Dees Reviewing Senior Footy Department Positions

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

27 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

 No matter what you think of him I think people have to respect the fact he/the AFL has been able to get a season up and finished. You can see by looking at him he is working himself to the limit, at least give him some respect.

I'll reserve my judgement on that. Do you know the number of drug tests done during and leading up to the season? Do you know the number of cases during the season and the impacts on everything? Will we ever know?

No contrary feedback by the Clubs, so nothing has happened? Minimal press contact and pressure about what's going on? Post Covid, nothing...Do you feel informed?

[Cards13 9,117]

45 minutes ago, old dee said:

IMO he has failed miserably with the way the game looks. I watch the Tigers game and last night. The game looks terrible just a squabble between half forward line with low scoring. And these are the best four teams in the comp. 

Yeap I think most agree, me included, but that’s not what I was talking about... 

[Cards13 9,117]

21 minutes ago, willmoy said:

I'll reserve my judgement on that. Do you know the number of drug tests done during and leading up to the season? Do you know the number of cases during the season and the impacts on everything? Will we ever know?

No contrary feedback by the Clubs, so nothing has happened? Minimal press contact and pressure about what's going on? Post Covid, nothing...Do you feel informed?

I’ve got the same view as Pert/the MFC keeping me “informed”. I don’t expect to know besides the media spin talk they put out. Why would people expect to know the ins and outs?
As I said I feel like you’ve got to respect the AFL and League for getting it done in trying times, but each to there own.

[old dee 23,872]

19 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Yeap I think most agree, me included, but that’s not what I was talking about... 

We were talking about wether he had done a good job or not . Am I mistaken.

[sue 9,144]

16 minutes ago, old dee said:

We were talking about wether he had done a good job or not . Am I mistaken.

Well he could do a good job in one area (keeping this season going) and do a bad in another (look of the game).  The latter may have a longer lasting effect.

[Cards13 9,117]

20 minutes ago, old dee said:

We were talking about wether he had done a good job or not . Am I mistaken.

I was very specific about the season keeping going, I didn’t say a word about the state of the game. 

[old dee 23,872]

4 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

I was very specific about the season keeping going, I didn’t say a word about the state of the game. 

I know I did. I am commenting on his job overall. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

The game itself is in a bad way

6 Goals win a game quite regularly 

(i found Friday nights game boring and turned it off...)

It has been in slow decline since Interchange rotations were sanctioned 

But they won’t admit it

Edited October 18, 2020 by Sir Why You Little

[whatwhat say what 22,947]

24 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The game itself is in a bad way

6 Goals win a game quite regularly 

(i found Friday nights game boring and turned it off...)

It ha been in slow decline since Interchange rotations were sanctioned 

But they won’t admit it

i can't fathom that bolded section...friday night was unbelievably tough and competitive wet weather football - a real slog between two class sides

i think the issue is there's too many players who are crazy fit but ultimately aren't comparable to the 'poor' players of past eras because there's too many teams, thus too many ordinary players, in modern football

we've gone from 20 players taking the field for 12 sides to 22 for 18

the players are so unbelievably fit and modern afl coaches adapted to the international trends of defence-first methodology - push back hard when you've lost possession, kick to the pockets when attacking forward to limit corridor turnover and force repeat stoppages, lock the ball in close and don't allow spread

it's a very different game to that of 20 years ago but, hey, that's what happens in 20 years

limiting interchange might help, but it won't change the crowding of the contest - the only thing that will stop that might be zones (no thankyou) or reducing it to 16-a-side on-field, which would go against the laws of the game

i actually don't mind watching the modern game, and reduced game lengths and only playing each other once has made 2020 a year like no other and - for the most part - a welcome part of what has been the strangest year

