deelusions from afar

That all makes sense. I guess what I'm wondering though is whether we are taking a similar approach to our shift in centre bounce strategy a few years back eg where we're not as concerned about winning them as we used to be - it's more about winning them well when we do and (ideally) preventing the opposition from winning them well. Ie scoring opportunities rather than hack kicks. To apply this to turnovers, of course we want turnovers in our F50 through intercepts / tackle pressure etc but have we realised that we are more likely to score from turnovers we get at halfback rather than half forward? And if so, have we rejigged things so that that's what happens?

Don't know if there's a link somewhere but thought the comments Joe Montanga made on 360 last night about us was interesting. Essentially we've gone from being in the top bracket to about 12th in terms of forward half turnovers in the last few weeks. And at the same time our scoring has lifted as we know. I've thought this since seeing how Collinwood played us last year - they look so good on turnover as 80% of the players on the field are in our forwardline and then they have an open field to work with on the turnover. If we force turnovers in the front half, we still have to work through the opposition's defence which is largely in place which is so much harder. I know Montagna and King can get caught up in meaningless stats but it was interesting to see the shift. My questions for @binman and the rest of the brains trust are: 1. Is this shift deliberate (or does it say more about our opponents the last few weeks)? 2. If it is deliberate (I think it is), why has it taken us this long to work it out - wasn't this obvious last year? 3. How much of this approach is reliant on Gawn being down the line. I.e does it still work with Grundy in the team? Has this occurred because Grundy is not in the team? 3. Does this shift mean we are more vulnerable in defence? Statistically the last few weeks would say that is correct. But I actually think if we are aiming to get turnovers further back, it probably makes us harder to score against (particularly) for teams that are skilled at kicking through the hard forward press. I feel like last year we tried this but often ran out of gas to keep it going for the full game.

I think what we do know is that Jason Taylor and co are very prepared to go all in to get the player they want - Apparently offering 3 first round picks for Humfrey last year. Haven't watched him closely this year but he has had enormous impact in the games I have seen for a first year player. The fact that we have so much currency gives us far greater chance at getting the player/s JT want - whether that be Reid or others.

I think if you're serious Grundy needs more weeks in the VFL - are we wanting him to genuinely work on his forward craft / impact forward of the ball or just wanting to get a media headline? I actually think BBB was ok yesterday. We got a lot of goals from people leading in the space behind him - I have a feeling that JVR / Smith / Petty wouldn't be able to create this at the moment. I think Smith as the sub is the perfect option for Brown in the last quarter when we need more run / pressure. We did a similar thing against Sydney earlier in the year (Brown kicked a few and then was subbed out I think injured). Obviously that plan doesn't work if we get an injury. For me Goody / the FD don't trust a forwardline lead by Smith / JVR. They want one of Brown or Grundy in the mix. As good as JVR is, he's essentially in his first season. He's great when he's allowed to run and jump but no top 4 team is going to allow him to do that.

Wow! I thought he was a sure thing to move on at the end of the year... seems like he has unfinished business with this group!

All on their day will trouble us and we can't realistically be "on" every week. I think Nank being out for the Tigers is a big plus and potentially McKay, Silvagni and Walsh will help significantly against the blues. We should be able to beat them anyway but a few % off and any of these teams can make you look second rate. I think the Sydney game (particularly if they have finals on the line or if it's Buddy's last game) will be tough. Sydney and Longmire's coaching seems to have the edge on us in recent times. I know we beat them convincingly earlier this year, but we piled on the goals late in the last. Late in the third they had us in all sorts (reminded me of many games at the back end of last year) - but on this occasion a few things went our way and we ran away with it.

This is such a tough decision - I keep on going back and forth about whether we go all in on Harley or whether we draft 2 top 10 talents (or essentially take 3 first rounders). It's doing my head in.... And isn't that a beautiful thing! (particularly while we are also sitting in the top 4 heading into finals - and have either beaten or gone within a kick for everyone above us)

Sorry - my comment was more of a joke than actually thinking he'd be in contention for an AA. But yes if he played like that the next 6 games then I guess he could be a shot.

Agree - as much as I'd love to get the GC pick, surely other clubs will be better placed to offer them a deal.

They just want to make sure Max doesn't miss out on his AA guernsey. He'll lock that away the next few weeks while Grundy is in the VFL working on forward craft - and then they'll play together in the finals.

I couldn't help myself seeing how Freo fans are coping on BF (I know I know). One of them had written on their "vent here" thread: "Who would of though after a decent year where we win 15 games and a final that we would sink to the same old [censored] we’re used to the year after." I wanted to reply with "Melbourne?" but just thought its rubbing too much salt into the wound.

