binman

Agree. Though of course every strategy has risk. We were cooked come finals in 2022. I actually think they were in good shape condition wise last year, but were cruelled by injury.

Yes, that's my take. We will largely revert to 'our' tried and true method, but hopefully retaining some of the elements of our current method, eg hitting some high risk corridor kicks, using the lions style 20 metre foreard kicks on rhe 45, and some run and dare off the hb. Those elements are important I think in terms of reducing the frequency of rentries back into a crazy crowded inside 50 (which had historically been a big driver of our low score to inside 50 ratio - or inefficiency as it is oft described) Which, as much as I hate to say it, almost 100% describes the method the pies used come finals. On the quote, it was no doubt deliberatety used out of context in the text to rile dees fans and create a false narrative about where we are at. Instructive it was then quoted on here.

Statistically, bugger all. For one thing, whoever replaced him, whilst not covering the same territory or same speeds etc, would still have done their share (eg the gap might be 2kms less distance covered). And secondly, they are total numbers, ie 23 players.

I haven't listened to his slot yet (but will), but if that's what he said i wholeheartedly agree. In fact it is basically the same thing I have posted on a number of occasions- ie implement a less bruising, less physically taxing method during the home and away season and transition back to our normal forward half model come finals (which is basically what the pies did last year). The key learning fron 2022 and 2023 is that playing the brutal model we have used since the start of 2020 is not sustainable for 23 rounds plus finals as evidenced by the contact and other injuries that decimated us come finals the last 2 seasons. It's funny, many posters made that exact argument inthe last 2 seasons (ie an unstainable model for a fill season). And they were proven right. Anyone who made that argument should be well pleased that their advice has been heeded. The downside to goody having done so is we are going to lose more games this home and away season than in the ladt three seasons.

Its almost as if goody was not joking when he has repeatedly said our goal is to be playing our best footy come September or that the team who improves the most during the season are the ones contending at the pointy end of the season. I mean, I guess he might have some evidence to support that supposition. Like the blues and swans last year. And the lions too for that matter, who were 6-4 after 10 games and were flogged by thr hawks, who finished the season in 16th (and beat the pies in round 21), in round 10. It's almost as if goody has done some analysis of why we went out of the finals in straight sets the last two years and what other clubs that have done well have done.

Six weeks for a shepperd? What's the world coming to?

Ouch, Dame Nellie Melba standard comeback right there. An iconoclast with a rapier wit. That's a dangerous combination -

Such an iconoclast....

Be careful. Very triggering topic for some on here. By the by, I'm def of the view load related fatigue was a factor in the performance. Not an excuse for it, but a factor nonetheless. Much the same way as I believe our woeful kicking was a factor in the performance. Not an excuse for it, but a factor nonetheless.

Ta. Right you are then (i was going off the champion data Player ratings)

Agree with all (except he was our 2nd highest rated player behind maxy).

Our numbers for centre clearances and stoppage clearances are almost exactly the same as the swans. And we are averageing 2.5 cps a game more than the Swans. I use them as a reference point because we are trying to implement a similar method. And the Swans success this season highlight how clearances and cps are simply not as important as they used to be. What is important? Scores from turnover. Who is number one for scores from turnover? No surprise, it's the Swans (suns, giants, cats next). Our issue is not that we are winning too few clearances or contested possessions. Our issue is that we are not scoring enough from turnover. The swans are #1, averaging 61.5 points per game from turnover. We are 14th for average scores from turnover (behind freo of all teams) on 40.1 point per game.

Click bait headline I assumed it was going to be an update on Smithy's WADA case.

Yep, Goody's focus was our contest. But that it no way a reflection on the mids. Clarry had 20 contested possessions - the most of any player, six more than Kelly, who had the second most cps And clarry had twice as many cps than the wunerkind Reid. Our next most was Max, who like Reid had 10 cps, salo and tracc next with 9 each and viney had 8. Head to head, the aggregate cp count of our three best mids (Tracc, Clarry and Jack) versus theirs (Reid, Kelly and Gimbey) was 37-35 - our way. Our drop in ground ball numbers is in direct correlation to our change in method. For the same reason, as evidenced by data wheelo put in the transition thread, our post clearance contested possessions numbers have similarly cratered. Ditto clearance numbers. Which makes sense given the method we are trying to implement is nowhere near as contest focused, their are less stoppages and fewer rentries into a packed forward line.

