1 hour ago, Fork 'em said:

Pretty sure it's the players who pushed for free agency.
They want to line their pockets as much as those in AFL house.
"Oh , but our carreer only last 10yrs."

You can still work after you're 30 boys.

 

Clarkson had the Dawks doing trials for the AFL as well.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/hawks-trial-afl-rule-changes-at-etihad/8e15078f-7be8-4a50-b692-9d75c1b6f69c

I also remember some uproar about Clarkson meeting Gill for coffees after a couple games Clarkson wasn't happy with.

You are 100% correct - but the AFL has the last say on any change of policy

I can't remember if it's Danger or Pendels (maybe both) who quote the ÚS system every time the talk about Free Agency and other AFLPA issues

How about publishing your salary as well boys like the yanks do.... But oh wait that's not fair

The AFL signs off on the rules and creates the fixture for TV exposure and corporate money - both the major steakholders in the game have all the say. We the fans just accept the all old boy club and all of their decisions.

I will support my club but that's it..... I am over the AFL

Edited May 14, 20196 yr by Unleash Hell

9 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

I thought it was a mostly a stop gap 'get numbers behind the center square' style defence (effectively a flood) UH.  I guess that's a full defence!

Goody must have realised we were toast with his early set up/structure after the StKilda horribilis coaching debacle.

He (and the players/FD) did not have enough time, with the very short 4 day break between the Saints and the Tigers, to implement any significant change up so he went with a variation of a flood/defensive half zone set up to minimise a looming blow out (had he persisted with more of the same).

The 10 day break between the Tigers and the Hawks being the circuit breaker, providing Goody & Co the luxury of a few extra days to change up the style/structure and for the FD to implement it effectively with the players.

It is no coincidence Goody sent the players off for a 4 day break as he more than likely would have wanted them, not only to refresh, but to reset their minds for a slightly new approach on their return.

The present structure/style we are seeing, and effectively a new start to the season from a player mindset (both on and off the field...with the pre game huddle one obvious sign of this), effectively began from Rnd 7 against the Hawks.

Yep, that's basically what im saying....

We are now playing more players behind the ball to stop getting exposed defensively. A lot of other teams are doing this now as well. (some were already and were bloody good at it - ie Geelong, Hawks etc)… Without seeing a lot of them I think Adelaide are a team similar to us who have gone a lot more defensive as well post the start of the season.

We were paying a high defence and getting exposed on the turnover in the early rounds. Due to various reasons which I've spoken about before - severe lack of pace being one of them.

I can't be 100% sure if the change in strategy started vs Swan, as it's a smaller ground and easy to defend, but the difference in set up and style from say the Essendon and St Kilda games to the Richmond game were chalk and cheese. Goodwin said himself we lacked a lot defensively and I think they have worked hard on changing the system.

The question of were we under prepared or over confident is a very good and still relevant question.

And I also think you're spot on with the rest of your analysis as well. Obviously the extended break helped the coaches/players regroup.

I said in another thread after our 1 and 5 start I'm interested to see how our next 6 games go - if we can be 3 - 3 over rounds 7 - 12 that's a significant improvement. I think we are seeing some improvement now but there is still a long way to go.

As for the rule changes... Have they improved the game? I don't think so. For all the talk and all of the analysis I think the main purpose is to create interest and more cash for the AFL. 

I don't actually see yet from my limted viewing of the game (all dees games and various other bits throughout the weekend) how the rule changes have actually improved the game? They add different aspects but I am not convinced yet they improve the game. I am happy to wait until the end of the year for final judgement.

 

Edited May 14, 20196 yr by Unleash Hell

12 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

 the AFL seems to be determined to corpratise and Americanise the entire competition and make us much money as possible at the expense of the game and it's traditions

 

 

 

What concerns me is Marvel is owned by Disney that consumes everything in its path and Gil let the Mouse in through the front door.

 

As for the 666 and constant rule changes, it reminds me of There Was an Old Lady That Swallowed a Fly.

