Preview Changes vs Western Bulldogs - GRAND FINAL - Saturday, 25 September, 7:15pm AEST - NO CHANGE

[Lampers]

Hunt or Langdon?

Langdon is the obvious one who does have the endurance and speed to go with Smith. Hunt doesn’t have the endurance and 95% won’t be in the team anyway.

But I think Melbourne will just do their own thing and only if Smith is off the leash bother with changing what Melbourne want to do.

I’d expect Viney and Harmes to tag-team Liberatore in the same style as round 11. Then let the others go head to head and back in Oliver and Petracca against Bontempelli and McRae, with Langdon and Brayshaw starting defensive side of clearances and keeping an eye on Smith rather than running with him.

I’ve got a left field one. If they send a hard tag to Lever, Lever goes to a tall Dogs forward and swap with either May or Petty to play the loose interceptor role instead. Each of May and Petty are not as good at the role as Lever, but they are both very capable as that third man up.

 

[schmuttt]

Langdon is the obvious one who does have the endurance and speed to go with Smith. Hunt doesn’t have the endurance and 95% won’t be in the team anyway.

But I think Melbourne will just do their own thing and only if Smith is off the leash bother with changing what Melbourne want to do.

I’d expect Viney and Harmes to tag-team Liberatore in the same style as round 11. Then let the others go head to head and back in Oliver and Petracca against Bontempelli and McRae, with Langdon and Brayshaw starting defensive side of clearances and keeping an eye on Smith rather than running with him.

I’ve got a left field one. If they send a hard tag to Lever, Lever goes to a tall Dogs forward and swap with either May or Petty to play the loose interceptor role instead. Each of May and Petty are not as good at the role as Lever, but they are both very capable as that third man up.

The last bit wouldn't surprise me, May is a real weapon when he can play a bit looser as his kicking is much better than Levers (Who is a safe kick but not a damaging one).

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Worth basking in the emphatic prelim final win for a while yet, but nerves will kick in soon enough.

All about the midfield, can’t let their midfield get their contest and handball game up and running.

Gawn and Jackson have to give us the ability to set the game on our terms.

 

[GatesOfHell]

We need either ANB or Harmes to play a forward defensive shutdown role on Caleb Daniel

35

Caleb Daniel

Age

27

Ht

171cm

Wt

72kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.3

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

19.5

4star

K

11.1

4star

HB

8.4

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

CL

1.0

3star

D

16.4

4star

K

7.2

3star

HB

9.2

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.2

2star

. The little campaigner is too damaging to allow free reign to do as he pleases.

 

[RandB]

We need either ANB or Harmes to play a forward defensive shutdown role on Caleb Daniel. The little campaigner is too damaging to allow free reign to do as he pleases.

He's one of my worries too. Along with Bont, Smith and McRae.

 

[LeverPuller]

I don’t remember Daniel ripping us apart particularly in either game? We tend to play a pretty accountable forward group so it’s harder for him to cheat off into space.

 

[LarryDavidNeitz]

We need either ANB or Harmes to play a forward defensive shutdown role on Caleb Daniel. The little campaigner is too damaging to allow free reign to do as he pleases.

Watching last night, the dogs give it to Dale and Daniel all the time coming out of the back 50 and their kicking is unbelievable. I’d be tempted to put Harmes to Dale and set Kosi to play his normal game but specifically hunt Daniel every time the dogs try to rebound. Think Kosi can really hurry him up maybe catch him with the ball a few times.

If we can get Gardner, Wood, Keath kicking out of the 50 we’ll really increase our chances of turnovers and stopping them going forward.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

We don't tag any backman, can't see us starting now, it's been a collective of pressure throughout and I'm fine with that.

If we didnt tag Daniel Rich

10

Daniel Rich

Age

33

Ht

183cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

430.3

5star

D

14.9

4star

K

13.1

5star

HB

1.8

1star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

MG

384.3

5star

D

16.2

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

5.2

5star

we shouldn't tag Daniel.

 

[JP2]

It's easy to look at the names in the Bulldogs midfield and to look at how they played in the prelim and to feel a bit apprehensive about our chances, but I think it needs to be put it in perspective. The Power were playing a very lazy and unaccountable zone defence yesterday, and the Dogs cut through them like a hot knife through butter. If you give the Dogs midfielders that much time and space to play their fluid linkup game, then they will tear you to shreds and will be basically unbeatable. However, I think we have good reason to believe that our defensive system is capable of stopping them from playing that game, as we saw in round 11. In that game we only needed to tag Libba, and the system took care of everything else. All their midfielders got big numbers in that game, but it didn't help them because they weren't given any freedom to be damaging with the ball. If we can replicate that defensive effort in stifling that midfield run and attack then that takes us a long way to winning that game, because outside of the midfield they don't have a lot of weapons. (Naughton's good obviously, but his output is going to depend on midfield supply. Daniel is an unaccountable seagull who puts it out on the full as often as he pulls off bullshit, pinpoint passes.)

