binman
Life Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by binman
-
-
Lots to unpack there. So ill pick just one element - your critisism of the midfield. As goody noted in his post match presser, it's not the number of clearances, it's the quality of clearances. And as he also referenced, we set up at stoppages one player down, making it less likely we will win any given around the ground stoppage. But when we do win a stoppage no team, with the possible exception of the blues, is better at turning that stoppage win into a score. And no team is better at stopping an opponent score from a stoppage when they win it, in large part because we use the spare we create because we bring one (sometimes more) less to the stoppages behind the ball. In other words, it doesn't matter so much how many clearances we win or lose. It matters how much more, or less, we score from them. Quality not quantity - as defined by scoreboard impact. The lions game is an outlier. Smashed in total clearances and scores from stoppages But otherwise we are consistently outscoring teams from stoppages, often by very big margins. Here's our raw clearance totals from last night: Centre Clearances 8 10 -2 Stoppage Clearances 24 15 +9 And here is our score from stoppages: Centre Bounce 1.1.7 0.1.1 +6 Stoppage (Other) 3.1.19 0.2.2 +17 So plus 23 points from stoppages. Impressive by my measure. And a huge factor in the end result. I'd also add that a key part of our midfield, maxy, who came up against two rucks, won the award for BOG. In what world does that equate to our midfield struggling?
-
That is just so brilliant. And is the sort of analysis that coverage of hamwsso desperately needs. It would be so easy to introduce too. White notes the space viney creates and holds. One thing I noticed about tracc getting tagged by kickett is at centre square stoppages he took kickett away from the drop of the ball. That space often allowed koz to get involved and helped with clean exits. Which is the sort of thing goody us referecing when he talks about how we take advantage of a tag on clarry, tracc or Oliver.
-
-
-
Ah yes, good point. Though I imagine the away factor wouldn't matter if it was at the g because the sample would have included a huge number of games between teams that share the g as a home ground.
Sorry, don't follow skuit The consensus is we played poorly. Yet we still won by 43 points. People seem to equate high scoring with playing well. As if defending brilliantly and keeping a team to 42 points should not be factored into the assessment. And that running up a high score is be some sort of evidence of our ability to be competitive with teams that are supposedly the benchmark So i just picked a random score that would be considered a decent score, but still with a 43 point winning margin. A result that whilst be sexier and a nice sugar hit for fans, would have been less help to our actual chances of say making top 4 because we would have got less percentage than we did. The most effective way to build percentage (which is the goal of h&a games - not to look great on offence) is win by a decent margin (eg 43 points) AND keep the opposition to as low a score as possible. Tick, tick last night In case people didn't get the memo, goody is not a believer in his premiership coach's (blight) offence first philosophy of attacking and scoring as much as possible. Goody's philosophy defence first and keeping the opposition under a benchmark score (each year there is a target score). And go from there (which this year had included trying to create space in our forward line to be more 'efficient' - something we did absolutely brilliantly last night). No coincidence goody emphasised in the post match pressure the score we kept them to. But, in any case, yes our kicking was woeful in rhe first half but as ive noted we piled on 10 goals in the second half (to their two). So plenty of sugar hits for the goals is proof of excellence crew. The game goes for 4 quarters, not two. Sure knock our performance in the first half, but extrapolating that to the whole game does us a massive disservice. We haven't kicked 10 or more goals in a second half since July last year, when we kicked 12 second half goals against the tigers. I didn't go further back than that, but I can't imagine we have kicked 10 or more goals in a half that many times in the last couple of seasons (or plys 8 goals), or at all under Goody for that matter. And it's not as if we were playing the roos or eagles. The tigers were undermanned and butchered the ball, but as yze noted (and as evidenced by the stats, eg pressure, cps, tackles) their pressure and contest was excellent all game. It was no walk over, and implying it was disrespects the tigers performance - and ours by extension.