 

 

Edited May 14, 20196 yr by Emerald

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

What concerns me is Marvel is owned by Disney that consumes everything in its path and Gil let the Mouse in through the front door.

 

As for the 666 and constant rule changes, it reminds me of There Was an Old Lady That Swallowed a Fly.

 

 

I read somewhere recently (I think it was an opinion piece on the ABC website) about the dismal future for film lovers about the choices of movies which will be available to them in the next two to three years. Many Marvel hero movies for guaranteed box office success, sequels of previously successful movies (numbers 2,3,4) and animated films. Not many movies are going to be produced by these huge studios for people looking for drama or realism.  

My point is these huge corporations are in the business to make big money. They don't care about tradition or culture. My fear is, we as fans of our game and our teams, are being ignored, and will be pushed aside, for the sake of the almighty dollar.

14 hours ago, Dame Gaga said:

My point is these huge corporations are in the business to make big money. They don't care about tradition or culture. My fear is, we as fans of our game and our teams, are being ignored, and will be pushed aside, for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Interesting thought and perhaps deserves a separate thread but why do you think that giving naming rights for Docklands stadium to Disney is any different to Etihad, Telstra or Colonial Mutual who were the previous holders of the naming rights.

5 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting thought and perhaps deserves a separate thread but why do you think that giving naming rights for Docklands stadium to Disney is any different to Etihad, Telstra or Colonial Mutual who were the previous holders of the naming rights.

What might be different is what other rights (if any) Disney bought that the others didn't. For example, was the Bulldogs 'Marvel' jumper part of the deal? What other Marvel ideas will be introduced to the game day experience? etc.

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting thought and perhaps deserves a separate thread but why do you think that giving naming rights for Docklands stadium to Disney is any different to Etihad, Telstra or Colonial Mutual who were the previous holders of the naming rights.

Probably not the place for this debate, but I don't think 8 year olds will be very influenced by airlines or insurance companies.  Disney is another kettle of fish.

we're now ten odd games into the season and other than the first bulldogs game I haven't seen much evidence of promotion or word of mouth excitement about the product.

With the latest movie one would have expected some cross promotion but if it was there it slipped by my radar.

Don't disagree but it could simply be brand awareness just like any other company.

Edited May 15, 20196 yr by Diamond_Jim

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting thought and perhaps deserves a separate thread but why do you think that giving naming rights for Docklands stadium to Disney is any different to Etihad, Telstra or Colonial Mutual who were the previous holders of the naming rights.

Yes, probably got off the subject a bit, but I was reacting to Unleash Hell's and Emerald's concerns about the perceptions they held that there seems to be a push by the AFL to Americanize people's experience of the game. I do not profess to speak for them, and I hope they don't mind if I say perhaps they are worried about the game being Disneyfied? I brought up the example of how Disney has swamped the film making industry, and I personally don't like their brand. I will never forgive them for what they did to Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid"!! I loved those stories when I was a little girl and they have been ruined!! LOL.

Also, maybe it is just me, but this year going to the football is different. Our senses are assaulted by loud music, flashing lights and booming announcements. It seems we need every moment to be filled with sound and light. We can no longer talk quietly among ourselves about the progress of the game at the breaks. Now we have to shout. Call me old fashioned, but I don't enjoy it.

Sorry, got off the track again!

9 minutes ago, Dame Gaga said:

Yes, probably got off the subject a bit, but I was reacting to Unleash Hell's and Emerald's concerns about the perceptions they held that there seems to be a push by the AFL to Americanize people's experience of the game. I do not profess to speak for them, and I hope they don't mind if I say perhaps they are worried about the game being Disneyfied? I brought up the example of how Disney has swamped the film making industry, and I personally don't like their brand. I will never forgive them for what they did to Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid"!! I loved those stories when I was a little girl and they have been ruined!! LOL.

Also, maybe it is just me, but this year going to the football is different. Our senses are assaulted by loud music, flashing lights and booming announcements. It seems we need every moment to be filled with sound and light. We can no longer talk quietly among ourselves about the progress of the game at the breaks. Now we have to shout. Call me old fashioned, but I don't enjoy it.