Hard to know from the outside but I actually think they are improving and he's a bit unlucky. Most developing sides struggle away from home but they have shown their best can mix it with the best (and they have lots of talent coming through). Surely they want to pounce on hardwick after regretting not being in the race for Clarkson last year. He'll need a break but if Dew is interested in being an assistant we should definitely look into it - surely we won't have the same coaching group next year. His close relationship with many of the suns players wouldn't go astray either!

Obviously for Clayton (and Petty / Bowser) to make it in we need to drop some player so maybe Spargo is on the chopping block. But I find it incredible that so many posters saying one of Spargo / ANB / Chandler / Kozzie need to be dropped. They may not have kicked goals but that isn't their role in the team - it is providing the pressure (17 I50 tackles compared to the pies 4) which means the opposition can't exit the defence. This is probably the most crucial aspect of our gameplan as everything falls into place once we're doing this well. We have been elite in this aspect of the game the last two week - and posters here want to change it up? I'd rather tell Bowey and Petty they need to come back through the VFL than be messing with our current forward mix. And maybe it's Sparrow / Brayshaw that need to make way for Clarrie? Most likely injuries will occur so all of these players will get their shot in any case... but the defensive pressure created by our small forwards is so underrated on this site.

Yes it's good to have depth - the best teams always have some good players miss out. Bowey was finding some of his best form prior to getting concussed. He might have to come back through the VFL as I can't see anyone in the backline being dropped. If Tomlinson and Smith can hold this form (and potentially grow it with some confidence) then Petty might be in the same boat! But it's a long season - would be very surprised if Petty isn't in the side by the end of the year.

Fair enough - I guess I remember (all too well) how we attacked them early when we played them the second time round last year. Our pressure was elite with so many turnovers in the forward half - we really should have put more goals on the board. But from half way in the 3rd and most of the 4th they got us time and time again on turnover going the length of the field in waves. We looked gassed and their foot skills (and Johnson's straight kicking for goal) carved us up. Arguably our fitness levels had dropped off (and a few key players were carrying things) - but I think part of the issue is we went soo hard with the forward pressure in the first half we couldn't keep going in the second. Re Max and Grundy, his points make sense and he might be right (in giving Gawn more like 80% ruck time and Grundy on Moore). But my hesitation is based on three things: 1. Gawn may be more effective in the ruck (particularly as he can double as the spare defender). But is the difference he provides more than what you lose in the forward half? I.e. If Gawn's value as Ruck / extra man in defence is 9 and Grundy in the ruck is 8 (just for arguments sake), what are Gawn / Grundy's value as forwards? I'd probably have them as 7 and 4 respectively. It is easy to say give more ruck time to Gawn - but what gives the best cumulative value for the team? 2. The idea that Grundy can keep Moore busy is laughable in my view (very happy to be proven wrong though). Grundy has surprised many with what he has shown as a forward - he hasn't been bad at all. But for mine he's done the most damage when he hasn't had someone close checking him / against poorer teams. He's a smart footballer - but he has played 90% of his career in the ruck. The idea that he can come in and know how to get Moore (the best defender in the comp this year) to follow him into spaces he doesn't want to go is a stretch. I can't see Moore being too worried about Grundy. I guess it comes down to us using Grundy (or whoever is on Moore) at every opportunity 3. From what I've seen, Gawn doesn't seem 100%. He's giving it his all but isn't quite there. I suspect that is why he has spent more time forward since returning from injury. However, last week he got more time on the ball in the last quarter and seemed to show he had his touch back with a number of contested marks and the big goal - hopefully he can go up another level this week. But would be very surprised to see him play 80% ruck time... especially against Cox who caused his injury last year.

Listened to this as well @Demon Dynasty and this is not a slight on you - but I found Sando's comments to be pretty vanilla. Things like no kicking ball inside 50 until 70 out or dialing up the forward pressure... does Sando really think that our game plan would be anything else? We want the forward pressure dialed up every week (as every team does). And launching into F50 from further out generally means you're under a lot of pressure. Similar re Moore - just like for May / Lever, every team needs a plan. Just because you have a plan, doesn't mean it will work. I think Gawn is the only player that would worry Moore in the air (provided the pies don't allow JVR to get a clean run at it). Win contested ball and clearance - of course we want to win it. But it's more what you do with it / whether we can get turnovers from when they win it.

I'd be interested to know how much of a say he has with our kick in (or is it kick out?) strategies. For example, we typically go to the left pocket to the ruckman (has been less rigid this year) - this is obviously the percentage play but is part of it so that we are best setup doing this if the opposition manage to force a turnover. And as a follow up, how has the addition of Hunter impacted our approach to moving the ball from our defence.

