Should the Dees still be training in positional line groups given the situation that has arisen at Essendon where they are potentially going to be playing without their starting backline?

https://twitter.com/superfooty/status/1274876030621122560?s=20

Melbourne will not reconfigure its position-based training groups despite the risk a COVID-19 infection could wipe out an entire line, a fear which has gripped Essendon.

Demons football boss Josh Mahoney has instead prioritised keeping the virus out of his club by ensuring all players and staff follow the AFL’s strict protocols.

“We went position as well (in our groups),” Mahoney said.

“We felt when you went to mix up the groups it was really important they trained together as well. So that was our decision, based on training together.

“It’s always the balance you’re taking when you’re setting up the protocols. In the end the No. 1 priority is not to have COVID-19 come into your facility.”

AFL training groups are made up of up to nine players.

The Demons lumped on-ballers Max Gawn, Jack Viney, Angus Brayshaw, Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver into one star-studded training group.

5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Demons football boss Josh Mahoney has instead prioritised keeping the virus out of his club by ensuring all players and staff follow the AFL’s strict protocols.

Well, that worked well didn't it Josh!

Kosi and Spars must have missed that meeting.

It’s a risk. But equally it’s a big risk to separate the line groups and risk lack of cohesion and an inability to practice position specific tactics. 
I don’t know how you do that. 
If anyone tests positive at the club, we would be compromised significantly regardless. 

Our backline wipes each other out when the ball is bombed in anyway

I don't understand the point. Wouldn't mixing up the team potentially make it worse as it would enable a more widespread distribution of the virus should it somehow get into the club?

58 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't understand the point. Wouldn't mixing up the team potentially make it worse as it would enable a more widespread distribution of the virus should it somehow get into the club?

I actually don't think there is any training scenario that is better or worse. If it gets into the club then there are serious ramifications for that club and potentially another club (if there is gameday contamination) and then potentially the whole league and season.

Essendon will be extremely lucky if McKenna is the only infected. Having said that the fact that one player has it and trained with others means they too need to quarantine for 2 weeks just like the rest of society is expected to.

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I actually don't think there is any training scenario that is better or worse. If it gets into the club then there are serious ramifications for that club and potentially another club (if there is gameday contamination) and then potentially the whole league and season.

Essendon will be extremely lucky if McKenna is the only infected. Having said that the fact that one player has it and trained with others means they too need to quarantine for 2 weeks just like the rest of society is expected to.

Do they? Is that the agreed protocol? I'm only asking because the testing regime is so much more rigorous for AFL players and, presumably, officials who mix with them, than what applies to the rest of society.

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do they? Is that the agreed protocol? I'm only asking because the testing regime is so much more rigorous for AFL players and, presumably, officials who mix with them, than what applies to the rest of society.

You could have a point there. They would at least need to quarantine for a certain period of time to ensure a negative result. There is so much uncertainty regarding the incubation period. Throw in McKenna's negatives, then his irregularity and then his positive.

Imagine our midfield group had to miss two weeks because one of them tested positive. 186 would be in danger of being broken.

Edited June 22, 20204 yr by Dr. Gonzo

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do they? Is that the agreed protocol? I'm only asking because the testing regime is so much more rigorous for AFL players and, presumably, officials who mix with them, than what applies to the rest of society.

If I understand correctly, the reason why the AFL has such strict protocols and a rigorous testing regime is to firstly prevent players from contracting Covid-19, and where that fails to have a testing regime to prevent a cluster spreading within a club (or within the community), and where that fails to prevent spread across multiple clubs.

Asa billion dollar industry that relies on 18 teams playing 17 games each + a finals campaign the protocols are there to prevent the above. If anything the AFL will be stricter re quarantine than what is required by health authorities which generally only require self isolation until test results are confirmed.

Our positions lines are already mixed even when they aren't.

And I mean that in the optimistic sense that we have a lot of players who could be shifted around a pinch.

From what I sort of gather it's pods of 8 that train together regularly? It's very tough, you don't want positions getting wiped out but you want to build synergy too. This season is full of catch-22s 

22 minutes ago, layzie said:

From what I sort of gather it's pods of 8 that train together regularly? It's very tough, you don't want positions getting wiped out but you want to build synergy too. This season is full of catch-22s 

As Riewoldt said on the couch the slight benefit you might get from the synergy of line groups playing together is completely offset by the massive risk if one of them is wiped out for 2 games. It really is idiotic to have all forwards, mids and backs training together in the current environment

I would've thought at a minimum you would make sure not to have 8 best 22 in the one group, even if you're going by position. For 2 reasons:

1. Minimise the risk of infection wiping out 8 best 22 players and all but guaranteeing a loss.
2. To keep training standards consistently high and reduce the risk of a gap between the big names and those on the outside

So if it were a midfield group I'd have Gawn, Oliver, Brayshaw, Vanders, Sparrow, Langdon, Dunkley, Wagner in one and Bradtke, Petracca, Viney, Bennell, Jordon, Tomlinson, Baker, Jones in the other. That way our young guys aren't getting left behind and they are all still practising the same structures and game plan.

I'd do that for one week and then the next week I'd focus more on drills that connect the lines in the team. We've had midfield dominance with awful forward entries. Tom McDonald should spend some of the time training with Langdon and Petracca, they'll be the ones kicking it to him as much as the rest of the forwards. Rotate through difference mixes of players and train up the things that correspond with the groups. If you've got 4 forwards and 4 backs then it's one on one contests, if it's backs and mids then it's transitioning from the backline. It wouldn't hurt to train some more versatility in to players as well.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Imagine our midfield group had to miss two weeks because one of them tested positive. 186 would be in danger of being broken.

While our best players are stacked in the middle, I would prefer to see this line go down rather than our starting forwards or backs. I know it's a list juggle, but our KPP stocks are dismal.