Jump to content


Life Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by binman

  1. 7 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

    Maybe I should have said inexperienced. I reckon they are looking ok. Their game plan is better suited to Marvel, but that makes sense. Scott is a smart operator.


    The bombers were pretty impressive. 

    The scoreline flattered us a bit, as evidenced by the x score - 71.3 dees to 75.5 bombres

    Shows how important accuracy is.

    McKay was terrific, as was ridley.

    Their defence has improved out of sight, though still give up too many slingshot goals.

    Caldwell looks a player. Ditto martin.

    We did a good job negating merrett, but he is a total gun.

    Skinner was schooled by a kid, mcvee. And did some really selfish things. 

    Must be a very frustrating player to have in your team. 

    I reckon they went too tall on a wet night, as evidenced by subbing 2MP.

    Don's def tracking in the right direction.

    But here's a couple of things to consider in terms of where the dons are at compared to the dees.

    Take draper and merret out of last night's side, and how would they have gone (we had our two best players out, a ruck and a mid - maxy and tracc)?

    Caddy was the youngest player on the field. We had the next 7 youngest.

    The bombers had 3 players with 50 games or under. We had 7.

    • Like 11
    • Thanks 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

    For some, he never will be. It’s sad, because for a coach who has achieved so much and steered this club to that win without Brayshaw, Trac, Gawny and the shadow of Clarrie is a great effort. 

    Congrats Goody and thanks. 

    It's remarkable really. 

    We win a flag and then out in straight sets x 2 and people call for goody's head.

    Do people really not understand how difficult winning a flag is? 

    Or how difficult it is to finish top 4?

    I mean, surely of any group of fans dees fans understand these things?

    Sure we went out in 2 in 2022.

    But we finished top 4 in 2022 - the year after winning the flag.

    Ask dogs, cats and pies fans how easy it is to back up after winning a flag.

    We made top 4 again in 2023 - without a forward line.

    We are currently in the 8, still an outside chance of top 4.

    This despite losing 2 best 22, senior players prior to the season starting. 

    And not having another in melk available till round 16 and losing our equal best player in tracc.

    And having lever and salo out for big blocks of time.

    And as a result having to field a team more akin to a team in the third year of a rebuild than a contender.

    What exactly do people expect?

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
    • Clap 1
  3. 4 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

    We won despite the idiotic decision to ruck Petty. Petty did mostly SFA apart from falling over a lot & we had to move JVR onto the ball to get some drive.

    This left the fwd line short & allowed McKay to dominate. We got away with it due to the wet conditions.

    With all sincerity, I love it cranky.

    I really value consistency.

    • Like 2
  4. 2 hours ago, picket fence said:

    Not at all, probably a very nice fellow, but what I dont like seeing is selection based on ZERO form! People fail to see that he first got selected on a ZERO possesion game at Casey earlier this season. Its no wonder he has failed to fire a shot.Ok I get it I'll say no more re Petty.

    Picket, to be honest you are coming off as not having a great grasp on what might drive selection in modern footy.

    I think it is reasonable to assume goody selection is largely driven by picking a team he thinks gives us the best possible chance of winning that game (I say largely because a factor sometimes might be an eye to getting a player ready for finals - so, an eye to winning future games).

    If goody is picking petts at this point in the season, in a critical 8 point game, it is reasonable to assume he did so because he believed it would help us win. 

    Petty is clearly playing a role, and doing what is asked of him.

    He is a work horse who gets to contests and provides a down the line marking option.

    In case you haven't noticed goody has ALWAYS had a player playing such a role in his teams. BBB and Tmac are two such examples.

    It is a critical part of his structure and method - not least because it gives maxy a chop out from being smashed in such aeriel pack contests all game.

    And have a listen to goody's answer to another inane question about our forward line.

    Asked about the forward line mix working in the last 2-3 weeks, implying something radical had changed, he, politely, pointed out that the only change to that mix has been melk and that petts, jvr and disco have played together for most of the season.

