binman

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Anyone done a welfare check on @binman?

Processing.

On 12/08/2024 at 09:31, Roost it far said:

Just beat Collingwood….thats all I want. It’ll be a good boost prior to one of the most important preseasons this club has faced in awhile. Fitness, clean hands, stick your tackles, break your tackles… just to start them off

Eddy is right this year - round twenty four IS our Grand Final. 

7 hours ago, WheeloRatings said:

The expected score for Port may be a little higher than others as I include the rushed behinds and Port had five. This may overinflate an expected score as there may also have been a shot at goal in that chain which was already included in the expected score.

AFLxScore on Twitter had the expected scores as 62.2 (+1 rushed) to 76.7 (+0 rushed) and Champion Data had the expected scores as 67 to 80, so not significantly different to 61.6 (+2 rushed) to 78.8 (+5 rushed). The difference between my model and AFLxScore's is basically the rushed behinds which they handle differently to me. I will aim review this in the off season.

Does this explain it, or does it still not seem right?

 

 

 

@WheeloRatings I was about to post:

I'll preface this with an admission maths isn't my strong suit (well if you don't count calculating betting returns) and that perhaps i'm just having a brain fade, but it still doesn't look right. 

At the very real risk of embarrassing myself (something i AM good at), looking at the data for Port's overall score, which i get excludes rushed behinds it is 7.6.48, so 13 scoring shots in total.  

If Port converted ALL 13 scoring shots into goals that would be 78 points. Yet the expected score is 78.8

I'm glad i didn't because i just realised my error.

They didn't have 13 scoring shots, they had 26!

I assume five of those 26 shots were rushed behinds.

Am i right in sating that means that on 8 occasions they either didn't make the distance (and it wasn't knocked though for a point) or kicked it on the full?   

On a night that was still and dry that seems an awful lot of shots at goal that failed to register a score.

30 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s definitely not mere speculation that Trac is upset about certain things. But it is absolutely mere speculation that he wants to leave. 
There is a very very long road between “disgruntled” and “I’m leaving”. 

And what is wrong with tracc being upset about things that impact him?

I don't know about others, but I've never worked in a single workplace, even high performing, productive ones achieving its strategic goals, where every one is happy all the time or there aren't some people who are disgruntled to some degree.

I imagine in the hyper competitive, cut throat, alpha environment of AFL footy clubs that's even more the case - even at clubs having great seasons.

20 minutes ago, Deetective Sgt. Taggert said:

Perhaps Petracca blames the ‘play through pain’ mantra on his own decision to return to the field after the injury, and that it might have exacerbated the extent of his injuries? Any reasonable person suffering an injury like this on the job is naturally going to begin to question how and why it happened, even if it was largely an accident…and you could imagine he might be feeling like even though it was his decision to return to the field (presumably with guidance from the medicos on the bench), he might have done otherwise if not for the performance team impressing on the players the play through pain mantra. 

Very good points, as it highlights the play through pain idea as a philosophy that might permeate the culture in general, ie not just the conditioning aspect.

Tracc sub consciously feeling he had to come back on might be an example of the impact of that philosophy.

Many, including commenators lauded may for coming back still feeling the effects of his broken ribs, so it's not as if its a philosophy unique to the dees

Perhaps tracc has reflected on why he decided to say he was OK to go back on when he clearly wasn't.

Another way the pay through pain mantra (perfect word for it) might cause issues is people all have different pain thresholds.

I wonder if there is a risk of some players feeling judged by others for not being as keen to push through the pain barrier or worry about being labelled as soft.

1 hour ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Selwyn Griffiths? 

Clearly we've fostered a mindset of resilience and playing through pain and injury since the Burgess days. Perhaps this midset/tactic has taken to heavy of a toll?

Perhaps SG (or others in the FD) have played the card to often or too hard? If it's not Goody that's a source of discontent for CP5, who might a bigger influence than the head of high performance? 

Very reasonable questions - particularly about the efficacy long term of a model that has players repeatedly saying variations of 'no club trains harder than we do'.

Maybe the Burgess Griffith method and philosophy has a shelf life?

Maybe every method does.

There are so many variables (eg the impact of two byes, evolution of game plans) and mitigating factors (injury, interrupted preseasons, youth of the list) it's hard to fairly assess the high performance program.

But as is my wont I like to lean into known facts.

And one clear fact is the only part of the season where we were running out games to a level the game demands is in the first seven or so rounds- ie when you'd expect us to be in the best possible condition.

