42 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Not really

It means we want someone who has had a lot of experience and gone thru a cycle of game styles and changes within the AFL environment

It doesn’t mean they need to have been a senior coach or senior assistant for 7-8 years but being involved at AFL club level in some capacity.

I would have thought that to have any credibility as an applicant one would have been in the industry for well beyond that time constraint. Therefore the unnecessary nature of the stipulation.

10 minutes ago, biggestred said:

just pointing out that we have a shortlist and the contents havent leaked to tom morris.

That is an excellent sign.

Dogs are a weird anomaly because the past couple of years they have been really highly ranked in all those premiership window charts that measure points for, points against and so on. Yet they can't actually get it done consistently.

It does make me wonder whether we focus too much on these statlines as a way to measure success sometimes. I always felt like Goodwin based our gameplans around certain KPI's that correlated with winning games (inside 50s, contested posessions etc) but in doing so couldn't see the forest for the trees.

2 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Dogs are a weird anomaly because the past couple of years they have been really highly ranked in all those premiership window charts that measure points for, points against and so on. Yet they can't actually get it done consistently.

It does make me wonder whether we focus too much on these statlines as a way to measure success sometimes. I always felt like Goodwin based our gameplans around certain KPI's that correlated with winning games (inside 50s, contested posessions etc) but in doing so couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Way way back at the very start of Goodwin's tenure - year one or two of his senior coaching - he said in a radio interview he wasn't a big one for stats. I think he said something along the lines of he preferred to trust his eyes. I liked it - but I never heard him say it again.

What you've outlined is one of the main reasons I think football stats are sometimes fun, ocassionally interesting, but rarely definitive. Even when someone develops a really plausible connection between certain stats and team success, it's ephemeral.

Going back to not seeing the forest for the trees, my completely un-scientific and conjecture-based guess is that by the end of his time at the club stat correlations came a distant second to trusting his observation.

17 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Dogs are a weird anomaly because the past couple of years they have been really highly ranked in all those premiership window charts that measure points for, points against and so on. Yet they can't actually get it done consistently.

It does make me wonder whether we focus too much on these statlines as a way to measure success sometimes. I always felt like Goodwin based our gameplans around certain KPI's that correlated with winning games (inside 50s, contested posessions etc) but in doing so couldn't see the forest for the trees.

The dogs entire problem in my opinion is while they have a very good coach, they have the wrong coach. i think under Simon Goodwin they'd be a consistent top 4 team because the ball movement goody wanted would have worked a whole lot better with Naughton, Darcy, English and so on and then a proper defensive structure they'd be really really hard to beat.

Defense is still the king of championships in all team sports, you can't only focus on defense and be successful, but if you ignore it, any success you do achieve would be an unsustainable fluke, hence 2016

1 minute ago, Ted Lasso said:

The dogs entire problem in my opinion is while they have a very good coach, they have the wrong coach. i think under Simon Goodwin they'd be a consistent top 4 team because the ball movement goody wanted would have worked a whole lot better with Naughton, Darcy, English and so on and then a proper defensive structure they'd be really really hard to beat.

Defense is still the king of championships in all team sports, you can't only focus on defense and be successful, but if you ignore it, any success you do achieve would be an unsustainable fluke, hence 2016

But their defense isn't even that bad. For instance this year they were 8th for points against but 1st for points for. They just couldn't get it done against other top 8 sides. Last year is even more crazy. They were 2nd for points for and 1st for points against. AKA the best defense in the comp.

14 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Way way back at the very start of Goodwin's tenure - year one or two of his senior coaching - he said in a radio interview he wasn't a big one for stats. I think he said something along the lines of he preferred to trust his eyes. I liked it - but I never heard him say it again.

What you've outlined is one of the main reasons I think football stats are sometimes fun, ocassionally interesting, but rarely definitive. Even when someone develops a really plausible connection between certain stats and team success, it's ephemeral.

Going back to not seeing the forest for the trees, my completely un-scientific and conjecture-based guess is that by the end of his time at the club stat correlations came a distant second to trusting his observation.

He absolutely changed over the years haha. Max spoke a lot about Goodwin citing things like expected score and doing his head in.

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

But their defense isn't even that bad. For instance this year they were 8th for points against but 1st for points for. They just couldn't get it done against other top 8 sides. Last year is even more crazy. They were 2nd for points for and 1st for points against. AKA the best defense in the comp.

