binman

The weight challenged recluse has sung?

K.

Nah, an old neighbour of mine.

The corresponding pies and blues footy forum poll is: Top 4: 100% 5th to 8th: 0% Missing finals: 0% Winning flag: 100%

Our opponents are ecstatic when it rains.

Well, that's different discussion to whether we will go backwards this year.

As there is every preseason there is lots of chat about how the dees will go this year and whether we fall away (and next to no chat that we might actually improve). Luck plays a big role in winning a flag, but i think we can all agree that key to winning a flag is finishing top 4. I'll post my rationale for this opinion at a later point, but for now i wanted to put my flag in the ground and say that I think we will, for the fourth consecutive season, finish the 2024 home and away season in the top 4. I'm keen to see where the Demonland massive thinks we finish at the end of 2024 home and away season: Top 4 5th-8th Missing finals

Well, it would appear you are not Robinson Caruso. Personally I am a big believer in facts and form. And on both, only the pies could claim to have better form in the last three years. Does that mean we will make top 4 again this year? No of course not. But to be honest the facts mount a much stronger case we will make top 4 than the vibes of supporters who have endured so much heartache that we won't. On that point, is it hyperbole to suggest the last dees squad as consistently successfull as this was the early to mid 60s? Perhaps collectively we are conditioned to expect failure? I wonder if fans of the San Francisco 49ers, on the back of mutiple heartbreaks, assume their team will fall away next season? I suspect not.

Indeed. Shown up? Please. In addition to not having petty and jvr, we didnt have melk available Melk not only would have negated the pies and blues intercept strengths, as one of our best kicks surely would have made a better fist of his scoring opportunities than some of his teammates. And of course losing Gus for all but 7 mins of the pies game, and the clear psychological impact of that incident on the team for a good quater and a half, was another huge factor. How would have the pies gone without Mihocek, Elliot and Johnson (I know mcstay was out, bur so was tmac and brown)?

One of the commentators must have said this 3 or 4 times in the tigers game. Did my head in. Its not untrue I guess, but we made top 4 in the last THREE seasons. For pete's sake, in 2021 we finished the home and away season on top of the ladder and won the bloody flag. Third in 2022 and 4th last year. Not having a shot at you 3183 (i am at the commentator, and Barlow who didn't correct him once), but it is a pretty relevant ommisoon if used as a factor in how we are assessed. Yes we have gone out in straight sets in the last two finals, but three top 4s in succession and a flag is impressive by any measure surely.

Totally agree. If he is fit enough, we can well and truly cover any lack of defensive effort/nous he might have. I have no doubt we have given him a chance for exactly the reason you suggest - he can hit a target. And as important, perhaps more so, weight a kick to a forwards' advantage, a much underrated skill, and one ridiculously few dees players have, including tracc and Oliver. Makes it so much harder for our key forwards. Must do their heads in when we kick to their opponents advantage. Apart from reducing our chances of marks inside 50 it's a big factor in the number of intercept marks we give up.

Competing for the high half forward role. Am I right in thinking he is regarded as having a good tank/is good aerobically? Perhaps I'm imagining that. Nibbla has one of the two HFF roles (maybe 3 if you include an interchange player rolling that role, and perhaps wing too) leaving Spargo, Laurie, Billings, Brown (though he could play closer to goal too) and maybe the colt fighting for let's say two spots.

From memory, on predicted score we were something like plus 20 against the blues in the finals, plus 12 against the Pies and plus 15 against the blues in the home and away game. Cant recall the others, but in the praccy match just gone i suspect the final score pretty much reflected the expected score. BBB's questions - just a coincidence or the oppo getting easier shots at goal on us? - are reasonable. I think the answers are that, no its not a coincidence and no the oppo is not getting easier shots at goal on us (with the exception of the first quarter and a half against the Pies when we lost our defensive shape and they got some easy slingshot goals - hence the high number of set shots on goal they kicked). So why the differential? Applying Occams' razor, the answer is our kicking skills are below AFL average. This is exacerbated by our three best players - Oliver, Trac and maxy - all being woeful shots at goals. By contrast the Pies three best players Nick Daicos, Degoey and Sidebottom/Pendlebury are all brilliant kicks for goals, as is their ruck, Cox. Kicking is our Achilles heal (foot?) and has been for 15 years at least i reckon.

Antiqued and boring is being extremely kind md. Straight up pathetic misogyny. Made worse by making it seem as if SL had made that comment, which I did at first - and was shocked because it was completely out of character for Salem's lot.

I suspect it does for blues fans too - particularly when McKay and Curnow both play.

We hit a number of leading targets and players getting out the back. In fact if I was forced to guess i reckon we might have had more goals from set shots than the tigers.

It might have felt that way, but its not the case that virtually every ball was bombed in. If it was the case it would be reflected in the shots at goal data (also in the charts that show inside 50 entries and where goals were kicked from, which I've seen but couldn't find with a quick search). Given how infrequently we jagged pack marks in those games (or any games really, given how hard it is to take a pack mark these days) and factoring in goals from free kicks and pings from 40 -60 metres, if we bombed it long to a pack say 90% of the time, logic suggests the numbers would be something like: 70% of scores from general play (eg crumbing packs, stoppage goals, running shots etc) 30% from set shots (marks, usually one out or on the lead, and frees). In the blues finals loss we were aprox 50% from general play and set shots. In our loss to the Pies, a game that was high pressure and slippery, we were aprox 40% from general play and 60% from set shots. Shots at goal Team Shots G B T Acc. General Play Melbourne 15 4 9 33 26.7 Carlton 8 3 2 20 37.5 Set Position Melbourne 13 5 6 36 38.5 Carlton 13 8 4 52 61.5 Team Shots G B T Acc. General Play Melbourne 9 3 3 21 33.3 Collingwood 4 2 2 14 50.0 Set Position Melbourne 14 4 5 29 28.6 Collingwood 11 7 3 45 63.6 The bottom line is our method works. Which is why other teams employ it, just at the tigers did yesterday - which is no surprise since they are the originators of the when in doubt get territory strategy that, with pressure, is the foundation of the game circa 2024. It was our accuracy that failed us in the finals not our method.

