Leaderboard

Whilst I did say earlier that I somewhat understand Cornes' position on this issue (i.e. not going too hard for a single doctor who will have done a lot right by players over the years, even if this is an egregious mistake), this issue does display his awfully blatant Port Adelaide bias. When Oliver was ruled out for longer than first expected he called it the "Demon Debacle" and said he couldn't think of another injury that was managed as poorly. No "good clubs stick by good people" for us, was there.

Last night on SEN Gerard Healy opened with a 2 or 3 minute monologue about AFL club doctors. He made some great points about this not being an ideal profession for these people because you get paid less and much more possible scrutiny like this, he also went on to list the amazing practitioners he's had at club level and still sees as his personal doctors now. Kane then came in and echo'd his statements and they both went on the defend people in these roles and how good they have been and that Fisher was a brilliant doctor who made a mistake and will serve the appropriate punishment. Will choose my words carefully on this because this incident has really stirred things up. I appreciate Gerard's take on this, I really do. It's important we get opinions from people who have been around these people longer than any of us, and these opinions have their place. However with the highest respect to these people, at this point in time and on a very rare occasion, I do not want to hear from ex players on this issue. I want to hear from completely independent sources. Experts in the field, scholars, people who have studied these injuries and written theses on the subject. I want to hear about what needs to happen, what needs to be different about processes, protocols etc. I don't want to hear Kane Cornes saying how doctors have it so tough and have to tend to so many things in the moment and could easily make a mistake by missing a potential concussion and requirement for a SCAT5 test, because to me that just means there is scope for another mistake to be made in future. This is absolutely not a time for the old "You wouldn't know because you never played or worked in a footy club, you don't know how hard it is" routine. No excuses, we need solutions and we need the select few people who actually know the subject back to front to come up with these. Not people with a conflict of interest or sticking up for mates.

In that article I found these words interesting: The scrutiny comes from both the AFL itself, with an independent doctor viewing the game from a hub alongside the AFL review centre (ARC) charged with alerting the doctors on the bench to an incident they may have missed that could involve a concussion...... Has anyone heard any comment on why this independent doctor didn't alert Port to what the rest of us could see? Or did they, but were ignored?

Himmelberg’s decisions helps us considerably - 1 less compensation pick to worry about, that surely would have been a first rounder. My mail from inside North is that they don’t know what they’ll get, but don’t expect a first round compo pick for McKay. If he goes to Essendon it’s not for the big bucks it would take to get into that compo band.

Hibbert... Hibberd...

Surely ladder position is an indication of form? I won't be surprised if we drop one but astonished is a bit of a stretch. With 3 minutes to go... You've got a bit of Kane Cornes about you 'Jimmy'...

Who cares! We should do what is best for us and stuff the media.

The football media it seems are pushing the narrative that it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate cynical action to flout the rules as it appeared to anyone with average vision. Shifting the goal posts to turn the discussion into something else. How can a club doctor not see what everyone else saw? The vision of the collision and aftermath was damning.

Must admit, I am grateful to you guys who can observe structures during the game, as due to the fact that I am watching more games on TV than attending live, I am really only seeing passages of play and vision of the whole field is therefore restricted. I enjoy reading your comments on this aspect of our games.

I am OK with Woey being dropped. Had a run, knows what to expect next year, or perhaps if an injury occurs to one of the wingers/mids before the season ends. A chance Tomlinson takes the sub position (or Harmes), as they need to get some game time into Joel. Hibbo slots into the backline, unless they decide to keep Chandler. Sparrow is Woey's replacement. A no to Grundy and Spargo from me.

Not sure why anyone seems to be worried about Gawn & JVR against the Roos. It seems to me like a relatively risk free opportunity to test JVR against a decent ruck opposition. Gotta find out if he’ll be up to the task against quality opposition in the finals. I still think Grundy will have a part to play in the run at a flag.

I think in his post-game interview Goody said he sent May to Dusty in the second half after he got a hold of McVee a bit. Maybe that's why he ended further up the ground?

I’d be keen on Gresham if he didn’t cost much since he’s on the outer this year under Lyon. It wasn’t that long ago he was basically Saints best player or close to. I had him in a work supercoach league competition and kept a close eye on him. He’s a good forward mid whose past year or two have been derailed by injury and clashing with Lyon as a coach. If his body is right, change of scenery could see him return to his best. When healthy and in form, he’s an upgrade on Nibbler, Chandler, Spargo etc. Will listen with interest.

