 

Thanks so much.

I was actually thinking in terms of week to week numbers to include in the stats file, but if it's not readily available don't worry.

And as per my comments below may actually not be that relevant for us this season.

But those tables are fascinating. What an amazing drop off in both stars, particularly post clearance possessions.

Hardwick had always said post clearance contested possession is the most important stat. Well did when he coached the tigers. 

But I have to assume from those numbers that it is important for the forward half, territory model he developed and we adapted.

We were number 1 for that stat in 21, 22 and 23.

But are only 12th this year. Surely that's a reflection of our changed method?

Curiously the blues, after getting the transition, turnover game working last year, have reverted to a forward half model.

Ditto for hawks who i heard on christin.say on the espn pod they ste number one for ground ball gets this year by a mile.

No coincidence the blues and hawks are one and two for pccp this year.

7 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

The low number of stoppages in the second quarter would definitely explain the low pressure. The ESPN Footy podcast (with Champion Data) have talked about pre-clearance pressure being much higher than post-clearance pressure. Here is an excerpt from an article from 2018:

"Champion Data measures the statistic in two ways — pre-clearance pressure and post-clearance (or general play) pressure.

"It’s easier to apply pressure at stoppages by virtue of the fact it’s a congested area.

"But squeezing the opposition in open play is the real art form, which is why the AFL pressure rating average pre-clearance is 256 and post-clearance is only 164."

I asked in another thread @WheeloRatings, but you may not have seen it

Are you able to get hold of the post clearance contested possession numbers?

2 hours ago, Watson11 said:

I know you spend quite a bit of time on the pressure gauge.  Often it matches what you see but the second quarter to me was frenetic, yet both sides had low pressure ratings.  I didn’t realise the no stoppages until later, but I wonder if you need to assess pressure and stoppages together as high stoppages games probably naturally have more of what is defined as pressure acts.  The second quarter looked high pressure to me, but it wasn’t according to the stats.

Our pressure gauge against Brisbane was almost the same as Saturday but it just seemed we were miles off against Brisbane.  Interestingly, there were a lot more stoppages against Brisbane.

You're right, the reason why the pressure rating was low in the second was the lack of stoppages and how often the ball was in motion with us hitting up leads etc.

That's because of how they calculate the pressure rating which is:

• Pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts.
• Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2.

So with low low stoppages, ball in motion and lots of uncontested marks there is fewer opportunities for the pressure acts that really drives the number up - tackles, bumps, contested possessions etc

But as you say it was definitely frenetic in that quuater. And it definitely didn't feel low pressure.

I didn't realise the stoppage numbers were so low and you're right it's a good stat to consider when trying to explain anomalous pressure rating.

Out of interest here is the pressure numbers for the dogs game, where we had 141 uncontested marks:

And from the cats game (117uncontested marks):

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

The afl app has the Tracker page and it’s the high speed running (definition is running at >18km/hr).

I got interested in it a few years ago after listening to Burgo and Brukky’s podcasts where Burgo spoke about our 2021 gold coast game as being off the charts as far as output went (he said 20% higher than anything else).  I found on the afl tracker we had 48km of high speed running that day, compared to an average of around 40km and next best of 42km.  I figure high speed running is the best indicator of work rate and fitness and have kind of tracked it ever since.

 

I occasionally look at the tracker data @Watson11. But in isolation I'm not sure what it's telling me and unlike you havent tracked it to see if there is pattern, or how one week compares to another or in aggregate.

As i noted on the pod. I thought this data was really interesting. 

The top 5 players for speed in defence, which is defined as running when the opponents have the ball.

It really gives a sense of how hard we work defensively and how much work our our all team defence demands.

I think it also supports your point about how elite we are in term of running power.

17 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I have a different view for us kicking the ball around the f50m arc.  Usually the positioning of our zone defence in the formation in the diagram (thanks @Chook ) below is to lock the ball inside our f50. 

