binman

That's not my theory behind backing the lions. I knew the lions would be running over the ground in their third game after their bye. The lions are a much better side than the sainsts (who, by the by, had their bye three weeks ago so should also not be fatgued). And the docklands doesn't expose their lack of pace like the G. The lions should have been shorter odds in my opinion - and the main reason they weren't is their post bye performance against the hawks I rarely back the win, almost always the line, and my assessment was minus five points line @ 1.90 represented excellent value. Similarly, the minus five points line @ 1.90 for freo tommorow night against the bombers also represents excellent value - because they were so poor against the giants due to fatigue. In fact it is probably even better value than the lions bet - freo are playing their second post match ground (and like the lions will be running on top of the ground) and the bombers are coming off their bye.

Oh, wow. Color me shocked. Lions look so much more energised this week. So much more run. It's like they are a completely different team to the listless lions that limped to loss against the hawks. Just an off game last week I guess. Glad I backed them

I'm going to avoid DL for a few days, and footy media too, because it will just irritate me as there will be little, if any consideration of the single most important factor in the loss - fatigue as result of a heavy block of training. If the fatigue from loading is not factored in, any related analysis is of little value to be honest. I said ahead of the game that a win would be a bonus. Predicted a loss actually. And the game played out exactly as i expected it would. I haven't listened to Goody's presser yet, but if he said the effort was good, i'd agree. The effort was really good in the last q too. Why? Because the players were so obviously completely out of gas. Look at the drop off in any relevant stat to see evidence of that - CPs, inside 50, time in forward half, kms run etc etc. But perhaps the most compelling indicator of the impact of fatigue is the pressure ratings, and our incredible drop off in the last quarter (180 is considered AFL average, and 200 elite): Team pressure Quarter For Against 1 183 206 2 224 175 3 214 197 4 163 204 Match 196 196 To only lose by 15 in the end was a really gutsy performance. Compare it to the capitulation by Lions (v Hawks) in their post-match bye when fatigue was also clearly the most critical factor or Freo's shellacking by Giants last week, when fatigue was again the key factor, as it was in their post bye loss to the tigers). Or perhaps a more direct example. Like us last night, the Cats were coming of their bye last week against Port. Meaning, the Cats (who acknowledged last year they copied our approach to loading) had just completed a block of heavy training and were fatigued as a result. Halfway through the second q the Cats had a 20-point lead and were playing a tough, physical brand of football. They started to fade after that point but got to half time with a 7-point lead. In the second half the Cats completely ran out of gas. After half time Port: outscored the Cats by 45 points (11.6.72 to 4.3.27) smashed the Cats at stoppages 26 to 9 scored 6.1.37 to 1.0.6 from stoppages (31 points more from stoppages in a half of footy is nuts - it is only 7 points less than the final margin). Ultimately, after leading at half time, the Cats, who unsurprisingly ran out the game better than us last night, capitulated and ended up losing by six plus goals (38 points). Like the Cats, Lions and Freo, we had zero run in the legs and so could not spread or run in waves to create separation, options up or properly cover the Cats' spread. But unlike the Cats, Lions and Freo we kept grinding and fought hard for every contest. What do people think Scott meant when he said ahead of the game that this was a 'good time' to play the dees? Perhaps some might say he was referencing the bye (because surprise, surprise, every team has lost after the bye, bar the Saints, who beat the Swans - who were coming off a bye. I mean really, what do people think is the cause of teams not being competitive after their bye? Coincidence? A statistical anomaly? Please). Well, yes, he may well have meant that. But not because the bye has some magical, mystical losing quality. But because he knows the dees had gone hard on the track to get their foundation down for September. Which, speaking of Scott, is exactly what he was talking about this time last year when talking about the training program, ours, they had adopted. Scott said if their training program meant they lost games they otherwise might have won, and didn't make the 8 as a result, then so be it - it was a risk worth taking because going hard now is the only way to have a realistic chance of winning the flag. Those comments apply to us - and all other contenders for that matter. Some might push back and say, well you can't win the flag if you don't finish top 4. And that is true (save an outlier result). But it is a calculated gamble. We are no risk of not making the 8, but we could drop out of the top 4. But like Scott's calculation, it is about the best chance of winning a flag not finishing top 4 (by the by, @Stu made an interesting point in the podcast chat room wondering if Hinkley has eschewed loading to the extent other clubs have to maximise their chance of winning individual games and shore up his position). And when assessing the risk, they will have looked at the ladder and our fixture and landed on it being very likely we finish the home and away season top 4. In fact, I'm tipping we won't drop out of the top 4 at point for the rest of the season (we can't go drop out this week thanks to our percentage).

Yes - and i have zero doubt it is because of fatigue (accumulative and increased load).

