binman

I used to know an Andrew Stafford as a teenager. Was a big music fan. How old is this Andrew Stafford? Scratch that. Just read the info at the link. Different dude.

Totally reasonable questions. Which point to another aspect to not ignoring the issue of fatigue. If you accept fatigue plays a big role in the outcome of any given match then it is reasonable to critique the performance of the high performance team, decisions like not bringing in fresher players (eg would Laurie have been a better option than Clarry?) or target specific games at the potential expense of others.

Brilliant. Finally a footy journo makes the bog obvious point about the impact of the insane aerobic demands on AFL players in the modern game. I love this line: 'The fixture is contentious enough already without placing such insane demands on the athletes, who need adequate time to recover between half-marathons' And even more importantly factors the impact of those demands into their analysis of the game. The job of footy journos is helping fans understand the game. They do fans a complete disservice if they ignore a critical factor like physical readiness and the impact of fatigue on performance. Take the loss to the Lions. What are the reasons we lost? In the this thread factors such as poor coaching, poor selection, players mentally not strong enough, smashed at the contest, not enough pressure and not running two ways have all been highlighted. And fair enough too, all are potential factors. But if the impact of fatigue is also not factored into any analysis of our performance, you are only left with such factors as potential reasons for the loss. Which means the assessment is off. For example our all team defence is incredibly taxing, as is winning the clearance count, as is applying elite pressure, as is setting up one down at stoppages etc etc etc. Logic says that if the players are fatigued, these, and other key elements of our method will be more difficult to implement (which will be reflected in the stats) and our chances of winning will decrease. Factoring in fatigue is not making excuses, it is simply ensuring all potential reasons for a performance are considered. Were the dees fatigued against the lions? The eye test says yes, absolutely. What was the cause of the fatigue? Who knows. Perhaps, as Stafford suggests it was simply that we were playing our third game in just 13 days, which included a physically draining and intense win over Port Adelaide and backing up 5 days later to beat the Crows. It is clear they targeted those games and in order to maximise our chances of winning both they would have designed their high performance program to peak for both games. If so, is it possible to then be in peak shape for the Lions game? Or perhaps in addition to the above, we also took the opportunity to get a heavy training block in ahead of our bye to take advantage of the two week week break to the tigers game (ie, so players have time to recover and taper)? That may not be the case of course, but equally it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. In that context, as another poster noted, it's worth noting the pre bye record of the teams that played in the OR: Dees: 22 point loss to the lions Lions: 23 point loss to Freo Suns: 48 point loss to the dogs Tigers: 39 point loss to the Eagles Pies: led the hawks at half time by 38 points, stopped to a walk in the second half, only kicking 2 goals (none in the last) to luckily scrape in by 2 points Blues: scrappy, lucky 5 point win over the tigers Swans: beat west coast by 26 (having lost to the tigers the previous week) Giants: thumped Eagles

Nice of the blues to make my point so soon by losing a home game against the winless and hapless Crows. But seriously, how many posters actually objectively think that loss is evidence the Blues are not contenders, won't make top 4 and can't win the flag? And the giants were very lucky to win at home against a middle of the road saints. Yes they won, but if the dees won a home game against the Saints in such an unconvincing fashion there would be plenty of DL posters saying it was evidence we are not contenders.

Apply Occam's razor.

Precisely my take.

Yep, sums up the game in a nutshell. Fairly predictable the level of henny penny, sky is falling reactions in this post match thread. I'm sure there was a similar level of angst on the swans Demonland equivalent after they were completely woeful in their loss to a very average tigers outfit. But as objective footy fans, I'm pretty confident few Demonland posters think that very disappointing loss is evidence the swans are no good, won't make top 4, can't win the flag etc etc. Similarly, when one of the other real contenders - giants, Port, blues and cats - inevitably lose a match they are favourites to win, few will argue that's evidence they can't win a flag.

Good call. Tmac was excellent all night

Just got home. Won't be watching no replay tonight. The only positive from that woeful display was it gave me a chance to revisit a sledge from the dim past: 'you're going nowhere lions - a half decent team would have flogged us by 10 goals'

Indeed. I'm most definitely in the Hoyne camp. Hoyne highlighted that, like this time last year our above average accuracy should be factored in to any assessment of how we are travelling. As At the break of Gawn notes Daniel Hoyne highlighted 'we’ve been losing inside 50, clearances, contested possession and we're only a middle of the road side at defending ball movement.' Hoyne's other point was that gives scope for improvement. Which I agree with, particularly with Bowser and Melksham both available in the back half of the season. But Hoyne didn't note that a couple of weeks back, when discussing our changed method, that Dees' fans will have to be patient as we will give up scores on turnover and make mistakes as we adjust to a different method, particularly the transition stuff. That said, I think there is a chance those numbers are not necessarily an indication of problems. I agree with @Binmans PA and others analaysis that we are setting up deep defensively and creating space in front of us to transition more effectively. I dont have any data to support this, but we also seem to be more fluid in terms of defenders rolling off their man and taking different opponents. Lever, may and tmac have been waxing and swapping opponents and zoning off super well. And as has been the case for three years, they are brilliant at ensuring there is a player behind the ball. It's striking how infrequently we give up walk in or out the back goals. But playing deep defensively means part of the method is accepting the need to absorb more deep inside 50s. And when we win it back we are more often starting the transition from closer to the opponents goal, decreasing our chances or successfully scoring from our back half. Perhaps the stats Hoyne notes reflect these factors. And besides, sure we have been accurate, but we have also kept opponents, including two of last year's highest scoring sides to bloody low scores. Our defence has been incredible.

