binman

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: Player Pressure Acts Pressure Points Season Average Jack Viney 39 80 59.8 Alex Neal-Bullen 30 66 51.0 Christian Petracca 26 57 43.5 Clayton Oliver 20 45 42.5 Max Gawn 18 41 30.8 Hard to argue those 5 weren't our best five players.

Don't we all.

Are you sure? The other head is not called jane01?

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)?

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.

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.

Didn't age well.

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.

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.

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.

Good call.

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.

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.

Hate to say it, but that is an excellent read. Hard to imagine there wasn't some coordination with the club. If so, credit where it is due, that's good comms.

Spot on. And we are much better placed this season to exploit that high press with all the work we have done to improve our fast transition from the back half. I'm quietly confident of handy win for this reason. I'm amazed they haven't looked to set up differently defensively this season. I just assumed they would, as they are not going to win a flag if they don't sort their defence. Hinkley must be pretty confident his method can deliver the goods.

Mmm, Gawn and may will be hard to cover, as i'm not convinced we have cover for tmem in term sof young players. But we both may and maxy are on big coin, so we will have some capital to to say target Darcy at Freo down the track (i cant see the Jackson Darcy combo working out long term). And perhaps go after a Taylor or another other quality key defender.

Exactly. And IMHO, McVee, Rivers, Howes and Bowey area all future A graders. For me this is another key thing thing the media is completely missing about the dees - how much scope for improvement we have because we have so many quality young players in our starting 23 that will develop into serious AFL footballers. On Saturday we had four players under the age of 21 - JVR, Windsor, McVee and Howes. And Koz and Rivers are both still only 22. Bowey will come back in when fit and he is only 21. All seven players are in our best 23, meaning almost a third of our best team are 22 or under. That's crazy given we won a flag in 2021 and were top 4 in 2022 and 2023. And Sparrow is only 23 and Chandler turned 24 in January (meaning nine of our best 23 are under 24 or under). So much upside. Upside that not other serious top 4 contender, with the possible exception of the Giants, can match. Compare and contrast to the Pies for instance.

Yes, well that's been the other part of punting on dees problem - not being able to bring myself to back against the dees, even when i know the oppo is good value.

Assuming lever is right that's how I see it too. With hore as sub 3again. If BBB needs a spell, petty could move forward and hore takes his role. Hore is also athletic enough to play a half back flanker role giving them some flexibility if a mid has to come off. For instance, rivers moves into the middle and hore takes his role.

I punt with a mate. Horses and footy (but haven't had a bet on the footy thus far, too variable, though i regret not making some money from the pies losses). We have a very good record for footy bets, with one exception. My record on suggested bets on the dees is woeful (though we had such a good run on us in 2021, including the flag, norm smith and multiple wins in the 24-30 point range that we're still probably somewhere near break even on our dees bets). So, we've made the difficult decision to not back the dees anymore (difficult for me, not him - let's say my mate is little less naturally optimistic, read more realistic, about our chances. To be fair to him, we have been mates for 34 years and I'm probably 8-26 in terms of my preseason optimism being warranted). I note all that by way of putting a warning on the following advice: You can currently get 2.76 for a dees win against Port (who are 1.46 favorites), with the line at +14.5 They are simply crazy odds. Particularly if Lever ends up playing. Defensively, they will struggle to cover our ball movement from the back half on what will be a perfect night for footy (dry, warm, but cloudy so little dew but no humidity). And our defence is perfectly suited to nullify their two key forwards, both in terms of our zone off, help out system and our personnel. The big slow lug, Dixon is perfectly suited as match up for Tomo. Dixon won't exploit Tomos lack of pace of the mark and Tomo is strong enough to compete. Hore and Lever can cover Marshall. Offensively, they will certainly trouble us with what i assume will be their normal super fast ball movement from the back half. And they will certainly get some good looks, particularly with the brilliant Rozee and Butters, and the reliable Houston, driving their transition. But our defensive system is the best in the AFL and we are the team best placed to stand up defensively against fast ball movement (as we have shown against the Pies last year, and even against the Swans in round one). They deserve to be favorites on their home deck, but 1.46 is way unders. As is the 14 point line. I mean what is our average losing margin in the last three seasons? Suggested bet: your super on the dees to make their +14.5 line, and whatever you handy have in your bank account on the dees to win @ 2.76