And another fact is blind freddy can see that, as evidenced by a number of data points (eg our last quarter scoring)we are paddling atm.

On the positive side of the ledger, we have once again had comparatively very few soft tissue injuries.

20 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Because supporters jump on forum sites, call the club, ring radio stations.  Journos throw the out the click bait doesn't need to be factual just not defamatory.  If they don't get clicks they lose their job.  It isn't investigative journalism it is gossip magazine stuff

Spot on.

And as much as i can't stand Morris, he, and his masters, are only responding to demand from consumers.

One of the curious things about the discussion about social media platforms prioritizing hate and division in their algorithms is the one way criticism. That's to say its all reserved for the platforms and their owners and none for their consumers - us. 

The algorithm is simply responding to what consumers are attracted to - anger, car crashes, conflict. It's ever been thus - for example the wall to wall coverage Jack The Ripper received - sold a lot of newspapers at the time. 

If we feed the trolls we get what we deserve. 

2 hours ago, drdrake said:

The end of the day he has a contract so unless the dees agree to trade him he plays for us.

That's exactly right.

Many in the media are agin the sort of long term contract the club offered tracc. Much of that revolves around a club being stuck with player who is not performing relative to their wage - gaff being one recent example - creating problems for the club in terms of their salary cap (eg can't bring in a gun they want).

But one of the obvious advantages of long term contracts is in a scenario where a gun still playing great footy wants to leave.

As i have noted i'm not going to let the stupid footy media pull my strings, but lets say hypothetically Tracc was adamant he wanted to go. There is very little chance we don't force him to honour his contract (unless we are offered deal that is too good to refuse - in which case we win from any deal).

In days gone by the counter to that has been clubs won't keep players who want out. That may still be true of fringe best 22 players but less and less of club's best players.

The dees have form in this space just last year in not countenancing Petty being traded to the Crows. 

But a more relevant example of keeping an elite, multiple AA, absolute gun player to their contract is the Lions flat out refusing to trade Neale back to Freo. 

Like the lions, we have the whip hand with Tracc. 

This all feels like the bog standard play of a player manager flexing for their client via the media.

We're not there yet, but in American sports, particularly the NBA (with its small rosters and outsize impact of superstar players on teams' chances of success) the superstars often have an outsize influence (much to the chagrin of many) they can parlay into driving changes they think should happen. 

Tracc may well have strong views on what he thinks should change at the club. In fact i'd be very surprised if he didn't - he's a very smart bloke who is super driven and super competitive. He wants to win another flag. And as a genuine superstar he has influence. I have no issue with him wanting to use that influence, if that what's is happening - particularly if it helps address things we need to improve. 

But that doesn't mean fans need to buy into the chaos, there is problems at the dees narrative the media wants to drive for purely financial reason (ie clicks = advertising revenue).  

Again, rather than giving oxygen to innuendo, or using the media's classic unsubstantiated 'apparently' and/or 'sources tell me' ruse to bolster criticisms we might have of the club  ('see i told ya the players hate the game plan!') i'd rather focus on known facts.

One of which is multiple players have resigned - a clear vote of confidence in Goody, the club and it's direction.

Take Windsor. Pick seven and clear to everyone he is a gun. There was no need for him to extend now. He could have waited until next year or the year after  - and surely would have if he had any significant concerns about the club. 

A prototype player for the modern game - fast, smart, great runner, good tank and solid foot kills - after another AFL preseason and season under his belt he would have had multiple clubs clamoring after him next year, or the year after, including flag contenders. 

But unlike say Harley Reid, who apparently is 'happy at the Eagles, but is in no rush to sign a contract extension' , Windsor extended his contract in the first year of a three year contract, keeping him at the club at least 'till the end of the 2028 season. 

Caleb's vote of confidence in the club (and Petts, Kolt, Koz etc etc), which by the by came only three weeks ago, is not half whispered scuttlebutt - it is a cold hard, irrefutable fact. 

I'll take facts over fiction every single day of the week.

1 hour ago, watchtheeyes said:

Seriously this whole thread is a sad indictment on the mindset of large swathes of the Melbourne supporter base..

Tom Morris.. Tom Morris, off all people, throws out an unsourced piece of ambulance chasing “journalism” and such is the desperate despair of the MFC fans, we immediately accept it as fact, reach for our pitchforks and seek to burn the barn down.

Get a grip. 

