binman

Sure, though i seriously don't know what people expected given where both teams are currently at (i mean the line was 22 points so the market assessed the gap between the teams as nearly 4 goals). But, i wasn't arguing we should be filled with confidence or joy about the result - i was making the point the statement 'we need to be honest and say the main reason that wasn't a 10 plus goal blowout was because the Hawks missed so many gettable shots' is complete and utter rot. I mean it's simply not true - and there is an actual measure to evidence that it's a load of cobblers. The Hawks actual score was 92 against an expected score of 93.5 - which indicates the Hawks were almost bang on for average AFL accuracy. Our actual score was 56 against an expected score of 65.2 - which indicates we were once again below average AFL accuracy, a problem that has plagued us since 2022. (I'm not going to bother defending expected score as stat except to say it measures the AFL average for each shot on goal taken from that spot going back i think 20 years and has a hell of lot more rigour than the vibe test that leads someone to argue it wasn't a 10 plus goal blowout was because the Hawks missed so many gettable shots).

Total, absolute rot. Confirmation bias on steroids. In fact the opposite is true - if not for OUR inaccuracy the margin would have been under 5 goals. Expected scores xScore Score xWin % xMargin Margin Swing Melbourne 65.2 56 5% Hawthorn 93.5 92 95% +28.2

That's interesting ta. It's a good point about our defence, because strangely even some dees fans still think of the team being boring and stodgy this season in terms of ball movement, transtion and scores from the defensive half when in fact we are one of the best in the AFL. And that's despite how often we turn the ball over The irony is it's our defence, our one wood under goody, that has really let us down, in particular our inability to defend turnover. The added irony is under goody our other major strength has been our ability to win clearances an stoppages and we have really poor in that regard this season. It's worth noting in that context we have two new midfield and stoppages coaches (radcliff and jones) and defensive coach (Basset). Not much to put on their resumes when they look for their next gigs.

The line in this match is 19.5 so if we make our line we can claim victory!

And if we had gir him we would have missed out Lindsay!

Fair call on the 250th, hadn't considered that. Doesn't explain why they kept him on Gunston so long. Bloody Goody, so stubborn- wait a minute.....

Agree, May was bordering on a liability. Looks cooked. Makes me wonder why they played him.

I can hear the commentators now EVERY SINGLE TIME he gets a possession: 'He has a basketball background - so good in traffic and such good peripheral vision'

We were beaten by a much better team who are real chance of winning the flag with a game plan and players that expose our key weaknesses, namely our propenity to turn the ball over, difficulty defending turnover, woeful centre square and around the ground stoppages syrictures and sub optimal aerobic fitness, leg speed and running power. And in addition to that we were poor in the first quarter, particularly defensively (our all defence was horrible) and were down almost 5 goals at the quarter time break (poor first quarters has been such a trend this season that there must be something we're not getting right with our preparation) Before the Roos-Goody era that game was the perfect recipie for a 10 plus goal blow out - butt end of a disappointing season, young players tired, key defender cooked (should have May played), the second game after the dead cat sacked coach bounce, a 6 to 9 day break and coming up against a team sharpening their talons for finals who came to play (their pressure in the first quarter was formidable). Personally, watching the game i thought after quarter our effort and spirit was good (and our effort was reasonable in the first quarter- it was more that our skills were terrible and our defensivestructures were a mess) and kudos to the boys for playing the game right out and never dropping their head. The stats most relevant to assessing effort and intent - contest, tackles and pressure support my sesnse watching the game that our effort was good (and that the Hawks didn't drop their effort all game) Plus one for contested possessions (143 to 142) Plus seven for Post Clearance Ground Ball Gets (71 to 64) Plus 13 for tackles (68 - 55, though of course we were chasing tail for much of the day) Pressure of 183 fir the match would be in our top 6 ot 7 for the season (by way of contrast it was 171 v the dogs and 183 v the Eagles) Team pressure Quarter For Agn Diff 1 173 203 -30 2 182 165 +17 3 187 179 +8 4 190 191 -1 Match 183 184 -1

Up there with Maxy and Koz as my favourite dees player. Total gun.

Absolutely they would have beaten us. They would have beaten us even if the breaks had been reversed. I reckon the hawks are a chance to win the flag. Like last season they have timed their high performance to be peaking at the business end of the season. They're fit fast and In the fourth season of Mitchell's tenure and the game plan he implemented is now instinctively understood by players and they have the right sort of players to implement it.

Blah, blah l blah 'Howard'. I'm putting you on ignore now because I find your straw man debating style, juvenile attempts to bait me and relentless negativity about the club exceedingly tedious. I mean, seriously who can be bothered. No doubt you'll pop a laughing emoji to this post to indicate how little you are bothered by me putting you on ignore, but you and I both know it will annoy you given the degree to which I trigger you. So see you 'Howard', perhaps when you next appear under a new name in the middle of a run of losses to revel in the club travelling poorly.