Agree that form fluctuates for a multitude of reasons. Of course it does. And one of those multitude of reasons is the program the high performance team puts in place. It's why clubs spend a fortune on them. And fatigue is another of those multitude of reasons form fluctuates And agreee its extremely difficult to quantify it or determine how much a factor it is. Impossible for fans actually. But you don't need to be a sports scientist to realise when a team is fatigued. You can see it. Look at the performance by the Cats against the suns. Whatever the reason - the heat, the humidity, their high performance program, load management- blind Freddy could see they were spent 10 minutes into that game.

This. And this week the flag favourite 3 weeks back, the giants lost its 3rd game on end. As did the cats, favourite for the flag coming unbeaten into the dees game, with 160 points put past them by a mid table team on the weekend. Port got smashed by the crows. Is anyone seriously writing the Giants, cats or Port off? Footy fans are going to have get used to seemingly crazy results. There will be plenty more as whether fans want to accept it or pretend it's not a factor, load management and fatigue plays an increasingly significant role in the outcome of home and away games.

Bringing the horror stats this week wheelo.

This is where there seems to be a disconnect. Our mids have had their colours lowered because the opposition mids have played well? That doesn't make sense. Our mids don't play on their mids. And we don't tag. The ball is bounced and they go their seperate ways. The one time they play on each other is at stoppages, and as I pointed out we scored almost four more goals from stoppages than them. So when our mids were head to head with theirs, they pansted them. If opposition mids gets off the chain, it's not on the mids. It's on the coaches (eg with the sets ups, choosing to tag or not, pre match plans etc) and the whole team (eg all team defence, all team pressure, all team, spread). Besides, tracc is number 2 in the afl for score involvements. And up there for coaches votes. So he's going ok.

I thought heard that stat on the coverage. It jumped out because its so rare to score any goals from kick in, let alone five! But according to @WheeloRatingsstats above, neither team scored a single point from a kick in.

Sure, of course. But only in so far as those stats reflect the performance of the entire team, not just the 3-4 mids who attend the majority of the stoppages We were smashed in cp early, but evened up by game's end. Pressure was ok early but fell away badly by game's end. And we were smashed for the others - most worryingly post clearance cp. Sure the mids play a role, but we play an all team defensive sytem so you cany blame the mids for tgose sort of poor team stats (which I'm not suggesting you are doing TA) Particularly given viney and Oliver were one and three respectively fir most pressure applied and I'm guessing came close to having the most contested possessions (I haven't checked). And I'd add that post clearance contested possessions is by definition a stat that usually only tangentily attributal* to the mids as it is the possession after the clearance from a stoppage- and the mids are at the stoppage, not down field *ie the more pressure our mids put on an opponent who wins a clearance the easier it is for us to win the next possession because of say a scrubby, under pressure bail out kick. And the converse is true. The cleaner a mid is when they win a clearance the better our chance of winning the next possession. The above two scenarios also apply to turnovers and turnover marks (but again, it's nor usually the mids winning turnovers because they ate at the contest).

All true. The third stat being the key one. But on centre clearances, apparently we were totally smashed by the blues last week because they scored 3 more goals from them then us. Well, by that logic, given we scored 3 more goals (+18 and 25 points on total - twice our season average) from centre clearances we smashed the Eagles this week. We were +3 for scores from stoppages (+7 for total clearances fom general stoppages, so +5 for total clearances ie cc and around the ground). So we nearly plus four goals (+21 points) for clearances. Not bad for a supposedly a woeful midfield. I mean, we won total stoppages and scores from stoppages by nearly four goals - two pretty important indicators for a midfield I would have thought.

Or opening any product with instructions to 'peel here to open'. A cosmic joke.

A very much under rated fact. So much emphasis is placed on our straight sets finals exit in 2022 and 2023 that it obscures how successful we have been in the last 3.5 seasons. Since the start of 2021, no team has won more games than us. And as you note a big factor is we don't lose many game we 'shouldn't'. Of the top of my head the last one was our loss to the giants in the Alice last year. And I'd add that another factor in our success is our ability to maintain a good percentage by not getting hammered Watching the blues getting smashed and the suns monster the cats i wondered when the last time we were were smashed like that. Sure, both sides were hit by injuries, but there have been any number of games we have lost where being decimated by injuries has been a big factor (including games where we have lost key players during the game) - and unlike the blues and cats, not got smashed. And it makes a big difference. At the end of this round we could be plus 20% against the blues, plus 12% against the blues and plus 10% against the giants. A long way to go in the season, but anything over 10% at season's end is almost worth 4 points.

That's a great sign as I reckon the need for repeat efforts is the penny that needs to drop for Jefferson.

Did we break the blues too?