    Cohesion is critical in sport he pointed out. And that takes time he also pointed out. It takes continuity.

    That's exactly what they have been doing - continuity in selection and building cohesion.

    And we are seeing the fruits of that approach.

    Dropping petty does not contribute to continuity or cohesion.

    And brining in another kid like Jefferson does nothing to help us win, or for cohesion - or the kid's development for that matter.

    And seriously, do you really think Fullarton would have helped us win last night? Bloke is barely passing muster as a ruck at VFL level

    Despite the frankly ridiculous hand wringing on here about selection, we won the raw clearance count - which by the by is not a particularly useful stat these days as it's not a measure of impact.

    What is a measure of impact is scores from stoppages, which critically we won by 14 points.

    In fact it was arguably the deciding factor in our win given they scored 3 more points from turnover.

    That doesn't happen without petty.

    Goody deserves credit and praise not brickbats.

    Which is why, when responding to a question about who we might play in the ruck against freo goody visibly bristled, before noting the option he ran with this week clearly JUST WORKED, implying the obvious- why would we change something that literally just proved successful?

    • Like 16
    • Thanks 2
    • Love 2
    • Clap 6
  5. 1 hour ago, Binmans PA said:

    We lost 2%+ with those late concessions. Pity.

    We did.

    But equally if weren't so accurate we would have list more percentage- and might well have lost the game.

    The bombers were pretty impressive I thought.

    The scoreline flattered us a bit, as evidenced by the x score - 71.3 dees to 75.5 bombres

    • Like 1
    • Shocked 1
  6. 4 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

    when they're not professional it's very hard to hold them to account

    having four on field has made it even more of a farce - four individual decision makers officiating the one game is absolutely absurd

    i couldn't believe it when i heard it, but recently i think it was mcburney who confirmed that there's only three actually 'officiating' at any time and the fourth in the 'end zone' is effectively on a break during the time they're positioned significantly outside the play

    it's a joke and the afl refuses to do anything about it cos, of course, it would cost money

    and there's only one thing that the afl hates more than bad publicity, and that's spending money

    My point about salary is needn't cost that much more than it currently does.

    For example have 3 umpires per game.

    Ironically, apparently a factor in having 4 is as you suggest it's less taxing - and that means their best umpires can do more games. 

  7. 13 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    It happened with North too. I’d like to think it’s not intentional from the umpires. Maybe when the momentum shifts the umpires just get sucked in. 

    I'll never believe umpires are actually corrupt or would umpires to help even up the contest.

    But I suspect there's often some sub conscious stuff at play 

    The obvious one is the whole noise of affirmation phenomenon. No doubt that's real.

    This scenario is similar. Game done and dusted, one team way down. How often they suddenly start giving soft free kicks? 

    This game then had the opposite scenario - game tightens up and they 'Put the whistle away'. 


    It's one or the key reasons why umpires should be full time pros. 

    Just like footballers use sports psychologist and drills to improve decidion making under pressure, di the same for umpires (which no doubt they do now to some extent but as I understand it they only train once per week).

    Coach them to do the job better, incentivise getting it right in the form of bonus payments and selection for marquee games and finals, drop them if not performing, allow some media scrutiny.

    And they don't need to be paid much more than the current semi pro mob - who apparently get paid pretty well.

    Plenty of young people who love sport but won't make it to elite levels would see umpiring as a genuine career pathway even if say the average, base starting salary was something like 125k.

    Hell, that  would be double the starting salary in the community sector - a sector where salaries even for CEOS tops out at aprox 175k.

    • Like 3
    • Clap 1
  8. 2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

    My hat goes off to Nibbler.

    Merritt could have been so damaging, but was kept reasonably quiet, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd quarters

    Nibbler's fitness and ability to put on pressure was immense

    Heart and soul.