Not only accept it as fact, but it also magically becomes incontrovertible proof of all that is supposedley wrong with the club.

It feels a bit like the one day stock market crash the other day that had maga so excited - finally proof of the inevitable biden/harris economic collapse they had long predicted!

Nek minnit, stocks stabilise and it's crickets.

I don't doubt tracc and his family are, or were, frustrated with how the club handled his injury.

To be honest I think it was yet another example of our poor comms and crisis management, not dissimilar to the mismanagement on the comms front (my view) of clarrys hamstring and associated noise last year

I'm hoping the new comms person sorts our issues in this space because for mine it is a recurring problem. 

But rather than allowing a tool like Morris pull my strings, I'll lean into known facts.

Which include the fact that petty, kolt, Windsor, koz, mcvee, turner, jvr, Jefferson  and langers have all signed new contracts recently.

That fact suggests it's a pretty good environment.

Perfect? Of course not. Footy clubs never are. 

And another fact is there was similar noise and hand wringing (both in the media and ondemonland), in fact much louder, about clarry leaving after our crappy 2020 season.

Ditto viney to the cats and koz to the crows.

Every season there is such noise - particularly during down years.

Where there's smoke there's rarely fire. 

I gave up worrying about losing players after Gerard Healy left. Of course I'd be gutted if we lost tracc, but I'm not going to waste a scintilla of energy worrying about it.

3 hours ago, Roost it far said:

You asked for the facepalm 🤓

A vomit emoji would have been more fit for purpose!

On 11/08/2024 at 07:40, WheeloRatings said:

Melbourne v Port Adelaide (Round 22, 2024)

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_match_stats.html?ID=20242206

Key Team Stats

Stats highlighted purple were won by Melbourne.

Stat	For	Against	Diff
Disposal Efficiency	65.4	73.8	-8.4
Kicking Efficiency	61.5	69.5	-8.0
Metres Gained	6033	6176	-143
Inside 50s	48	56	-8
Shots At Goal	19	26	-7
Shots Per Inside 50	39.6	46.4	-6.8
Contested Possessions	160	130	+30
Ground Ball Gets	102	92	+10
Intercepts	80	78	+2
Intercept Marks	14	17	-3
Centre Clearances	8	9	-1
Stoppage Clearances	23	26	-3
Contested Marks	13	6	+7
Marks Inside 50	7	13	-6
Hitouts	32	29	+3
Hitouts To Advantage	15	9	+6
Tackles	60	62	-2
Tackles Inside 50	18	6	+12
Def One On One Loss %	9.1	33.3	-24.2

Contested Possessions

	For	Against	Diff
Melbourne's Defensive 50
Hard Ball Get	5	2	+3
Loose Ball Get	15	12	+3
Contested Mark	2	3	-1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	0	+1
Gather From Hitout	4	0	+4
Contested Knock On	1	1	0
Free For	5	0	+5
Total	33	18	+15
Melbourne's Forward 50
Hard Ball Get	7	4	+3
Loose Ball Get	16	17	-1
Contested Mark	1	0	+1
Ruck Hard Ball Get	1	1	0
Gather From Hitout	0	2	-2
Contested Knock On	0	1	-1
Free For	1	2	-1
Total	26	27	-1
Post clearance
Hard Ball Get	25	15	+10
Loose Ball Get	58	56	+2
Contested Mark	13	6	+7
Contested Knock On	4	3	+1
Free For	18	10	+8
Total	118	90	+28
Pre clearance
Hard Ball Get	6	3	+3
Loose Ball Get	13	18	-5
Ruck Hard Ball Get	5	4	+1
Gather From Hitout	14	9	+5
Contested Knock On	1	3	-2
Free For	3	3	0
Total	42	40	+2

• Official data on pre- and post-clearance contested possessions are not available. These have been estimated by Wheelo Ratings and should be indicative.
• Ground ball gets are inclusive of hard ball gets and loose ball gets.
• 'Free For' does not include free kicks to advantage or free kicks while in possession of the ball as these are not counted as contested possessions.

