binman

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.

If he does he will have deserved going by his last month of footy. A great in who i suspect will stay in the side once in. His contested ball winning power will be super valuable in the next few weeks. I assume you have seen a fair bit of him drunkn. What is his kicking like? It worries me a bit bringing another good ball winner who turns it over too often

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.

Really, i thought they said on the telecast we won it and elected to kick into the wind

Agree. I was really disappointed in his game yesterday. When hogan went out he needed to will us to victory. I have to say though he should have got a free straight in front whwn thompson dropped it. Hopeless umpiring. Petracca was also poor. I reckon maynard will come in and maybe smith

Petracca - couldnt stick tacles Whole team - didnt want it

Why not

Channeling my inner kiwi. And cant work out spelcheck

Good point about the zone re leaking eady goals out thw back. Goodwin has really sorted rhat out since then - sign of a good coach. The othwr rhing in that game is it was the one gamw we reallt got huet nor having gawn. Goldstein killed us. Uf gawn is fut he will destroy pruess and daw.

Yes, he just hasn't been himself. But he will be

Funny you should say that amdam. I was thinking how weird that comment was - not just the actual words, also the weird sexualized tone.

Above was from weatherzone, this from BoM Sun protection not recommended, UV Index predicted to reach 1 [Low] Saturday 29 July Summary Min 3 Max 15 Rain at times. Possible rainfall: 2 to 4 mm Chance of any rain: 70% Hobart area Cloudy. High (70%) chance of rain, most likely in the late afternoon and evening. Winds north to northwesterly 25 to 35 km/h becoming light in the late evening.

Weather update: 12pm Mostly cloudy 12°C 26% 85% N 28km/h 4°C 56% 3pm Cloudy 14°C 21% 91% N 28km/h 4°C 50%

Bummer. i want us to play their strongest possible side. if we are going to win the GF we need to be able to beat other sides at full strength and i rather risk losing than play an undermanned side and shore up a top 4 spot. JOKES!