    His critical defensive effort inside the bombers' 50 late in the first that started a scoring chain, ending with koz's goal was so important.

    • Like 8
    • Love 1
  9. 1 minute ago, Engorged Onion said:


    Not really, much like the rest of the news, it depends where you choose to get your opinions from. 😅


    I expected we would win.

    So certainly not against the odds from where I sit.

    • Like 4
    • Love 1
  10. Just now, praha said:

    Awesome, awesome win.

    Umpires did everything they could to make a game of it.


    That was bizarre umpiring in the last 5 minutes.

    For example the bombers throwing the ball all night and they pluck one out of nowhere against rivers.


    • Like 20
    • Thanks 2
    • Angry 1
    • Vomit 1
  11. 16 minutes ago, binman said:

    Go doggies.

    The 13 point line was my best bet of the round.

    A long way to go yet (it's 3 quarter time), but they look the better, and fresher, team atm.

    Good game of footy 

    • Like 1
  12. 11 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

    It’s so crazy, I’m imagining the form of Carlton and Freo will dip as well for a few weeks… it’s like the science is weird or something*

    *checks todays scores 

    weird science comedy GIF by IFC

    And what about those swannies?

    Lose a couple and people are wondering if they have come back to the pack....


  13. Go doggies.

    The 13 point line was my best bet of the round.

    A long way to go yet (it's 3 quarter time), but they look the better, and fresher, team atm.

    • Like 2
  14. 18 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

    It’s heartening to see Geelong finally have some success after their tragic downfall and gruelling three-week rebuild. 

    But maybe that does tell you something. Do I dare keep hope alive? 

    It's so weird that the dees and the giants also had tragic downfalls at the same stage of the season as the cats, and also appear to be turning things around.

    Just a crazy coincidence I guess.

    • Thinking 1
  15. 22 minutes ago, Demonsone said:

    What will Goodwin reply be if we lose & get flogged in the ruck and not playing a back up ruck in Fullerton

    What will your reply be if we win and break even in the ruck?

    Admit you were wrong and give goody credit?

    • Like 1
  16. 11 minutes ago, Purple77 said:


    Gee whiz, how is the chatGPT on this article?


    It's funny you should say that.

    I've been really crook with a cold for the last couple of days and been stuck on the couch.

    In between reading a crime novel and watching dees games I've been scrolling news a aggregator sites etc on my phone.

    Its insane how many 'articles' are clearly AI generated.

    They have a weird, distinctive style with clunky phrases.

    They read like a first year high school essay. 

    It's funny how an author's name is always included.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  17. 1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

    I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition.

    Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the  opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. 

    Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

    No, there is a disconnect here.

    And it relates to how a team's total metres gained is calculated.

    My understanding it is simply all the team's players metres gained added up to arrive at a total.

    Tbe differential between the two teams is the difference between those two totals

    Metres gained, or lost, are not added or subtracted from the opposition. They are completely independent of each other.

    So let's say a player only has two possessions for the match.

    The first he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres and kicks it 40 metres toward out goal he is credited with 50 metres gained.

    The second he wins a ground ball, runs 10 metres towards the opponents goal and kicks it 30 metres towards the opponents goal. He is credited with minus 40 metres.

    His total metres gained for match is 10 metres.

    And let's say hypothetically all 23 players do exactly the same ie 1 possession goes forward 50 metres and one goes backwards 40 metres.

    That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x 10 = 230 metres gained.

    And let's say the opponents 23 players also have two possessions, but the metres gained and lost are reversed.

    That team's total metres gained for the match is 23 x-10 = -230 metres gained.

    Therefore the differential for the fitst team is +460.

    Perhaps the confusion is I am talking about total, or net metres gained, not effective metres gained, which factor in turnover.

    That's because net metres gained is what wheelo includes in his stats summary of each game.

    And far as I'm.aware effective metres gained are not publicly available

    • Like 1
  • Create New...