binman

Sure. If you need to. Not sure why you would need or want to though. Lever wont replace no 28. But if we want to compare them - and avoid a silly who will better argument - lets factor in that all players, but particulaly talls develop at different rates. Lever is a gun. But blind freddy can see that. But it is not inconceivable he might level out given he is alreafy playing at a high level. Though it should be noted in this context he is playing in a better side. And it is not inconceivable no 28 has scope for considerable improvement. And pwrhaps more upside than lever. And it should also be noted that whilst there are similarities - age, height, weight, both defenders - lever is much more a rance style intercepr player. No 28 will likely end up 10kgs heavier and play different role, ine more akin to tbat played by tmac. If lever comes to the dees - which i reallt hopes he does - he will be a perfect combination with no 28.

Call me old fashion but i always though supporters defend their own players and bag opposition players not vice versa.

I am. Steve is obsessed with trying to prove himself right about Tmac's younger brother. To be frank it is getting ridiculous.

Of course you do. But you don't overspend. He's a value add.

Careful steve you might scare Lever off with your feverish passion for him. I don't think i can ever recall a DL poster express so much love for a MFC player, let alone one who plays for an opposition team. Have you seen the film swimfan?

Yep, the Astbury and Rance set up is the pro type zone set up. You can't really have gorilla keepers anymore (think Frawley and dunn) as if they are not mobile enough you are one runner down. The skyscrapers are hard to stop no doubt and if you went man on man you would need a taller player rather then Frawley style man on man player to guard them. But with the zones all teams are playing (some zones are more aggressive) you can't really have a defender running with them all day or else your whole ground zone suffers and you are almost a man down (which is why taggers, with some obvious exceptions, have by in large gone out of style). The answer - at least at the moment - to stop the power forward like Dixon and the skyscrapers like Danhier that most teams employ is the zone. And it is hard to do and when it goes wrong the skyscrapers and gorillas have a field day. Look at some of the goals Pedo and Hogan kicked on Sunday. At least four were from marks where the lions zone failed and both players were allowed a free run at the ball. But on other occasions their defensive zone worked really well and they got easy marks down back. They are a young team and it takes time to get zones right. Moving Tmac back and dropping Salem and Frost was risky as it is impacted on the synergy down back, which is critical for zones in football (and soccer and basketball) to work well. I think some of the Saints second half goals and the lions goals were as a result of the zone breaking down. Geelong used Taylor to force Rance to go one on one on him and cut down the damage he usually does with his intercepts. Interestingly Rance, who some consider to be the best defender of the modern era, really struggled one on one and was well beaten by Taylor in the air and the scoreboard. The tigers often send martin really deep knowing generally someone will mark him, which makes it harder for the opposition to set their zone. Lever would fit perfectly into our zone set up and very much play the Rance role.

Perhaps he could also school him on taking a man on in his back half, getting done for dropping the ball 40 meters out and then compounding his error (after his man missed the goal) giving away a silly 50 and giving up a gimme goal. How much did they lose by? Oh that's right 3 points. Just imagine the response from some if the whipping boy had made those errors and cost us a game?

I agree lewis unlikely to play 2 more years after this (im assuming you mean in the senior). I think we will be lucky to get one more year of senior footy. But i very much doubt lewis will want to play out his career at casey, which is what will likely happen if he sees his contract out. I suspect he will retire before allowing that to happen. But even if he chooses to play in 2019, as will be his right, he will be valuable to have at the club given his professionalism and experience - even if he is playing at casey. Also i would think his contract is front loaded and in the second and third years has a number of performance related clauses.

I cannot believe there is any discussion at all of swapping hogan for Lever. Really apart from the emotional aspect of hogan being a much loved demon, objectively no club would do that deal. Hogan is miles ahead of lever as a player. I get that Lever is good now and in all likelihood will become a top shelf player, and perhaps even a star (though i do think some on here are getting ahead of themselves a bit with their assessments - i really worry about his history of hamstring issues - as i think Webber has pointed out before once a player starts to get them it can become a problem) but Hogan is a star now and will become one of the greats. Look at his numbers. For Pete's sake he won the NAB rising star - an award forwards never win, pipping Cripps who was unbelievable that year. And has kicked 99 goals in only 49 games - amazing for a young KPF. This season has been a write off yet he is still kicking goals when he plays. I can't believe how short some people's memories are. The Crows would take that trade in a heartbeat and be laughing as they signed the paper work. Crows fans would be saying "Lever who?"

Agree he is best 22 atm (though he'ed be in the 15-22 range) and that the coaches love him. Has really come on this year. But that is precisely why there is a good chance he is chance to be part of any deal to get Lever. Crows don't want a player like Kent or ben ken who can't get a regular game of senior football. They want someone who can be a best 22 in their side. They need mids and we are reasonably well covered for players of ANB's size and skill set, particularly with Smith coming on, Maynard getting a senior gig and Gus not having played this year. And of course he is an SA boy, which is a big factor i reckon given how many players they lose who are going back to their home state. As i have said before i hate to lose players that are not peanuts and who want to stay at the club. But no doubt he will be in discussions. Trading Frost would be robbing Peter to pay Paul but not ANB. The alternative to trading a player of his ilk is to give up this years and next years first round draft picks (perhaps with a late pick coming back this year, for example if Taylor had another smokey in mind). But that is risky as it starts to muck around with your age spread in the next two or three years as you need quality young players filtering in as our older players drop off and/or filter out .

Please stop.

Apologies if this has been posted already. A lot of love at the dees http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2017-08-03/spycam-corey-maynard

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.