Grundy not playing according to Goody No 2s scratch match just increased training loads for 2s players. Sparrow to play if he gets through training. Clarry progressing well. Won’t play this week. Likely to be back next week.

I like to imagine that my $30 of Kayo is divided into $7 alimony for Jerry Hall, Wendi Murdoch, Anna Murdoch Mann and Patricia Booker, with the final $2 going to pay for when Tracc is on 360. It makes it much more palatable.

Goofy is quite the coach

i like the handling of Woey. given a run of games. has shown something but has plenty to work on. bring on 2024 for the young man

The eight bench players are named in order of jumper numbers from lowest to highest. You can tie me to an anthill and smear my ears with jam if Petty isn't in the starting 22.

We could, if we play Bowey at half forward… I know it won’t happen but a girl can dream of those sexy kicks going inside 50

Spargo and Chandler plsy different roles.. I suspect spargo comes in for Woey, who had been playing spargo's role.

IN: Hibberd, Sparrow OUT: Woewodin, Harmes imo

Wow, what a game by the Dees to overcome the Tiges! Based on Champion Data Player Ratings, that was our best game since the North Melbourne smashing in Rd 7 and our 3rd best for the season, reaching 10.93 as a team. An interesting note is that Richmond scored 9.91 which is extremely high for a losing team (2nd highest for a losing team for the round behind Essendon's score of 10.28) and higher than for of the winning teams for the round. Best performers for the Dees aligned to the test with Petty, Gawn and Melsham in the top 3 whilst Rivers was a bit of a surprise to me, coming 4th. For the upcoming game vs North Melbourne, the past ratings indicate this should be a comfortable win for the Dees with a 40 game average of 9.29 compared to North of 7.87. In terms of looking at the teams from last round, North have a lot of inexperienced players with lower ratings across their last 40 games than Melbourne. Their key players are Goldstein (not ideal for the future), LDU, Simpkin, Thomas and Sheezel (unbelievable for a 19 game player). If the Deescan minimise the impact of most of these players I'd be very surprised if North have the depth to replace their usual output.

Objective update on the probability of us winning our last four games Prior to the Crows game, based on the bookies odds for that game and the Tigers game and my estimate of the likely odds in the remaining games (because the bookies only field markets for the next two upcoming games), the odds of us winning our remaining 6 home and away games was a tick over: 9-1. After the Crows win, using the same formula, those odds dropped to: 5-1. We have four games to go. The bookies have us at 1.10 to beat the Roos, 1.60 to beat the blues (which by the by i had estimated the price would be 1.70 in my calculations for the odds above) and i'm estimating our price for the Hawks game will 1.40 and the Swans game 1.70. So 1.10 x 1.60 x 1.40 x 1.70 = 4.188. That translates, after our win over the tiges, the odd of us winning out final four games as aprox: 3-1. I said prior to the Crows and Tigers games i thought we would go unbeaten for the remainder of the season. And, unsurprisingly i still think we will. There's actually no market for the bet (ie dees to win its last four games), but if there was i wouldn't take 3-1. Why? Because I think 3-1 is pretty close to the true odds of us winning our final four games and therefore there is no value. 3-1 seems pretty short. But what's important to remember is that at those odds the probability of us winning our final four games is 25%. So 75% chance of not winning our final four games.

I think Brodie plays this week. North, Carlton and Hawthorn each run two rucks. Despite Max's great form and high gametime, I don't think we want to [censored] him solo over that period. In the last 3 weeks when he has gone solo, it has been against opposition with a solo ruck. After Hawthorn, I think it depends. Selection will be fascinating.

Sounds like a an attempt to whitewash the situation. It was an honest mistake, nothing deliberate and tactical is the narrative. Players get hefty suspensions for mistakes. But the language is always different, rather than a mistake it’s labeled as reckless, careless or deliberate.

A Scot mate of mine is known for doing handstands on New Years Eve while wearing his kilt, I always avert my gaze but this one time I was traumatized for days. There are some things you just cannot unsee.

It really isn’t. The league is currently facing multiple legal challenges relating to head injuries and negligence. It is by far the biggest issue facing the AFL currently. Hence the crackdown on all head high contact that we’ve seen this season from the MRO. Essendon suffered for years for what they did, and points were dropped in essence, since they made finals but were disqualified. That’s a far worse penalty than losing a couple of match points. Nobody is suggesting the same for Port, but they are REPEAT offenders in this space and deserve a hefty penalty, or else what sort of message is this sending to clubs?