Edited October 18, 2020 by whatwhatsaywhat

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

1 minute ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i can't fathom that bolded section...friday night was unbelievably tough and competitive wet weather football - a real slog between two class sides

i think the issue is there's too many players who are crazy fit but ultimately aren't comparable to the 'poor' players of past eras because there's too many teams, thus too many ordinary players, in modern football

we've got from 20 players taking the field for 12 sides to 22 for 18

they are so unbelievably fit and modern afl coaches adapted to the international trends of defence-first methodology - push back hard when you've lost possession, kick to the pockets when attacking forward to limit corridor turnover and force repeat stoppages, lock the ball in close and don't allow spread

it's a very different game to that of 20 years ago but, hey, that's what happens in 20 years

limiting interchange might help, but it won't change the crowding of the contest - the only thing that will stop that might be zones (no thankyou) or reducing it to 16-a-side on-field, which would go against the laws of the game

I am sick of saying it. If players are not rotated off the ground 2-3 times a Quarter ie, they have to stay out on the ground, the game will open up. Not as many players will chase the ball

Friday night 6 goals each, what a yawn fest. My other beef is that defenders cannot defend anymore, because the AFL (Ch7) want to speed up the game. 
It has lost all its uniqueness 

[sue 9,144]

10 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

....

limiting interchange might help, but it won't change the crowding of the contest - the only thing that will stop that might be zones (no thankyou) or reducing it to 16-a-side on-field, which would go against the laws of the game

How about a limit of zero interchanges, just 2 reserve players as it was in days of yore?  With no chance to rest footy will no longer resemble an under 9 kid's game.    And 16 a side only goes against the laws of the game if the laws are unchanged!   Have you handled the out of bounds change yet?

A move to fewer interchanges is the moderate version of zero interchanges - there might be a sweet spot where it stops congestion without losing whatever advantage having interchanges gives. Though I'm not sure what advantages they actually give.  Can anyone enlighten me?  Anything more than could be achieved with more than 2 reserves?)

Edited October 18, 2020 by sue

[old dee 23,872]

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am sick of saying it. If players are not rotated off the ground 2-3 times a Quarter ie, they have to stay out on the ground, the game will open up. Not as many players will chase the ball

Friday night 6 goals each, what a yawn fest. My other beef is that defenders cannot defend anymore, because the AFL (Ch7) want to speed up the game. 
It has lost all its uniqueness 

Could not have said it better.

My God listening to the commentators is perhaps the worst thing about the telecast. Why do they have to talk non stop don't they think we have eyes. I don't mind them calling  the game so much but the incessant prattle drives me nuts. I watched a couple of hours of the Bathurst race  today I doubt there was one minute  of silence. It is almost like we are a bunch of cretins who need every second of the race explained.

[old dee 23,872]

3 minutes ago, sue said:

How about a limit of zero interchanges, just 2 reserve players as it was in days of yore?  With no chance to rest footy will no longer resemble an under 9 kid's game.    And 16 a side only goes against the laws of the game if the laws are unchanged!   Have you handled the out of bounds change yet?

A move to fewer interchanges is the moderate version of zero interchanges - there might be a sweet spot where it stops congestion without losing whatever advantage having interchanges gives. Though I'm not sure what advantages they actually give.  Can anyone enlighten me?  Anything more than could be achieved with more than 2 reserves?)

You have my vote, Funny that the game seem to more and more popular under decades of the old rules but has as a spectacle has fallen in a heap since the  multi interchanges was introduced.

[old dee 23,872]

19 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i can't fathom that bolded section...friday night was unbelievably tough and competitive wet weather football - a real slog between two class sides

i think the issue is there's too many players who are crazy fit but ultimately aren't comparable to the 'poor' players of past eras because there's too many teams, thus too many ordinary players, in modern football

we've gone from 20 players taking the field for 12 sides to 22 for 18

the players are so unbelievably fit and modern afl coaches adapted to the international trends of defence-first methodology - push back hard when you've lost possession, kick to the pockets when attacking forward to limit corridor turnover and force repeat stoppages, lock the ball in close and don't allow spread

it's a very different game to that of 20 years ago but, hey, that's what happens in 20 years

limiting interchange might help, but it won't change the crowding of the contest - the only thing that will stop that might be zones (no thankyou) or reducing it to 16-a-side on-field, which would go against the laws of the game

i actually don't mind watching the modern game, and reduced game lengths and only playing each other once has made 2020 a year like no other and - for the most part - a welcome part of what has been the strangest year

Sorry but I Cannot agree with you I have never enjoy the "game" so little.

