binman

For the first time in a very long time i have complete faith in the judgement of the football department when it comes to recruitment and trades. Whilst there a many factors at play (eg pay scales, contract status of list, culture, perceived risk of lever continuing to suffer hammy injuries, refusal to pay overs etc) their offer to lever will give us an indication of a couple of things (assuming of course we get wind of the ball park figure and length of contract). It will give some objective measure of how highly they rate lever and also of where they see their most need. On the second point it will be interesting to see who they target if they dont land lever. If collingwood get him they will be paying overs, as they did with mayne. Happy for the dees to nor get in a bidding war with the pies

100% agree

Jetta might have a good record for spoiling against taller opponents. He's fantastic. i love him. As you say he is steallr defender. But the fact remains that he is often pitted against taller opponents. And can't win all those contests. And he is not the only one. Hibberd and to a lesser extent hunt and salem often find themselves in one on ones against much taller opponents. It is a function of the zone and an exploitable weakness of that strategy, particularly when up field pressure is poor. Surely you have to acknowledge that at the very least this issue contributes to our poor one on one stat? Sorry Jnr you have not provided any compelling facts that support your argument. I thought i made that clear. Perhaps you can find some other stats that prove our tall defenders aren't very good at one on one contests. Like their individual statistics.

Agree, to an extent. We were bloody unlucky that is for sure. But despite encouraging signs at the beginning of the season i still have doubts about spencer. Also ideally we have a player who less a straight back up but also can sometimes play in the same side as gawn. It would have to be a pretty mobile player who can play in various positions. King might fit this bill. But i can't see Gawn and Spencer ever playing together. But you're probably right - perhaps we can cover it until Flip and king come on.

Snap

So when jetta lost his two marking contests with Brown (a result of targeted un-pressured kicks inside 50) he would have been recorded as losing those one on one contests given nominally both players had a chance of marking it? Do you blame jetta for failing to spoil those marks? Unlikely. There have been so many examples of similar mismatches all season - and they will continue to be an issue given our zone strategy - which goes a long way to explaining the poor one on one stat. And in addition to these frequent mismatches all the easy out the back goals to a player on his own we have given up this year (which are often the result of poor turnovers or poor pressure) would be a big factor in our poor ranking for giving up goals when the opposition go inside 50. At the least surely you acknowledge there are different ways to interpret and analysis the cause of particular statistics jnr. Perhaps your analysis that those two stats are the result of the defensive weakness is correct but obviously i disagree. Respectfully i think the club also disagrees or else surely they would have responded by changing the lineup. But lets agree to disagree and move on.

It seems clear that if he leaves he is coming home to Vic. Lucifer's Hero makes a good point about Lynch ending up staying at the Crows despite many saying him leaving was a fait accompli. So despite the loud jungle drums it its not a done deal he is leaving the crows. But jeez if you putting a bet on it you'd land on him going. If the last point is true surely the dees would be a more attractive option than either the dogs or pies (who seem to be the other key suitors) given we are close to our premiership window. Dogs have had their flag and will struggle to get another any time soon. Who knows how far away the pies are but they have a fair bit of rebuilding to do and the situation with Buckley and the review wouldn't make a potential recruit very comfortable. I agree with those that say we shouldn't be paying too much above market rate. and i doubt we will, so the pies might well out bid us. We have a range of other needs, in particular at least one more mid who is an elite user of the ball and a really good second ruck option as Gawn going down exposed our vulnerability in this area (king might come good, but seems a fair way away). But in addition to his ability to play the intercept role really well and to fit into our system i like lever's ball use. Not sure if it is elite but not far off. Also goody values flexibility and i reckon Lever with his marking ability could thrive up forward when/if needed and perhaps also as an occasional ruckman.

A serious question? Probably lost in my my long posts on this thread but i have said in this thread and others that Lever would be a brilliant pick up. He would be a great addition to our side, indeed a great addition to any side. Blind Freddy can see he is a gun. Lever would improve our backline, for sure. But do i think our back line needs shoring up? No. I reckon all in all we have a pretty good back six at present. Can they improve - yes of course. Probably only Jetta and Hibberd are playing close to their optimum. What do all the others have in common? They are young players with less than 55 games under the belt and all have huge scope for improvement. With another pre season and another 6 months of perfecting their synergy and understanding of Goody's zone they will be a formidable unit. The back six are doing their job pretty well. At the risk of contradicting myself Adelaide, who have a pretty handy defensive unit, has, despite winning 3.5 more games , conceded only 108 less points than us. The back six have done well enoughl that the coaching staff have not felt the need to move Tmac back there despite the fact they have had that option, for example by playing Pederson up forward rather than at Casey. As has been mentioned by a number of people on this thread our ability to defend would be greatly improved by the whole team applying the level of pressure Goody demands - week in week out. Every bloody game. If anything our mid field needs shoring up with a player or two who can apply pressure every single game and can regularly hit a target.

