binman

I occasionally look at the tracker data @Watson11. But in isolation I'm not sure what it's telling me and unlike you havent tracked it to see if there is pattern, or how one week compares to another or in aggregate. As i noted on the pod. I thought this data was really interesting. The top 5 players for speed in defence, which is defined as running when the opponents have the ball. It really gives a sense of how hard we work defensively and how much work our our all team defence demands. I think it also supports your point about how elite we are in term of running power.

That makes sense lh. It could be a combo of those three strategies - keep the ball live and in motion (an outcome of which is reducing stoppages) to sap them, nor feed their interceptors and trapping then inside our arc (which would also assist gassing them because to get out they have to chain the ball out rather than their preferred option of kicking long to a contest). I'm pretty confident we had a strategy to gas them using uncontested marks to keep the ball in motion. And as Rossmillon noted earlier in this thread: Stevens Mays post match interview on Fox footy was quite enlightening. He said when asked about the game plan in the first half that there was a strategy to take some uncontested marks and make them defend for longer to “take some energy out of their forwards”. We definitely ran the game out better - as we should given we had a ten day break into the game. One is our last quarter pressure was our highest for the game, a crazy good 193. Interestingly so was theres, but it was 12 less than ours - the biggest differential of any quarter. Another possible indicator is we kicked 5 straight. They kicked 3.2 - not miles off, but those 2 points were Cameron in front of goals and he looked completely cooked.

I don't think I did. Points from defensive half is the key metric I have been using all season as the key indicator in my red and blue print to assess if our new back half transtion and turnover method is on track In fact i also discussed how curious it was that so many of our scoring chains started from our d50 (as did the cats, who remarkably scored 44 of their 66 points from their defensive half)- almost twice our season average.

I meant to highlight the strategy you note in the first para, but forgot. It was such an unusual strategy for us under goody, and perhaps for that reason really stood out. My thought was how effective it was in denying Stewart, and others, the opportunity to take intercept marks - which is a huge part of both how the cats defend and how they set up scoring chains from their back half. I wonder if Stewart playing at half back was rhe cats way to try to get him to the game? As i noted on the pod im convinced goody had a plan to run them ragged and exploit our fitness advantage. But I hadn't considered patiently kick it around the arc could be part of the strategy to reduce stoppages to expoit our fitness advantage. Good call

Of course you are skuit. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Just as it is OK for me to think it odd, you, or anyone else, cares about posters on a footy forum knocking coverage of the team they support. I have to say though there is a fine line between expressing your befuddlement about why people choose to knock the media on here (which I respectfully tried to explain from my perspective) and belittling. Case in point, suggesting anyone who doesn't share your view as 'up in arms about something inconsequential after a win'. Inconsequential to YOU. You are applying your own judgement on others I've already explained why it is not inconsequential to me. And it's clearly not inconsequential to others. Indeed you may well be in the minority. And on a broader level how the media's cover individual clubs is FAR from inconsequential. There is zero doubt the way we were coveted in the 70s,80s, 90s and naughts (and continue to be covered) has had a huge impact on our membership numbers. And our financial bottom line. Hard to attract sponsors when the coverage you do get is derisive and you get basically no live coverage of games. Which in turn makes it exceedingly hard to grow the membership base- which had become the most critical income stream for clubs Why do you think that despite our incredible success and support in the 50s and 60s we are not one of the Victorian power clubs? We almost ceased to exist as a club because we were a financial basket case that could not attract sponsors or grow our membership base - in large part because of how we were coveted. We would almost ceased to exist a second time, and may have if not for Jimmy and his herculean fund-raising efforts. We struggled financially from at least 1975 all rhe way to Peter Jacksom starting to turn things around in 2017. We would We still see the impact in our membership numbers and bottom line. Just one real world example of the impact of how we have been covered is being forced to play so many games at kardinia Park. Why? Because the circular argument goes that, unlike the pies, blues,tigers and bombers (who have rarely have to play there) we don't have enough fans to warrant playing those games at the g. That one example embeds a significant structural disadvantage, not least because it is so hard to win there as evidenced by lis8ng 90% of those games. Meanwhile the blues, who benefited from saturation coverage in the 70s and 80s, but have been a basket case on field until recently, have a massive membership and have got a free hit for 20 years in terms of media coverage, marquee games and live coverage. Ditto Collingwood. Dtto bombers The effect has been compounded by the media being dominated by ex footballers, with their axes to grind and confirmation bias, from the power clubs. So unfair, unbalanced media coverage is far from inconsequential- in the now and into the future. Inconsequential to you obviously, but not to others and certainly not the club.

A lot riding on this game then.