[Adam The God 30,413]

My feeling on Mahoney is he'll stay, but I expect forward, midfield, defence and development coaches to be replaced. Yze will likely take the forwards. I wouldn't be against Richardson taking the development lead as his history is strong in this area. So then we'll be looking for a midfield and defensive coach. Let's hope we can approach some Port coaches this week and some Richmond (or even Geelong) coaches the following week.

[640MD 3,429]

20 minutes ago, old dee said:

Sorry but I Cannot agree with you I have never enjoy the "game" so little.

I think i agree,   mostly a rolling scrum,  with no application of "in the back" or "incorrect disposal"    just shovel it to your guys !

At least there are no distance limits and 4 downs, stuff made for TV.

But its getting there, and we can all speak with a Californian accent,

and Vote for Donald.    Cannot wait !

[Dr. Gonzo 24,299]

1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

i can't fathom that bolded section...friday night was unbelievably tough and competitive wet weather football - a real slog between two class sides

i think the issue is there's too many players who are crazy fit but ultimately aren't comparable to the 'poor' players of past eras because there's too many teams, thus too many ordinary players, in modern football

we've gone from 20 players taking the field for 12 sides to 22 for 18

the players are so unbelievably fit and modern afl coaches adapted to the international trends of defence-first methodology - push back hard when you've lost possession, kick to the pockets when attacking forward to limit corridor turnover and force repeat stoppages, lock the ball in close and don't allow spread

it's a very different game to that of 20 years ago but, hey, that's what happens in 20 years

limiting interchange might help, but it won't change the crowding of the contest - the only thing that will stop that might be zones (no thankyou) or reducing it to 16-a-side on-field, which would go against the laws of the game

i actually don't mind watching the modern game, and reduced game lengths and only playing each other once has made 2020 a year like no other and - for the most part - a welcome part of what has been the strangest year

They need to reduce the number of players on the field, I've been thinking that for around 10 years now. It's the only thing that will open the game up.

[trout 385]

1 hour ago, A F said:

My feeling on Mahoney is he'll stay, but I expect forward, midfield, defence and development coaches to be replaced. Yze will likely take the forwards. I wouldn't be against Richardson taking the development lead as his history is strong in this area. So then we'll be looking for a midfield and defensive coach. Let's hope we can approach some Port coaches this week and some Richmond (or even Geelong) coaches the following week.

I will be very surprised if Mahoney is at the club next year and I will be questioning if we need to review our reviews if he is.

[deanox 9,989]

3 hours ago, A F said:

My feeling on Mahoney is he'll stay, but I expect forward, midfield, defence and development coaches to be replaced. Yze will likely take the forwards. I wouldn't be against Richardson taking the development lead as his history is strong in this area. So then we'll be looking for a midfield and defensive coach. Let's hope we can approach some Port coaches this week and some Richmond (or even Geelong) coaches the following week.

With the reduced soft cap, do you think we'll have a forward, mid and defensive coach?

I know we've previously used terms like offensive, defensive and stoppage coaches, implying a responsibility for all aspects of the game plan, not just 6 players. Is that better than line coaching? Can we afford both (line coaches plus role coaches)?

Yze was Head of Match Day Strategy and Opposition at Hawthorn. I was wondering if he was coming to fill Craig Jennings role as Strategy and Analyst. We moved him on at the end of 2019 and chased Yze but didnt get him.

Match Day strategy is interesting. Do we see Yze helping make calls and changes on game day (something that seems to be a Goodwin weakness)?

 

This Tom Browne article is interesting. Jennings and Mcartney didnt get along. No mention of their relationships with Goodwin. Jennings celebrated in 2018 but potentialy responsible for failures in 2019. The self promotion is interesting: I wonder if he felt he should have been doing a senior role and it affected working relationships? Either way we didnt actually get to replace his role after 2019.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-word-on-how-melbourne-demons-craig-jennings-fell-out-of-favour-c-396886

[jnrmac 20,186]

Great we're doing a review. 

