Nothing better than what has been posted by the club to be honest, other than Pert, Richardson and Chocco addressing fans.
Chocco joked that aspiring AFL footballers just need 4 things - good kick, good running, contested possession, smarts.
Preview Changes vs Western Bulldogs - GRAND FINAL - Saturday, 25 September, 7:15pm AEST - NO CHANGE
- Thread starter LeverPuller
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Chocco joked that aspiring AFL footballers just need 4 things - good kick, good running, contested possession, smarts.
I think that's all any of us have ever wanted.
I'm frigging hating this 2 week wait. It's giving me too much time to think of all the possibilities. I'm on a constant rollercoaster of feeling like we have the team to get this done, but then thinking Bevo and the Bulldogs have this way of undoing teams. I don't know which way is up anymore. I just need this to end soon. I think I'll be seeking a place of high elevation if we stuff this up this time.
Does anyone know what time the hit out is today.
More nervous about that than the game
More nervous about that than the game
I had a look on the Bulldogs’ (The Western?) board.
What I find interesting is their supporters have the rationale for why the Western will win that’s similar to what I had in 1998, 2000, and 2006, and 2018.
It’s simplistic hope, or “Last time Ryan Gardner wasn’t playing” stuff. Ok, that’s an exaggeration as the Western were missing quite a few solid players in prior meetings, but the “We were missing players” is being used almost like there were literally fewer players on the field.
My point is it feels like the argument of “Gee, we are in trouble here, I hope…” because there’s not much solid or supported by data that points to the Dogs winning. What supporters think, be it Melbourne or the Western, is irrelevant to the actual result of course.
I saw one piece of interesting actual analysis about how Allir was shut down tactically - which was to kick at Allir instead of avoiding him. Schache engaged Allir physically so he couldn’t use his athleticism, and Naughton could be the “interceptor forward” and run from a distance at the ball with momentum to break away from McKenzie.
It’s a good tactic, but it also relies on having a mediocre player like McKenzie matched up on Naughton. Melbourne will have one of Lever, May or Petty on Naughton and all are far better defensively than McKenzie.
The round 19 tactic where Lever wanted to go to Hannan, but Hannan just kept going to May, who wanted to be on Naughton, was also good. May and Lever gave up trying to force their preferred matchup - however Naughton hardly dominated Lever with nine disposals, three marks and two goals. Lever still had 20 touches with 15 coming from intercepts.
Beveridge has shown his hand with both those moves so I’m sure Melbourne have gone to school on them.
Plus another key difference from round 19 is no Josh Bruce so while Schache is now in Bruce’s place, he’s not as threatening as Bruce - plus he may be consumed playing the role he did on Allir with Lever anyway.
Melbourne have much better interceptor depth and quality than Port. Will Melbourne, instead of trying to get Lever to be the interceptor while taking a lesser forward, just sacrifice Lever to play a defensive role and instead have May, Petty or even Hibberd or Rivers, be the interceptor instead?
What I find interesting is their supporters have the rationale for why the Western will win that’s similar to what I had in 1998, 2000, and 2006, and 2018.
It’s simplistic hope, or “Last time Ryan Gardner wasn’t playing” stuff. Ok, that’s an exaggeration as the Western were missing quite a few solid players in prior meetings, but the “We were missing players” is being used almost like there were literally fewer players on the field.
My point is it feels like the argument of “Gee, we are in trouble here, I hope…” because there’s not much solid or supported by data that points to the Dogs winning. What supporters think, be it Melbourne or the Western, is irrelevant to the actual result of course.
I saw one piece of interesting actual analysis about how Allir was shut down tactically - which was to kick at Allir instead of avoiding him. Schache engaged Allir physically so he couldn’t use his athleticism, and Naughton could be the “interceptor forward” and run from a distance at the ball with momentum to break away from McKenzie.
It’s a good tactic, but it also relies on having a mediocre player like McKenzie matched up on Naughton. Melbourne will have one of Lever, May or Petty on Naughton and all are far better defensively than McKenzie.
The round 19 tactic where Lever wanted to go to Hannan, but Hannan just kept going to May, who wanted to be on Naughton, was also good. May and Lever gave up trying to force their preferred matchup - however Naughton hardly dominated Lever with nine disposals, three marks and two goals. Lever still had 20 touches with 15 coming from intercepts.
Beveridge has shown his hand with both those moves so I’m sure Melbourne have gone to school on them.
Plus another key difference from round 19 is no Josh Bruce so while Schache is now in Bruce’s place, he’s not as threatening as Bruce - plus he may be consumed playing the role he did on Allir with Lever anyway.
Melbourne have much better interceptor depth and quality than Port. Will Melbourne, instead of trying to get Lever to be the interceptor while taking a lesser forward, just sacrifice Lever to play a defensive role and instead have May, Petty or even Hibberd or Rivers, be the interceptor instead?
