binman

I don't think pw is saying we should have gone after the younger Jones at the expense of his brother. We could have had both.

You've made this point a number of times ie the club has got Tmac to bulk up so he can play as deep forward. Which if true would be bizarre given the game has well and truly moved passed big gorillas playing out of the square. Such players are a liability as their defender just run off them leaving the team one down. Look at Hawkins - he was told (and has) to lose considerable weight so he could be more mobile and less one dimensional. The only such player i can think of in the game is Patton. And his lack of mobility is a problem for the hawks. I'm curious, how have you arrived at the conclusion the club asked TMac to bulk up to play as deep forward?

Who knows? But if you are look behind the couch.

Really appreciate this post EO. Love that rather than an automatic combative response, as sometimes feels the norm here, you are checking if your understanding of what i'm saying is correct. As it happens it isn't, though i understand how you could have reached that conclusion as the phrase playing percentages does suggest mot taking risks. I would have been better to say assess the percentages, or even better assess the risk reward ratio. Or simply making good decisions. I totally agree players have to take risks and perhaps more importantly are encouraged to do so. And that means not piling in when they make inevitable mistakes. We've all sen players paralyzed by fear of making mistakes. Stretch comes to mind. Omac and Weed too for that matter. In my opinion May actually made two mistakes. His first mistake, in my opinion, was his decision to leave the ground and go for the mark rather than spoil. Why? Because of the risk reward ratio. What was the potential reward? He marks the ball and goes back behind the mark to kick (or less likely play on). He stops an inside 50. He has time to assess his options with the next kick. But that's it. The game would have stopped and the blues players would have manned up making it difficult (but not impossible) to turn that possession into an attacking threat. If instead he chose to spoil the reward would be very similar. He stops an inside 50. If the ball goes over the boundary we can set up a stoppage with the games dominant ruck man. If it doesn't go over the line but forward it opens up the opportunity of us initiating an attacking play as everyone is in motion and the game hasn't stopped. And yes there is a risk the ball goes to a blues player still (though not goal side unless he has an air swing). And the risk of leaving the ground going for a mark? The easy goal they kicked under no pressure. The second mistake, which compounded the first, was that he failed to mark the ball or keep it going out the back. Which happens. And i'm not going to bag him for that. I reckon on the risk reward assessment it was simply the wrong decision. You're right Hero Ball is probably a bit over the top. But i do think that decision did not demonstrate great leadership as leaders are judged on their decisions more than if they make a technical error (like dropping mark, or missing a kick). You'd like to think he would not have made that decision in the last quarter when the game was on the line. Why then make it in the second? But compare that to a couple of his kick outs that he shanked going for dangerous kicks. Or for instance some of his kicks into the corridor he is capable of. If he is confident he can hit those targets than it is usually a risk worth taking, even with the chance of a turnover as the reward can be that it sets up a goal scoring opportunity. And i hope he continues to take those risks. As i do Rivers. Omac, Salem and Jetta (maybe not smith)

Don't agree.Forwards can afford to take risks. But defenders have to play the percentages. The risks are too high. I have no problem May going for a mark. But he simply has to weigh up the risk reward balance. In that particular instance as an experienced defender he had to know there was a paddock behind him and no dees player between the contest and the goals (by the by there should have been - ordinarily it would have been omac). So the percentage play was to smash it to the boundary. Once he chose to mark it instead he simply had to mark it. That goal was their first and got them going. We only just won the game. Who knows if he gets that ball out of bounds they might have taken 10 more minutes to score their first and never got close. The other issue is related to leadership. What is the message he sends by playing hero ball to his team mates, in particular a raw co defender? Is it a coincidence Smith also failed to play the percentages costing us two critical goals?

I agree. However i think there is an issue connecting Omac and Smith in so far as they don't play the same role. Smith is never going to be a lock down defender on a big. For one thing a good big forward, say a Kennedy or Darling, would simply have to much footy nous for him. If Oscar doesn't play then May has to be the lock down deep defender for their key big. But most teams have two big forwards and neither Smith or Lever are suited to matching up on them. Then we have a problem. if they keep him in defence I can see Smith taking Jetta's spot as he has the speed to go with a small, height and strength to go with a medium and leap to give the bigs a hand if a spoil from the second man in is needed. He would also have a bit more licence to take intercept marks. Used this way he would play a very similar role to Howe at the pies. In that role Omac could come in to play his full back, sweeper role allowing May to take the second big and be more attacking than if he has to play deep. It would also mean Lever can focus on the intercept role we brought him to the club to play.

I think you'll find bing was being facetious dieter....

I was thinking about that. In 2018 Brayshaw's strength was winning the ball from the contest and running with ball in hand before kicking. That penetration and metres gained was really important for us. There seems now to be much less space for players to run into. To get space enough for players to run and carry it has to get to the outside, to the wing. Perhaps that is why they tried him there.

Who knows. I only have the one game to go on. Where precisely that happened. What makes think they will change that and play TMac deep?

I know bing, Twas a little joke by moi

Maybe. But do we really need another inside mid, contested ball winner? Brayshaw will end up being relegated to retrieving balls that get kicked into the empty stands.

I have to say there is fair dose of irony trading a defender that whilst athletically gifted, strong and fast is not a natural footballer (and who it must be said is now a pretty good one) and is prone to having very costly brain fades. And replacing him down back with an athletically gifted, strong and fast bloke who is not a natural footballer and on the evidence of one game prone to having very costly brain fades.

Tmac got the memo and has done his bit. Stacked on the kegs binge watching Netflix. Gary Ablett got the same memo i reckon. But the coaching staff can't have got the memo. Because i don't reckon he set up deep once. That was left to the skinniest player in the team, who was the main target - even after getting smashed by Jones in the second half.

