binman

Of course I'd rather the three peat and spend 5-6 years in the wilderness. 5-6 years in the wilderness? To butcher the Monty python gag, luxury, sheer luxury - I followed the dees through 50 years in the wilderness. But the last of the lions three peat flags was 2003. A generation ago. The hawk had their three peat in 2013/14/15 - a decade ago - and have been in the wilderness since and you'd think it will be another 2-3 years minimum before they are a genuine contender. The tigers almost did it, but couldn't So i'm not sure your second option is a realistic one anymore. For someone who has followed the dees through decades of failure and struggles to even make finals, let alone winning a flag, i find the option of staying in the premiership window for as long as possible (like the swans, cats and ironically this iteration of the lions) very appealing. Goody had said that is the aim, and that is supported by the way we have engineered the demographic spread of our list and playing so many young players.

Not this person.

Teams still need the bulls, particularly come finals, but agree, also need multiple players like Warner, McCluggae and Zac Bailey. But such players are often hybrid half forward or wing types. Which is where we have invested some capital in the last 3 seasons - Hunter, Billings, Windsor, Kolt, Laurie, even Woey and Sestan, who both also sort of fit that bill (ie good foot skills, quick, can play forward of center, bit also as mid if needed for whom KPIs include clean kicks inside 50, score involvements, goal assists and ideally a goal a game on average).

The irony meter is getting a big work out. As you suggest TU Demomnland has been clogged up for the last 2 seasons with cries to change our ugly, forward half game plan. Now we have, and people are pining for the old game plan. I don't think we are using the current method just to preserve bodies/fitness until later in the year, though i have no doubt that is a huge driver. Probably the biggest. As i noted in the saints pregame thread i think we will largely revert to 'our' tried and true method, but hopefully retain some of the elements of our current method, eg hitting some high risk corridor kicks, using the lions style 20 metre forward kicks on the 45, and some run and dare off the hb. Those elements are important I think in terms of reducing the frequency of reentries back into a crazy crowded inside 50 (which had historically been a big driver of our low score to inside 50 ratio - or inefficiency as it is oft described). On that point i 100% agree with @MurDoc516 and you that the way we played in 2022-23 contributed to the inaccuracy we had in finals. It's an interesting factor to consider, particularly as it relates to the discussion about us changing our game plan Last nights game provided another example of a possible correlation between a contested, forward half, high inside 50 game style. The dogs dominated inside 50s, particularly in the last quarter. For the match, the dog were +12 for total inside 50s (60-48) and were +33 for contested possessions (which is nuts - i don't reckon there would be too many times a team has won being 33 cps down). I think there is enough evidence now to suggest the time in forward half model, high inside 50 numbers with lots of reentries into a crowded forward line (ie our 2021-23 game plan) contributes to inaccuracy.

Last night's game was yet another example of what i'm talking about above. The dogs had a whopping 16 center clearances last night, twice as many as the Swans who could only manage 8. The Swans were plus 3 for around the ground stoppages, meaning the dogs were +5 for total clearances Six years ago if a team had 16 center clearances and their opponent only 8, that would be the ball game. But as is often the case now, the dogs center square domination was not a decisive factor in the game. They scored 6.6.42 from stoppages (in total, ie centre and around the ground combined) to the swans' 5.2.32. Like so many games now, the decisive factor was scores from turnover, with the dogs scoring 6.10.46 from turnovers and the Swans 11.2.68. On turnovers, there is no doubt the dogs inaccuracy hurt them, they had 16 to 13 turnover scores after all. But an interesting factor to consider, particularly as it relates to the discussion about us changing our game plan, is that the dogs dominated inside 50s, particularly in the last quarter, winning inside 50s 60-48. I think there is enough evidence now to suggest the time in forward half model, high inside 50 numbers with lots of reentries into a crowded forward line (ie our 2021-23 game plan) contributes to inaccuracy. The other interesting stat from last nights game, also relevant to the midfield discussion (given the key role mids play in terms of winning contested possessions), is the dogs smashed the swans for contested possessions 138 to 105.

Perhaps it's just part of being a fan, but it seems many dees fans, for all manner of things, don't apply the same logic to the dees as they do to other clubs. Flags are hard to win. Yes we won a flag under goody, but somehow one flag in 7 season for us is a fail. We are consistently a contender and give ourselves a chance to win a flag. Underachieved. The cats and swans are a well run clubs that are always in the frame. Wouldn't it be be great to be a fan of those clubs. Other contenders get beaten when favorites, a blip. We get beaten as favorites and it's time to rebuild and 'play the kids'. Other teams struggle for a block of time but they have key players out injured. We have a rough patch for the same reason and we lack depth. And on, and on and on.

I think he's a judge on the UK voice or some such.