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,972
- 26,719
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Melksham could easily do the roll from a fitness perspective, without a doubt. It’s just that our HF combination is working really well, and he is a rung down from Fritsch. I definitely feel for him. I’ve always really liked him at Melbourne. If he leaves for a 2-3 year deal then I wish him well. And I think he should.
I seem to recall on one occasion Schache had his back to the incoming ball and both hands on Allirs' chest preventing him from contesting the mark . I was waiting for a call given the Umpires hand out blocking frees at the centre bounce too often for my liking . Nothing happened and Naughton took the mark . I thought you at least had to pretend you were contesting , any way I think it set the tone and Allir had an ordinary game , much like the rest of Port . So does that mean someone can just stand there and keep Naughton from running at the ball as well ? Waiting for the game this long is Meh !
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 89,096
- 125,348
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
Been saying it forever, Allir is great if hes allowed to roam and peel off, but when you make him accountable and make him play one on one he is very average. Agree with you, Lever is actually still very good one on one also. Hes much smarter footballer than Allir despite lacking his athleticism. Makes far better decisions with the ball in hand and when to go and help out. Allir is easily flustered and runs round like a headless chook when the game isn't going Port's way, stuck in two minds.
To avoid a similar ring-a-ring-a-rosey situation it wouldn't surprise me if we went with Petty on Naughton, Petty has proven he can be trusted, im sure Goody and Chappy will have come up with numerous ways to counter it in game also depending on the situation and scoreboard.
Tulip
Hall of Famer
- May 3, 2009
- 37,249
- 34,495
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham
Yep this is my feeling too, I reckon May will end up being the sweeper to begin with at least given they’ve only got one really dangerous big forward. May said he’ll play on Naughton last night, which surely means he won’t be.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,972
- 26,719
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Great post. My take is they can try to kick it to Lever all they like, if Naughton wants to be the one to come across and fly high then we have May, Petty and Rivers to potentially get in the way of him. And as you say, McKenzie was matched on Naughton which was a bad move. What was Jonas up to?
Also, I think their midfield will be under a lot more pressure than what Port were able to provide, so if they want to try and kick towards Lever v Schache under duress then there is a higher chance of an errant kick. That brings in Rivers, Salem and Hibberd.
I think we will want to have Lever as an interceptor because that’s what he is good at. It’ll be about midfield pressure forcing bad F50 entries so Lever can play that role. I think it’s a really risky proposition kicking to Lever given the depth of our defence and the fact we are the best team defensively.
Goodwin will be all over this ploy and be reiterating midfield pressure is the key to sloppy F50 entry and allowing our smaller forwards to come into it.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 9,834
- 12,314
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Moderator
- #363
Agree with all of the above. We've got better matchups in the backline than Port had and more intercepting options. Plus midfield pressure will be key as you say. If you give Bont/Smith/MacCrae time and space they'll cut you up. If the pressure's up and they're rushed mistakes happen.
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
The pressure we brought on Geelong was insane. Bulldogs haven't faced pressure like that.
Agree, Port’s pressure was very underwhelming. The lack of accountability from Port was stunning. They were playing like they were “cheating” forward trying for a 100 point win in the last quarter of an H&A game, but they were down by 40 points early on in a prelim.
Geelong’s pressure in the prelim was about 180 on that pressure gauge rating, which is average. So it’s not like Melbourne had the stroll that the Bulldogs did, but they also didn’t face manic pressure.
I suspect that although Geelong were able to be near by and apply some pressure technically, on the whole their team lacked the foot speed and agility to apply true pressure. I would assume the tackles that Petracca walked through would’ve been considered high pressure situations.
The Dogs have more footspeed and agility than Geelong so I think they will bring far more genuine pressure.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 30,972
- 26,719
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
We were 29 up at half time against Geelong. That is a very attainable margin. Not sure what the half time score in the Port v Dogs game was.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 9,834
- 12,314
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Moderator
- #367
Margin was 50+ iirc. Roughly 90-35.
The one thing that keep me calm and confident is how consistent we've been and how well our system has held up, even in games that we've lost. The only game in which we genuinely lost the thread was the first Adelaide game, when they were playing like crazy, kamikaze morons and we just weren't prepared for it. In every other game we've played this season, it's been played more or less on our terms, according to the style we want to play, irrespective of the quality of the opposition or the importance of the match. This gives me confidence for the GF, because we know that our system is going to hold up, and therefore that the Dogs are going to have to find a way to overcome it if they want to win. I know that Melbourne are going to play in a way which is at least capable of beating every other team in the league (except Collingwood 
) and that the Bulldogs will genuinely have to outplay us if they want to win on the day. Like I said after the Geelong game, whatever happens on Saturday I know that I'll be able to be proud of the boys' efforts on the day, and that's in stark contrast to any Melbourne team I've followed in my lifetime.
I don't think exposed form matters much, especially with the 2 week break, but I don't think the Dogs' performance against Port is a particularly good indication of where they're at, as much as it must fill the team and their supporters with confidence. The Power were genuinely pitiful defensively and basically let the Dogs do as they pleased. Watch the highlights and count how many goals involved:
- A Dogs player delivering the ball inside 50 under no pressure.