Smith has to stay in. As i posted yesterday it is just plain stupid to bring a young player in and drop him straight away. Hate it. Bad for the player and sends the wrong message to other players, fans and the media. The only time i think it is ok is if they a complete shocker and there is concern another one will smash their confidence. Besides he wasn't great but he was by far not our worst player. Not convinced they should play him as a defender though. I read what Chaplin said about the reasons why they want to play him as a defender. Said it was because his athleticism gives us flexibility down back and he is less likely to get injured. I get the first part but the second part makes no sense to me. I would have thought he is more likely to get injured down back where he has to contest and tackle all day. But that is by the by. The problem is it is evident he is not a natural footballer. He has low footy IQ. In the old days they could put such a player down back. Tell them to stay glued to the hip of their direct opponent and let the forward take them to the ball. That doesn't work anymore and the defender has to understand systems, zones, body positioning, when to attack, when to stay down etc etc. Kids who have come through the TAC cup system struggle with all that let alone a fella who last played footy as 15 year old. As a forward his chaos style works much better. See ball. Attack ball. Smash packs. Bring the ball to ground. Take speccies. He can be more instinctive and his athleticism becomes an attacking weapon. It is this combination of abilities that gives me confidence he can be a player. Of course forwards needs craft but i would argue playing forward is less challenging than back in terms of its testing your football IQ. And the risk reward is tipped the wrong way if you don't have that football IQ. Flying for the wrong ball and leaving a player out the back is one example of this we saw on Saturday. But he can sort that. More concerning is his kicking. Defenders are constantly put under pressure when kicking. Mistakes means goals. Natural defenders know better when and where to kick. And when not to. All that requires experience. Look at Rivers. Not only is he natural but he has played all his elite junior footy down back. And making things worse Smith is no more than an average field kick. As a forward he is really hard match up as you need a defender who can match his strength, pace and leap. They have to worry about him. Not vice versa. And like Tmac his kicking is actually really good from set shots.

Agree. And in addition to the stats you noted for nibbler you could argue he won us the game. He was terrific in that contest that resulted in him getting it to Tmac to enable the pass to Fritter. it was cleaver too as he was alter to the fact that the ball had not gone over the boundry (really bad error by the blues as was tmac being on his lonesome). The point Fritter then scored was the last score of the match and the winning margin. Hunt was also important in that last 2 minutes as unlike some of his team mates was gut running to contests.

I watched the suns and saints game. Jeez both clubs have some brilliant field kicks. More than us.

On Lever, for me it is a furphy if we over paid for him. Doesn't matter now. What matters is how he plays going forward. He is a really good player but as i have said a number of times poor on one one. His one wood is being an excellent intercept mark and reading the movement of the ball as it comes down field. And that is the role we drafted him for. And that is how we should play him. Forget what we paid for him. If we paid overs so be it. There have been some excellent posts on this topic pointing out that the intercept role is dependent on the other defenders all doing their job. And as noted by someone usually requires at least one true lock down defender. This was the model the Crows used when Lever played his best footy, with Thalia as the lock down general being critical to his success.

Only scratch matches. But i don't think it is form as much as fitness and possibly issues still with his feet or similar. He doesn't seem to be able to leap for the ball and is nowhere near as agile as he is when right.

At the moment Tmac cannot play back. He is simply too slow and heavy. People worry about Omac's pace. Well he would beat his brother in a sprint. And it is well worth remembering why he went forward in the first place. He was close to being dropped because down back he was a shockingly unreliable kick (who seemed to want always test that by taking risky options). Worse that Frost. He needs to be dropped. Bring Weed in.

Fair enough. Leaving aside the goody discussion i worry many of the players simply are not that good.

For pete's sake they're not asking him to play full back or in the ruck. He is still spending some time in the middle. And yes that is where he plays his best footy. But as result of (what i think has been) too much emphasis on drafting contested ball winners at the expense of skilled outside players (why oh why did we not go after suckling when he was on the market?) we have Viney, Oliver, Brayshaw and now Tracc all fighting for the same position. So he has to perform in another position at times? Ones that don't perfectly suit his skill set. Big deal. Suck it up and do what you're paid good coin to do. Play good footy

If true that is an indictment on Brayshaw. A skilled, talented professional footballer - a 2nd draft pick no less - should be able to play to a high level even if the game plan, team rules and even the position they are played in don't 'suit' them. Sure they may not have optimal output in those scenarios but it speaks of a lack of mental strength and rubbish attitude if they can't - or worse, won't perform to an acceptable level. Or alternatively they are one dimensional and simply not that good. The second best junior in the country should be able to play top footy wherever he plays and whatever the team system or rules are.

Classic sci fi trope is the answer. Someone else has replaced him and is using his body as a shell. Possibly an alien. Though that is unconfirmed. The real question is where is gus?

Fair call. You're right I'm being too simplistic saying connection is about accurate kicking. It is all the things you suggested. And to add an element synergy. Instinctively knowing where everyone is. A big part of which is a predictable, well drilled system. Which makes the decision to bring so.many new players in and changing your defensive unit and structure all the more perplexing. Hard in those circumstances to have connection. All that adide we still have too many really poor kicks and too few elite kicks.

On that lever kick I criticised him for floating that kick (a technique issue) and not putting it to fritters advantage (which given the situation had to be his right side so if he couldn't mark he get get it over the line). But you're right why were there not more dees players in that area. As you say that was where he had to kick it. It was actually 5 v 2 in that area. We were super lucky we won that ball as if they won it, as they probably should have, it would have gone straight back inside their 50. We got it inside our 50 and that was that. The other thing I found perplexing was why at least one player didn't gut run to provide a short option. Even if lever doesn't kick it to them it stretches their coverage and mitigates against an out number.