No. But there is no doubt that our run into the finals last year took a physical and psychological toll. Ditto for 2022. Conversely, our run into the 2021 final, even with the drama of the last round win against the cats, was far less taxing.

Even if the pies are back to their best, the last 5 games is a pretty good run home. Four of our last 5 games in Melbourne - with three at the G. Yes, two games against a likely top 4 team (Port and Giants), but both on our home ground. The other 3 games against teams likely to battling to get into the 8.

Agree. I'd also add that we have also struggled their other excellent medium half forwards/mids/utilises in particular mcluggage and McCarty. Defensively it's been our Achilles heel for years. Part of the issue against the lions is we have to send one of our best mid sized defenders to Cameron - and basically play him man on man (ie not much zoning off). But it's also a personnel issue. Nev was brilliant as a small/medium defender in 2018, just about the best. But since then we've struggled in that space. The juddster was brilliant last year and has become our go to player for the opposition's best medium forward. But the lions have four excellent medium forwards to cover. I think Howes was brought in to strengthen our ability to cover such players and thus far had been terrific at doing so. He'sslotted in down back like a 200 gamer and gives us so much more flexibility. So, I'm more confident than I have been for ages that we have the tools to cover the lions' dangerous medium forwards.

I don't get the whole you can't start a debutant as a sub. Particularly now that it is not a medical one. It's a team sport, and it's never been more important that players play their assigned role. If the best thing for the team is for a debutant to start ad sub then so be it. The alternative is what? Selecting them in the starting 22, even though that's not in the best interest of the team? Or not picking them at all, even if Goody has been criticised for playing favourites with selection, with the implication being it comes at the expense of the team I think those criticisms are plain silly. But I understand why people would have an issue with it if he was selectiing favourites, not the best option. Team has to come first. Same argument applies to the selection of a debutant.

I see the low impact argument, but I'm OK with koz getting a week, not for the bump, but for raising his elbow. Yes he only glanced his head, but I'm in the factor in the risk of injury camp. If his elbow had, say flushed his temple then some real damage could have been done. But I'm not ok with the hypocrisy of the coverage of what was really an incidental incident compared to the can't miss a grand final for a 'football action' vibe that dominated the coverage of Maynard's hit on Gus. And even more frustratingly, there is zero reflection by the media about that blatant hypocrisy. For god's sake one action ended the football career of a bloke in his mid 20s (at all levels - and I presume Gus can no longer play ANY contact sport, eg basketball). And the other caused NO injury, with the player 'hit' going on to be his team's best player, even getting coached votes. And why? Because whilst koz was silly to put his elbow out, it was fleeting and he realised immediately wrong, and pulled it back. That's to say successfully tried to minimise impact. Maynard did the opposite. No thought at at all to minimise the impact on Gus. His instinct was 100% solely to protect himself. The media should be ashamed of the coverage of the Maynard hit. And ashamed about the white noise it is creating painting koz as a sniper with form.

In lots of ways. Being completely nuts being one.

One of tbe most annoying footballers of all time.

Fair comment. I'm the time bandit. I appreciate the feedback and will take on board (genuinely, ie not being facetious).

No you're right -i'm the one mixing things up. Bears merged with the lions in 1996. From wiki: 'At the end of the 1996 season, the AFL helped negotiate a deal with the Fitzroy Football Club administrator whereby the Bears took over Fitzroy's AFL license and as a condition of that deal, on November 1, 1996, Brisbane Bears members voted to change the club's name to the Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (BBFFC or Brisbane Lions), who participate in the AFL today. The Bears played in 220 VFL/AFL matches over ten seasons, with 70 wins, 148 losses and 2 draws.' My Fitzroy supporting mate didn't barrack for the Brisbane Lions in their first year, or their second. Was on board by their third season. Good timing too given their success a few years later.

Ta. That's more than I would have guessed in 90 odd minutes of game time.

I suspect DeeBlood is actually dermie. Took umbrage at me calling him a clown and joking about his inability to string words together (a joke i rather embarrassingly mangled).

Really? . I can't recall how he went in his second game, but ny recollection is he was terrific in his first game until he had his jaw broken just before half time. I think he will be a gun. Smart, quick off the mark, competitive and zones off well. And whilst I agree he can play an intercept role now, ultimately i think he will become a key position defender. He's 6.5 in the old and given he is only 22 will fill out in the next few years.

On spotify the sound will be better as Andy cleans it up before loading it up. But I doesn't make any difference to the DL site as such (I assume you mean traffic). I like that it goes out live. Feels old school.

And don't forget to leave a 5 umm review.

Agree. As a dees fan in the 70s and 80s, lions fans were kindred spirits. Ditto saints fans. I played for Beverly Hills junior footy club (Paul roos' team). We wore the Fitzroy jumper and sing the Fitzroy song. One of my best mates was a huge lions fan, and I lived in North Fitzroy and kicked around Fitzroy, for over a decade. The Newry was my local - directly opposite Brunswick oval, the roy boys original home ground. And they had some of my favourite non dees players - roos, pert, Wilson and Quinlan (one of the most consistently excellent kicks I've seen). So I always had a soft spot for the lions. It was wrenching, even as a dees fan, when they folded. Just awful. My mate was in shock, and without being flippant, experienced real grief. And I was beside myself the dees would also disappear. When tne roys folded, he became a dees fan. A fully committed, passionate one too. I saw heaps of games with him. But when they became the Brisbane lions, which they should have done from the get go, after a couple of seasons he felt compelled to support them - . A knowledgeable and clued in footy supporter, who still has a soft spot for the dees.