Sure, agree totally. But it never is, or has been under goody. Nowhere near it. It certainly wasn't anywhere near 90% yesterday. Come the finals last year every team, including the Pies, basically played a variation of the dees game plan, which includes bombing it long into the forward line. But again, none of them do so 90% of the time.

May's got form with rubbish like that. Did on another occasion yesterday- I think aimed at tomo. On his kicking, I wish they made it a team rule that he can only kick it 60 metres plus. He misses a ridiculous number of 15 to 40 metre kicks under no pressure. Like that kick to Bowser.

At least it wasn't Bailey Fridge - son of Ted Fridge and nephew of John Fridge.

100% agree. Hill, Mcreery, Ginnivan and Elliott were absolutely key for the Pies in the finals. All were fantastic and big factors in the flag. Interestingly all bar Ginnvan are more medium forwards size wise, but apply huge pressure. Koz is small, but his pressure is elite. Chandler is small, but his pressure in the finals was average i thought. Spargs is also small, but never really got back to his best, was inexplicably (IMO) not selected for the Pies game and pressure was average on the blues finals loss. That puts a lot of pressure on the medium forwards to apply pressure, particularly when you have a lumbering Tmac. Smith held up his end of the bargain pressure wise in the blues loss, but i don't think Fritter was fully fit and his pressure was average. Losing Melk really hurt in this regard, and his loss was compounded by JVR missing the blues game as in addition to missing his marking and goals we really missed the sort of pressure and tackling inside 50 we saw glimpses from him yesterday. Based on yesterday's game i think Brown is a red hot chance of being in the team in round one and playing that small forward and/or high half forward pressure role. I think the Colt might still be a ways off, but he's chance to come in to the side for the same role at some point, as is perhaps Sestan (jury out though). That would certainly make life difficult for Chandler in terms of keeping his spot in the ones. If McCadam comes in he will to need to apply the sort of defensive pressure melk applied last season.

100% agree. Which is why Windsor is on a glide path for round one selection. Though i hope his kicking is better than what we saw yesterday.

It's even more a pity that last season our bottom 3 for average kick to score ratio with kicks inside 50 were our three best players (Maxy, Tracc and Oliver), two of whom are our two best mids, most prolific ball winners, and most prolific inside 50 kicks. By the by, number one for that same stat? Nibbla. #nibblamyths

Spot on. I'd add that whilst there might be some variation as to where that kick is directed (eg pockets or hot spot), long and high kicks inside 50 is standard practice for all teams when kicking into a crowded forward line (which is not say team do it all the time of course). And the reason why is when kicking into a crowded forward line, a long, high kick to a pack at predetermined spot, is the percentage play. It's the risk reward calculation. Teams would have 20 plus years of analytics, and whilst i cant back this is up with the data (because frustratingly the AFL allow champion data to lock up key data), I'm very confident the data would show, that when factoring in: the attacking teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession (ie either when the ball hits the ground OR after a stoppage, if one happens) and the defensive teams chances of scoring if they mark it or win the next possession (ie on turnover).... .........the net scoring advantage is in favor of the attacking team. That data would change when the forward line is not crowded and the percentage play would be hitting up leading targets (unless as you note HBD, if that kick is under huge pressure, then the percentage play might still be the long high kick) But the problem is space inside 50 can only be created through fast ball movement from the back half (hence practicing the handball chains). But even then it is a one time deal. If a team moves it quickly, as we did yesterday at times, get it inside 50 to an open forward line, but fail to score and the oppo win the ball back, the go to play is put pressure on the outlet kick, set up a wall and try to win the ball back. If we do win it back, in that scenario, the defensive zone usually has had time to get set and players from both teams have flooded into the forward line area. So the kick back inside 50 is into a crowded forward line. And the percentage play is a long, high kick to our forward line. I think it was our second goal (perhaps the brown's first?) that we scored a goal from exactly this scenario.

Indeed. Avoiding injury is another objective. The foundation of our game plan, like every other club, is pressure. Pressure creates turnovers. As one of the commentators said, 70% of scoring now comes from turnovers. But pressure also causes injuries. We only applied something even close to AFL pressure in the first 20 mins of each half. And even then it was miles off what we see round one. The tigers weren't applying much pressure in those phases We dominated in those periods. Kicking five unanswered goals to start the game. When the tigers lifted their pressure ratings, they dominated, kicking 10 straight at one point. Until the last couple of years practice games were not broadcast. And rightly people paid little heed to them. Yes, with only one proper preseason game the practice match is a bit more significant - but it remains a PRACTICE match. In addition to getting players conditioned to something like AFL intensity, it's an opportunity to practice things, eg new roles, strategies and ball movement Examples yesterday included Windsor on a wing, Howes at half back, Schache rucking, Verrel rucking solo for a half, more time in the middle for koz, ditto for nibbla, salo on ball, inside 50 kicks, leading patterns and our long handball chains. On the latter, i had a memory of old dees fans at the g back in the mid 2000s yelling "JUST KICK IT!!!!!' when we were employing the then standard, yet sometimes frustrating, strategy of moving the ball forward with chains of handballs. If we start using chains of handballs again, the equivalent fans might have to yell "JUST KICK IT - BUT DON'T BOMB IT IN - HIT A LEADING TARGET - SO DON'T JUST KICK IT INDISCRIMINATELY !!!!!"