6 minutes ago, Smokey said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that if you had your time again writing this comment you'd include Viney in that list of A-graders 

Mmm, i wondered about that.

But you're right, if I include fritter, Lever and kiz as A graders, viney is def one too.

But if you use AA selection as the metric for A graders, only May, Gawn, Tracc, Lever and Oliver make the list

Great winning % to have as a coach. Still prone to some interesting decisions at the selection committee. I can understand why he brought Tomlinson in for Petty but the decision to play BBB in the NT knowing it was going to rain was a mistake. Must win at least one more flag with this list. 

On 7/24/2023 at 11:22 AM, Nasher said:

Easily, hands down the most successful coach we’ve had since the golden era of the 60s. One injury decimated year of being non-competitive in 7 is outstanding.

I’ve seen posters that still prefer Northey or Daniher and it makes my head spin. It really amazes me how little recognition he gets.

Not a fair comparison. Goody is blessed with the best mids, ruck & defence in the comp.

The team failed badly in 2017, 2019 & 2020. In 2022 he coached poorly & we were out in straight sets.

So far 2 good years out of 6.

Out of interest what’s Fagan’s record? Lots of finals, not many finals wins and no flag? Is he a success? 

13 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Out of interest what’s Fagan’s record? Lots of finals, not many finals wins and no flag? Is he a success? 

Work is quiet so a quick google search shows

Fagan -  Career coaching record*. 154 games for 86W and 68L - 55.8%

               Regular season.               145 games for  83W and 62L - 57.2%

               Finals.                                   9 games for 3W and 6L  -  33.3%

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Dee Zephyr

21 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

the decision to play BBB in the NT knowing it was going to rain was a mistake. Must win at least one more flag with this list. 

In isolation maybe.

But if part of the bigger picture in terms of managing bb's fitness program and readiness for finals then perhaps not.

It's about winning the war, not the battles (and it's worth noting in that context that despite that loss, with 5 games to go we are 2 games and percentage clear of 5th and a top 4 lock, so the loss was not a big deal in the scheme of things).

26 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Not a fair comparison. Goody is blessed with the best mids, ruck & defence in the comp.

The team failed badly in 2017, 2019 & 2020. In 2022 he coached poorly & we were out in straight sets.

So far 2 good years out of 6.

Yeah, but also not a fair comparison.  We didn't have the best mids and defence in 2017 and 2019. 

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Burgess came straight over to our bench after the game on Sunday and gave Goody and a few of the trainers/fitness guys a hug. Was nice to see.

I was tempted to kidnap him and not release him back to SA until he gets Clarry back to playing.

I think you should have. And tbh am very unhappy you didn’t. 😂

28 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Out of interest what’s Fagan’s record? Lots of finals, not many finals wins and no flag? Is he a success? 

Not until he wins a flag

26 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Not a fair comparison. Goody is blessed with the best mids, ruck & defence in the comp.

The team failed badly in 2017, 2019 & 2020. In 2022 he coached poorly & we were out in straight sets.

So far 2 good years out of 6.

This is genuinely funny post.

Comedy Gold.

Serious question - obviously an effort to troll, but were you going for laughs or more trying to wind people up?

If the former, well played.

If the latter, well rita panhini you ain't.

We just missed finals in 2017 & 2020 and 2019 was our year from hell with surgeries and injury, also 2022 top 4 finish hardly a failure but compromised by injuries and we ran out of steam. Very harsh Cranky Franky.!!!

1 minute ago, DeeZone said:

We just missed finals in 2017 & 2020 and 2019 was our year from hell with surgeries and injury, also 2022 top 4 finish hardly a failure but compromised by injuries and we ran out of steam. Very harsh Cranky Franky.!!!

You could argue that if we don't have a horrible year in 2019, we don't win the 2021 flag, considering the players we secured in the first round of the draft that year. 

2 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Not a fair comparison. Goody is blessed with the best mids, ruck & defence in the comp.

The team failed badly in 2017, 2019 & 2020. In 2022 he coached poorly & we were out in straight sets.

So far 2 good years out of 6.

Unless the team has an intelligent and competent coach, having the best mids, ruck and defence counts for little.

Coaching is all about bringing the talents together to succeed.

BTW, Northey's 1987 and 88 success was based on recruiting for 87 Viney the Elder, Spalding, Dean, Lovett and the return of Lyon. Plus we still had Robbie. Swooper's great skill was in lifting the remaining players to match their standard.

2 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Not a fair comparison. Goody is blessed with the best mids, ruck & defence in the comp.

The team failed badly in 2017, 2019 & 2020. In 2022 he coached poorly & we were out in straight sets.

So far 2 good years out of 6.

2020 wasn’t a fail, initially i thought it was. The team that year was trained the Burgo way, to run over teams as the game went on.  
Covid put an end to that.

9 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

2020 wasn’t a fail, initially i thought it was. The team that year was trained the Burgo way, to run over teams as the game went on.  
Covid put an end to that.

In 2020 they were trained to be stronger and fitter at the end of games and in the finals.

Truncated game time and fewer matches adversely affected their potential strengths. That's why in 2021 they overpowered the oppos in the finals.

3 hours ago, binman said:

This is genuinely funny post.

Comedy Gold.

Serious question - obviously an effort to troll, but were you going for laughs or more trying to wind people up?

If the former, well played.

If the latter, well rita panhini you ain't.

Panhini ???

Is that with mozzarella & prosciutto ?