Expected scores

	xScore	Score	Rushed	xWin %	xMargin	Margin	Swing
Melbourne	63.6	51	2	11%			+18.2
Port Adelaide	83.8	53	5	89%	+20.2	+2

Team	Shots	Score	Accuracy	xScore	+/-	xSc. / Shot	Shot Rating
Overall
Melbourne	19	7.7.49	36.8%	61.6	−12.6	3.24	−0.66
Port Adelaide	26	7.6.48	26.9%	78.8	−30.8	3.03	−1.18
General Play
Melbourne	11	3.6.24	27.3%	32.9	−8.9	2.99	−0.81
Port Adelaide	16	2.5.17	12.5%	44.4	−27.4	2.77	−1.71
Set Position
Melbourne	8	4.1.25	50.0%	28.7	−3.7	3.59	−0.47
Port Adelaide	10	5.1.31	50.0%	34.4	−3.4	3.44	−0.34

• xWin %: win probability based on expected scores.
• Swing: difference between expected margin and actual margin.
• xScore: total expected score from all shots taken.
• +/-: total score above or below expected score.
• xSc. / Shot: average expected score per shot. This represents the average shot difficulty.
• Shot Rating: average score above or below expected score per shot at goal.

Notes: Expected scores are calculated by Wheelo Ratings. Each shot at goal is assigned an expected score based on the distance from goal, shot angle, and type of shot (e.g. set shot, general play following contested possession, general play following uncontested possession, ground kick, etc) as a proxy for pressure. The model does not take into account factors like the player, whether the ball was kicked with their preferred or non-preferred foot, and pressure on the player when taking the shot. Rushed behinds are excluded from actual and expected scores.

 

 

Pressure

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Agn	Diff
1	182	194	-12
2	154	162	-8
3	199	185	+14
4	182	204	-22
Match	179	186	-7

Source: Herald Sun

Most Pressure Points

Note: pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2. ( https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ )

Player	Pressure Acts	Pressure Points	Season Average
Kysaiah Pickett	25	57	43.7
Alex Neal-Bullen	24	54	53.8
Clayton Oliver	22	52	46.3
Harrison Petty	18	50	30.7
Jack Viney	19	47	55.8
Kade Chandler	19	43	44.9
Ed Langdon	15	40	31.8
Tom Sparrow	16	34	43.7
Trent Rivers	15	32	29.7
Koltyn Tholstrup	17	31	35.5
Jack Billings	13	30	24.2
Judd McVee	12	28	15.9
Christian Salem	10	23	26.5
Daniel Turner	11	19	13.3
Tom McDonald	9	18	19.6
Adam Tomlinson	7	16	20.8
Jake Lever	8	16	14.8
Max Gawn	6	15	22.4
Blake Howes	6	15	16.4
Bayley Fritsch	5	11	15.4
Jacob van Rooyen	5	9	17.5
Marty Hore	4	8	10.2
Jake Melksham	0	0	11.0

Source: Herald Sun

Time in Forward Half

Quarter	For	Against
1	61%	39%
2	49%	51%
3	36%	64%
4	49%	51%
Match	49%	51%

Source: Match total sourced from the Herald Sun; quarter values are my own calculations.

Score Sources

Summary

Category	Score	Against	Diff
Kick-in	1.0.6	0.0.0	+6
Centre Bounce	0.1.1	1.3.9	-8
Stoppage (Other)	2.4.16	2.2.14	+2
Turnover	4.4.28	4.6.30	-2

Score Source	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Kick-in	6	3.3	0	3.0
Centre Bounce	1	8.7	9	7.4
Stoppage (Other)	16	22.9	14	19.9
Turnover	28	41.8	30	48.0

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Port Adelaide.

Chain start region

Note: region is from the scoring team's perspective.

Category	Region	For		Against
		Match	Season	Match	Season *
Centre Bounce	Centre	1	8.7	9	7.4
Kick-in	D50	6	3.3	0	3.0
Stoppage (Other)	D50	12	2.8	1	1.3
Stoppage (Other)	Centre	0	2.2	0	2.0
Stoppage (Other)	Wing	3	11.9	6	9.2
Stoppage (Other)	F50	1	5.9	7	7.3
Turnover	D50	12	8.9	6	8.7
Turnover	Centre	6	7.8	7	7.2
Turnover	Wing	6	18.1	16	25.8
Turnover	F50	4	7.0	1	6.3

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
D50	30	15.0	7	13.1
Centre	7	18.7	16	16.5
Wing	9	30.0	22	35.0
F50	5	13.0	8	13.7

Region	For		Against
	Match	Season	Match	Season *
Defensive 50	30	15.0	7	13.1
Defensive midfield	7	16.0	21	19.2
Centre bounce	1	8.7	9	7.4
Attacking midfield	8	24.0	8	25.0
Forward 50	5	13.0	8	13.7

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Port Adelaide.

