Demon Dynasty

Solid stuff Mr T

A fantastic post and point goodoil. Intercept marking and kicking efficiency to our advantage after that mark, along with quick ball movement through a press, Is exactly what coaches are seeking In today's defensive line ups. No doubt this Is partly why Bucks and his list ppl decided to go after Howe. While he Is far from being a great option at all of those skills I would argue he was a better one than say a Garland or a Dunn for Intercept marking. I realise we got Ben Ken (and picks 29,50 from Power) with the trade but he hasnt exactly set the world on fire either....yet. The game appears to have moved beyond the latter two players now so not sure what our thinking was when re-signing. Unfortunately though you also only want a player If he wants to be at the club. Not sure Howe was fully committed In his last year with us and had already moved on.

I know what the graph is and it is also referred to as the "Hot Plot" graph. It was produced by Champion Data and initially used by Foxtel to highlight where teams were at, supposedly in a premiership window sense. This side of the graph (premiership window champion data hot plot overlay) can also be argued against and has.....see link below.... http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/05/19/debunking-the-afl-premiership-indicator/ You can dress it up as much as you like but the X Axis is a relative measure of our average points against per game. It doesn't matter that the data is presented in a Champion Data "Premiership Window" overlay showing the combination of Points Against (X)/Points For (Y) graph. It still contains data which you happily (and accurately) used to argue that a portion of that graph showed us in the top tier offensively (Y axis) ranked 3rd. The X Axis showing 'average points against' per game clearly shows we are ranked 13th in front of Richmond, Essendon, Freemantle, Gold Coast and Brisbane who are further to the right (along the X axis) than us. If sub AFL standard is the average or mid point of those teams ie., 9th/10th then we are certainly below that mid point (standard). If you can use the same graph to debunk SWY's theory that we are not Sub AFL standard defensively, and offensively we are in the 'top tier' (ie., singling out the Y axis part for 'average points for'), then it is also perfectly fine for someone to use the same graph to show that we are sub AFL standard (ie., below average/sub par @ 13th) defensively. I refer back to my initial post countering your claim against SWY. He was in fact correct in his statement.

Only wish i had your optimism Wise. I fear it will take more than a few frank discussions or a week of training focus on defensive issues to turn this leaky boat around. Especially against the like of the Hawks who are well ahead of most clubs, including Port, on the quick/efficient ball moving front out of (and through) defense. Not saying we won't improve a little but i cant see us keeping this to anything but a loss of 6 to 8 goals (at best). We would need an amazing turn around (as usual) on the previous week, which would be quite possible against lessor lights but highly unlikely against this mob. If we could only string a few wins together (when the opportunity arises) there wouldn't be this constant pressure to perform the following week, and even more so against top line opposition. Boys might finally breathe a little easier and let loose, finally starting to win these ones occasionaly. But nope, we flail every week from a win to a loss, a win, consecutive losses and on it goes. When you say "making amends" what do you see as making amends this week?

Thanks Titan, but I used it to highlight our defense ranking only (it was meant to remain simple!) as that is what the initial poster was arguing about with SWY and used the graph (that simply!) to highlight our "offensive ranking" in the "top tier" (quote). Yes i realise it can also be used to plot where teams are at in terms of a "likely" premiership window with the quadrants of standard/not standard etc as you mentioned which is an overlay courtesy of Champion Data. In addition, if the exact numbers were available, you could give an exact differential or % as you say. But it is/can also be used as a basic scatter plot (X/Y graph) using scoring (for and against) averages per match in any given period to show where teams are ranked vs one another as i did in my response to the poster (X or Y for rankings and/or X&Y together if using the Champion Data premiership window option as is the case with this overlay from Champion). The nature in which this graph was used by another d'lander in his initial post (not mine) was for the purposes of ranking us offensively vs the rest of the AFL. I did the same but used it to rank our defence. The fact that i put a number on the ranking on the plot does not alter the fact that it can be used to determine our overall (% and/or premiership window) ranking as you say by combining/using both the axis.

Again you are mis-quoting him. SWY said we were "sub-standard AFL defensively". A premiership is the aim of the entire game Gonzo. If we aren't aiming for one we shouldn't be in the AFL. Yes, the graph you presented is a "likely premiership window" graph but it is also an X/Y Defence/Attack variables/ranking/plot graph, which you used in support of where we were ranked offensively (quote "Note - we are comfortably in the top tier of clubs offensively to date this season") in your argument against SWY. There was no mention of this graph (by you) of it being a solely "premiership standard" graph (only!) to support your argument and your reference to the graph highlighted where we are 'ranked' in attack. If it can be used by you to highlight our 'offensive' (top tier) ranking then there is no reason why it can't equally be applied to highlight where we are ranked defensively. Again, the graph you supplied shows us as ranked 13th in defense which is Sub-standard (vs the rest of the AFL) 'defensively' and, as you argued, above standard or top tier (vs the rest of the AFL) offensively (ranked approx 3rd!).

Whilst I agree wIth much of these points buck, when u say any type/style of zone D (Or defensive style/structure), my personal view Is that more simple ones are less likely to be broken down so easily given the ability (or Inability) of 'some' players to grasp/execute zones/defensive structures that are more complex. Especially those new to the game who are still learning "how to play/Execute/Hone their skills etc" (Not saying all newbies or even all seasoned players are Incapable/capable either) let alone complex zones/defensive structures. More complex/more layered Ds might be more suited to clubs with a more experienced/settled/more skilled list. Who knows, some (or one) may even be using a Diamond D (combination man on man/rolling zone diamond/forward press etc) and doing so successfully. Or they may not and might be using some other variant thru the mid/behind the main press. What we do know Is we have the youngest/least experienced team going around at present (or equal to). Under that circumstance I would reckon the KISS principle has to be a pretty solid starting point regardless. Having said that I totally agree that any style of D that tries to lock the ball In to a forward half of the field and score Is hard to execute effectively If a few (or more) arent capable or willing to apply the desired effort on any given day.