Exactly. Which is precisely what was happening early in the season. Teams were knocking up scoring easy goals (often running it all rhe way to tbe goal line) against us because our press and zone were too aggressive and they were getting over it too easily. This goes a long way in explaining both stats in tbe op. Goody responded and we now get fewer of them, though it still occurs eg against the crows and a couple of times in the last match.

Huh? Where did i say i was content? I would love for our % to be higher. But more the point i am furious that about our two losses against the roos and the one against freo. All were a result of poor mid pressure, not our defensive 6. We win those 3 games and we make top 4. So, hardly content. People talk about brown hurting us? Look at his four goals. Three were gifted because of poor pressure - and a break down in the zone. Tbe fourth was a failure by the defenders to spoil his pack mark in the goal square. So tbey can wear that one. But our tallest player, gawn, can wear some blame as well as he was in that pack and should have go to the ball. Sleep well? Patronising much

Not much of a glaring weakness or indeed much of a problem if it is not costing us games. Our drop off in pressure seems to be more of a glaring issue. The op also makes the point that we are easy to score against and give up easy msrks because of weaknesses in our defensive personell. Others have made, to my mind, convincing arguments tbat assessment is wrong, that there are other reaons for these issues.

I reckon he could also go up forward

I'm glad you agree that we have largely kept teams to manageable scores. A good stat indicating the back six are doing okay. To suggest the reason is that we have two of the back six in AA form is quite frankly, silly. Maybe if it was under 12's but not in the elite football competition in the land. All players in a back six have to be playing their role or we would be getting cricket scores kicked on us. Which we are not. And if they can't play their role they will not be picked. Take Saturday. Jetta and Hibberd both had their worst games for weeks yet we still kept them to 76 points, despite the lack of pressure from the mids. The reason we have largely kept teams to manageable scores - and did once again on Saturday - is that the zone defensive system they have in place largely works very well. Your stats indicate there are issues, for sure. But your assumptions that the cause of those issues being the personnel is wrong. We give up easy goals and concede one on ones when our zone breaks down and/or the opposition exploit the inevitable mismatches that occur. Often though we give up goals and marks not because of the defence but, like on Saturday, the mids simply are not putting enough pressure on and the ball comes in quickly and players are able to target the kick. The two occasions Brown marked with Jetta as his direct opponent were perfect examples of this. Zones take a long time to develop and are high risk. At the start of the season you could see they didn't really have it working, but it has been much better for the last 6-7 weeks. It will be better gain next year with the benefit of another Goodwin pre season. Zones require all players on the field to be providing maximum pressure. We have been variable this year and our losses have corresponded to a drop off in pressure from the mids - both roos games being prime examples. This puts enormous pressure on the back six and creates scoring opportunities. I have no doubt they have targeted lever, not because he will take the power forwards. He won't. But because he is the perfect player for the zone set up Goodwin is obviously committed to sticking with. Perhaps to the chagrin of old school footy fans who still see football as one one one contests down back.. I agree we need to improve our defensive work. And lever will be huge for us. his ability to read the play and come to contest as the third man up - sometimes to spoil, sometimes to intercept mark, will be really help improve the our ability t stop the power forwards. But our defence is not our glaring weakness. And you stats do not 'prove' that it is.

Well there is somw nuance. On 10 occasions they have scored over 100 to our 7. And 5 times they have conceded more than 100 points to our 3. The highest score we have conceded is 126. Theirs is 153 with a good amoount of 110 point plus losses

We have largely done a good job of keeping sides to manageable scores all season. Which is the job of the back six. It is why we have a percentage over 100. Compare to bombers who really leak goals and might i add have one the best man on man defenders in the league in hurley. As i said our defence is not our problem

I disagree that the glaring weakness in our side is our defence. But am very keen to get Lever as he will fit perfectly into our zone strategy . As some have noted just as is the case at the Crows he won't be taking the Browns etc. He will do what he does at the Crows and knock up getting intercept marks and set up attacks with smart kicks. He doesn't address a need so much as value add. Funny week to raise this as yes brown played well (he is almost leading the Coleman so no surprise there) but the reality is that whilst the zone had its moments where there was a mismatch the defence did really well given how poor the pressure from our mids was (which as discussed last week will always cause problems for a zone defence as aggressive as ours, just as it did against the crows). What stat can i find to back my claim up that the back six did well? Let's see - how about the score. They only scored 7 goals with the wind and 11 all day. Like they have done for much of the season the whole back six did their job (which has meant Tmac can go up forward and actually get a mark in our forward line) and kept the roos to a score we should have easily been able to eclipse. I mean come on, the roos only scored 76 points in total. The glaring weakness in this game was our forward line and forward entries. We scored TWO GOALS for the entire second half. Pathetic. We were level at 3 q time thanks to a terrific effort by the back six after the Roos had the wind in the third. We should have smashed them but could only manage two goals kicking with a gale. Hopeless, just hopeless. Not on the back six though. But i 100% agree we have a huge issue with contested marks. We simply do not get enough of them. And it is a long standing problem. The last really good contested mark, with the possible exception of Hogan and Gawn, was Clarke. It is one reason Tmac has been so great to watch up forward. He clunks marks. For me our poor contested marking is one of our two real glaring weaknesses, the other being how few 'elite' kicks we have in the side. Salem, Watts , Hibberd, maybe Brayshaw, maybe Garlett and funnily enough perhaps Jones are our only elite kicks. That is simply not enough and a huge barrier to sustained success, particularly given our game plan relies so much of aggressive use of the ball. When you add that we have a number of players who are poor by hand you have a serious issue.