Points from defensive half

For		Against
Match	Season	Match	Season *
37	31.0	28	32.3

* Against season average represents average points conceded by Melbourne across the season, not average points scored by Port Adelaide.

Centre Bounce Attendances

	CBAs	CBA %	2024 %	2023 %
Max Gawn	17	94%	84.9%	64.9%
Jack Viney	13	72%	68.3%	72.1%
Tom Sparrow	11	61%	38.7%	44.9%
Trent Rivers	11	61%	26.9%	3.0%
Clayton Oliver	9	50%	70.7%	81.4%
Kysaiah Pickett	5	28%	35.5%	11.2%
Judd McVee	4	22%	0.9%	0.0%
Jacob van Rooyen	1	6%	18.2%	7.6%
Koltyn Tholstrup	1	6%	5.8%
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0%	15.6%	2.1%
Christian Salem	0	0%	14.0%	0.0%
Harrison Petty	0	0%	8.4%	0.7%
Daniel Turner	0	0%	0.3%	0.0%
Tom McDonald	0	0%	0.0%	5.7%
Christian Petracca			55.8%	61.1%
Bailey Laurie			8.3%	0.0%
Josh Schache			8.3%	0.0%
Charlie Spargo			4.2%	0.0%
Lachie Hunter			0.0%	0.2%

Ruck Contests and Hitouts

Ruck Contests

	Ruck Contests	RC %	2024 %	2023 %
Max Gawn	53	69%	80.7%	57.5%
Jacob van Rooyen	14	18%	18.0%	13.1%
Harrison Petty	8	10%	8.5%	2.0%
Daniel Turner	2	3%	3.5%	0.0%
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0%	0.0%	0.0%
Clayton Oliver	0	0%	0.0%	0.1%
Tom McDonald	0	0%	0.0%	9.3%
Tom Sparrow	0	0%	0.0%	0.0%
Josh Schache			13.3%	4.1%
Ben Brown			0.2%	2.3%
Christian Petracca			0.0%	0.4%
Steven May			0.0%	0.0%

Hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.	To Adv. % (2024)	To Adv. % (2023)
Max Gawn	53	30	15	28.4%	30.1%
Harrison Petty	8	2	0	25.0%	25.0%
Daniel Turner	2	0	0	50.0%
Jacob van Rooyen	14	0	0	24.7%	31.1%
Alex Neal-Bullen	0	0	0		0.0%
Tom McDonald	0	0	0		20.0%
Ben Brown				100.0%	0.0%
Josh Schache				100.0%	0.0%
Christian Petracca					100.0%

Opposition hitouts

	Ruck Contests	Hitouts	To Adv.
Jordon Sweet	61	27	8
Charlie Dixon	16	2	1

 @WheeloRatings - the x scores don't look right

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I think we should rest him and send him off for surgery on his hand. 
I guess the club has different considerations regarding his mental well being and how connected that is to his ability to play each week. 

If it was my call he’d be off to get his hand fixed today, and given an early return date to pre season training with clear fitness markers that he has to hit (skin folds, kms run, etc). 

That's my take too, ie the routine of training and playing is important in terms of his well being and his efforts to address his off field issues. 

I actually though they should have subbed him but wondered if not doing so was related to above (or perhaps JVR was even sicker).

3 hours ago, layzie said:

I solely watched Oliver for about 10 mins in the 2nd or 3rd quarter, he hardly moved from the centre square or wing area and was usually 30+ metres off the contest. Barely broke out of a jog. 

He has to have a virus or something, yes he's had a down year but something about this game looked different. Someone in the gameday thread mentioned when he came off he was throwing up or something like that so who knows but it made the Clarry we've been getting this year look pretty good. 

Agree, I watched Clarry closely when he came to the bench. (i sit behind and above it). He looked absolutely cooked - more so than normal. So did Maxy

3 hours ago, layzie said:

I solely watched Oliver for about 10 mins in the 2nd or 3rd quarter, he hardly moved from the centre square or wing area and was usually 30+ metres off the contest. Barely broke out of a jog. 

He has to have a virus or something, yes he's had a down year but something about this game looked different. Someone in the gameday thread mentioned when he came off he was throwing up or something like that so who knows but it made the Clarry we've been getting this year look pretty good. 

Talk is a number of players were crook, including JVR,

Tracks with Bowey being an out due to illness.

