binman

9 hours ago, Jontee said:

Has to get the ball though.

If there is no change to the squad I would probably swap Woey for Billings.

If May comes in then Billings out, Hore as the sub.

Do you reckon they tagged him?

I couldn't tell, but he was so important last week, and so quiet this week I wondered if they targeted him.

3 hours ago, old55 said:

We kicked for goal exceptionally poorly in the losses and exceptionally well last night. 

Exactly.

But the difference between us and port's loss is that the same can't be said of Port last night.

3 hours ago, loges said:

Did you take the $2.66 Bin ?

No.

The ban on dees bets remained in place unfortunately.

But i hope someone took my advice to put the super on the +14 point linevand whatever they had in their bank account on the $2.66.

3 hours ago, deegirl said:

autocorrection.cancel to me Rivers didn’t hear the whistle so kept playing whereas Rozee stopped & made the tackle look worse than it was

That's right, so I'm not sure how it can be a reversal given it was basically still live because Rivers didn't realise it had stopped.

I'd understand if he say punched him off ball or similar.

And it was only borderline a sling tackle and absolutely not unduly rough play.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I thought the free was wrong too and not only because rozee flopped...

But then you had the free to max when the ump did a dodgy centre bounce and blew the whistle. Play had stopped but Soldo cannoned into Max's back and Max received a free...

Yep, that was a soft free. I would've been annoyed if that was paid against us.

Crucial time too  as we went into the quarter time break with the momentum and full of energy.

I thought soldo was really good. He worked super hard.

34 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Port on a fast dry deck would be hard to handle

As they were last night.

They couldn't have got a faster or drier deck.

Ground is in great nick, and with no wind, or obvious humidity, it was perfect conditions for football.

Pity we don't get to play in those conditions every game.

59 minutes ago, BoBo said:

100% agree about the false narrative. 

It was just a bloody good game of footy. 

Indeed.

The quality of the game should not be lost in the wash up.

It was a cracking game. High quality from start fom end and a finals like intensity.

Port were fantastic.

I was impressed by their defence (something they have to adress) and their midfield, and ability to link up by hands and go forward is elite.

I've watched the replay once, but it might get another this arvo.

Top game.Top win.

The Crows is a danger game. Hard to get up for on a five day break after the intensity of this game.

If we can tough out a win we'll go into the Lions game as favourites and 4-1.

Win and we go 5-1 into the bye, with almost a two week break till our Anzac eve game against the tigers. 

Beyond how good the game was in of itself, beating Port was huge in terms of increasimg our chances of finishing top 4 - the goal of the home and away season. 

We get the 4 points, an opportunity to build momentum, bank early season wins and get to 6-2, which would set up our season.

And Port, a competitor for a top 4 slot, don't get the 4 points at home, which given they started 1.45 favourites has to hurt.

Too early for an 8 point game, but it may well end up being a factor in shaping the top four.

26 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Flawed system that weights theoretical perfection and what ifs over the reality.

That's not accurate.

In fact the opposite is true. It's nor theoretical, it's a calculation based on reality. 

So, for example since 2013 (when the data started getting collected), let's say there have been 2000 set shots from where maxy kicked his goal. And for the sake of argument only 30% of those shots resulted in a goal.

It's therefore not theoretical that most AFL footballers miss that shot, or that it was super impressive maxy didn't.

And whilst the model doesn't take into account all variables, most notably the record or skill of the person kicking, it does take into account quite a few key variables.

The model estimates the likelihood of a player scoring a goal, taking into account the shot type - such as set shots, snaps, and on the run - location on the field, and critically the pressure being applied on the player having the shot.

The last point helps explain why ports x score was only 11 points higher than their actual score. Many of their snaps on goal were under huge pressure. 

For me, one of the most impressive parts of the win was I thought we had a number of players that had average games, particularly from some of our younger players.

It was our leaders who stood up and willed us over the line.

From @WheeloRatings stats in the stats file, compulsory post game reading for me, our top 5 pressure players tells the tale:

Hard to argue those 5 weren't our best five players.

8 minutes ago, jane02 said:

Jane is actually my middle name hence 02. My dad's side of the family were proud Victorians so any of the suss genetics were watered out. I do have a few odd cousins however.

Don't we all.

2 minutes ago, jane02 said:

Now now - my mum and her side of the family were Tasmanians, and I don't have two heads!

Are you sure?

The other head is not called jane01?

17 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

I actually thought the game was fairly well officiated overall, yes, a few absolute clangers but that's pretty standard, the umps aren't robots.

I thought so too.

The free against rivers was a pretty big clanger though given the potential impact on the result. 

I'm pretty sure that free was an error because he paid a sling tackle, not say something like a reversal for unduly rough play.

A free had already been paid, so the game was in time on, ie the ball was no longer 'live'. 

Rivers obviously didn't know that, so tackled rozee.