That is so brilliant wheelo. I love the layout. I will def have think if there is anything that could be added, but it looks super comprehensive. I was actually going to ask if you could include some of the stats under the key stats header because for the podcast i have been taking the numbers you have post in this tread, and toggle across to your home page to create a list that includes CPs, meters gained and inside 50s (i didn't ask coz i figured you spent enough time helping me out!). So massive thanks. The three key stat for mine in terms of understanding this game is scores from turnover, time in forward half and most of all the remarkable drop off in our pressure ratings in the last q - we were totally cooked. And we did brilliantly to avoid a blowout.

Time for a double shot latte. And game time. See you on the other side Demonlanders. Go redlegs.

I wouldn't characterise it as flip flopping. It has changed a bit, but that is par for the course with betting markets, but had remained close to even money - we were slight favs and now they are. Personally I think the current odds (cats 1.88 dees 1.92) are pretty close to th3 true odds. The late support for the cats might perhaps a late out for the dees (that the sort of inside info that can result in the pros jumping in)

My theory is Petty will play forward, Gus back and they run with only two talls down back. But i concede the more likely scenario is that Petts will play back (and if so it makes the dropping Tomo les an issue as few would argue Pety is the better option in defence, even with Tomo's form last week). If i'm right, Tomo comes back in next week as a defender and Petts remains a forward. Not sure where that leaves Smith. If i'm wrong, and Petts plays back tonight, he goes forward nect week and Tomo comes back in to play down back. Again, not sure where that leaves Smith. On Smith, i have a feeling that they might try to engineer a scenario where he remains in the side, even with Petty (or Tmac, or Brown) as a third tall. Maybe a hybrid tall medium.

Geelong and Surf Coast area Cloudy. Very high chance of showers, most likely late this afternoon and evening. Light winds becoming northeasterly 15 to 25 km/h in the morning. 25% chance of at least 7mm

No, i 100% agree Tomo is very unlucky to be dropped. I think he had his best game at the club last week, and if i was giving Brownlow votes i would have given him a vote. My guess is he will come back in for the Giants game next week.

Load management (for both Spargo and JJ) would be my guess

On criticisms of our selection this week, I think it's worth noting that at this point in the season last year, there were MANY posters who were strident in their criticism of our selection policy. The key criticisms were that goody was too rigid, too stubborn, should be taking a squad mentality, should pick a team for the conditions and opposition and should be more creative. Seems to me those criticisms are not valid this season, and certainly not this week. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

No it wouldn't - in fact quite the contrary. I thought (and wrote on DL) exactly the same thing about spargo a few weeks back when he wasn't selected after he had completed the concussion protocols - ie they were giving him another week off to make sure he was right. He was then selected for Casey. And I wrote words to the effect of, well there goes that theory. Spargs was selected in the ones the following week. In the lead up to that game, goody was asked about spargo coming back via the twos. Paraphrasing, goody said they wanted to be extra cautious and the vfl is lower intensity and less risk, so a better option to manage his return.

No sure what you mean by apparently old, but no, we won't be marking it in our forward line either. We will bringing it to ground with our talls.

Exactly. The key difference is the pies' defensive line pushing up and not having a goal keeper. And they take more risks. I think those two differences, which are interconnected, are also their biggest vulnerabilities. All duck no dinner.

Cold, wet night, narrow ground and crowded D50. Hardly any marks will be taken, offensively or defensively, and the ball will be on the deck most of the night. The conditions make a third tall less critical. Gus can play back and we can run with three talls up forward (Petty, Smith and JVR) - and perhaps give Max and brodie more bench time.

I reckon petty will play forward, as will Smith, taking spargo's role Gus plays back, with Spargo, who looks like he needs a spell as sub. If super wet, sub spargo in for petty.

Which is true, in of itself. It wasn't the cause of our drop off but it was definitely one of several key factors.

Cameron is not that quick. I can't see Hibbos' pace being an issue. Personally, i think Cameron would carve Tomo.

Lever wont play on Cameron i wouldn't have thought. I think much more likely is hibbo or rivers given Cameron basically plays a flanker who gets up the ground, rather than a KPF. Lever can take Rohan if need be.

That would 100% be my guess too. Tomo would be very stiff to be dropped, but it might well be the oldest reason in footy to be dropped - no clear match up. I juts checked BOM and atm the forecast is for rain to start falling late arvo, and not stop till late evening. makes three tall defenders a risk i would have thought.

Half speed?

Come to a music festival with me and you might meet buzzing binman.

I haven't heard King say that. When did he bang on about that?

From the afl injury page (such that is): McStay has been ruled out of Sunday's game against Adelaide and will miss a few more weeks after suffering an infection in the finger he had surgery on back in April