binman

Total respect for Hibberd.

Fair suck of the sav. At training we rarely miss a target. Yes I know it is pretty well known that in an AFL game there is usually a fair bit of pressure but hey let's get training right first. The key thing is that there is lots of learnings. That our players could expect pressure in a game of footy is one of those learnings.

It might be both

Levers running is so lazy. Got himself caught in no mans land then and allowed dusty to kick under no pressure

Smith has to be dropped for not manning the mark properly. Unforgivable

That was the worst decision i have seen all season against trac

Good Lord I hope bennell gets fit soon. We need his kicking skills more than we need competitive beasts. Am I right in thinking Bedford is a a good kick? If so I'd put him straight in. We work so hard for so little result. But we kickec two great goals through agaggresse kicks. I hope they keep it up. Rather lose attacking then lose in a scrappy game of rugby

Reminds me of one of more depressing sledges i yell at the footy when the dees are being flogged and their fans are giving it to us (which Ive noted on here before): Shows how rubbish you are (insert team here) - a half decent team would be 10 Goals up (or 15 if they are already 10 up)

No, their slow ball movement was primarily a tactic to ensure the game was not played fast as clearly with our selections and their lack of leg speed a fast game would have been to our advantage. They had 60 more non contested marks than us. That has to be close to some sort of record. And 54 more uncontested possessions. The game was played on their terms and in a way that negated our relative strengths As you point out they only scored 7 goals. I thought the defence played pretty well but i wouldn't be too quick to pump up their tyres as the Cat's game style also meant they only had 38 inside 50s (we had 46). And with 12 scoring shots they scored with close to every third entry and with 9 marks marked it every four times they came inside 50.

I don't thin it has an expiry date. At least i hope not as i plan to buy some stuff (and checked the email i got to see if there was an expiry date and there wasn't)

Yep agree. And clever coaching in terms of maximizing their chances of winning. A big part of my frustration is I think we should have spanked them. And leaving that aside it was a dreadful game to watch. As I noted elsewhere a noun point would at least provide some incentive to score

Yes that is certainly a possibility, as I noted in anorher post on this topic. But i would argue we didnt really work our way into the game as such. We were never out of it. We simply played the game on their terms. How uninspiring for a team promising to play fast exciting footy on a perfect day for footy at the g. And tactically surely the point was to expose their lack of leg speed by playing to our strength. That was why we picked a fast team after all. But more importantly the ends didn't justify the means. We lost. Who cares how close we got. Goodwin was specifically asked about Scott's ploy to play slow in the post game presser. He said a key learning was that we needed to press up and not allow so many uncontested marks. And they would look to do next time when faced with that tactic. That suggests to me that he wasn't happy with how we responded to Scott's tactics. And to be honest I have a different take on what Scott's tactics mean. Sure they were designed to combat our preferred game style. But there is little proof that style is a strength for us - apart from one quarter of football we have barely scored this season. And I also worry that the tactic was in part employed because Scott believed, with some justification, we would be unable, or unwilling to counter it.

Because knowing how we planned to play Scott simply implemented a go slow, keepings off game plan aimed to stymie our strategy (fast ball movement, lots of inside 50s and trapping it inside 50) and stopping us playing the game on our terms. And we seemingly did nothing to disrupt Scott's strategy.

Agree. Given this don't you find it strange how we allowed the cats game to play out?

Zones and system. Both of which require complete trust and synergy to work. Which takes time to develop. Which is why clubs are generally loathe to change their back six if they can avoid. I think they are committed to their current set up and asumming this is the case shouldn't change it An issue with one player playing the key intercept role these days is that opposition teams can target them to negate their influence. They can do this in a number of ways, for example by playing a defensive forward on them or spreading the forward line and isolating them against a big (as teams are doing with lever). This means teams now need mutiple intercept options. And perhaps this is why they like Smith in the side.

I am increasingly of the view the only way to increase scoring is to incentivise it . And the most logical way to do is say a priemership point for 100 points, win or lose (Or 80 in 16 minute quarters). As we have seen rules changes have unintended consequences but more importantly don't work. Coaches will always find a way to have defence as the fundamental tactical strategy. For example let's say we didn't allow any rotations. The coaches would just then implement the go slow tactics Scott employed so players can simply get their rest on the ground (remembering the principle of rotations is players getting 2 or 3 minute tests so they run in bursts). They might do the same if we went to 16 a side. No better way to stop your opponent scoring than by controlling the ball. Its exactly how weak soccer teams generally look to beat teams with more gifted players. It is what Scott did to us. If coaches had a premiership point as an option their risk reward assessment would change. And whilst they would still be inherently defensive they would at least have another option. Conditions are a furphy. The issue is defensive zones and systems not conditions. And contrary to standard argument there is no advantage at the docklands as it is narrower and harder to break zones there. The g is easier to score on. Sure rain is an issue but luck has always played a part and it would even out in any case.