If true (it's unsubstantiated), it makes the performance of the team and Goody even more meritorious. 

BUT BEFORE THE FACE PALM POSSE JUMP ALL OVER ME, IF IT IS TRUE THAT SEVERAL PLAYERS WERE ILL, IT IS A FACTOR TO CONSIDER IN ANY ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE NOT AN EXCUSE!

5 hours ago, H_T said:

What, the team missing Georgiades, Soldo, Powell-Pepper, McKenzie and Jeremy Finlayson? Is that the team you’re talking about?

Yes, that's the team I'm talking about.

The same one, bar Georgiades, that beat the Swans the previous week by, checks notes, 136 points.

Not quite sure of your point?

I said we were undermanned and did very well against the side sitting second on the ladder.

I didn't say they had their very best side available - though it's a stretch to compare their outs to ours - no AAs in that lot, let alone one of the best players of the last 30 years.

And arguably, of those five only Georgiades and SSP are in their best team.

And only SPP has a case for being one of their top six players, whereas we have three such players out.

Am i right to assume you don't agree we did well?

Before the game, did you think we were a realistic chance of winning on Saturday night?

That's to say, did we perform above or below your pregame expectations?

Do you think we did a better job against port than the Swans, the favourite to win the flag, did the previous week?

Some might argue we did 134 points better. 

14 hours ago, H_T said:

Spargo, Smith and Bowey is a stretch. Bowey being your best argument for best 23. But he hasn’t exactly been stellar in ‘24. 

And we knew well before the season started that Smith and Gus were no longer.. 

If you’re happy that last night was indeed a “severely undermanned” fielded team, good for you - I certainly wouldn’t. 

What does it matter we knew before the season started they couldn't play?

We couldn't replace them, so no different to losing two best 23 players to injury for the whole season.

Bowey is definitely in our best team. 

I'd argue smith and spargo are too.

But for the sake of argument let's say they're not.

So Tracc, May, Gus, Bowey and Windsor from our best team - all starters.

Nearly a quarter of our very best team we could field with no injury.

Four premiership players, May and Tracc multiple AA, three top 10 draft picks (2, 3 and 7!), 600 odd games of AFL footy and I'd argue three of our best six players.

As young blood notes, it's semantic siliness to debate if that equals severely undermanned.

But surely there's no debate any team missing a comparable number of their best, no injury 23 would struggle.

Collingwood for instance.

Isn't the key point that we did very well against, almost beat in fact, the team sitting second on the ladder with an undermanned  team?

32 minutes ago, H_T said:

3 players is not severely undermanned is my point.

There was also bowey.

And gus and smith.

So six best 23 players not in the side. A quarter of the best team available.

Seven if you include Spargo.

Take six or seven best 23 players from any team and they'd struggle.

Even more so if you add two or three key senior players carrying injury.

39 minutes ago, At the break of Gawn said:

I’d argue the game plan going in was very good and I think Goody has always been strong in this area. Where he falls down is his match day coaching which we’ve seen on numerous occasions and is why he has a poor record against experienced coaches such as Scott and Longmire who are brilliant with in game moves. Last night was a good example of some poor in-game coaching decisions such as JvR being subbed off, and moving Clarry to halfback which cost 2 goals.

I'm not sure I agree about jvr, but clarry back def hurt us. Forward would have been a better option

That said, Goody was trying something different. It's not always going to work. 

His choice of sub has been a worry for mine in the last three weeks.

I'm guessing Turner was cover for Max, but still. 

And Melksham didn't make sense, if for no other reason than we could have done with a player with his skills, particularly a senior player.

2 hours ago, Young Blood said:

Here here @binman terrific coaching and effort from a playing group that is clearly not anywhere near full fitness.

We were missing 3 of our top 5 players (yes I will continue adding Gus) along with Windsor and Bowey and almost pulled off a huge upset against one of the most damaging, in-form sides in the comp.

As far as skill execution goes this is definitely the poorest we've been since 2021. I know we lack kicking efficiency, especially in the midfield but even handbells are way off at the moment. Do we think that's also a fatigue factor?

Players are clearly choosing or being told to get it on the boot to gain territory and create contests further up the ground. I feel this has to partly be due to the fact that we don't have the fitness to spread or break the lines at the moment. Earlier in the season we were able to do this far more often.

I think our kicking skills have been poor for a decade or more.

