Opinion Is Our Flag Window Shut?

[Scythe94]

There remains a lot of red flags and I don't think we're a legitimate contender at this stage, but coming into the year, one thing I really wanted to see is more trust put into the kids, with an eye to the future. They've succeeded on that front so far – all the below guys are 22 and under:

• Pickett: obviously one of our most important players – averaging career highs so far, albeit from a limited sample size.
• Rivers: last few games have been good after a slower start
• McVee: already entrenched in the 22, but has developed more of an attacking flair this year.
• Windsor: couldn't have asked for much more from a first-year wing.
• JVR: while his form has been sketchy, he's still doing fairly well for a second-year KPF who's also taking back-up ruck duties.
• Howes: has had a handful of strong performances, and his defensive work + composure is really quite good for a kid who has played seven games (especially considering he was viewed by plenty as potential material).
• Turner: could definitely have something here, looked natural as a forward.
• Laurie: got some reward tonight after good VFL form.
• Tholstrup: not ready for AFL footy yet, but has some good traits to work with.
• Woewodin: there's a bit there, just hard for him to get continuity without a solid role.
• Bowey: walk-up start in our 22, just unfortunate he got injured in R0.

That's 11 guys 22 and under who have played for us in seven rounds, and I'd argue that more than half of them have made significant contributions to us winning games. To be 5-2 shows that the list might actually be in better shape moving forward than some of us thought.

Compare that to teams like Collingwood who have only had four players in that age range get games this year, and it makes for some positive reading (even if our gameplan/forward structure is still extremely suspect).

Further to the above (in Round 7):

 

[Proper Gander]

Further to the above (in Round 7):

View attachment 1975967

Interesting. Promising in a feel-good kind of way, but I agree some of our new-starter crowd have managed some impact.

GWS interesting also given they are currently flying. Can’t work out if this is deserved strategic nous or whether they have as-yet-unseen good players coming out of their a-hole, but impressive regardless

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I have much lower expectations than most. I'm just thrilled we stopped doing the most obviously ******* stupid thing in the world kicking long and left to two rucks out of every ******* kick out.

 

[Proper Gander]

I have much lower expectations than most. I'm just thrilled we stopped doing the most obviously ******* stupid thing in the world kicking long and left to two rucks out of every ******* kick out.

They were great days though

 

[Lord Nev]

We've got to find the balance.

Last year it was too many trash inside 50s, this year it's simply not enough inside 50s now that we've improved the quality.

I don't think the game plan was 'let's get way less inside 50s so they're better', we're just not winning the ball in the middle enough.

Last year we were 3rd for clearance differential, this year we are 10th.

I don't want us to go back to win a clearance and bomb it forward, but we've slid too far down and that's why our scoring impact isn't there. Inside 50s are still important - Giants, Blues, Cats, Swans, Gold Coast and Port are all in the top 8 for inside 50s.

We're 13th.

Weakness

Simon Goodwin’s side isn’t getting the same territory it has in the past. Melbourne is ranked 15th in inside 50 differential and time in forward half and ranked 17th in forward half intercepts — all areas it was ranked top two in last season. The midfield hasn’t quite hit its straps yet as a whole, particularly with Clayton Oliver ramping up to form, so there’s reason for optimism the Dees can improve here.

 

[tomcruise]

Weakness

Simon Goodwin’s side isn’t getting the same territory it has in the past. Melbourne is ranked 15th in inside 50 differential and time in forward half and ranked 17th in forward half intercepts — all areas it was ranked top two in last season. The midfield hasn’t quite hit its straps yet as a whole, particularly with Clayton Oliver ramping up to form, so there’s reason for optimism the Dees can improve here.

Pretty garbage analysis. We're getting less territory because we're trying to score more efficiently, particularly from back-half/wing turnover. Less bomb it long to the pocket and hold it in.

Only thing we win with the territory game-style is expected score.

We'll probably want to even it out a bit more because getting smashed in inside-50s is still bad juju, but it's not something I'm particularly worried about. Getting a more mid-table inside-50 ratio is good news that we're trying to change to a more efficient gameplan.

 

[Lord Nev]

Pretty garbage analysis. We're getting less territory because we're trying to score more efficiently, particularly from back-half/wing turnover. Less bomb it long to the pocket and hold it in.

Only thing we win with the territory game-style is expected score.

We'll probably want to even it out a bit more because getting smashed in inside-50s is still bad juju, but it's not something I'm particularly worried about. Getting a more mid-table inside-50 ratio is good news that we're trying to change to a more efficient gameplan.

I reckon it's spot on and our midfield needs to lift.