Sorry, got off the track again!

I'm with you DG. I sit at the top of the Posnford at the g and is is stupidly loud pre game and during breaks. Can barely hear someone next to you . And it is mostly bloody TV ads!

10 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting thought and perhaps deserves a separate thread but why do you think that giving naming rights for Docklands stadium to Disney is any different to Etihad, Telstra or Colonial Mutual who were the previous holders of the naming rights.

The stadium under those names wasn’t owned outright by the AFL. Now the AFL is the owner, they are the ones that have sold out to Disney. Who knows what else is in the fine print of the deal...........

11 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What might be different is what other rights (if any) Disney bought that the others didn't. For example, was the Bulldogs 'Marvel' jumper part of the deal? What other Marvel ideas will be introduced to the game day experience? etc.

I think Titus O’Reilly suggested that some 3D Marvel superhero would be coming at us from the scoreboard after every goal, presumably with loud music or smoke and mirrors.

3 hours ago, binman said:

I'm with you DG. I sit at the top of the Posnford at the g and is is stupidly loud pre game and during breaks. Can barely hear someone next to you . And it is mostly bloody TV ads!

It is an appalling affront, and prevents any conversation during the breaks, which used to be one of the great things about going to the footy.

Still I imaging Gillon and his mates behind the glass wouldn’t be bothered by such stuff, so couldn’t care less what the peasants wanted. 

42 minutes ago, monoccular said:

It is an appalling affront, and prevents any conversation during the breaks, which used to be one of the great things about going to the footy.

 

Could not agree more. I love going to the footy with mates who support the dees and teams we are playing. Great space to chat about the game, catch your breath and also catch up prior to the game game and quarter and half time breaks. Well it used to be.  

Is this tactic allowed? King suggests other teams will try it.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2019-david-king-reveals-essendons-last-ditch-bench-bolter-tactics-against-swans/news-story/7004822e93ed7089ea569d0d7dddfb30

7 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Is this tactic allowed? King suggests other teams will try it.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2019-david-king-reveals-essendons-last-ditch-bench-bolter-tactics-against-swans/news-story/7004822e93ed7089ea569d0d7dddfb30

If the AFL truly want it as 666 then they will need to add something to the rules to kill off the bench bolter ASAP.  Teams could even try for 2 or 3 bolters in the last few center bounces and the game will then become a farce with potentially only 15/16 players starting on the field.

Clever thinking by Woosh or someone on his panel.

Edited May 15, 20196 yr by Rusty Nails

so it's a maximum rule and not a minimum rule.... just shows how ill thought out these rules were. A decent trial in other comps would have revealed the various quirks.

It also underscores how far coaches will go to "game" the rules

11 hours ago, monoccular said:

I think Titus O’Reilly suggested that some 3D Marvel superhero would be coming at us from the scoreboard after every goal, presumably with loud music or smoke and mirrors.

It is an appalling affront, and prevents any conversation during the breaks, which used to be one of the great things about going to the footy.

Still I imaging Gillon and his mates behind the glass wouldn’t be bothered by such stuff, so couldn’t care less what the peasants wanted. 

He might sit behind the glass at Marvel, but I saw him at the Richmond game sitting on outside seats on level 2 in the Richmond members area at the MCG. At the time I thought (quite seriously) that it's a fine thing that a public figure can sit in a public area at the footy without the need for security.

So far, the 6 6 6 rule has been an absolute disaster. Lower scores, dull games. The game is close to unwatchable as a neutral in 2019.

Strange thing at the Casey game yesterday.

At one centre bounce Port had only five men in the defensive fifty with the "spare" running off the bench. Okay this was well known news and the fact that Essendon had used it the week before was well publicised.

What was strange is that when the Melbourne players noticed it they yelled to the umpire words to the affect.. they can't do that.. "it's a free kick." Of course they were wrong.

Amazing that professional footballers who spend the week together had not discussed this tactic. Doubly amazing that the coaching staff had not mentioned the tactic and said when this is done.. we do this etc

Edited May 19, 20196 yr by Diamond_Jim