Three weeks ago, I expected Grundy to return at some stage. Now, I'm not so sure. Gawn's form has been astonishing. Moreover, his fitness is incredible; three consecutive weeks he's played 100% TOG in the 4th quarter and dominated his opponent. Maybe he can go solo for another four weeks until the pre-finals week off. I'm sure he and the club will have a good idea of what he's capable of. Also, cannot imagine Gawn being rested or managed. So, the only way to reduce his workload is to bring in Grundy. Petty and JVR are not getting omitted - and I wouldn't want to lose a running player - so I can't see how Grundy comes in without weakening the team. I like that Goodwin is talking about doing whatever's best for the MFC in terms of selection. While Grundy should be treated with respect, we shouldn't be distracted by sentimentality or media narratives. We're at the business end of the season with an excellent shot at the premiership. That's where the focus needs to be.

Your dislike for Spargo is really getting very predictable, unfair and unwanted imo Perhaps it’s time to not say anything if you haven’t got anything positive or constructive to add

Because it is round 21 and there is absolutely no upside into bringing in a novice into a team that is contending for a flag. There is a process in place here bud. See Van Rooyen, Chandler, McVee. Do the time in the magoo’s, learn the system, etc, etc.

Imagine if they drop him. Nah mate, a power FF is not what we need. Thanks anyway.

Goody isn’t making 3 changes from a win like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just: In: Sparrow Out: Woewodin

I recently heard about a new young adult novel in which Schrodinger’s cat and Pavlov’s dog team up together and get into all sorts of whacky adventures. Just the perfect birthday present for my nine year old niece I thought, and so dropped into the local bookshop to buy a copy for her. The owner said my description rang a bell, but he wasn’t sure if it was there or not.

Sounds like Walsh and Cerra out vs Carlton, and Clarrie back. That will be helpful. https://www.afl.com.au/news/992970/voss-backs-handling-of-gun-mid-blues-won-t-rush-star

Some Bansky street art to ponder:

Gresham is a free agent tho

I loved this summary from The Mongrel Punt (the bolded section made me laugh): ---------------- Now, what do we have here? A maring forward that genuinely looks like he wants the footy and leaps at it like he owns it! That’s what we have, and he has come from the forwards’ graveyard to do it. The Dees have a bit of a history with turning defenders into gun forwards, with the Coleman Medal-winning efforts of David Neitz, after playing in defence for several years, the standout. However, with six goals from Harrison Petty, the Dees may have found the best way to solve their key forward issues in 2023. Petty returned six goals in a dominant display, playing against a Richmond defence that, on paper, should have been able to make life very tough for him. He took four contested grabs and made every post a winner, not missing as he powered the Melbourne forward line home with two of the Dees’ six last quarter goals. He was aided by the continued development of Jacob van Rooyen, who genuinely looks like a power forward these days. I mentioned Petty’s contested marking, and whilst JvR had only the one contested grab, one of his biggest assets is that he has no fear when attacking the footy. He hits packs like they shot his dog or something, determined to either mark the footy, or make sure there is carnage left in his wake. When you add in the resurgent Jake Melksham, suddenly, this forward setup that was perceived as a problem started to look very menacing. If they can maintain the rage as they head toward September, regaining Bayley Fritsch on the even of finals might just make this group a nightmare to match up on.

Good question, not sure of the answer, but i'm pretty sure they call it Mariah. Or perhaps if it's bending down to give us a rainbow, everyone knows it's Windy.

The only reason Kane is not doing his usual schtick of taking the most extreme position possible is because it’s Port Adelaide. He’s hopelessly compromised when it comes to them, any other club and he would be fire and brimstone. As for Healey this same attitude pervaded the whole Essendon saga, “it was a mistake”, “the weren’t really trying to get an advantage”, “they’re good blokes”. Blind Freddy could see what happened here, they tried to game the system to gain a competitive advantage and damn the potential health consequences for the player. As you say this needs to be taken out of the entire AFL’s hands, the boys club has shown itself to not be able to be impartial and adjudicate laws effectively in these scenarios. I’m sure any independent review panel would find this egregiously out of line. Medical negligence is a thing for doctors too, they’re not perfect and this situation appears to fit the bill!