Good lord, we could get into all of each other's accounts!

Boring is a far sigt better than being unable to manage a debate without being dismissive and rude.

Agree with your comment about the evidence. Which is why i was bemused you rejected my argument about tmac being a forward option before the blues game. As i pointed then and just now the evidence was already there for all to see.

A couple of things pd. Firstly, i thought you were pretty dismissive of my argument as to how we could fit lever in and not lose frost. An element of my argument was that tmac was looking more and more a natural forward. You rejected that comment. Ill note it was made before you had your mind changed by his peter hudson performance on the weekend. But lets be honest the signs were there for a while he was a natural forward - unsurprising given he played all his juniour career as one. Even those ding bats darcy and richo pointed how good his leading patterns and forward instincts were way back against the pies - and he did kick 5 against wc. Yet you change your position after last weekends game and have now come to much tbe same conclusion i did prior to the clues game.? Polar opposite views you said. Perhaps it might be better not to be so quick to reject the arguments of orher posters, particularly when you initiate the discussion saying you like dispassionate logical discussions. The second thing is i actually think omac is starting to show sign his kicking could become more of an offensive weapon. There were a couple of excellent bullet passes on tbe weekend from him. One near the end of tbe 1st q that opened up the corridor before lewis turned it over. But yes a work in progress. Agree wirh frost but a real point of difference for frost - and an important part of game plan - is that he is often an offensive threat. He clearly has been instructed to take players on and run hard out of tbe back half. He so often plays on, runs 20 metres and kicks it 50 metres. Yes he can spray it but often he is driving the ball inside our forward line. Huge for us and with hunt they represent a very important part of our strategy. I suspect smith, who i still say may end up as a mid, will play a similar role. I cant see lever playing this style The most simialr player to lever is actually omac. Both are zone defenders whose strength is gettting across to spoil or intetcept mark.

In some regards perhaps. For exampke I thought watts would play all seaon last year. You didnt And more recently you were on the omac is not up to it bandwagon, arguing pedo would be the prefered option once all the tall came back (a view i see you have softened on i see). I disagreed. On both counts. I think ive got some some credits in the bank on the argument front with you PD.

Blimey PD. Because you gave my argument 'short shrift' does not make my argument unreasonable. It only means you disagree with the argument. You have been known to be wrong PD. Jack Watts says hello. And i have been known to be right. As i have said i don't think the back six would be too tall because of how athletic Frost and Lever are. But you don't agree. That's ok

Leaving aside my romantism pd i think i put forward a pretty reasonable argument about how you could fit lever in without losing frost. As i said it is eary days for smith in his career so plenty of time to develop the skills to go into the midfield. If i was in charge and the club wanted lever and jones in i would consider trading frost for sure. As you say he will have some trade value, but i suspect only second round. We will need a higher draft pick to make jones and lever happen. For that reason i would look at brayshaw, though that would be robbing peter to pay paul a bit. Id definetly look at kent, though he woud need to be part of a package deal to have any value - perhaps with jkh or wirh our first draft pick. We also can trade our first draft pick and one from next year as a package. Wagner might come into the conversation as part of a package also.

Well PD i am obviously more a romantic than you. good thing it is not my call. A couple of things though. I am not as keen as some on Jones. Also as i said i think Smith will end up a midfielder. Probably sooner rather than later. Perfect for that role i reckon. Yes he has played down back thus far but it is early days for his career. I can see him and Maynard being a pretty formidable combination in the middle with their strength, size and basketball honed quick and hands and vision. Lets say i'm right. A back six of Hibberd, Jetta, Frost, the McDonalds, and Lever looks pretty damn good. That allows Hunt to go to the wing, which i reckon is an ideal postion for him as he can still use his run and dash, we will still get great meters gained from him, he ca add a linking up element to his game and he becomes more of an offensive threat. Simples

As i said you make a good point about Frost, particularly about his potential trade value. But my solution would be to keep Frost. Partly because i am not totally convinced you can't have all of Tom McDonald, Oscar McDonald, Frost, Lever, and Joel Smith at the club and perhaps even in the same side, particularly if Smith goes to the midfield which i suspect he might. Keep in mind Lewis and Vince have both been playing off the HB and both will finish soon so that frees up some spots down back. Yes i know Lever, Frost and Smith are tall but they are so athletic that i reckon they can play as running half back flankers rather than just as key position players.And i wonder if TMac might end up as an old fashioned swing man given how natural he has started looking as a forward? But i guess the main reason my solution would be to keep Frost is i hate it when any player is forced out of the club. Unless they are a peanut.