binman

I totally get this perspective. However, it really captures the horns of a dilemma we find ourselves in as a club and a fan group. The method you describe (one based on the tigers uber successful method) won us a flag in 2021 and made us extremely hard to beat in 2022 and 2023. The cats basically copied our approach to win the 2022 flag. The success of that method resulted in McRae developing a game plan that would beat the zone defence our game plan was built on. Mitchell, correctly reading where the game was going implemented similar method from the get-go at the hawks (and copped heaps when it translated into lots of big losses) I think it fair to say it's universally accepted now the transition game is now the template for success. Which is where the horns of dilemma comes in: We can't win a flag with our old model To win a flag we need to adapt History shows that implementing a new method is rarely an easy thing and usually involves lots of losses, not to mention frustration for fans (the pies are an interesting outlier). We only need to look at our 2019 and 2021 seasons, particularly the former, for evidence of how hard it is to implement a new method (ironically, we went from a fast ball movement from the back half goody used in his first two seasons, to his D first zone defence system that won us a flag).

G'day @Neil Crompton I saw this post. When i get some time I'll respond

Without checking, i assume you mean we've lost the raw clearance count 9 times in the last 11 games. If yes, that would actually be pretty consistent with our numbers even when playing winning footy. Which is unsurprising given we bring one less to around stoppages (or did - have we been doing this season?). Whilst important in terms of winning terrority, the key clearance related stat (j6stbahead of post clearance contested possession), particularly for us, is scores from clearances. We rarely lose that stat. Unfortunately, in what is a real worry atm - the roos and suns both smashed us in scores from clearances.

Thank God for that

Yep. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1742795/rd-3-post-match-interview-max-gawn?videoId=1742795&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1743230614001

It's funny you should comment on maxy's post match interview. I literally just watched it and had a similar reaction- strange vibe. I appreciateit's no doubt tough to do an interview after a loss like that, but I agree that there was a funky vibe.

Very hard to read on a mobile

One of the worst, most infuriating losses i have seen live for a very long time. 10x worse than last week. Made even more infuriating by what was the worst display of umpiring I have ever seen (though ro be clear it had no bearing on the result).

Fullarton playing very well.

Question: What's better than the blues getting beaten and going down 0-3? Answer: Backing their opponent to win.

Instead of [censored] can the new software add an appropriate euphemism instead. So for example [censored] could be [Tom Morris].

Have you lost weight Andy? You look good.

Not to mention being arguably our best field kick.

No, i wasn't comparing it to our matches this season. Just wondering if perhaps the Hawks high performance strategy was different to ours, knew we were in better nick at that point in time and didn't want to get into transition battle with us - which would be ironic given by the end of the season we had run out of puff and looked slow as wet week and the Hawks had morphed into arguably the quickest, best transition team in the comp (coincidence? - perhaps not) .

And it's worth remembering how that game played out. The Hawks were slammed for their method - which involved chipping it around their back half for large parts of the game. Mitchell said a key reason for the method was to minimise the advantage he though the dees had in terms of scoring power (and IIRC speed and transition?) Is it possible they weren't cherry ripe by choice as pet of their high-performance strategy, ie increase the chances of being cherry ripe come finals (which they were)?

Can't argue that history says that going 0-3 makes top 4 very unlikely. A 0-3 start would be a shocker for us, absolutely no doubt. But I'm firmly of the view that the game at the elite level (ie AFL) is in the middle of a fundamental change to how it's played. Almost every player now covers 12 plus kms a game - unthinkable even 10 years ago. As an example, two defenders in Tmac and Comben covered the equal second most kms in our last game, only 500 meters less than Sheezel. And the emphasis on fast transition and high-speed running means each teams needs to be stocked with elite runners with massive tanks (to enable the huge amount of two-way running transition footy demands) who can also reliably hit targets and play decent footy (ie the days of 'he's an athlete first, footballer second' are over). Of course, you still need the bulls who win the ball, and key position players to contest in the air, but the best teams have 10-12 elite runners. Logic suggests that the change to the style of play (from forward half footy to back half transition footy) and the athletic profile it demands that high performance and conditioning programs also have to fundamentally change. An analogy might be training an elite squad of runners that for a decade or more were 70% power athletes (eg 100 and 200 metre) and 30% fast endurance athletes (eg 400-800 metre runners) but now the equation has flipped to 70% endurance athletes and 30% power athletes. The high-performance programs at each club have to adjust to this new reality, one in which there is far less data available on best practice. Which is why i think the lessons of history in terms of early season form are less relevant now. The goal remains the same for the genuine final's contenders - be in peak, optimal condition come finals time. But again, logic suggest the path to achieve that goal has to change. At the risk of putting too much emphasis on last year, and acknowledging it represents small sample size, we all saw last season how demanding the game now is over the course of what is an incredibly long season given the physical demands of the sport (a brutal combination of contest and elite running). And most clubs were trying to implement the transition game, so we have some data on the impact of the change to how the game is played in terms of early season form and peaking come finals: The Swans were, for the first half of the season were almost universally regarded as the fastest, fittest and best transition team in the AFL - on top of the ladder at the halfway mark of the season, having won their first 10 games they were 1.80 to win the flag at that point Come finals they started to flag (pardon the pun), lost their relative advantage in terms of running power and ultimately looked slow and struggled to transition the ball in their humiliating shellacking by the Lions in the Grand Final The Cats won their first 7 games, looked fast and in great shape - finished top 4 but like the Swans dropped off come finals, ultimately losing their prelim The Lions, the premier, lost their first 3 games and looked slow and off the pace (their third loss was against the pies who had yet to win a game at that point) The Hawks lost their first five games by an average of 32 points, including 9 goal shellackings by us and the suns, before roaring home and looking in great shape at the back end of the season, winning a final before bowing out in the semis

You don't think there is an element of overreacting to one game in the whole 'our midfield bulls set up has ti change' palaver? I mean, yes we need more speed and outside run in the middle. Which is why they are using Langdon (by the by many people are arguing we should end that experiment) and koz as permanent mids. BUT: - maxy had his least impactful game for a long time. - tracc, our best midfield bull only spent 77% TOG and basically played deep forward for half a game - Chandler played on ball in the last and we got smashed out of the middle - in the previous match we almost beat a top 4 team in large part because of our ability to score from stoppages BECAUSE of our bulls - the roos absolutely obliterated us at centre bounces and stoppages with a midfield full of bulls!

Bollocks.

Agree with all of the above. The best metaphor for all the confected drama is the videos 360 have as a lead into a discussion on (insert whatever the big drama of the day supposedly is). They are both hilarious and incredibly grating with an editor who thinks they are Oscar's bound backed by the ridiculously over the top dramatic music and voice over. It's like some silly panto - look over there kidos, the big bad wolf is hiding behind the curtain!

Their buts? Interesting.

To be honest, i wondered the same thing. I doubt tracc has ever had a less impactful game. Didn't look right - ditto a number of other players.