Geelong have started using the old 'flooding' opps fwd line trick then running it out thru the opp weak defensive structures.  Note there are about 16 Geelong players flooding our f50.

I reckon kicking the ball around the arc was to let Geelong flood in our f50, set up our 7 player defensive formation around the arc thereby trapping Geelong players in our F50 and stopping them running anywhere toward their goal, rather than a strategy to run them ragged.  They had nowhere to run! 

We didn't need to outrun them as we were on their goal side.  tbh I didn't particularly notice times when they ran aggressively or where we out ran them.   What I saw was them having to stop if they escaped the trap as there was hardly anyone forward for them.  If any of their players ran out of the trap one of our players picked them up allowing Lever and May to go back closer to goal.

I reckon few stoppages was simply a by product of us centering the ball, our good marking i50 and poor kicking by both sides.

To me it looked like both sides ran the game out well so not sure we had a noticeable fitness advantage.

ps.  I haven't heard the podcast.  Just my thoughts on what I saw.

 

That makes sense lh.

It could be a combo of those three strategies - keep the ball live and in motion (an outcome of which is reducing stoppages) to sap them, nor feed their interceptors and trapping then inside our arc (which would also assist gassing them because to get out they have to chain the ball out rather than their preferred option of kicking long to a contest).

I'm pretty confident we had a strategy to gas them using uncontested marks to keep the ball in motion.

And as Rossmillon noted earlier in this thread:

Stevens Mays post match interview on Fox footy was quite enlightening.  He said when asked about the game plan in the first half that there was a strategy to take some uncontested marks and make them defend for longer to “take some energy out of their forwards”.

We definitely ran the game out better - as we should given we had a ten day break into the game.

One is our last quarter pressure was our highest for the game, a crazy good 193.

Interestingly so was theres, but it was 12 less than ours - the biggest differential of any quarter.

Another possible indicator is we kicked 5 straight. They kicked 3.2 - not miles off, but those 2 points were Cameron in front of goals and he looked completely cooked.

7 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Hi @binman

In the podcast you mentioned that scores from the back half were less important and that front half scoring from turn-over was becoming more important. According to Daniel Hoyne, 5 of the last 6 premiers were no.1 in scores from the back half. The only one not number 1? Melbourne in 2021. We should be concentrating more on this rather than scores in the front half/territory game which have been a bit of a fallacy for us. 

Note, Carlton are terrible at scoring from the back half which is why once Collingwood won the territory, Carlton struggled to score. 

 

I don't think I did.

Points from defensive half is the key metric I have been using all season as the key indicator in my red and blue print to assess if our new back half transtion and turnover method is on track

In fact i also discussed how curious it was that so many of our scoring chains started from our d50 (as did the cats, who remarkably scored 44 of their 66 points from their defensive half)- almost twice our season average.

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

 @binman we also did not bomb it inside 50 and tried really hard to make sure we retained that inside 50 kick.  I’ve been waiting for us to do this forever so it was great to see and I hope we keep it up.

 Makes for far less stoppages, and in my view helps us exploit a strength which is our running and fitness.  

 

I meant to highlight the strategy you note in the first para, but forgot.

It was such an unusual strategy for us under goody, and perhaps for that reason really stood out.

My thought was how effective it was in denying Stewart, and others, the opportunity to take intercept marks - which is a huge part of both how the cats defend and how they set up scoring chains from their back half.

I wonder if Stewart playing at half back was rhe cats way to try to get him to the game?

As i noted on the pod im convinced goody had a plan to run them ragged and exploit our fitness advantage. 

But I hadn't considered patiently kick it around the arc could be part of the strategy to reduce stoppages to expoit our fitness advantage.

Good call

9 hours ago, Skuit said:

Like I said, you're welcome to care and post about whatever you want, and if you want to be up in arms about something inconsequential after a win, go for it. I'm also within my rights to find that approach odd and express such without directly belittling anyone. 

Of course you are skuit. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Just as it is OK for me to think it odd, you, or anyone else, cares about posters on a footy forum knocking coverage of the team they support.

