binman

38 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't think so, Reid has already shown he will be a gun.

Total gun. Believe the hype.

I still think we're a real chance of getting him.

West Coast is a disaster zone. I honestly can't see them making finals for at least 5 years.

Their list is terrible. Just one example - paying gaff 800k a year to play in the WAFL.

They need a rebuild just to get to the stage they can do a rebuild.

Will Reid a Melbourne boy, really want to spend 6 or 7 years playing in a rubbish team in Perth?

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Thought it was a good stat in theory but once again like “pressure rating” the metrics behind the points aren’t explained by the statisticians where needed.  Using “points” as a metric in a game where some metrics use literal points scored is deceptive. 

It is literal points I assume.

That's to say we average 125 points per 100 clearnces, so 1.25 points per clearance.

5 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

We could make wine from their tears. 

A strangely beautiful and poetic image.

2 hours ago, Demon17 said:

I think you something to do with cheer squad wcw.

Can I say what a fabulous effort you put in setting up a mighty albeit surrounded by ferals presence at the goals end at Adelaide.

It looked wonderful on TV and I reckon was hugely appreciated by the players.

Well done on the huge flag waving effort during the faux INXS power pre game anthem too.

That clubs got an inferiority complex imo.

Great job.

 

Those fans could live for a thousand years and still not see another flag.

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

Slow start and the bad 3rd quarter were concerning, made us grind back to even with good footy and good luck a couple of times before kicking away twice in the last.

The big question is how much of our lack of speed on the spread defensively was due to covering May with a tall slower backline in the first half?

Or how much was our midfield and half forwards probably being a step slow and disorganised?

Similarly, was reverting to more bomb and chase down the line - a tactic I mostly supported to get the job done on the night - just pragmatism?

Or are we still needing to work on skill execution under pressure to play a more expansive style when facing heat?

Because there were a string of bad decisions or shoddy kicks coming out of the backline early and especially in the 3rd - hello Mr Lever - and also a lot of handballs that went back in through traffic rather than clearing to the fat side.

Fantastic win, but one that raises a few questions too.

We did not watch the same game.

1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

No, he was a victim of our uncontested game dropping right away under Port’s pressure, our game turning in to more defensive half and countering in straight lines and his own struggles winning the ball in a tough contested game.

I doubt it will see him dropped purely on form reasons, but there might be a physical reason why he wasn’t up to the pace of play. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the sub.

Nah, that's not how I saw it.

Or what the numbers say, the most significant of which being points from defensive half:

Points from defensive half

We played our new back half game and beat port at their own game, who ironically tried to beat us with our 2021-23 straight line, forward half, territory game.

4 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

Give May another week, no change bar injury, Would give Billings another go has had some good games, already.

Agree.

But I will not be surprised at all if they pick him. I'm giving up trying to guess their selections!

9 hours ago, Jontee said:

Has to get the ball though.

If there is no change to the squad I would probably swap Woey for Billings.

If May comes in then Billings out, Hore as the sub.

Do you reckon they tagged him?

I couldn't tell, but he was so important last week, and so quiet this week I wondered if they targeted him.

3 hours ago, old55 said:

We kicked for goal exceptionally poorly in the losses and exceptionally well last night. 

Exactly.

But the difference between us and port's loss is that the same can't be said of Port last night.

3 hours ago, loges said:

Did you take the $2.66 Bin ?

No.

The ban on dees bets remained in place unfortunately.

But i hope someone took my advice to put the super on the +14 point linevand whatever they had in their bank account on the $2.66.

3 hours ago, deegirl said:

autocorrection.cancel to me Rivers didn’t hear the whistle so kept playing whereas Rozee stopped & made the tackle look worse than it was

That's right, so I'm not sure how it can be a reversal given it was basically still live because Rivers didn't realise it had stopped.

I'd understand if he say punched him off ball or similar.

And it was only borderline a sling tackle and absolutely not unduly rough play.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I thought the free was wrong too and not only because rozee flopped...

But then you had the free to max when the ump did a dodgy centre bounce and blew the whistle. Play had stopped but Soldo cannoned into Max's back and Max received a free...

Yep, that was a soft free. I would've been annoyed if that was paid against us.

Crucial time too  as we went into the quarter time break with the momentum and full of energy.

I thought soldo was really good. He worked super hard.

34 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Port on a fast dry deck would be hard to handle

As they were last night.

They couldn't have got a faster or drier deck.

Ground is in great nick, and with no wind, or obvious humidity, it was perfect conditions for football.

Pity we don't get to play in those conditions every game.