We've gone from 14th to 8th for goals per inside 50. So the efficiency has improved, but we've also gone from 12th to 15th for marks per inside 50, so it's not really that the delivery has massively improved.

1st to 13th for inside 50s.
3rd to 10th for clearance differential.

13th for inside 50s is not going to win us finals.

For reference, we're 8th for points scored from defensive half.
And we're 11th for points scored from turnover.

 

[Bluelegs]

Midfield has been poor but the inside 50 differential is reductive.

Clearance stats would be more useful to examine than inside 50s imo

 

[Lord Nev]

Midfield has been poor but the inside 50 differential is reductive.

Clearance stats would be more useful to examine than inside 50s imo

We're 10th for clearance differential.
We're 6th for scores from stoppages.

Brenton Sanderson on SEN this morning called out our lack of inside 50s and said it was costing us.

1st to 13th for inside 50s is telling. We've not got the balance right atm. I would love to see us around 7th-8th for inside 50s, while maintaining our current goals per inside 50.

 

[tomcruise]

We're 10th for clearance differential.
We're 6th for scores from stoppages.

Brenton Sanderson on SEN this morning called out our lack of inside 50s and said it was costing us.

1st to 13th for inside 50s is telling. We've not got the balance right atm. I would love to see us around 7th-8th for inside 50s, while maintaining our current goals per inside 50.

Brenton Sanderson is garbage too. I miss Craig Jennings.

 

[Bluelegs]

We're 10th for clearance differential.
We're 6th for scores from stoppages.

Brenton Sanderson on SEN this morning called out our lack of inside 50s and said it was costing us.

1st to 13th for inside 50s is telling. We've not got the balance right atm. I would love to see us around 7th-8th for inside 50s, while maintaining our current goals per inside 50.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and improve. I'm saying it's reductive because we're trying to go about it a different way.

Articles with lines like "Last year melbourne were good in this area and now they're bad, so that's good news as they can improve there." is reductive because it doesn't examine why we were better at that last year. Makes it sound like it's purely a form issue rather than a structural one.

 

[Lord Nev]

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and improve. I'm saying it's reductive because we're trying to go about it a different way.

Articles with lines like "Last year melbourne were good in this area and now they're bad, so that's good news as they can improve there." is reductive because it doesn't examine why we were better at that last year. Makes it sound like it's purely a form issue rather than a structural one.

There's plenty of context there you don't seem to be taking into account. I've applied a ton of statistical context around different areas, the change in some, the lack of change in others, which highlight that it's not as basic as 'we used to play this way, now we play this other way'.

It's pretty clear given the drastic change in some areas has been negative. Isn't everyone here complaining we don't score more? Wouldn't you take note then that our efficiency has improved for goals per inside 50, our marks per inside 50 has slid, and we're also down for inside 50s in general? It's simply not correct to say we've changed our style and now get better inside 50 delivery cos it's slower. It's more complicated than that given the actual numbers.

I've provided tons of data now to back up my points. There's not been any come back the other way, just a lot of 'yeah but my eyes tell me...' kinda stuff.

Here's a reductive synopsis that maybe will help?

Marks per inside 50 are down - So we're not delivering it better inside 50.
Goals per inside 50 are up - So our smalls are more dangerous given the above. Out of our top 10 average goal kickers, 8 of them are smalls (not inc Disco who has played the 1 game forward).
Clearances are WAY down - So perhaps we're following the rebounding trend?
Scores from turnover we're 11th, scores from defensive half we're 8th - Oh ok, maybe we're not nailing that?

I think most here would be thinking Oliver, Viney and even at times Trac have not been in their best form the last few weeks yeah? Don't think I need to even look up stats for that one. Geelong, who play the most rebounding style out of everyone, are ranked higher than us for scores from stoppages.

It's completely obvious our midfield needs to lift when you take a look in-depth.

 

[Bluelegs]

There's plenty of context there you don't seem to be taking into account. I've applied a ton of statistical context around different areas, the change in some, the lack of change in others, which highlight that it's not as basic as 'we used to play this way, now we play this other way'.

It's pretty clear given the drastic change in some areas has been negative. Isn't everyone here complaining we don't score more? Wouldn't you take note then that our efficiency has improved for goals per inside 50, our marks per inside 50 has slid, and we're also down for inside 50s in general? It's simply not correct to say we've changed our style and now get better inside 50 delivery cos it's slower. It's more complicated than that given the actual numbers.

I've provided tons of data now to back up my points. There's not been any come back the other way, just a lot of 'yeah but my eyes tell me...' kinda stuff.

Here's a reductive synopsis that maybe will help?