And that's definitely true of the Goodwin era and the current list -

Even our very best players can be hit or miss by foot.

Take multiple best 23 players out  and our skills are really exposed.

Fatigue, like wind and rain, impacts skill execution, particularly for players with average skills. No doubt it was factor in our poor skill execution last night.

4 hours ago, Pipefitter said:

Apart from the diabolical sub decision (can’t wait for this rule to be scrapped for Goodwins sake) this was a good coaching display. 
 

We denied the corridor and nearly pulled off an epic win with plenty of VFL standard players running around.

 

Spot on.

On the board they show the players at the quarter time break, in the reinforcements/solutions section they had the word corridor at quarter time (along with the pressure rating 1.83, conquest and contest). 

Presumably that was to reinforce the strategy to deny port the corridor.

I'm not sure exactly what some posters expect - particularly those who don't rate the playing list or coach

A bit of perspective wouldn't go astray sometimes.

Many posters expected we'd get flogged. As did the punters - we started @ $3.

We are clearly cooked. Multiple players are clearly carrying injuries, including 4 of our best 6 players (Lever, gawn, viney and clarry - whose hand is causing him obvious issues). 

Including smith and gus (and it makes zero sense not to),we were  missing six of our best 23 (7 if you include Spargs) - one of whom is arguably the best player in the AFL (tracc) and another is arguably the best KPD in the AFL. 

Therefore we were missing more than a quarter of our best 23  and half  our best six players (gus is/was in my top 6).

Those players are replaced by, as tou suggest, vfl level players.

And we are having to play a bunch of kids who are clearly paddling 

Our elite midfield is missing tracc and Gus, maxy is labouring and clarry struggling

What would have been the point trying to take on the corridor and try and go fast?

We didn't have enough players with the skills to execute the sort of high risk kicking and split second elite decision making that method demands.

And more crucially, we also lack the all team running power and speed that method demands.

Port would have demolished us if we tried to play any other way.

Opposition teams have been looking to run us of our legs and spread us wide

Port are one the hardest running teams in the AFL from their back half. For pete's sake they scored 148 points against last week doing exactly that to the team on top of the ladder.

148 points.

We kept port to almost a third of that score on a perfect night for footy, with as you say plenty of VFL standard players running around, a bunch of kids, multiple players who'll need post season surgery and a team who are collectively gassed.

And we almost beat them.

Top work goody.

13 hours ago, Megatron said:

To sub Van Rooyen is a sackable offense 

Yeah, how crazy to sub a kid who was clearly gassed,and had

- a player rating bested only by hore and the sub 

- 25 supercoach points

- 8 disposals at 25% efficiency (meaning only 2 of his disposals were effective)

- only three marks on a perfect night for footy

- no hit outs

- one score involvement

- only 5 pressure acts

- zero tackles on a night where we had 18 tackles inside our 50 (probably our season high)

- and as our key forward had one shot at goal for the grand total of no goals and no points.

But sure, let's sack the coach for subbing him.

4 hours ago, John Demonic said:

Discussing fitness coaches is exhausting work

What I find annoying is it always goes around in circles.

5 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Personally, if I could, I would create a banner for him - I think you should create a banner for him or maybe get @WalkingCivilWar in on the action.

Maybe something like

"Dan Houston, your long kicking is a form of art

Feel the vibes of a members wing

And don't forget

Hells Bells, is better than

Never Tear Us Apart"

How about:

Dan stick with the plan and be a Dee.

If you don't, Houston, we have a problem.

On 06/08/2024 at 17:58, DubDee said:

Put Max on ice 

Or at the very least his ankle.

15 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Yep, somehow retain the shape of 2021-2023 and the ball use of 2018.

I think actually it's doable.

Crudely, it just means we change the way we are prepared to move the ball, which may lead to more scores against, but the better shape behind the ball should prevent huge leakages.

I do wonder if this is ultimately what we've been trying this year, it just didn't work.

I think the last para is spot on. 

No doubt conditioning is a big issue, so it's hard to judge our method.

But there is no doubt that out relative lack of foot skill (and handball skills?) hurts us big time with the turnover game. We give it back too often and players like salo and bowey have dropped off in terms of their ability to hit high risk kicks coming out of our back half.

In our back 7, or mid for that matter, who would you trust to hit a high risk kick to the corridor?

For me, probably only mcvee and tmac now.

That ain't gonna cut it.

Which is why i think our greatest need is flankers who are elite kicks and elite runners not mids.