“Good clubs stick by good people” Kane goes with rhetoric and tries to trump logic here “good clubs sack incompetent people” could equally apply people die from brain trauma and for a doctor to not spot the symptoms of concussion that everyone could see is medical incompetence or worse

Fits the mould. High talent, injured often..

Only the AFL could produce a diagram which defies geometry. They show the behind post following the curve of the oval and then 9m of the protected zone is in line with the 9m edge of the goal square. Impossible. But the truth is that the behind posts are not on a curve but in a straight line with the goal posts, so there is no special relativity effect required. (Sorry to nit pick - well not really sorry.) The tweet says the player on the mark will be instructed to come back to the 9m line. Sometimes they are, sometimes the player gets pinged either without any instruction or without time to move. And sometimes where 9m actually is is unclear to both parties. They need to paint a line of some sort across the ground so players know where the 9m is and then no instruction should be needed.

Isn't it curious ( great) that Petty is being compared to Neita and JVR to Schwarta. ? Remember the great Neita played in defence first before becoming our greatest goalscorer, over 600. Csn JVR and Petty get 1000 goals between them if they last 10 years or more? (Really silly question but why not tease our Demonlanders with some positive thoughts for the future?)

Correct. The AFL funds all the clubs anyway, so financial is a slap on the wrist in the extreme. I wonder if AFL HQ will see this as a challenge for Dillon's new position and therefore deliver swift, uncompromising sanctions. (they've probably missed the boat on that one already) Or, whether they'll see it as a possibility to sweep it under the rug as it occurs between Gil's exit and Dillon's entrance. If the footy media wasn't totally captured by the AFL, the possibility of seeing some legitimate accountability thrust upon those involved might be real. But we know that the industry is completely captured and therefore a huge PR machine for the AFL.

The Port doc was wrong again IMO. He did not need to perform a test then. He needed to immediately rule both players out of the game. The guidelines state that players must be removed if - the player took No protective action in fall to ground i.e. Aliir - the player has Dazed, blank/vacant stare or player not his/her normal self i.e. Jones There are other criteria such as loss of consciousness but these are not as patently obvious from the replay. The Guidelines (link at bottom) state that there is an external concussion spotter in the AFL Review Centre (ARC) who will flag incidents with the match-day club doctor by approved means. Furthermore, The AFL provides all available broadcast video feeds via the HawkEye system to the club bench at match venues. This link enables the club to utilize real-time video feeds, with variable playback speeds, and multiple camera views. And Sideline video review is mandatory in the assessment of a suspected concussion. On the face of it, this is a good system. It needs also to be investigated if the parts of the system other than the Club Doctor failed. Usually any ineffectiveness of the AFL creates good copy but this will also ruin people's lives. https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/12/134a48f5-9206-4dd4-b88b-426dd1ea7b31/AFL-and-AFLW-Concussion-Guidelines-March-2023-FINAL-.pdf

So do I. I would prefer he was playing. For one thing is he is past it, his recent slight up tick in form notwithstanding. For another, carrying a player who can't cover territory or is as slow as buddy now is, puts them behind the 8 ball because the clicks have to covered by the rest of the team. And May matches up perfectly on buddy as evidenced by the fact he has given him a complete bath every time he has played on him since may came to the dees. I'd have to look it up, but I doubt buddy has kicked mutiple goals against the dees more than two or three times in the last seven years.

I have a strong suspicion that I have no idea whether Max will be rested/managed this week.

Ta. So 4 of nibbler's turnovers did not result 'in a negative result for his side'. And from that list Langdon also had 8 turnovers, Viney 7 and Pickett 5. It's also worth noting that four dees players - Langdon, Gawn, Tomlinson and Melksham - had more clangers (ie turnovers that result 'in a negative result for his side') than Nibbler. Don't recall reading much criticism for their errors this week. Hell, the silky skilled Shai Bolton had more clangers AND turnovers than Nibbler. https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=10918#t2

I like the concept of managing players etc (we have the depth - use it!) but I wonder how much, if any the strategic thinking has changed for the footy department because of the three sides above us losing last week. In my mind percentage has suddenly become even more relevant. I know you should never take any game for granted and ‘one week at a time’ thinking- but I hope the footy department is trying to maximise percentage gain this week and making sure we have a side that is best placed to take on and beat, no smash Carlton the following week. I would love to see that being a big statement game that makes the rest of the football world shudder. If that doesn’t happen I’ll just settle for the four points.