Their defence IS that bad.

And has been their Achilles heel during Beveridge's tenure. We won a flag because they couldn't ahut our offence down

No team wins a flag conceding the 8th most points (which by the way given they finished 9th is hardly anything to write home about).

Given their forward line riches, the fact they have the best player in the AFL in bont, one of the very best mids in libba, one if the best rucks, plenty of players with the skillset today's football demand (ie pace and good kicking skills) and a game style thst eas in some ways ahead of its time (ie qyick hands, get it go the outside and transition quickly from the back half) it's amazing they have not got more scrutiny for their lack of success.

And the key reason for that lack of success is their rubbish defence.

And its also a key reason why their record against top 8 teams is so poor - the best teams open them up and expose their rubbish defence.

To be honest, the same was true of us this season.

Edited August 29Aug 29 by binman

16 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

But their defense isn't even that bad. For instance this year they were 8th for points against but 1st for points for. They just couldn't get it done against other top 8 sides. Last year is even more crazy. They were 2nd for points for and 1st for points against. AKA the best defense in the comp.

I don't think you can measure defense in statistics. they've been unable to consistently compete with the tops sides despite having an offensive setup essentially all of the other 17 clubs would take given the chance.

good teams close down the game, don't give them time and space and force the game into an arm wrestle which exposes their lack of defensive "finals like" habits.

look at the 2021 grand final. when they game stopped going entirely their own way they couldn't even give a yelp. like us, nothing much has changed structurally for them since 2021.

3 minutes ago, binman said:

Their defence IS that bad.

And has been their Achilles heel during Beveridge's tenure. We won a flag because they couldn't ahut our offence down

No team wins a flag conceding the 8th most points (which by the way given they finished 9th is hardly anything to write home about).

Given their forward line riches, the fact they have the best player in the AFL in bont, one of the very best mids in libba, one if the best rucks, plenty of players with the skillset today's football demand (ie pace and good kicking skills) and a game style thst eas in some ways ahead of its time (ie qyick hands, get it go the outside and transition quickly from the back half) it's amazing they have not got more scrutiny for their lack of success.

And the key reason for that lack of success is their rubbish defence.

And its also a key reason why their record against top 8 teams is so poor - the best teams open them up and expose their rubbish defence.

To be honest, the same was true of us this season.

We were far far worse this season. They were the best defense in the comp last year as far as points conceded go though but still got smashed in a final by the team that was 6th for points against and points for.

6 minutes ago, Ted Lasso said:

I don't think you can measure defense in statistics. they've been unable to consistently compete with the tops sides despite having an offensive setup essentially all of the other 17 clubs would take given the chance.

good teams close down the game, don't give them time and space and force the game into an arm wrestle which exposes their lack of defensive "finals like" habits.

look at the 2021 grand final. when they game stopped going entirely their own way they couldn't even give a yelp. like us, nothing much has changed structurally for them since 2021.

I don't disagree with this. It goes back to my point about the flaws with these statlines and 'premiership windows' and things that are created by champion data and squiggle and fox footy etc

Geelong last year were 11th for points against and were a kick away from a grand final. 😲

Dogs under Bevo are flat track bullies - they belt the lowly sides and it gives them an inflated rating in so many stats.

But compare that to how they go against top 8-9 sides. Obviously it's no where near as good - which is true for all sides. But the drop off for them is far worse.

Once they're against sides that have elite midfields / defences their deficiencies in defence are shown for what they are.

How that list does not make finals is a reflection on their system, coaching and recruiting. We have had problems with bombing the ball into 50 for years... the dogs have had an equivalent issue with their defence. And what has actually changed?

2 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I don't disagree with this. It goes back to my point about the flaws with these statlines and 'premiership windows' and things that are created by champion data and squiggle and fox footy etc

The problem isn't the stats, the problem is many people's inability to analyse and properly understand them.

Part of that is thinking they are causation when they are the opposite - they are indicators.

2 minutes ago, binman said:

The problem isn't the stats, the problem is many people's inability to analyse and properly understand them.

Part of that is thinking they are causation when they are the opposite - they are indicators.

The models developed by these organisations are attempting to be as predictive as possible though. When teams defy those models it's worth questioning their efficacy.

Buckley

Giansiricusa

Skipworth

Lade

Montgomery

Kelly.

Believe Enright opted out and Daly has advised that while the opportunity appealed, the timing didn’t work. The club had a conversation with Leon Cameron, not sure what came of that.