I want to agree with them too. But until I see it against a decent side I won't be convinced. Carlton were undermanned and low on confidence and so definitely not a decent side. Having said that, I think they played a lot better on Friday than in a lot of their losses (And McKay kicked some decent goals which he hasn't done recently). But their game style suits us. They weren't aggressive / creative in their ball use from the D50 and so we had the game on our terms. If we kicked straight (like we did earlier in the season) it would have been a shellacking. I don't mind most of the media not realising this. However, the way Collingwood and Carlton move the ball couldn't be more different - so we're kidding ourselves if we think we'll be able to get anywhere near the same amount of forward half turnovers against the pies. Collingwood's ball movement troubles most teams - I am hoping the work we have done over summer reaps the rewards. By this I mean: Having tall forwards in the forward line that have some mongrel and make a contest (in the air AND when the ball hits the ground). Last year Brown was hampered and TMac was injured and Jackson was out of form. For this reason I would be very surprised if Schache gets in ahead of Smith on the weekend. I think they also like having a forward with experience playing in our defence in the team (eg TMac, Petty or Smith with Petty the preference). Playing a shorter defence - since shifting Petty forward, it seems the match committee's preference to go smaller in defence (May, Lever, Hibbo). I suspect this is because they know we need to be more agile / mobile back there (as much as many supporters don't like it). Thomlinson was back last week to play the difficult role on McKay (which I think he did ok). However, with Hibbo back, I suspect Thomlinson will be out. We've mixed up the centre bounce rotations for the 1st half of the season - is this to ease the load on Oliver, Petracca and Viney for the end of the season? Or is it to develop the team? Will be interesting to see if they 'flick the switch' and give Trac, Clarry and Vines more time for this game or stick to the same approach. I want us to win this match so badly... and there were plenty of promising signs on Friday night. However I think the pies have our measure and I haven't seen enough of a shift in what we do to be convinced we can counter their 'all duck no dinner' approach (would LOVE to be proven wrong though).

Out of interest did he play his junior footy as a defender? Is he someone that will look to play further up the ground in time? Loving what he is doing

I actually reckon it will be TMac. I think they will be concerned that if one of May / Lever goes down we wouldn't have anyone else that can be shifted back with Petty out. Or would they give Smith a go given he can (apparently) play at both ends.

Until we can prove we can continue to do this against genuine top 8 sides, I think (unfortunately) Collingwood are deservedly the yardstick. We're yet to beat anyone of note and have had two slip-ups. Collinwood have had one of the same slip ups (though arguably Bris in Bris is just a very tough game)... but they've also beaten 4 sides in the top 8 versus our 1. I hate collinwood with a passion but they deserve to be the favourites at this point in time in my view. Still plenty of time for us to improve - I think we can already see that a number of our key deficiencies from last year are being worked on which should stand us in good stead for the back half of the year - e.g: not taxing our stars more than needed (eg more rotations in centre bounce) playing most in-form key forwards with added emphasis on those that will compete when the ball is in the air AND on the ground rewarding good VFL form and the kids that deserve a crack (JVR, McVee, Chandler). By extension this means that best 22 players from the 2021 GF are not walk up starts anymore if not 100% and in form. game style flexibility - two wingers and two genuine ruckman mean we are less predictable with what was previously defensive v fat side wing setup. The setup means we can take the game on more and score easier... but it also means that our defence is under more pressure and will inevitably concede more. Incidentally all the ppl saying May is off I think are forgetting that the tweaks to our game plan mean that our defence is under more pressure. I think this is ok if our aggressive attack is able to work against decent sides. We're about to have our audit!

As I said on another thread I hope this kind of commentary is right.... but our (limited) record against sides in contention isn't great so far this season - next 4-6 weeks will give us a proper indication of where we're at. All these stats are great but 7 of our first 9 games were against teams in the bottom 9 including 3 against the bottom 3 so of course it's going to look good on paper. Big game Friday night v port!

Dogs round 1 were believing in the 4-headed forward monster (Naughton, UH, Lobb and Darcy). I don't think it's been tried since. They also were missing all their small crumbing forwards. I'm not saying we wouldn't beat the dogs if we played now... but I think they have made a few structural personnel changes which have improved them. Sydney round 3 was arguably our best win of the year... but due to their subsequent injuries they haven't really got going and now look to be facing an uphill battle to make the 8. They've only got 3 wins (Rich, GC and Haw). They may still get it together, but they don't seem close to the side they were last year. The ladder is still sorting itself out but against the top 10, we are 1 W and 2 L (As a point of comparison the pies against the same top 10 are 5 W and 1 L). That's ok - we've got plenty of room to improve and premierships are not won in May... but I think we have to be careful reading too much into these stats when we haven't played (m)any teams of note in 2023.

This has been really interesting and heartwarming to read. BUUUUT... for mine we are too early in the season to get a proper gauge. In my view we got the dogs at the best time. We've beaten Sydney but they are not the team they were last year. We lost to Essendon and Bris - everyone drops some but who have we beaten really? I rate the suns (up there) but it will be an uphill battle for them making the finals. Of course we're kicking more goals and different ways - we're not playing the contenders. But they're coming up over the next 6-7 rounds.

Wow AI is getting quite good... I didn't know GC had any supporters!