I have to say though there is a fine line between expressing your befuddlement about why people choose to knock the media on here (which I respectfully tried to explain from my perspective) and belittling.

Case in point, suggesting anyone who doesn't share your view as 'up in arms about something inconsequential after a win'.

Inconsequential to YOU.

You are applying your own judgement on others

I've already explained why it is not inconsequential to me. And it's clearly not inconsequential to others. Indeed you may well be in the minority.

And on a broader level how the media's cover individual clubs is FAR from inconsequential.

There is zero doubt the way we were coveted in the 70s,80s, 90s and naughts (and continue to be covered) has had a huge impact on our membership numbers. And our financial bottom line. 

Hard to attract sponsors when the coverage you do get is derisive and you get basically no live coverage of games.

Which in turn makes it exceedingly hard to grow the membership base- which had become the most critical income stream for clubs

Why do you think that despite our incredible success and support in the 50s and 60s we are not one of the Victorian power clubs?

We almost ceased to exist as a club  because we were a financial basket case that could not attract sponsors or grow our membership base - in large part because of how we were coveted.

We would almost ceased to exist a second time, and may have if not for Jimmy and his herculean fund-raising efforts.

We struggled financially from at least 1975 all rhe way to Peter Jacksom starting to turn things around in 2017.

We would 

We still see the impact in our membership numbers and bottom line.

Just one real world example of the impact of how we have been covered is being forced to play so many games at kardinia Park.

Why?

Because the circular argument goes that, unlike the pies, blues,tigers and bombers (who have rarely have to play there) we don't have enough fans to warrant playing those games at the g.

That one example embeds a significant structural disadvantage, not least because it is so hard to win there as evidenced by lis8ng 90% of those games.

Meanwhile the blues, who benefited from saturation coverage in the 70s and 80s, but have been a basket case on field until recently, have a massive membership and have got a free hit for 20 years in terms of media coverage, marquee games and live coverage.

Ditto Collingwood.

Dtto bombers

The effect has been compounded by the media being dominated by ex footballers, with their axes to grind and confirmation bias, from the power clubs. 

So unfair, unbalanced media coverage is far from inconsequential- in the now and into the future.

Inconsequential to you obviously, but not to others and certainly not the club.

On 06/05/2024 at 10:19, Gawndy the Great said:

We win this and I think we consolidate  our premiership credentials. We lose and we go back to the pack. 

A lot riding on this game then.

34 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I guess the second part relates to your first part. I get that people need a place to vent etc. but my personal preference is to come here for constructive information and celebration/commiseration. Like yourself, I turn to Demonland as an alternative option to the media for discussion, and preferably some humour.

So I don't think it ironic/hypocritical to point out and encourage people to let go of their media angst. We just knocked off the top team, but the site has been full of complaints and nasty expressions born of personal vendettas (e.g. eat [censored] Geelong). Brings down the joyous mood somewhat. To me, complaining about the media is the same as complaining about the government or some other such institution. Take the [censored] as a given.

I also understand that I grew up and live in a different environment than most of the posters on this site, not being from Melbourne and spending most of my adult life overseas. There's obviously deeply psychological aspects at play, but I just can't fathom why anyone would care about jibes etc. as to the football team you support. 

We didn't choose to follow Melbourne as some sort of logical selection, as if we failed somehow, and most of us have no say or control over any aspect of how the club operates or performs. That we continue to support the Dees despite long periods of mediocrity and ineptitude should be the ultimate badge of honour. 

Sure skuit.

But why do you need to understand the motivations of posters who choose to knock the media?

It's annoying? It brings the mood down? It perplexes you because you can't fathom it?

And what harm do such posts do? 

I wasn't joking when I said I don't understand why they seem to annoy some people so much.

Well, I do understand to an extent - we are all wired differently and one person's ambivalence is another's trigger. 

If you don't like such posts, don't read or engage with them.