Edited August 29Aug 29 by Dannyz

3 hours ago, Deez21 said:

And I know it is

Hold up the five year offer is from the dogs or the Dee's? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post.

18 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

Buckley

Giansiricusa

Skipworth

Lade

Montgomery

Kelly.

Believe Enright opted out and Daly has advised that while the opportunity appealed, the timing didn’t work. The club had a conversation with Leon Cameron, not sure what came of that.

From that list alone it’s looking more and more like Bucks

Glad to see Montgomery in there though, hadn’t seen his name thrown around in the media yet but seems very highly rated

Edited August 29Aug 29 by demoncat

3 hours ago, frankie_d said:

I never thought I’d say this but TMac is now much more reliable by foot. A mixture of not buying of more than he can chew, and improved skill. Early in his career he was…um… a worry!

ol 'plugger mac' been a dead eye in front of goal since about 2017!

he and ben brown just ahead of fritta for best set shot for goal at the mfc

22 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

The models developed by these organisations are attempting to be as predictive as possible though. When teams defy those models it's worth questioning their efficacy.

That's exactly what i'm talking about when i say stats are indicators not causation. The are not predictive - they are a representation of what has happened not will happen. Teams can't 'defy a model'.

Sure you can, if you want to, use certain data sets to inform your thinking about what might happen but they are not definitive.

Take the so called premiership window.

It isn't predicting a winner of the flag, it is simply a statistical representation of historical fact - teams who rank in the top six for points for and points against, have won 18 of the last 20 AFL premierships (another historical fact - no team in the last 20 years has won a flag with a defence ranked seventh or lower).

That of course that doesn't mean its impossible for team that's not in the so called premiership window to win a flag - and the data reflects that fact (2 teams not in the 'premiership window' won a flag - one of which being us i think).

It just means the historical data suggests it is very unlikely a team will win flag is not in the premiership window (and almost impossible if they are not in the top 7 for defence).

And its therefore reasonable to assume that will hold true this year too.

Edited August 29Aug 29 by binman

Do you know what, I'm just going to trust the process & whoever they choose then I'll just go with it.

44 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

Buckley

Giansiricusa

Skipworth

Lade

Montgomery

Kelly.

Believe Enright opted out and Daly has advised that while the opportunity appealed, the timing didn’t work. The club had a conversation with Leon Cameron, not sure what came of that.

I've got no inside knowledge / intel but a little underwhelmed by this list if its the list - don't worry this is equivalent to people talking about draftees who've never watched them play live! Anyway - I thought we would want people that have had played a big role in teams playing the modern game (but no one from Adelaide, Hawthorn, Brisbane - maybe they want to ride the wave where they are).

Can someone explain why Giansiricusa is rated so highly - he's been at Essendon since 2021. Obviously the persformance of a club is not down to an assistant... but they've treaded water in that time.

I hope our CEO has taken his red and black glasses off - nearly all of the candidates have strangely had stints at essendon.

I hate Geelong with a passion - but respect how they were able to rejig their gameplan from the ground up at the end of 2021 when they looked cooked to winning a flag in 2022. So someone who was part of that (eg Kelly and King (not on the list) would at a minimum have some useful IP for the MFC people on the panel. Part of it is excellent recruiting (and some unfair advantages with the surfcoast lifestyle) - but if we were told after 2021 that at this point in 2025, we would be where we are and Geelong would have won another flag and be contending (finished top 4) for another, it would have been laughable. What they have done is pretty amazing - and I hope through this process we can take some "learnings" from that!

41 minutes ago, deelusions from afar said:

Can someone explain why Giansiricusa is rated so highly - he's been at Essendon since 2021. Obviously the persformance of a club is not down to an assistant... but they've treaded water in that time.

Goodwin came from Essendon during a far worse period for them. Worked out alright.

I don't know why he is highly rated, but being at a successful club doesn't automatically make you successful or unsuccessful. Although I think having seen success as player or coach is very important.

Goodwin was a 2 time premiership player.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Goodwin came from Essendon during a far worse period for them. Worked out alright.

I don't know why he is highly rated, but being at a successful club doesn't automatically make you successful or unsuccessful. Although I think having seen success as player or coach is very important.

Goodwin was a 2 time premiership player.

Chris Scott had basically only done a three year stint at a mediocre Freo before the Cats brought him in.