No, watching a terrific series on Netflx called Dark (which i highly recommend). It is all about alternative realities.

I have a lot of time for May and really like his interviews. He is refreshingly honest and as you say answers the questions he is asked. I totally agree with your comment about tactical nous, particularly as it applies so the coaches. I'm a Goodwin fan but against the blues his lack of tactical response to arrest their momentum was poor as was the lack of a tactical response in the Cast game. As i posted earlier in this thread (and i think in the game thread) we totally telegraphed how we wanted to play with our selections (and in pre match pressers) ie we wanted to play fast and trap it inside 50. So what did Scott do? Deny us the ball and inside 50s by playing keeping offs and by playing so slowly negating our desired game plan. He said as much in his post game presser. Simples. Mays comments suggest not but surely the coaching unit should have planned for this eventuality? Perhaps they did but either were happy to have low scoring game thinking we would get on top (which to be fair we nearly did) or the the players did not respond to instructions. On the former being happy for a low scoring game is hardly in line with his promise of fast attacking brand of football dees fan would enjoy. But more importantly why would they be happy to have the game played totally played on the Cat's terms? Surely we want to play it on ours, how we had trained to play? On the latter Goodwin noted post game that one of the 'learnings' was not to allow so may non contested marks. I mean, really? Surely they did not need to learn that post game and both the coaches and players should have responded after the quarter time break by pushing up and denying them easy kicks and marks. Doing so would have opened us up to counter attacks but would have forced the game to be more offensive and therefore more on our terms and in line with how we trained and selected. And supposedly one of the 'learnings' from the blues game (according to May coincidentally) was that we played not to lose after quarter time rather then to win. Well why didn't we apply that learning and attack them, take risks - play to win - rather then sit back and let them control the tempo of the game and keep close to them with hope of sneaking what would have been an undeserved win. I tipped the dees coming into that match (after having tipping correctly for all the previous seven games in the round and being in with chance of a healthy pick 9 jackpot in my tipping comp) as i thought we would twin. And win well. We should have. And i believe would have if Goodwin had responded to Scott's go slow palaver.

Totes agree. Don't need Omac Look i know we recruited Lever to play a specific role - third man in, intercept marker floating 'round the back line, with other defensive bigs covering for him - but Lever is awesome one on one and is super, super strong through the core. With his combination of the ability to out mark any key forward one on one and his sheer physical strength he is an elite key position defender. He has been a revelation in this role at the dees. Week in week out he takes the best big forwards and simply out muscles them and shuts them down. Reads the ball so well in flight and just knows how to position his body to beat his man one on one. He has certainly surprised me as i always thought that he was terrible one on one and could be easily shoved aside even by medium forwards, like say a Rowan. And playing Lever as key defender against opposition bigs is just so smart as, one he is just terrific at it and two we need an intercept defender and it has allowed them to bring in Smith to play that role. And like Lever he is just a natural footballer. With his strength Lever will monster Lynch and if he plays on Jack will be way too wily one one one. Bring it on.

I menat the interview. I'm listening to the live on air pre record as we speak/write

ironic given you are listening to a pre record

Could not believe he didn't. Or if he didn't think he was a chance put it 20 metres out and gives us a chance to mark or rove a ground ball. Inexplicable. And that after Salem, an experienced AFL player didn't sprint up the ground after being given a 50 to at least have the option of getting to an out number. And then after ambling up the ground and finally arriving burning a critical 20 seconds (after seemingly looking to the bench to see how long to go) before trying a low percentage pass. So, so dumb. The whole match was like being forced to watch all the jackass films back to back. Prior to the restart Goodwin promised us an attacking game that was enjoyable to watch. He has not delivered on that promise.

It is like an episode of yes minister -this from lever post game: "It was really disappointing to walk off with a loss, but I’m hoping the coaches have a lot of learnings for us from this game and I think as players we have a lot of learnings as well.”

Wow a tigers demons game promises to be such a high scoring shoot out.

And we have players who simply do not have the confidence in their skill to cross the ball with a say 50 metre kick. At both ends of the ground. Which denies us an attacking option traps us on one side of the ground makes us predictable and is a big factor why we end up bombing it in to the top of the goal square.