Looked like he has a touch of class. I love his kicking action, not to mention that's he's a lefty. And seems a good decision maker too. His kick to Kentfield, who was by himself in the pocket that set up his goal was a good example. Easy to hit, but how many of our players, one don't take a beat to sum up options and instead just slam it on the boot and two, somehow miss those easy 30 metre kicks. Exactly the sort of player we need more off. This quote from the article above is exciting: Sinnema made his debut for Devon Meadows in local football last year, earning high praise for coach Ryan Hendy, who told this masthead: "He was unbelievable, he's got a massive future." "He's just classy," he said. "He reminded me of a young Errol Gulden, it's a big wrap but he just moves exactly like him, he just runs and runs and is a magnificent ball user."

Of course it doesn't. I never said it did I said it was a huge factor. By the by, even though the crows are probably the fittest side in the AFL and way way fitter than us it was also a huge factor in that game. The pies dominated big chunks of that game as evidenced by their huge inide 50 differential. The crows, whi i thinkmwill win the flag, were definitely not at their optimal running power.

Not as wild as getting banned mutilple times from a football fan forum and feeling compelled to create new profiles, when we're struggling of course, to continue to spew negativity about the club.

Great win. Well done dees.

I wish we had a player called Sinema in.our women's team. She'd have her own theme song - Sinnema girl, sung to this tune:

Let's say that's true - would make sense because counter intuitively the best thing in that circumstance is to maintain the percentage they had by ensuring we didn't score at all and the best to do so is to slow the game right down (because opening up the game risks your opponent scoring too and say scoring 3 to 2 goals would actually decrease percentage). Makes our effort to score 3 late goals mote meritorious no less so.

100% - ridiculous to suggest they put the cue in the rack. Gunston was asked about the importance of percentage in his post match, on ground interview and he said they we're aware of the importance of maximising percentage in terms of their final ladder position (they are on outside chance of finishing top 4 - if they do it will be on percentage. And if they don't percentage might be the difference between playing a home elimination final at the G or an interstate elimination final).

Not to mention completely cooked. The curious thing was how long Chaplin took to change tge match up. Though it has to be said Howes was no better. Couldn't believe the space he gave Gunston. All that said neither May or Howes were helped out by the woeful pressure we applied to the kickers spotting up Gunston or the fact we couldn't get back on turnover and transtion and block his leading lanes.

I can't believe it's even a debate. Undeniably a huge factor in the game, particularly given we were coming off all the emotion of the previous week and we have a number of young players desperate for the season to end, not to mention nominally our best defender who looks totally cooked The impact was most evident in terms of the impact on their ability to spread and get back on turnover and our inability to spead, cover their spread and get back on turnover (meaning our all team defence was woeful, the key reason gunston had do many clear leading lanes). Scanning this thread I wish I could say I'm surprised how negative so many posters are about our performance. Most such posts are from people who deride us a woeful bottom 4 team - so a bottom 4 team against team, who were 1.40 to win, comimg of a 9 day break against a team and for whom a win locked in a finals spot and percentage gives them an outside top 4 chance. And people are up in arms about performance - that's some serious cognitive dissonance right there. I was actually really impressed with the way they fought the game out.

That's true. Who is responsible for that?

I was an energetics sceptic, but perhaps I'll need to revaluate.

Yep. And what is the one constant in that entire period?

I reckon that's simple not the case, and its a falsity that drives myth that replacing the coach will address sustained poor performance. I mean there is so little evidence changing coaches results in sustained success that its bizarre the myth, not to mention practice (though AFL clubs are not changing coaches as often now) continues. Just look at the blues and roos for recent examples. How many coaches did both clubs cycle thru in the 5 years before landing on their current saviours Voss and Clarkson, neither of whom have been able to achieve anything remotely resembling sustained success. I wold argue the number one factor in not achieving sustained success is a poorly performing executive. Number two is players. Number three is the high performance team and culture (the latter being influenced by the coach). Number four is the coach. If they don't sort the governance of the club the next coach could be a combination of Norm Smith, Clarkson, Hardwick, Phil Jackson and Sir Alex Ferguson and we'd still have sustained lack of success. Which is this quote from the Caro article posted above is spot on: Whether or not you agree with the decision to sack Simon Goodwin, it cannot be disputed that he coached in often challenging and occasionally untenable conditions. Board discord has punctuated the past six seasons, including 2021 when Goodwin coached the club to its first flag in almost six decades. Surely the next coach will be spared that distraction.