Sure skuit. But why do you need to understand the motivations of posters who choose to knock the media? It's annoying? It brings the mood down? It perplexes you because you can't fathom it? And what harm do such posts do? I wasn't joking when I said I don't understand why they seem to annoy some people so much. Well, I do understand to an extent - we are all wired differently and one person's ambivalence is another's trigger. If you don't like such posts, don't read or engage with them. They are not offensive in any moral sense (for example like a homophobic) where it might be important to challenge the poster's perspective. They are just annoying - to you and some others. But clearly not all. Or even the majority. I mean it's not really as if they dominate the discussion post game or the site is actually 'full of complaints and nasty expressions'. The ratio is probably no greater than one on twenty. Tops. Take this post victory thread - there have been 610 posts and, what maybe 20-30 posts max knocking the media? Personally I agree there's no need to stoop to unpleasant invenctive. But such posts are even rarer. If your isssue is the negativity, what about the relentless, repetitive critisism about the club from some on here? Ironically many of those same posters are in the I don't understand why people pot the media camp. By the by, discussing Scott is a different matter to knocking the media. My issue was his poor sportsmanship and lack of class. He deserves the whacks he's copped on here.

Credit where it's due - the clubs media game has improved out of sight. Just watched the mcqualter video. Brilliant - mana from heaven for footy nuffies like me.

I understand your point skuit, it's one many other posters, some lots of times, have also made over the journey on my time on DL. Though i have to say, I'm no great fan of the 'people can post or care about what they want of course BUT....' negation. Who cares about the media's coverage of the dees? I do. Why? I obvioulsy can't speak for others but the context is I love the club and have been a passionate supporter of the club since 1975. As a kid in the 70s I didn't know a single dees fan, other than the family friends who made me a dees fan. Through the 70s and the 80s. I suffered through humiliating shellackings and multiple near winless seasons as I traipsed around Melbourne's suburban football grounds by myself. We were treated like a joke - from other fans and the media alike. Jokes about silver spoon and snow trips (which is the opposite of my experience growing up) AND being perennial wooden spooners and total dysfunction were par for the course I grew up desperate for any morsel of info about the dees. We were hardly ever one of the 2 replays shown on the weekend and instead had to make do with those weird one camera shots and fake crowd noise 'highlights'. Of course we were one of the clubs on the chopping block in the 80s. And of course the media's pumped up the narrative Don Scott saved us from extinction. We finally win a flag and are the most successful club since the start of 2021. A flag and three consecutive top 4 finishes and we're still derided - even by plenty of dees fans. So yeah, i get frustrated by how the media cover us. So much so that I've largely taken a DL posters' advice from a couple of seasons back to stop consuming media content (if it frustrates you that much, stop reading, listening and watching it). Personally what I find curious is for every post expressing frustration about the coverage of the dees there is a post like yours that express bemusement. And others taking pot shots at the snow flakes. I mean, you don't think it's ironic posters going to the effort of essentially critising other posters for critising the media? I mean, people can post what they want but I really don't get why they would get so annoyed as to go to the effort knocking another poster for knocking the media - particularly those that repeat their confusion, derision, bemusement multiple times a season. Seriously, who cares if a poster chooses to vent about the media? Each to their own I suppose. As to your question about what I would prefer re the media, my answer is I'd prefer that was professional, knowledgeable and helped me understand the game. I don't mind critiques that have a solid rationale, perhaps even based on some research and work. Instead we get feel based, lazy, largely incorrect analysis by bonehead ex footballers that is no better than the plonkers yelling just kick it at the footy. The media does what I think is the best team sport in the world a huge disservice.

Agree, it definitely a useful indicator. We have usually been in that so called premiership quadrant ever since they started using it (and on that graphic almost are now) It just gets a bit silly when the fox crew treat it like it is some sort of statistical Rosetta stone I mean, the sample size is small and for example we are marginally outside an arbitrary line. And because you have applied a level of analysis the fox crew haven’t, you have highlighted a possible explanation for say where we are located on the graph. I get the whole thing is about creating content and talking points and pretty graphics that lend some gravitas. But it just reinforces the scepticism about the use of stats and analytics to help understand the game

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/genuine-concern-fear-over-flag-fancy-as-afl-title-trend-points-to-two-clear-contenders/news-story/011a91fda6ea530d45d6fceb03dd108a

I love me my stats. But i like them only so far as they can used to help understand the game, not an end to themselves. Like medical symptoms they help with the diagnosis (of issues, method, results, strengths, weaknesses etc). And like medical symptoms, they are not that useful if looked at in isolation (ie not triangulating mutiple data points) or analysed (ie not taken at face value). Fox footy people routinely use champion data stays in a way that suggests they don't understand how to properly use data to inform their analysis. And it would appear fox have also gone all in on AI to write their 'articles'. Case in point (note: I'm not suggesting the data is of no value - bit comments like 'the premier has been in the premiership window at round 8...' are);

Good call. He is tall enough, strong enough and good enough one on one to match weitering (who is a gun no doubt). And has the defensive chops to negate Weitering when needed But and as you note Weitering cant take liberties as Disco is an offensive threat - which is how melk played that role ie not a purely defensive negating role, look to also hit the scoreboard and be an offensive threat. That offensive threat is an even bigger issue if McGovern doesn't get up. A lot of talk about the strength of our forward line. But wirh petty, van royen and disco we have three good sized, mobile key forwards who are dangerous in the air and need to be covered. That creates major match up problems. Particularly when you add a player who has been our leading goal kicker for four seasons and is currently equal fourth on the Coleman ladder.