4 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Work is quiet so a quick google search shows

Fagan -  Career coaching record*. 154 games for 86W and 68L - 55.8%

               Regular season.               145 games for  83W and 62L - 57.2%

               Finals.                                   9 games for 3W and 6L  -  33.3%

And 2 of those finals wins coming last year.

5 hours ago, binman said:

This is genuinely funny post.

Comedy Gold.

Serious question - obviously an effort to troll, but were you going for laughs or more trying to wind people up?

If the former, well played.

If the latter, well rita panhini you ain't.

Champagne comedy. 

6 hours ago, binman said:

In isolation maybe.

But if part of the bigger picture in terms of managing bb's fitness program and readiness for finals then perhaps not.

It's about winning the war, not the battles (and it's worth noting in that context that despite that loss, with 5 games to go we are 2 games and percentage clear of 5th and a top 4 lock, so the loss was not a big deal in the scheme of things).

But to give ourselves the best chance of winning the war a top 2 finish whilst not essential is highly desirable. The soft losses to Freo but more so GWS could well be the difference between finishing 2nd to 3rd or 4th.

As for BBB fitness this is the part I don’t get. On a wet track how many miles into his legs did they think they would get? If we were 2-3 weeks out from finals I would understand, but 8-9 weeks out surely he could have played at Casey and done some additional fitness work if required?

Edited July 25, 20232 yr by Bombay Airconditioning

14 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

But to give ourselves the best chance of winning the war a top 2 finish whilst not essential is highly desirable. The soft losses to Freo but more so GWS could well be the difference between finishing 2nd to 3rd or 4th.

 

They weren't soft losses, we should have won both but for inaccurate kicking, vs Freo 10.12 to 12.7, contested 157 to 141; and vs GWS 5.15 to 7.5, contested 187 to 143.

2 hours ago, old55 said:

They weren't soft losses, we should have won both but for inaccurate kicking, vs Freo 10.12 to 12.7, contested 157 to 141; and vs GWS 5.15 to 7.5, contested 187 to 143.

Soft as in teams we should of beaten easily.

2 hours ago, old55 said:

They weren't soft losses, we should have won both but for inaccurate kicking, vs Freo 10.12 to 12.7, contested 157 to 141; and vs GWS 5.15 to 7.5, contested 187 to 143.

There is often such a funny dynamic, from both the media and fans, around such results.

Yes, we lost both games, but played pretty well in both games and really should have won both as evidenced by winning on expected scores.

But we lost both and for some the losses are evidence of us not being a genuine contender ('contenders don't lose to Freo and the Giants!').

And we get no credit for actually playing well. Just brick bats for losing (which of course also undervalues the performance of Freo and the Giants) 

But then we win close games like our wins over the Lions and the Crows, and the narrative from some is those teams blew their chances because of inncaruacy and despite winning those games, the win is devalued and we still don't get credit for playing well (from some).  

I listened to this weeks ESPN Champion data footy podcast, and there was a classic example of this phenomena.

When talking about the top 8 order, one of the hosts (who said there was a clear top 3 - the Pies, Port and Lions - and then the rest) said we were lucky to win our last two games and if we had lost them would be back with the pack fighting for a top 8 finish.

The latter point is true. But the fella making that point, or the other hosts, failed to point out the fact that we have also lost multiple games by very small margins where we won on Champion data's expected scores - like the Freo and GWS games (and the Port game too for that matter).

It is clear the clubs, or at least the dees, put a fair bit of weight on the value of expected scores as the expected score is on the boards they show players at the quarter breaks in both the AFL and VFL.

It makes sense because whilst of course you don't get four points for winning on expected scores, it gives a very good objective snapshot of the relative quality of the performance. 

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by binman

20 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Soft as in teams we should of beaten easily.

Yes Freo have fallen in a hole since they beat us, but were travelling pretty well at that point (David King famously predicted they would take our spot in the top 4 after they beat us - peanut).

And the Giants, who are currently seventh only 2 games behind us, have not lost a game since beating us, including overcoming a three goal deficit at three quarter time and wining by 14 points against the Crows at Adelaide Oval the week before the Crows pushed us right to the line. 

No team will beat GWS easily or the rest of this season.

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by binman

5 minutes ago, binman said:

There is often such a funny dynamic, from both the media and fans, around such results.

Yes, we lost both games, but played pretty well in both games and really should have won both as evidenced by winning on expected scores.

But we lost both, for some the losses are evidence of us not being a genuine contenders ('contenders don't lose to Freo and the Giants!'). And we get not credit for actually playing well. 

But then we win close games like our win over the Lions and the Crows, and the narrative from some is those teams blew their chances because of inncaruacy and despite winning those games, the win is devalued and we still don't get credit for playing well (from some).  

I listened to this weeks ESPN Champion data footy podcast, and there was a classic example of this phenomena.

When talking about the top 8 order, one of the hosts (who said there was a clear top 3 - the Pies, Port and Lions - and then the rest) said we were lucky to win our last two games and if we had lost them would be back with the pack fighting for a top 8 finish.

The latter point is true. But the fella making that point, or the other hosts, failed to point out the fact that we have also lost multiple games by very small margins where we won on Champion data's expected scores - like the Freo and GWS games (and the Port game too for that matter).

It is clear the clubs, or at least the dees, put a fair bit of weight on the value of expected scores as the expected score is on the boards they show players at the quarter breaks in both the AFL and VFL. It makes sense because whilst of course you don't get four points for winning on expected scores, it gives a very good objective snapshot of the relative quality of the performance. 

All true.

Both posts.

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by old55