59 minutes ago, BoBo said:

100% agree about the false narrative. 

It was just a bloody good game of footy. 

Indeed.

The quality of the game should not be lost in the wash up.

It was a cracking game. High quality from start fom end and a finals like intensity.

Port were fantastic.

I was impressed by their defence (something they have to adress) and their midfield, and ability to link up by hands and go forward is elite.

I've watched the replay once, but it might get another this arvo.

Top game.Top win.

The Crows is a danger game. Hard to get up for on a five day break after the intensity of this game.

If we can tough out a win we'll go into the Lions game as favourites and 4-1.

Win and we go 5-1 into the bye, with almost a two week break till our Anzac eve game against the tigers. 

Beyond how good the game was in of itself, beating Port was huge in terms of increasimg our chances of finishing top 4 - the goal of the home and away season. 

We get the 4 points, an opportunity to build momentum, bank early season wins and get to 6-2, which would set up our season.

And Port, a competitor for a top 4 slot, don't get the 4 points at home, which given they started 1.45 favourites has to hurt.

Too early for an 8 point game, but it may well end up being a factor in shaping the top four.

26 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Flawed system that weights theoretical perfection and what ifs over the reality.

That's not accurate.

In fact the opposite is true. It's nor theoretical, it's a calculation based on reality. 

So, for example since 2013 (when the data started getting collected), let's say there have been 2000 set shots from where maxy kicked his goal. And for the sake of argument only 30% of those shots resulted in a goal.

It's therefore not theoretical that most AFL footballers miss that shot, or that it was super impressive maxy didn't.

And whilst the model doesn't take into account all variables, most notably the record or skill of the person kicking, it does take into account quite a few key variables.

The model estimates the likelihood of a player scoring a goal, taking into account the shot type - such as set shots, snaps, and on the run - location on the field, and critically the pressure being applied on the player having the shot.

The last point helps explain why ports x score was only 11 points higher than their actual score. Many of their snaps on goal were under huge pressure. 

For me, one of the most impressive parts of the win was I thought we had a number of players that had average games, particularly from some of our younger players.

It was our leaders who stood up and willed us over the line.

From @WheeloRatings stats in the stats file, compulsory post game reading for me, our top 5 pressure players tells the tale:

Hard to argue those 5 weren't our best five players.

8 minutes ago, jane02 said:

Jane is actually my middle name hence 02. My dad's side of the family were proud Victorians so any of the suss genetics were watered out. I do have a few odd cousins however.

Don't we all.

2 minutes ago, jane02 said:

Now now - my mum and her side of the family were Tasmanians, and I don't have two heads!

Are you sure?

The other head is not called jane01?

17 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

I actually thought the game was fairly well officiated overall, yes, a few absolute clangers but that's pretty standard, the umps aren't robots.

I thought so too.

The free against rivers was a pretty big clanger though given the potential impact on the result. 

I'm pretty sure that free was an error because he paid a sling tackle, not say something like a reversal for unduly rough play.

A free had already been paid, so the game was in time on, ie the ball was no longer 'live'. 

Rivers obviously didn't know that, so tackled rozee.

He wouldn't have been awarded a free kick if rozee had dropped the ball - so how could he pinged for one (other than something like a reversal from say unduly rough play)?

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

On expected scores we are probably the 2023 premiers. Except we are not. 
Port let themselves down in front of goal and didn’t take advantage of their inside 50 dominance. 
That’s football. We’ve lost plenty of games we should have won. As Goody said, we were better during crucial moments and took our chances. 

A fantastic victory!

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

55 minutes ago, Hopeful Demon said:

How good has this guy been? He has low-key been our best player this year. I thought we were done late in the third quarter but he just kept on giving. 

We wouldn't have been close without him tonight.

Nibbla was unbelievable tonight.

You're spot on - we don't win that game without him.

The best game he's played. 

That was one of the great wins.

Made more remarkable by watching some sort of mirror footy game.

One team dominated territory, clearnces and inside 50s. But often entering into a crowded fifty and missing key chances. Not taking full advantage of momentum.

The other team staying in the game  absorbing pressure in the back half,entering into an open forward line and taking key chances. Taking full advantage of momentum.

Go redlegs.

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Sarah Jones: “Ross Lyon is putting on a coaching masterclass”. Hmmmmm

Didn't age well.

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Typo, right? RIGHT???

Hopefully not a Freudian one!

Perfect MFC weather:

No rain. No humidity. No wind. And with the temp not dropping below 22 degrees, no dew (dew point 7 degrees). 

No excuses.

Game time:

• 26.6 degrees
• Light winds all evening
• perfect