Shame we wont be reviewing the most critical coach in any meaningful way.

[Adam The God 30,413]

2 hours ago, deanox said:

With the reduced soft cap, do you think we'll have a forward, mid and defensive coach?

I know we've previously used terms like offensive, defensive and stoppage coaches, implying a responsibility for all aspects of the game plan, not just 6 players. Is that better than line coaching? Can we afford both (line coaches plus role coaches)?

Yze was Head of Match Day Strategy and Opposition at Hawthorn. I was wondering if he was coming to fill Craig Jennings role as Strategy and Analyst. We moved him on at the end of 2019 and chased Yze but didnt get him.

Match Day strategy is interesting. Do we see Yze helping make calls and changes on game day (something that seems to be a Goodwin weakness)?

 

This Tom Browne article is interesting. Jennings and Mcartney didnt get along. No mention of their relationships with Goodwin. Jennings celebrated in 2018 but potentialy responsible for failures in 2019. The self promotion is interesting: I wonder if he felt he should have been doing a senior role and it affected working relationships? Either way we didnt actually get to replace his role after 2019.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/the-inside-word-on-how-melbourne-demons-craig-jennings-fell-out-of-favour-c-396886

My thinking is go after the best assistants and have them carry more responsibility. So a three key assistants for the three areas of the ground and then a head of development. Development coach will likely double as something else. We'll probably need Casey Demons coach too that sits within the FD. If Yze becomes forward coach, he may also handle overall strategy.

I think FD set ups will look very different year across the board.  

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

16 hours ago, sue said:

How about a limit of zero interchanges, just 2 reserve players as it was in days of yore?  With no chance to rest footy will no longer resemble an under 9 kid's game.    And 16 a side only goes against the laws of the game if the laws are unchanged!   Have you handled the out of bounds change yet?

A move to fewer interchanges is the moderate version of zero interchanges - there might be a sweet spot where it stops congestion without losing whatever advantage having interchanges gives. Though I'm not sure what advantages they actually give.  Can anyone enlighten me?  Anything more than could be achieved with more than 2 reserves?)

One advantage is the ability to replace an injured player. As an example, if player Smith is replaced by player Jones and player Jones gets injured, player Smith could return to the field if it was an interchange system but not if it was the older 19th and 20th men format. I think it's a more significant issue than it might initially sound, too. Without the ability to replace injured players there is a risk that players with minor "tweaks" may remain on the field making them susceptible to greater injury. Even more concerning, the lack of interchange might discourage proper management of potential concussions.

I had not that long ago thought that abolishing interchange altogether might be a good idea. On further reflection, I think a small number of interchanges, such as a maximum of, say, 4 per quarter, might be a better option. 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[sue 9,144]

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

One advantage is the ability to replace an injured player. As an example, if player Smith is replaced by player Jones and player Jones gets injured, player Smith could return to the field if it was an interchange system but not if it was the older 19th and 20th men format. I think it's a more significant issue than it might initially sound, too. Without the ability to replace injured players there is a risk that players with minor "tweaks" may remain on the field making them susceptible to greater injury. Even more concerning, the lack of interchange might discourage proper management or potential concussions.

I had not that long ago thought that abolishing interchange altogether might be a good idea. On further reflection, I think a small number of interchanges, such as a maximum of, say, 4 per quarter, might be a better option. 

 

You are right, going to zero interchanges increases the chance of players injuring themselves staying in the game because they can't be replaced.  While injuries affect the ability to interchange, they  are less likely for an injured player to stay on the field.  Maybe have 4 reserves?  Or fewer interchanges.

[Roost it far 8,600]

Time to knock the teams down to 16

[old dee 23,872]

22 hours ago, willmoy said:

I'll reserve my judgement on that. Do you know the number of drug tests done during and leading up to the season? Do you know the number of cases during the season and the impacts on everything? Will we ever know?

No contrary feedback by the Clubs, so nothing has happened? Minimal press contact and pressure about what's going on? Post Covid, nothing...Do you feel informed?

It’s Grand final week so the media will run out of stuff about next Wednesday. Expect some comment after that.