Fair call. I'm def in the doubts about the swans camp, but you make a good case. They still have Mills to come back in too. That said, and perhaps it's confirmation bias, but i have my doubts their method will stand up come finals. By that I mean, like the pies for much of 2023 (but importantly not in the last 5-6 hames) they are a transition team that relies on clean hands to get the ball to the outside to their distributors like gulden. That method can get exposed in the heat of finals. That said they are strong enough in the contest and we'll coached so they can probably adjust to a more forward half contested game like the pies did last year. But I'm also not convinced by their defence away from the scg. Watching them beat the giants looked like a carbon copy of our game against them. They flood back and completely clog up their opponents forward 50. Old school but very effective on the ridiculously small SCG. Lyon employs a similar method at the docklands. As was the case in our game, the giants forwards had no space to lead into and every marking contest had mutiple players attacking it. Because the scg is so small transition is hard meaning it's hard for opponents to beat the swans' defensive flood and get the ball into a one in one forward line. That method doesn't work as well at proper football ground.

Which points to yet another intersring tactical move from the coach even most dees fans is a tactical plonker. Clarry was playing a similar defensive role Gus often played. A kick behind play defensive side. They also used clarry a lot to set up transition, something they have been doing a bit off, but it was really noticeable sat night.. It suits him because whilst he is not a bullet kick like say salo, his footy iq is off the charts, he sees the field brilliantly and he makes good decisions. He also doesn't get rushed and can take and break tackles. It means they often have clarry at the defensive end if the chain and tracc up the ground in dangerous offensive positions - think his kick to Fritter to set up the wonder goal. Powerful combo and a great use of clarry's footy iq - which I think is maybe the best I've ever seen though increasingly I'm blown away by how well koz reads the game and how quickly he thinks. On that last point, watch his goal he sharks from a handball. Genius. Nine out of ten players go to the cats player and tackle or put frontal pressure on. Not koz. He pauses for a split second, knowing a handball might come and then moves to intercept before the cats player even makes contact with the ball. Just incredible.

And what is even more bizarre is tge previous Casey game was Wednesday arvo ten days days ago.

No. But I watched the first 10 mins of the third quarter and I think they set a world record for repeating the word fatigue!

Which is almost exactly what Goodwin said today when interviewed on the abc footy show when asked for the millionth time about our forward line and going out in straight sets. Good interview actually, but he couldn't hide his annoyance. Goody made the point that you work all year to have a shot, we were were in 'great shape' but luck plays a huge part and we lost our forward line 2 weeks out of finals. We just don't have a sexy game and people either don't understand it, think football is only about offence - elite defence be damned - or are clueless.

I listened to the abc post match too and had the same thought. What were they on about? The comment about other teams working our our defensive sytem come finals was bizarre. I mean they haven't in three previous seasons why would they this year? Is it kez washington? I've never heard of her before and she sounded reasonable enough. But she was totally agin us. Asked a leading question about whether our supposed model of grinding teams and keeping them to a low score, but not be able to score highly ourselves, is a strategy that can win us a flag. What on earth is she talking about? One, we won a flag in 2021 - destroying teams in the process. And two, yes we went out in straight sets the next two seasons, but it's not as if we were a low scoring in team in either year. Or this year for that matter. Our average winning margin this season is 29 points for pete's sake. I'm increasingly of the view that 99% of media just don't get it. If we kicked accurately in the pies and blues finals we win. It really is that simple. Missing goals is not a failure of sytem. It is poor skill execution. Goody almost said as much in his presser. He must be so sick of questions about our forward line. All that said, I did agree with the monkey on the back come finals. We do. Let's finish top 4 and get the job done.

No, I don't think Windsor was on Cameron as such. When Cameron pushes up he basically plays as a winger. Windsor might have stood him at centre bounces but after that they go their own ways. I'm not sure, but I doubt anyone played man on man with Cameron once he left their forward 50. We would have just relied on our all team defence to negate him, and any other plsyer getting the ball in space. Windsor would have been chasing Dempsey in the back pocket because like langers he gets deep into defence to help out our d. He did a number of key defensive acts deep in their forward line.

I was initially responding to your comment that his presser was 'not so bad'. He's rude and a bad loser all the time so that makes not showing respect to your opponents ok? Poor sportsmanship is poor sportsmanship.

High performance background DS?

Forget giving your opponent some credit, he didn't even mention the opponents once. That's just really poor form. Compare his presser to goody's - he was humble in victory and was effusive in his praise for the cats and how good a team.he is. There's no coincidence that in the two post match interviews I've heard from dees players - may and langers - both were similarly complimentary about the cats.

Wing - and im pretty sure for the whole quarter. Not sure about Dempsey, but id say Cameron was on Windsor at times, no vice versa in the sense that Cameron set up at a few center square restarts on the wing. That said Windsor was def part of the combined efforts to shut Cameron down.

Pay that. Excellent comparison Like the cats, Serena has never actually been beaten by an opponent. Both only ever lose it because, 'whilst we are not making excuses we [insert lame excuse here - options include covid, gastro, just had a day off, imply robbed by the umpire, played poorly but still almost won because we are so good and our opponents are not in our league, focus is the finals and schedule].'