- A Dogs player streaming into the attacking 50 completely unmarked.
- A Dogs player getting a ground-ball with half a dozen Power players just standing back and watching them, without a single one of them putting their body on the line or laying a hand on the Dogs player.
And here's The Couch highlighting just exactly how bad their effort was:
The fact is, that if the Dogs beat us next Saturday, they're not going to beat us like that, playing the free-flowing brand of football they want to play. Now I know that the Dogs are good enough to beat us in a different way (like how they beat us in round 19, with hard, contested footy) but the result last week is completely irrelevant, imho, to what's going to happen next weekend.
The most interesting part of the match-up is that the side are quite imbalanced. We have May, Lever and Petty in defence who are all tall intercept players, whereas the Dogs only have Naughton and a part-timer in English as tall forwards. On the other hand, the dogs have small forwards who are good in the air and on the ground who we don't appear to have any obvious match-ups for. We have probably the best ruck duo in the league against a 35 year-old playing what will probably be his last game, but they have probably the best and deepest midfield in the league who are used to winning clearances even when the opposition ruckman is dominant. My feeling is that we have the advantage if its dry owing to our superior talls, whereas they have the advantage if its wet owing to their superior smalls (as demonstrated in round 19). In fact, because of the imbalances between the teams, I'm worried that the weather will probably have a bigger influence over the result than any other factor, and unfortunately that's the one thing we can't control.
) and that the Bulldogs will genuinely have to outplay us if they want to win on the day. Like I said after the Geelong game, whatever happens on Saturday I know that I'll be able to be proud of the boys' efforts on the day, and that's in stark contrast to any Melbourne team I've followed in my lifetime.I don't think exposed form matters much, especially with the 2 week break, but I don't think the Dogs' performance against Port is a particularly good indication of where they're at, as much as it must fill the team and their supporters with confidence. The Power were genuinely pitiful defensively and basically let the Dogs do as they pleased. Watch the highlights and count how many goals involved:
- A Dogs player delivering the ball inside 50 under no pressure.
- A Dogs player streaming into the attacking 50 completely unmarked.
- A Dogs player getting a ground-ball with half a dozen Power players just standing back and watching them, without a single one of them putting their body on the line or laying a hand on the Dogs player.
And here's The Couch highlighting just exactly how bad their effort was:
The fact is, that if the Dogs beat us next Saturday, they're not going to beat us like that, playing the free-flowing brand of football they want to play. Now I know that the Dogs are good enough to beat us in a different way (like how they beat us in round 19, with hard, contested footy) but the result last week is completely irrelevant, imho, to what's going to happen next weekend.
The most interesting part of the match-up is that the side are quite imbalanced. We have May, Lever and Petty in defence who are all tall intercept players, whereas the Dogs only have Naughton and a part-timer in English as tall forwards. On the other hand, the dogs have small forwards who are good in the air and on the ground who we don't appear to have any obvious match-ups for. We have probably the best ruck duo in the league against a 35 year-old playing what will probably be his last game, but they have probably the best and deepest midfield in the league who are used to winning clearances even when the opposition ruckman is dominant. My feeling is that we have the advantage if its dry owing to our superior talls, whereas they have the advantage if its wet owing to their superior smalls (as demonstrated in round 19). In fact, because of the imbalances between the teams, I'm worried that the weather will probably have a bigger influence over the result than any other factor, and unfortunately that's the one thing we can't control.
Any word out of the match sim today? Hopefully a clean bill of health.
It's going on at the moment. Someone's posting live updates here:
Pre-Grand Final Match Simulation
Follow all the action from the Demons Pre-Grand Final Simulation Match
demonland.com
Looks like it's only a two quarter simulation and May isn't playing, though he did train.
- Jun 14, 2015
- 17,699
- 38,620
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Power
Sunday Footy Show did a great job of ripping into the campaigners too.
That was a truly abysmal performance by Port.
Hopefully the Doggies drank plenty of "Bathwater" after the match.
That was a truly abysmal performance by Port.
Hopefully the Doggies drank plenty of "Bathwater" after the match.
I heard it was happening tonight, to simulate the timing of the GF next week. So it would be about halfway through right now, if that's the case.
MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE
Premiership Captain
They were already celebrating with beers and loud music after the Prelim.
Nice to see Cornes eat humble pie after declaring Port would be too good for Melbourne in the Granny
Tulip
Hall of Famer
- May 3, 2009
- 37,249
- 34,495
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Tottenham
I’m surprised. Thought we were doing the full thing to make up for a second week offIt's going on at the moment. Someone's posting live updates here:
Pre-Grand Final Match Simulation
Follow all the action from the Demons Pre-Grand Final Simulation Match
Looks like it's only a two quarter simulation and May isn't playing, though he did train.
Similar threads