He wouldn't have been awarded a free kick if rozee had dropped the ball - so how could he pinged for one (other than something like a reversal from say unduly rough play)?

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

On expected scores we are probably the 2023 premiers. Except we are not. 
Port let themselves down in front of goal and didn’t take advantage of their inside 50 dominance. 
That’s football. We’ve lost plenty of games we should have won. As Goody said, we were better during crucial moments and took our chances. 

A fantastic victory!

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

55 minutes ago, Hopeful Demon said:

How good has this guy been? He has low-key been our best player this year. I thought we were done late in the third quarter but he just kept on giving. 

We wouldn't have been close without him tonight.

Nibbla was unbelievable tonight.

You're spot on - we don't win that game without him.

The best game he's played. 

That was one of the great wins.

Made more remarkable by watching some sort of mirror footy game.

One team dominated territory, clearnces and inside 50s. But often entering into a crowded fifty and missing key chances. Not taking full advantage of momentum.

The other team staying in the game  absorbing pressure in the back half,entering into an open forward line and taking key chances. Taking full advantage of momentum.

Go redlegs.

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Sarah Jones: “Ross Lyon is putting on a coaching masterclass”. Hmmmmm

Didn't age well.

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Typo, right? RIGHT???

Hopefully not a Freudian one!

Perfect MFC weather:

No rain. No humidity. No wind. And with the temp not dropping below 22 degrees, no dew (dew point 7 degrees). 

No excuses.

Game time:

• 26.6 degrees
• Light winds all evening
• perfect

Win, lose or draw tommorow night, the dees will start favourites against the crows.

Woeful, with some injury concerns.

On 27/03/2024 at 16:45, Freddy Fuschia said:

I watched the Casey game last week and there was a glaring problem with the rucks where frankly, our current crop of ruckmen aren’t yet physically equipped to take on the really big men in some of the stronger VFL sides. 

A couple of years ago the Casey Demons brought back ruckman Jake Spencer out of State league retirement for a surprise appearance to cover for a shortage of big men as a result of injuries. I think that they need to find someone like him if they want to be competitive.

Agree, it's tough in the VFL without a decent, big bodied ruck.

It's also important in terms of being able to practice similar set ups etc in the magoos as the ones.

I think verell looks a player. Undersized, but he's young and will be a big lad in 12 months time.

A year at Casey will be terrific for his development.

19 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Looking at the Sportsbet odds, Port at $1.46 and Demons $2.66 indicates punters see us as a significant underdog. I don’t recall odds like this since 2020.

They deserve to be favourites. 

Which, if we lose, is worth remembering.

But as I posted earlier, 1.46 is, in punting speak, unders (under the true odds).

Forget battle of the midfield, it will be a battle of defences.

They will look to go fast from the back half, and push up aggressively.

Tough to stop, but we are best placed in the AFL to do so. Particularly if we can minimise Alirs intecept impact (i reckon fritter might get the job, after doing such a great job on Sicily)

But if we can move the ball quickly and spread hard, their defence will struggle big time to stop us kicking a winning score.

Hell, they couldn't stop the tigers, who butchered the ball all game, scoring almost 100 points.

If I was pricing it, port would be 1.70 favourite. 

1 hour ago, dees4lyf said:

I think we have to be really smart and clinical with the petty contract. With Tassie coming in and potentially West coast getting assistance, drafpt picks are a premium.. if the offer is too good, then it may set us up for a good tilt at top end talent.

Big decisions to think about. Of Course if Harry really wants to stay and his form is good enough then we keep him.

Good call.

2 hours ago, Chook said:

Tried to listen to this poddy last night to lull me to sleep (not a comment on the quality of the podcast - it's just a habit I've gotten myself into). I think I lasted about 15 minutes so I'll give it another crack tonight.

My wife has the same reaction when I talk to her about footy.

Well, a few things actually now that I come to think about it.

2 hours ago, mt2 said:

Thoughts on our kick-ins so far this season?

I really liked seeing Judd McVee take most of our kick-ins against Hawks. Most of our best ball users are at half-back - McVee, Bowey, Salem (when he's moved back), Rivers, and Howes if he keeps to the level he's been at so far.

I hope we continue seeing McVee and co on kick-ins, less of May who can pretty much only go long and down the line.

Ta. I was looking for that. 

Judd went from aprox 6% of the kick outs in the first game, 60% second and 100% third game.

He's super reliable and a better short kick than may.

And better on the run and at changing the target late.

He's playing a role similar to Nick daicos in his 2022, but more defensively accountable one on one.

Kid's a jet.

31 minutes ago, Demonland said:

SEN has a segment each week with Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data (not sure what day or time).  The segments are eventually posted to YouTube/Spotify/SEN Website. On YouTube the segments are time coded in the episode description so you can jump straight to any Dees segment.

Here are the shows from Opening Round and Round 1. Round 2 has not been posted yet.