Demon Dynasty

Not sure about that Dr. Anytime you're going into give your opponent a +2 In their forward line you are running a big risk If you turn the ball over In mid field or HB. Even If the +2 are Initially pushed wide to avoid the diamond (Ie, away from the hot spot as Intended) they will find ways to exploit It on the way back just as Port did multiple times on Saturday. Let's hope we dont use the diamond against the Hawks. Generally considered the best by foot the outcome could be even more horrendous. With no genuine KPF they rely heavily on Gunston, Puopolo and Cyril to run Into space or crumb and goal also In the case of the latter 2. Giving them the added advantage of the extra space and a +2 up forward would be like giving Usain Bolt a 10 meter head start.

You would need to watch a decent amount of behind the goal footage or observe the game from a fair height to know how often/when it's being used Dr. Unfortunately none of us are privy to any behind the goal footage so may i suggest grabbing a top tier seat at your next game. Then you can let us all know! My understanding is that it's used at some center bounces, whether we retain a similar structure and roll it up the field if we gain possession who knows. Others may have observed details of this from behind the goals in some matches? As we all know if the ball is turned over quickly at HF or higher and it's transistioned quickly back in to the opps forward line, and if the 2 flankers pushing up aren't able to recover quickly enough and/or find a man quickly enough, then we are toast. In addition the 2 forwards that are on their own from the opposition (4 v 6 in their forward line) are effectively able to roam and do as they wish. Again potentially setting us up for a horrid result if we don't win first clearance at the center or a there's an easy turnover clearance in the mid field or slightly forward of mid as we attack. Personally i would just prefer the old +1 being thrown into the middle off HB (randomly) giving our opponent only one extra up forward rather than 2 and hope that a disciplined zone/quality defence can handle the extra on most occasions, provided there's decent pressure forward and through the middle when we turn the ball over. Allowing them 2 extra is just too gung ho IMO.

If Dunn was an option he should have been played ahead of Omac agreed. But like some d'landers, you are jumping at too many assumptions and conclusions of my views based on your view of things, not the actual view/argument put forward by the poster you are rebutting. My expectations are very realistic when young blokes are in the mix and as i have said on many occasions in other posts, that where we have no choice (or by choice, whichever it might be), if the club decides or has to play a very young/inexperienced backline, then don't ask too much of them in terms of the complexity/layers of defensive rules/game style/method. As stated earlier i feel the KISS principle needs to increase in importance and practice as you inject more and more inexperience/youth. Further complexity/layers added as you inject more experience. In effect i am actually defending the youth who are playing by suggesting they not be 'overloaded' with too much too soon. The argument as to whether i think some individual rookies new to the scene are up to the fight or not, is a completely different one to that of the club's injection of 'youth as a whole' team wise.

Paul does this mean you're a clairvoyant and have seen the result from this round already? ~ Concerned Demon tragic

Man U seem to like being punished and beaten up. A stint In our backline should be right up your alley !

I think most are In agreement on the mids/forwards maintaining reasonable pressure In order to assist the defence In setting up Dr. But the back half also needs to be able to defend quick kicks out of the center bounce effectively also as well as quick transition entries that will occur from time to time regardless of how good forwards/mIds Implement the forward press/& Zone. The success of any defence Is also a reflection of Its depth/experience and quality along with the the points you mentioned.

A mid season draft.... preferrably In the next few weeks. Is Taylor avaIlable? Pretty sure BZ Isnt adverse to playing youngsters Chris, just as I aren't. More the amount of them In the squad (especially down back/mid field) at any one time. Sometimes we have no choice. I get that

Not at all Chris. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Im happy for some youngsters to be playing and remain In the team provided they perform to whatever standard the FD Is setting and some sort of reasonable standard generally. I never said 'youngsters'. I mentioned 2 players who make me shudder when I see them picked In our backline. One Is a veteran of over 140 games and nearly 10 seasons of footy. If we have absolutely no seasoned options and we have no other obvious choice then I guess Omac It Is but he Is way off being at an acceptable level at this point IMO

Pretty sure they wont SW

Whenever I see the likes of a Garland/Omac (Or worse...BOTH!) In line up In Defence BZ I shudder at what the likely result might be down back. In the short term we need to see Pedo / H back In for Garlo & Omac If/when fit. As others have said we will still bleed If the team defence Is failing up forward / mid field but at least these guys can read play and Intercept a little better (Pedo) and H attacks like a mad pony when he gets It. Not the greatest one on one though. Still a better option IMO than the former two though. The pressure/organisation still needs to happen up forward/mid field also as others have said If our D Is to have a fair chance to do their thing.

Thats why we need an Injection of experience Dr. I would be throwing H In there for now whenever he's available, not Omac...too raw. Would love to get my hands on Harry Taylor!

Nearly forgot one very important requirement in last post. Leadership/character also needed in defense with any future recruit of experienced player. This is why I believe H is a must selection in this team if/when fit. Might not be the greatest player but he is the most experienced defender we have going atmand a premiership one. He knows more than most how to organise and rally and where players shld be at any given time etc. Invaluable and something that cant be measured with stats.

I dont think that's harsh so much as reality Chris. Personally I believe the next draft needs to be more weighted towardz getting some more experience Into the backline but also the ability to Intercept mark, transistion quickly and hit targets by foot. Not asking for much eh

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?