They are not offensive in any moral sense (for example like a homophobic) where it might be important to challenge the poster's perspective.

They are just annoying - to you and some others.

But clearly not all. Or even the majority.

I mean it's not really as if they dominate the discussion post game or the site is actually 'full of complaints and nasty expressions'.  

The ratio is probably no greater than one on twenty. Tops.

Take this post victory thread - there have been 610 posts and, what maybe 20-30 posts max knocking the media?

Personally I agree there's no need to stoop to unpleasant invenctive. But such posts are even rarer. 

If your isssue is the negativity, what about the relentless, repetitive critisism about the club from some on here?  

Ironically many of those same posters are in the I don't understand why people pot the media camp.

By the by, discussing Scott is a different matter to knocking the media.

My issue was his poor sportsmanship and lack of class. He deserves the whacks he's copped on here.

6 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Correlation does not establish causation, and yet...

Credit where it's due - the clubs media game has improved out of sight.

Just watched the mcqualter video.

Brilliant - mana from heaven for footy nuffies like me.

14 hours ago, Skuit said:

People can post or care about what they want of course, but I find it odd that most post-winning game threads are usually uppity about how the media reports on the win or their perceptions about our team. 

Seriously, who cares if Dermott isn't on board, or downplays the win? Fritsch kicked a goal that will be remembered 50 years from now. What does it matter if some forgotten random didn't rate it?

Chris Scott has one job: (clue) it isn't to hand out plaudits to the opposition, but to win flags, whatever approach he thinks is best. Goodwin has the same job, but takes a different approach. 

Enjoy the win. Look at the stats. Do the old fashioned eye-ball test. None of what the media and other footy forums say has anything to do with our chances of winning a flag.

Not intended as a condesceing question, but would people be happier if the media bowed down and said we are unbeatable and clear flag favourites?

I understand your point skuit, it's one many other posters, some lots of times, have also made over the journey on my time on DL.

Though i have to say, I'm no great fan of the 'people can post or care about what they want of course BUT....' negation.

Who cares about the media's coverage of the dees? 

I do.

Why?

I obvioulsy can't speak for others but the context is I love the club and have been a passionate supporter of the club since 1975. 

As a kid in the 70s I didn't know a single dees fan, other than the family friends who made me a dees fan.

Through the 70s and the 80s. I suffered through humiliating shellackings and multiple near winless seasons as I traipsed around Melbourne's suburban football grounds by myself.

We were treated like a joke - from other fans and the media alike.

Jokes about silver spoon and snow trips (which is the opposite of my experience growing up) AND being perennial wooden spooners and total dysfunction were par for the course

I grew up desperate for any morsel of info about the dees.

We were hardly ever one of the 2 replays shown on the weekend and instead had to make do with those weird one camera shots and fake crowd noise 'highlights'.

Of course we were one of the clubs on the chopping block in the 80s. And of course the media's pumped up the narrative Don Scott saved us from extinction. 

We finally win a flag and are the most successful club since the start of 2021. A flag and three consecutive top 4 finishes and we're still derided - even by plenty of dees fans.

So yeah, i get frustrated by how the media cover us.

So much so that I've largely taken a DL posters' advice from a couple of seasons back to stop consuming media content (if it frustrates you that much, stop reading, listening and watching it).

Personally what I find curious is for every post expressing frustration about the coverage of the dees there is a post like yours that express bemusement. And others taking pot shots at the snow flakes.

I mean, you don't think it's ironic posters going to the effort of essentially critising other posters for critising the media?

I mean, people can post what they want but I really don't get why they would get so annoyed as to go to the effort knocking another poster for knocking the media - particularly those that repeat their confusion, derision, bemusement multiple times a season.

Seriously, who cares if a poster chooses to vent about the media?

Each to their own I suppose.

As to your question about what I would prefer re the media, my answer is I'd prefer that was professional, knowledgeable and helped me understand the game. I don't mind critiques that have a solid rationale, perhaps even based on some research and work.