It's also worth comparing it to our game in round 19. Even though they thoroughly outplayed us for most of the match (they were much harder at the ball, and defensively they completely strangled us) they still never really threatened to cut us apart: our system held up pretty well. Dogs fans after the match were saying it was their best win for the season, whereas we seemed really flat (which probably had a lot to do with the Dogs pressure), but even under those circumstances we had the same number of scoring shots as them and only lost by 20 points. I know that anything can happen on the day, but if the Dogs beat us then history suggests they're not going to be able to beat us in the same way they beat the Power, because our system has prevented literally every team this year from successfully playing that brand of football. (Perhaps the closest our system came to breaking down was against the Crows who were playing kamikaze, helter-skelter, high-risk, unpredictable football through the middle of the ground that we obviously weren't prepared for. If the Dogs want to try playing with that degree of reckless abandon in a GF then best of luck to them.) So with that in mind, I think that if the Dogs beat us then it's most likely going to be through clearance-work, contested possession and superior defensive pressure (which is exactly how they beat us in round 19). If we can match them in those areas, then I like our chances. If the Dogs clearly beat us in those areas, we're probably screwed.

One final intangible thing, which might be total bullshit, is their psychology. To an outsider, it seems like they feed off their own exuberance a lot, and then when they get on a role and their confidence is high they are incredibly difficult to bring down to earth. On the other hand, when things start going against them (like against Richmond, against us in round 11 and against Hawthorn) they don't seem to easily be able to turn things around or dig themselves out of the hole. (I also don't think Bevo has ever been particularly known for pulling out a successful "Plan B" when things are going awry.) My gut then tells me the first few goals are critical. If they kick the first three, I'm thinking we're ****ed because their going to spend the rest of the game bouncing around on their tails like Tigger. If we kick the first three, I'd be feeling quietly confident. Like I say, probably complete bullshit, but something I'd be looking out for.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

We need either ANB or Harmes to play a forward defensive shutdown role on Caleb Daniel. The little campaigner is too damaging to allow free reign to do as he pleases.

Hibberd? Have a feeling he could monster him.

 

[Lampers]

Hibberd? Have a feeling he could monster him.

For Daniel, I like the idea of Pickett going to him.

Dogs won’t want Daniel on Pickett, so if the matchup they want sticks to Pickett and Pickett sticks to Daniel (and sacrifices much of Pickett’s own game) I think that’s a tactical win.

That means either the Dogs’ extra is consumed in a 2 on 1 with Pickett, or if they aren’t playing an extra that means an unmanned Melbourne forward or an additional loose building the defensive wall.

If the Dogs then change the matchup so Daniel takes Pickett to get it back to a 1 on 1, then Daniel would be brave/stupid to take liberties to be attacking. So likely another tactical win for Melbourne.

 

[GatesOfHell]

We don't tag any backman, can't see us starting now, it's been a collective of pressure throughout and I'm fine with that.

If we didnt tag Daniel Rich we shouldn't tag Daniel.

Daniel 2x more creative and damaging than Rich. Sam Mitchell level vision and distribution. Ignore at own peril.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Daniel 2x more creative and damaging than Rich. Sam Mitchell level vision and distribution. Ignore at own peril.

No ones ignoring him mate, hes a gun, just saying, I back in our system to put him under enough pressure, not one particular man.

 

[schmuttt]

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Love that they got Gazz to do this

 

[BG32]

This is nuts, its going to be the longest 12 days

 

[Proper Gander]

This is nuts, its going to be the longest 12 days

Yeah it’s painful

 

[Topkent]

Love that they got Gazz to do this

Me too mate. Chills.

 

[Tulip]

The last bit wouldn't surprise me, May is a real weapon when he can play a bit looser as his kicking is much better than Levers (Who is a safe kick but not a damaging one).

Would be good coaching. Clear as day that they’ll try the same move on Lever as they did on Allir. Even Rivers is a good intercept marking option.

 

[Lampers]

Bear with me, but if TLDR it's "Melbourne will definitely win the GF" as the reward for taking the time to read

I did some analysis prior to the Geelong game using the two H&A meetings data. This indicated Melbourne steadily outplayed Geelong for the vast majority of the game time, with Geelong dominating Melbourne for a very short period. This short period was not only an anomaly from a time perspective, but also a game style perspective as neither Geelong or Melbourne played their standard ball movement pattern in this period. This strongly suggested it was unsustainable for Geelong to play that way, and unlikely that they would be allowed to play that way again.

If that anomaly is discounted, Melbourne basically generated twice as many scoring shots in the "normal" game play, which suggested it was quite likely Melbourne would have a comfortable win. This came to be although 83 points was not what I expected at all.

So can I see something similar with the two H&A games between Melbourne and Bulldogs?

No, I couldn't find something as obvious.