Terrific stuff. It's worth noting that the standard 7 day break program as detailed in that article includes two all team sessions (not including the captain's run) - a recovery skills session and a main session Goody said pre game that after the lions match they gave the players a 4 day break and then did three 'quality' sessions (which i think he said included a match sim). We had a 13 day break into the tigers game. The players had a 4 day break, meaning back on deck Tuesday before last, and the captains run on Tuesday this week. Meaning they had 3 sessions in a seven day period, with at least a couple of weight sessions too no doubt. In other words, they did increased training loads in the lead up to the Tigers game (ie more work than they would do in a standard week as per the article). They could have flipped that and done the increased load in week one of their break and then given the players their break. That would have meant being fresher against the tigers. But i would suggest they did not do so because they are targeting the cats and blues games. Maxy said post game that they will have just the (standard) two sessions this week. I assume they then have a very light load in the 5 day break into the blues game. On weight sessions, it is worth remembering load management involves two elements - aerobic (wrong word I think, but y'all get the drift) and power/strength. Increased power/strength loads, done away from the prying eyes at training sessions, mean some players (particularly young players, like Windsor for example) will feel the effects (eg jelly legs, sore muscles etc) on game day. Which will likely negativley impact their skills, for example their kicking.
Ta. Our percentage is now 126.1. Some would have been thrilled if we won that game with a score of 113 to 70. Because if we played like that against (insert some supposedly unbeatable team here) and all that. But we win 85 to 42 (kicking 10 in the second half mind you) and despite gaining 1.5% more it's somwhow a fail. Like you get a percentage boost or an extra point for style. We missed finals by 0.2% in 2017.
I dont understand how you can say that with such confidence. What are you basing that assessment on? How clubs and or local footy teams have historically managed players, your vibes, applying some sort of assumed 'common sense'? No disrespect, but you (nor me or 99.9% of fans) don't know what bb's individual high performance plan is. It's a science that is planned to the second. Perhaps the deloading bb would have experienced if they rested him after the Port game would have thrown out 1his program because it would have meant a 12 day break into the Lions game followed by the bye break. Maybe they wanted to load him up and then give him a longer break than his teamates because of his degenerative knee issues. Who knows? And that's the point we don't. What I would like is the footy media providing some education and analysis about team's high performance programs. Team's high performance programs are one of the most critical determinative factors in terms of their performance and chances of success. Yet they are shrouded in mystery like some dark arts. Take the pies. Joey montagna said on first crack that there is talk their high performance program plan was to ease into the season (ie nmeaning they would not be in their optimal shape in the first few rounds) because of their late start to their preseason. And there is evidence to support that idea. They look like they have concrete in their boots for 5 rounds and then suddenly look like a million dollars in running over the top of port. Of course that may not be the case. But wouldn't it be great if it was explored?
I don't think so (that it will become a no contact sport). But they will have to take steps to minimise head trauma. And the logical thing is to take out elements of the game that increase the likelihood of head trauma without fundamentally changing the nature of the game. They have started that process, for example players turning their body when two players ate congestion the pill. The idea that players are supposed to 'put their head over the ball in such scenarios is already changing. And the game has not suffered or changed. Contact still happens and still hurts. The same will be true when they inevitably ban the bump. The bump serves zero purpose, it won't change the game and there will still be ferocious contact and injuries - just fewer to the head. Jnr's point about it becoming like basketball used to be a common refrain. But it won't. Tacklesfoe instance will never be banned and tackles at AFL level are full on. Besides, if you've ever played basketball or even watched elite basketball, you'd understand it is incredibly physical and tough. It is a complete myth that it is a non consct sport.
In terms of reducing the likelihood, and severity for that matter, of concussions I hadn't really considered this. But, you're right it should be in the mix. I'm not quite sure how they would enforce it. A free I guess. It would a bit tricky, for example differentiating between running back with the flight to spoil or mark and coming in from an angle. But the game is full of tricky decisions. With all team and zone defences and players swarming forward and back, there is hardly ever space to run into (except for overlap goals). So contact is usually inevitable. And if there is contact, what is actually achieved? How many marks are taken running back with the flight? Particularly when running full tilt? Think how few marks like the famous riewoldt and Brown marks there have been since. And really a spoil is hard to pull off, unless the oppo player is standing still (and even then they almost always give away a free for front on contact). The risk reward equation is out of whack. Marks and spoils are both unlikely. And there's a good chance of giving away a free for front on contact. There is a huge risk of injury, particularly concussion, but also things like broken ribs. And there is a high risk of severe concussion when two 90kg athletes are running towards each other. All for what? A pat on the back from ex footballers in the commentary box for being 'brave' (or a pat on the shoulder from a teammate as they get carted off the ground). Clarry's decision not to run into fogarty is the perfect example. What would it have achieved if he had done so? In all likelihood clarry gets hurt, possibly fogarty also. And unless he managed to get a clean fist on the ball to spoil, no small feat, he would have almost certainly given a free away.