Instead we get feel based, lazy, largely incorrect analysis by bonehead ex footballers that is no better than the plonkers yelling just kick it at the footy.

The media does what I think is the best team sport in the world a huge disservice.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I don't mind this measurement but I agree it has its deficiencies. For example Melbourne's offence is not ranked as a Premiership threat according to this chart but look where we are defensively - the number 1. We are the most difficult team to score against by far over the past 4 years.  

So you don't have to score big numbers if your defence is so strong even though we would all like to score more.

Agree, it definitely a useful indicator.

We have usually been in that so called premiership quadrant ever since they started using it (and on that graphic almost are now)

It just gets a bit silly when the fox  crew treat it like it is some sort of statistical Rosetta stone

I mean, the sample size is small and for example we are marginally outside an arbitrary line. 

And because you have applied a level of analysis the fox crew haven’t, you have highlighted a possible explanation for say where we are located on the graph.

I get the whole thing is about creating content and talking points and pretty graphics that lend some gravitas.

But it just reinforces the scepticism about the use of stats and analytics to help understand the game

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/genuine-concern-fear-over-flag-fancy-as-afl-title-trend-points-to-two-clear-contenders/news-story/011a91fda6ea530d45d6fceb03dd108a

I love me my stats.

But i like them only so far as they can used to help understand the game, not an end to themselves.

Like medical symptoms they help with the diagnosis (of issues, method, results, strengths, weaknesses etc).

And like medical symptoms, they are not that useful if looked at in isolation (ie not triangulating mutiple data points) or analysed (ie  not taken at face value).

Fox footy people routinely use champion data stays in a way that suggests they don't understand how to properly use data to inform their analysis.

And it would appear fox have also gone all in on AI to write their 'articles'.

Case in point (note: I'm not suggesting the data is of no value - bit comments like 'the premier has been in the premiership window at round 8...' are);

17 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Disco may play defensive fwd on Weitering. He is too good a mark for Weitering. to leave alone so he can drag JW up the ground where he does no damage

Good call. 

He is tall enough, strong enough and good enough one on one to match weitering (who is a gun no doubt).

And has the defensive chops to negate Weitering when needed

But and as you note Weitering cant take liberties as Disco is an offensive threat - which is how melk played that role ie not a purely defensive negating role, look to also hit the scoreboard and be an offensive threat.

That offensive threat is an even bigger issue if McGovern doesn't get up.

A lot of talk about the strength of our forward line.

But wirh petty, van royen and disco we have three good sized, mobile key forwards who are dangerous in the air and need to be covered.

That creates major match up problems.

Particularly when you add a player who has been our leading goal kicker for four seasons and is currently equal fourth on the Coleman ladder.

9 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Probably time to acknowledge Sydney in the top tier. 7-1 and 147%, have beaten the sides sitting 3rd, 4th and 5th, plus 9th and 10th.

Fair call.

I'm def in the doubts about the swans camp, but you make a good case. They still have Mills to come back in too.

That said, and perhaps it's confirmation bias, but i have my doubts their method will stand up come finals.

By that I mean, like the pies for much of 2023 (but importantly not in the last 5-6 hames) they are a  transition team that relies on clean hands to get the ball to the outside to their distributors like gulden. 

That method can get exposed in the heat of finals.

That said they are strong enough in the contest and we'll coached so they can probably adjust to a more forward half contested game like the pies did last year.

But I'm also not convinced by their defence away from the scg. Watching them beat the giants looked like a carbon copy of our game against them.

They flood back and completely clog up their opponents forward 50. Old school but very effective on the ridiculously small SCG.

Lyon employs a similar method at the docklands.

As was the case in our game, the giants forwards had no space to lead into and every marking contest had mutiple players attacking it.

Because the scg is so small transition is hard meaning it's hard for opponents to beat the swans' defensive flood and get the ball into a one in one forward line.

That method doesn't work as well at proper football ground.