Gonzo before you jump on the attack could you please at least be a little more accurate when quoting people here. Never said "zones" should be banned. Never said we should go 18 player "man on man" either. What I said was If we are using a new style of zone as most are claiming (Diamond D) then based on results so far (10 rounds Is a fair sample), It Is failing badly and based on those results It should be scrapped. Happy to revert to a more traditional zone/man on man combo that the clubs you mentioned (and more than likely most others) would probably have used a few years ago and are still using (albeit with various tweeks of course) In today's game. I cant say for certain but I doubt any club would be using one or the other In Isolation In the AFL today.

*presently ranked.....13th defensively. Even if we went more conservative and took the par/pass mark as 10th, we are still below/sub par defensively according to that graph. *Phone drop out grrr!

Gonzo that graph actually supports SW's argument that we are defensively sub standard. If we take mid point as AFL average (eg, lets say up to par/pass mark) and lets just say the mid point for a pass/par Is 9th as we have an even number of teams. The Demons are presently ranked

7 or more I mean!

Based on those excellent comparative stats from your good self, he Is one greedy man Pro! (GA ave of 0.7 vs 1). Also when was the last time a Demon forward (other than Hulk...I think In his 7 goal effort earlier this season) took 7 marks Inside 50? Neita maybe?

Cant edit on phones lol! That's "Won" and "no" 2nd string tall forward :-S

West coast are Domain bullies. Havent won away from home since Rnd 16 last year against a mediocre Pies outfit who we also beat 2 weeks later. Most teams are smashing the lions away from home, Including us by over 10 goals In Rnd 9. I would hardly be hanging my hat on those 2 results as justifaction as to why we performed so poorly. I have no qualms with playing the kids, just not so many at the one time, especially In defence. We look like millionaires when they (and the more seasoned players) are on. But when a few too many of them are off on the day the result Is usually a shocker/blow out. Roos said he regrets not having the courage to stand by his earlier decision to rest more youngsters from the week before. We paid the price for that lack of courage/Indecision. Not saying we wld have one had he bitten the bullet either but the result may have been much closer or maybe an over the line result. Power also have no recognised ruckman atm and pretty much only one key avenue to goal In Dixon with 2nd string tall. Some quality smalls yes but they were as vulnerable as you would have gotten them In the last year or so, hence the dissapointment from many on here with the nature of the loss.

By an out of form team who had been beaten soundly In their prevIous 2 matches. Some on here seem think we were playing the Eagles, Swans or Hawks etc. They were struggling prior to meeting us. It's how "we" played/lost and the effort on the day that has many on here [censored]. I have news for all the marshmallows on here who seem to suck up a loss like that like they were at a teddy bear's picnic looking and finding berty beatles... look again before eating as It just might be a big Dog's polly waffle with a very mediocre aftertaste!

get rid of the DIAMOND D and It will be a quick fix!

I remember similar zoning/witches hat defencIve styles/horror results under MN and he was slammed for It and rightly so. Similar results this time around yet some are arguing 'For' It to be given a fair go. Any solid defensive style Is solid because It holds up well when It'ssupposed to Ie; under severe pressure. This one doesnt hold under any pressure! DUMP THE DIAMOND AND START WINNING MORE GAMES!

DIAMOND I thought you of all landers wld know all about this

So on that basis the Blues passed with flying colors (against the premiership favourites and a seasoned opposition) on Sunday yes?

Too Many BallGazers Get thefckn pill! Play like MenPossesedFromTheGetGo! Scrap the DD! No More DaddyDayCareDefences Play likeyougivea [censored]! Stop leavingsomuchto Jack! Play Vince MidFieldMore! (See above!) Bring Back Clarry! (Viney... Shyte! 4 weeks! we're screwed!) Bring Back Dunny (Garland) Bring Back Trenners! (ANB) Bring Backa3rd TallForward (who can also rest Big M in Ruck...Dawes/Pedo for Kent) Bring back Pedo (O'Mac)

2 major issues Jnr A multi-method defence is too much to ask of so many young rookies still just learning "how to play". If we insist on playing rookies down back don't play moving zones/diamonds/blah blah. KISS principle pls unless playing a more seasoned line up in defence. Then by all means go for it. When we have beaten solid mid fields in the past we have done so by rolling our 3 major King pins through their for the bulk of their TOG during matches. Jones, Vince & Viney. Add Clarry to these 3 plus some cameos from fringe mids and we start getting more clearances/first use and tend to win or go much closer to winning even against serious opposition mids. For some reason after round 1 or 2 (or was it from the get go this season?) we have decided to use Vince in a bigger role across HB and kicking in. It is no coincidence IMO that our mid field dominance has wained as a result (along with Clarry's omissions when they have hit us).

Wise as a club we are also unmatched by any mother club In terms of raising supporter's hopes one week only to dash them the next. That might help to explain this mystery a little :-))

Yes please. And Trenners for ANB

Hogan needs a new kicking leg agreed. But he alone did not cost us the game yesterday. Still much to learn, played from behind (not alone) too often but worked hard and even pushed up the ground at times. His contested marks I50 were some of the few times the ball remained In our 50 for more than 20 or 30 sec. Thought he was one of our (few) best players on the day

And potentially make a key forward who kIcked the bulk of their goals less effective. Our forward line also provided almost zero pressure which didnt help to limit Port's easy run and transition off HB for quick entry I50. Allowed many one on one contests and easy hit ups through the now maligned and flawed diamond zone. Easy pickings. Poor coaching all round.