Marks per inside 50 are down - So we're not delivering it better inside 50.
Goals per inside 50 are up - So our smalls are more dangerous given the above. Out of our top 10 average goal kickers, 8 of them are smalls (not inc Disco who has played the 1 game forward).
Clearances are WAY down - So perhaps we're following the rebounding trend?
Scores from turnover we're 11th, scores from defensive half we're 8th - Oh ok, maybe we're not nailing that?

I think most here would be thinking Oliver, Viney and even at times Trac have not been in their best form the last few weeks yeah? Don't think I need to even look up stats for that one. Geelong, who play the most rebounding style out of everyone, are ranked higher than us for scores from stoppages.

It's completely obvious our midfield needs to lift when you take a look in-depth.

Strange post. I already agreed with you the midfield needs to lift, I just disagreed with the inside 50 comparison between this year and last year being the best stat to make that point. In actual fact my last post was specifically responding to the article you posted that was making that point. Just because you're posting a lot of stats doesn't mean others can't interpret them a different way to what you are.

For example, the fact we're getting more goals per inside 50 means we're getting better quality inside 50s when we get in there regardless of our key forwards not being able to mark it. It means our forwards have enough space to win the ball when it hits the deck and make something happen. Their improvement is coming from structure rather than form.

You've posted a lot of stats but as far as I can tell your main point from all that is just 'the midfield needs to play better' which as I've already said I agree with.

Beyond that I'm not exactly sure what you're really getting at.

 

[Lord Nev]

Strange post. I already agreed with you the midfield needs to lift, I just disagreed with the inside 50 comparison between this year and last year being the best stat to make that point. Just because you're posting a lot of stats doesn't mean others can't interpret them a different way to what you are.

For example, the fact we're getting more goals per inside 50 means we're getting better quality inside 50s when we get in there regardless of our key forwards not being able to mark it. It means our smalls have enough space to win the ball when it hits the deck and make something happen. Their improvement is coming from structure rather than form.

In actual fact my last post was specifically responding to the article you posted that was making that point.

You've posted a lot of stats but as far as I can tell your main point from all that is just 'the midfield needs to play better' which as I've already said I agree with.

Beyond that I'm not exactly sure what you're really getting at.

Honestly, if you don't get what I'm saying now after posting so many breakdowns with stats and you think it's simply 'the midfield needs to play better' then let's just stop chatting.

 

[Bluelegs]

Honestly, if you don't get what I'm saying now after posting so many breakdowns with stats and you think it's simply 'the midfield needs to play better' then let's just stop chatting.

Wait, are you saying that hasn't been the entire focus of your argument?

It's completely obvious our midfield needs to lift when you take a look in-depth.

???

 

[Toump Ass]

Carn Dees.

 

[Toump Ass]

How good's Thursday footy? Feels like the weekend has come a day early.

 

[Proper Gander]

How good's Thursday footy? Feels like the weekend has come a day early.

Do you get that thing when you wake up Friday and for a bit think it is Saturday though?

This is my main argument with Thursday footy. That and I sometimes don’t go when I’ve got a lot of work on.

Saturday afternoon footy rocks. Old school

 

[Headless]

Do you get that thing when you wake up Friday and for a bit think it is Saturday though?

This is my main argument with Thursday footy. That and I sometimes don’t go when I’ve got a lot of work on.

Saturday afternoon footy rocks. Old school

Saturday 2.10pm, PLEASE!

 

[Scythe94]

That's enough, everyone. Keep it on-topic and leave the personal barbs out of it.

Thanks.

 

[Lord Nev]

Wait, are you saying that hasn't been the entire focus of your argument?


???

"In-depth" is the key part of the quote there. If you genuinely want to chat about it feel free to drop me a DM so we can do it properly without it turning into both of us trying to make each other look bad.

 

[Topkent]

That's enough, everyone. Keep it on-topic and leave the personal barbs out of it.

Thanks.

Less barbs
More head .. less

 

[Lord Nev]

"But for as well as the defence and skipper are currently playing, and for as well positioned as the Demons are at five wins and two losses, the midfield is currently underperforming to a concerning degree and needs its crown jewel to find something."

The key reason why the Dees are fake contenders - and how they can become a genuine one

 

[tomcruise]

"But for as well as the defence and skipper are currently playing, and for as well positioned as the Demons are at five wins and two losses, the midfield is currently underperforming to a concerning degree and needs its crown jewel to find something."

The key reason why the Dees are fake contenders - and how they can become a genuine one

So you're saying the midfield needs to lift?

 

[Lord Nev]

So you're saying the midfield needs to lift?

Yes, and in particular ways within the context of our changes in game style. Let me know if you want to actually talk about it.