The teams are much more evenly matched with Melbourne's edge in scoring shots over four hours of play (22.20 vs. 21.18) minimal, and the gap Melbourne built was due to one quarter of dominance (6.5 vs. 2.2) which could be viewed as the anomaly that if discounted leaves the Bulldogs as the team who generated more scoring shots 35 to 31. The Bulldogs also got several "junk time" scoring shots at the end of the first game (1.1 vs. 2.3), but it's not like the Geelong analysis where once you discounted the anomaly there was an obvious underlying trend.

What I did look for was more specific statistical variance anomalies in the ~4 hours of game time vs. each team's season norms.

The biggest variance against the norm won't surprise anyone. Melbourne received 35% fewer free kicks than they normally do in the Bulldogs games, and the Bulldogs 7% more than they normally do. A 42% swing from the norm. Not much to be done about that except maybe some well placed whinges in the media pre game to plant some seeds in the umpire's minds, or understanding the drivers of the free kicks and paying close attention to more discipline in those scenarios.

The next biggest was hit outs, which didn't appear to translate to clearances anyway. The Bulldogs didn't have Stef Martin in either game so it probably doesn't mean much for the GF. Melbourne +19% against their norm, and Bulldogs -22% for a 41% swing.

The next two I think are far more interesting.

Melbourne had a +5% for contested possessions against their norm, and the Bulldogs -5% for a 10% swing. Even in the second loss, Melbourne comfortably covered the Bulldogs for absolute contested possessions by 23, and 18 in the victory.

While disposal efficiency by itself doesn't mean much given you can build it through little chip kicks, and Melbourne have the worst disposal efficiency in the league but won the minor premiership, when compared against a team's or a player's norm I think it's more revealing. This is based on the assumption teams and players try to play consistent game styles, so if compared against their average it normalises the variations of game style (e.g. Geelong high DE% because they have a low risk retain possession style, backline players have higher DE% because they switch play far more often than forwards).

Bulldogs were spot on their season disposal efficiency across the two games, whereas Melbourne ran at around 5% worse than normal. You might think 5% doesn't sound much, but against the norm that's huge for DE%.

What is even more interesting is all three of Gawn, Petracca and Pickett had their worst individual game DE% performances in the round 19 loss. Gawn and Pickett had several other games almost as poor in the season, but it was comfortably Petracca's worst. Gawn and Petracca did have the Essendon game when they both had DE% almost as poor, but Pickett was above his average that night.

So what does this all mean? Maybe nothing.

However a positive interpretation is it's unlikely that these three key players are likely to have such poor games for disposal effectiveness, in the same game, like they did in the round 19 loss. Unless we are thinking it was something the Bulldogs did that caused their poor DE%. I don't think it was, my memory is Petracca just had "one of those nights" and torched some really open chances. The Bulldogs also don't appear to have the same opportunity to lift around DE%.

Also, despite one game being a loss, Melbourne were still able to better the Dogs for contested possession in each of the games which augurs well for Melbourne's ability to get superiority in something critical for Melbourne's game plan. Maybe with the deeper midfield the Bulldogs have now vs. the prior games they have opportunity here to lift.

Finally, from a pure personnel perspective, Josh Bruce

17

Josh Bruce

Age

31

Ht

198cm

Wt

97kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.2

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

4.6

3star

M

4.5

4star

T

2.1

4star

MG

90.4

1star

D

8.9

2star

K

3.5

1star

HB

5.4

3star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.3

2star

MG

90.4

2star

D

11.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.8

3star

is out for the Bulldogs, and he scored 24% of the goals against Melbourne. Sure, there will be Schache in his place, and Naughton is in better form than he was earlier in the year, but Bruce that's a big chunk of their goals and Bruce demanded more respect than Schache.

 

[Topkent]

Tulip just realised it was because we were wearing pink

 

[Tulip]

Tulip just realised it was because we were wearing pink

Haha nah I did some googling and it'll be ok with them wearing white shorts. I'll save my rants.

 

[Major Colvin]

Last night result surprised me a bit - I knew Port had the jitters in finals in recent years but I expected them to give a much better showing than that.

Anyway, the masochist in me always wants us to face the team I less despise (in case we lose) in which it is probably the Bulldogs. I can't stand Port.

Obviously now I'm thinking we would have been a better chance against Port - but they beat the Dogs just a few weeks back. Melbourne and WB have both hit their form at the right time and in all honestly, both teams played prelims where everything went right for them.

The Dogs will be a significant challenge for us, but I'm glad for the fact that we are actually capable of going all the way this year - as opposed to our last two Grand Finals

I don't want to think about losing but if we do I just really hope the group plays near its potential - if they do it will take the Bulldogs absolute best to beat us.

No change.

 

[danster168]

we must be careful with our tackling. A very slippery bunch of players that love drawing a high tackle. Also, try to force Bont into handballs. He also goes long by foot which is dangerous with Naughton up there. Weightman grinds my gears with his staging but he is a great player. We need our best accountable defender on him and to me that MUST be Hibberd.

 

[netslave]

Well if they beat us at least they will have to have earned it, that's for sure.
I don't think I've seen this team with so much confidence and belief before and rightly so.
We should have their measure on the day and hold that cup high.