Maybe yes, maybe no. We'll never know. But what we do know is bracing for contact in the way Greene does ONLY protects one person - him. What would people's response to the incident be if instead of not being hurt Boyd was knocked out cold? It was just luck he wasn't. If the underpinning philosophy was to try and protect the player being hit as well as the hitter they would soon land on a technique that maximized protection for both parties - just as they have when opponents are running head first at the same contest. For ever and a day the standard approach to that scenario was the old 'head over the ball', head first approach. Now players are getting much better at both turning their bodies juts before contact and hitting each other side to side. Over time, players would master the technique to protect both the hitter and the player being hit. Goody has said they train players not to bump. It takes time, but ultimately dees players instinct will not be to bump when another, safer alternative exists. At some point the AFL will be forced to ban the bump (with exceptions for say scenarios like the one i note above with opponents running head first at the same contest). So in the Green scenario, it would be black and white - he bumped so he cops an automatic minimum suspension, say one week. The number of weeks might then depend on factors like injury to the opponent, the players record or mitigating circumstances. And then players will be forced to find another technique. And would because the clubs would train it to avoid their players being suspended (which is exactly why Goody is training his players not to bump). #ban the bump
Yes, of course he is allowed to protect himself. But I'd argue the real question is, is bracing for contact the only way he could protect himself? And the answer to that question, is no, of course not. It's just the accepted way. That has to change because in choosing to brace and bump the person being hit is not protected. Again, i'd argue if that scenario happened in say a match sim at a GWS training, Greene would choose another action (for example putting his hands out to brace as is instinctive when say falling forward) because he would try and protect a teammate - which completely takes away the instinct, football act argument that is always trotted out in such incidents (that's to say if it so instinctive he would barrel his teammate and players would be getting knocked out cold at every training session). The reality is that in a game it is only an instinctive 'football act' to protect yourself at the total expense of an opponent because rattling the cage of an opponent (read knocking them into next week) is baked into footy culture. That culture can change without changing the nature of the sport. I have watched footy all my life and with the velocity players are hitting each other now it has never been more brutal.
JVR is not a part time forward as he is only takes aprox 10% of ruck contests. That's bugger all in the scheme of things. Take the Lions game. Max took 96 ruck contests and Rooey only 10 (and no other player took any). Whilst i agree i'd prefer him to not have to take any, and just focus on his forward craft, two lessons from the Gawndy experiment were Maxy as part time forward doesn't work, as he is never going to become a natural forward, and he plays his best footy when he basically rucks solo. On the latter point, Maxy can only do so much rucking becuase he is so incredibly fit. I take your point about the cats and blues both having decent ruck combos. But their number one rucks - Stanley and Pittonet - are levels below maxy. And Conway and De Koning are even more levels below. Maxy taking 90% of ruck contest creates a real issue for oppo coaches - when do they give their number one ruck a chop out? No other ruck is as fit and athletic as Maxy. Take Pittonet. Can he go with Maxy? I don't think so, at least not for 90% of ruck contests. So when does Voss rest him? Lets say he can only take 80% of ruck contests. That would mean De Koning going up against Max in 10% of ruck contests, which gives us an edge. As an example of what i mean this is the Lions ruck numbers when we played them: Ruck Contests Hitouts To Adv. Oscar McInerney 87 26 8 Joe Daniher 13 1 0 Darcy Gardiner 2 0 0 Eric Hipwood 5 0 0 (Note: probably a bad example in the sense that we got smashed at stoppages, but there were other factors at play and Maxy's hitouts to advantage were bang on his season average).