A case could be made that it did work, for the club at least. Grundy was terrific in that block of games he rucked solo when Max was out injured. Not that it mattered in the end, but there's a good chance we don't end up top 4 if we didn't have an elite ruck to replace Max. As you say we got Grundy for a bargain - not bad insurance.

Luck has always been a massive factor, and maybe I'm imagining it, but it seems to be an even bigger factor these days.

It's a good question. Tracc and clarry certainly absorb alot of our salary cap. Max too But that would the same for all teams ie 2 or 3 gun mids take up a big chunks of the cap. And perhaps I should have said midfields are not as important as they once were - until the finals. Come finals, the game often devolves into rugby like brutal combat - teams still dont need the 6 or 7 mids they needed 6-7 years go but they need bulls like tracc, jack and clarry up and firing.

Lions lost to the hawks in round 10. The pies were in struggle town when the hawks beat them - hit by injury and their key metrics had cratered (most notably scores from turnover and the back half).

No. Getting their asses kicked by the 16th placed hawks probably wasn't part of last seasons two grand finalists grand plan either. Perhaps we can strip the pies of their flag.

99 problems, and the mids ain't one.

@titan_uranus No, I do agree our midfield is down on previous years, at least in terms of looking at them individually. But we lost gus on the eve of the season. And clarry, whilst performing remarkably well given his interrupted preseason, is not yet back to his best. And it didn't help losing Bowser in round one, which meant salo had to go back. Nor did it help salo also getting injured. Against that viney has been terrific, ditto tracc and Max. What I have been arguing is that the midfield isn't really a significant issue for us. The forward line is a much better issue. Midfields are simply not as important as they were even two seasons ago. Scores from clearances were something 60-70% of total score when goody took over as coach. It's now only 20-30%, with scores from turnover being the main score source. I mean you only have to look at the game we just played. Seven years ago if we were plus 21 for scores from stoppages we win most games. Not now, particularly when our opponents absolutely smash us on scores from turnover. Yes mids play a role in creating turnovers and scoring from them, but no more than the high half forwards and wingers and less than intercepting defenders and half back flankers.

Agree. Though of course every strategy has risk. We were cooked come finals in 2022. I actually think they were in good shape condition wise last year, but were cruelled by injury.

Yes, that's my take. We will largely revert to 'our' tried and true method, but hopefully retaining some of the elements of our current method, eg hitting some high risk corridor kicks, using the lions style 20 metre foreard kicks on rhe 45, and some run and dare off the hb. Those elements are important I think in terms of reducing the frequency of rentries back into a crazy crowded inside 50 (which had historically been a big driver of our low score to inside 50 ratio - or inefficiency as it is oft described) Which, as much as I hate to say it, almost 100% describes the method the pies used come finals. On the quote, it was no doubt deliberatety used out of context in the text to rile dees fans and create a false narrative about where we are at. Instructive it was then quoted on here.

Statistically, bugger all. For one thing, whoever replaced him, whilst not covering the same territory or same speeds etc, would still have done their share (eg the gap might be 2kms less distance covered). And secondly, they are total numbers, ie 23 players.

I haven't listened to his slot yet (but will), but if that's what he said i wholeheartedly agree. In fact it is basically the same thing I have posted on a number of occasions- ie implement a less bruising, less physically taxing method during the home and away season and transition back to our normal forward half model come finals (which is basically what the pies did last year). The key learning fron 2022 and 2023 is that playing the brutal model we have used since the start of 2020 is not sustainable for 23 rounds plus finals as evidenced by the contact and other injuries that decimated us come finals the last 2 seasons. It's funny, many posters made that exact argument inthe last 2 seasons (ie an unstainable model for a fill season). And they were proven right. Anyone who made that argument should be well pleased that their advice has been heeded. The downside to goody having done so is we are going to lose more games this home and away season than in the ladt three seasons.

Its almost as if goody was not joking when he has repeatedly said our goal is to be playing our best footy come September or that the team who improves the most during the season are the ones contending at the pointy end of the season. I mean, I guess he might have some evidence to support that supposition. Like the blues and swans last year. And the lions too for that matter, who were 6-4 after 10 games and were flogged by thr hawks, who finished the season in 16th (and beat the pies in round 21), in round 10. It's almost as if goody has done some analysis of why we went out of the finals in straight sets the last two years and what other clubs that have done well have done.

Six weeks for a shepperd? What's the world coming to?

Ouch, Dame Nellie Melba standard comeback right there. An iconoclast with a rapier wit. That's a dangerous combination -

Such an iconoclast....

Be careful. Very triggering topic for some on here. By the by, I'm def of the view load related fatigue was a factor in the performance. Not an excuse for it, but a factor nonetheless. Much the same way as I believe our woeful kicking was a factor in the performance. Not an excuse for it, but a factor nonetheless.

Ta. Right you are then (i was going off the champion data Player ratings)

Agree with all (except he was our 2nd highest rated player behind maxy).