deanox

I take your point that a can't do attitude is probably the biggest barrier! What would be the benefit to clubs though? If Melbourne could use the MCG to train, I reckon they'd prefer it to be a closed session, away from other eyes. The opportunity to test some things in secret and also time to work on full ground zones and positioning that is difficult on grounds with different dimensions. Interaction with fans would be difficult, there is a large fence and supporters are back in the stands, in one pocket only. Whereas at Casey and Gosh's we can much more easily interact with the fans who attend, run parallel social activities and "fan activations" etc. Im just not sure what the benefits are apart from "but it's the MCG".

Scott Thompson? I read an analysis last year that actually highlighted how rare any "return from Victoria to interstate" trades were, especially for first round picks. Jackson is a genuine outlyer. Most are lower draft picks who don't make it at their original club and get shuffled home for a second chance (like Jimmy Toumpas).

For any club rolling high there is always an opportunity or two for a big turn out. For each club there may be two opportunities to have a large crowd. Preseason on a weekend. Finals during school holidays. I just think it's fanciful to suggest that a training in May or June will get more than a few hundred just because it's at the G. The cost of opening the G and staffing and security and clean up would be excessive, not something that could be handled by a gold coin donation and sales from a coffee cart.

Ok so you agree that that number is only feasible in the weeks leading up to a GF?

5k or 10k at training sounds nice but is a dream, unless it is Collingwood in grand final week. You'd be lucky to get a few hundred at any given session.

Top tier.

The best part about having a tactic thrown at you in round 5 is that you have all year to review and make plans to counter. I think it's fair to say there can be multiple factors involved. The players definitely looked flat. Was it fatigue or something else? Fatigue makes sense, and it was legitimately all of them. But that doesn't mean it was the only factor and I do think Fagan coached well tactically. Their forward line movement did a fantastic job of dragging Lever out of position all day, and we just didn't or couldn't find a way to adjust our defensive structure on the day. As a result our overall zone really struggled to hold together. Some of this could have been caused by: - Oliver being down on form meaning they were getting easier ball than usual - Lever out of position meaning we were less threatening on the intercept - Salem injury meaning we were down on rotations, and also packing a senior leader to Marshall defence (with Lever dragged out of the D50 and Brayshaw retired we are very young back there. And add Bowey out, McDonald in, and the current group of defenders actually haven't played together a lot outside of the Lever/May combo) - General fatigue meaning we didn't quite cover the ground we usually cover, combined with sub activated early. We have historically held up well even under stress, so they did a good job to exploit the situation. From early stages the game looked like it was played on their terms.

Those 100 guys are gonna go do something else though, not take the 20k and need to train 3 nights per week, plus do their own gym program plus play weekends. VFL has a salary cap of about $220k (standalone, with 28 main players and 12 development players) and $110k (for AFL club aligned). They get paid bugger all, to have any chance of developing them they need to be full time.

GWS and GCS make sense as money pits though. They serve a purpose to grow the game in regions where they need extra media exposure. Being a two team town creates a local rivalry which makes the competition feel legitimate too (ie not a Vic comp with a single local presence). Pumping money into North doesn't serve that purpose at the moment, and North must realise it isnt a viable long term solution. Banking on the AFL being too weak to make a real decision is a short term solution based on current management,they must know things could change in an instant.

Saints 2-3 Adelaide 1-4 Hawthorn 0-5 Bulldogs 2-3 North 0-5 For comparison we're 4-2 and our opponents are 13-17. Swans 4-1 Bulldogs 2-3 Hawks 0-5 Port 4-1 Adelaide 1-4 Brisbane 2-3

It's tough and if it was us I would have been screaming and now I'd be broken. But you're right. 1 or 2 too many teams in Victoria for long term. And bringing in a Tassie team kills their Tassie connection, and their sponsorship including the AFLW opportunity. I would like to know what their strategy is to stay viable.

I don't disagree he isn't performing. But there are only a few thousand people in Australia with that height. So if you can somehow turn him into a below average footballer instead of a terrible footballer, then he gets a regular AFL game. The AFL is definitely not the best footballers in the country. It is the best footballers of the population that is tall and strong enough to play.

None of them are 206 cm though. Given his height and youth, he actually has more of a chance of making it in AFL football than gun Casey players who career journeymen and haven't made the AFL grade so far (statistically of course).

He is a category B rookie, meaning he had not played Australian Rules football for at least 3 years before being signed. I think he only played until he was about 12 before following the bball pathway due to his height. This is now his second year on an AFL list, similar to Jefferson he's had one true preseason. So what are we trying to achieve? We are rolling the dice on a 206 cm athletic prospect to see if he can pick up AFL football as he develops his body. We know tall players take longer. At 206 cm it's fair to expect him to take a while if at all. Basically,given the rarity of height, it's a free hit to see if something comes of it. And if it doesn't we let him go. On current situation, it doesn't seem like he is coming on or that the footy department have much faith in him. If that's correct then he'll be gone year end.

Absolutely. Strength development for some people takes until mid/late 20s. I'm sure we've all known some pretty weedy 20 something's who go to the gym regularly but just don't seem to put on mass. I don't think he is going to be a bullocking strength based KPF in the early part of his career at least. I personally think the aerobic capacity allowing him to run up the wing and then double back deep etc. it means His numbers haven't been that bad either. He's kicked 25.20 in 20 games (including a couple down back I think). In 8 of those games he has registered 3 or more scoring shots.

This seems to be the development stage he is in currently: gaining enough fitness to be able to put those KMs in as a key forward. Until now he has played deep forward because he doesn't have the aerobic capacity to get all the way up the ground etc. I'm not sure it's a lack of effort/desire issue. From what I've seen Jefferson seems to have good attributes for a key forward: marking, kicking, and a knack for finding himself in goal scoring positions. I don't think anyone would be arguing he doesn't have a very high ceilings if he can realise his potential. We knew that he was a development project when we drafted him. Which is why I think a bit of patience around physical development, both strength and aerobic capacity, is probably required before any true assessment can be made regarding his likelihood of making it. He is in his second year (realistically has completed one full preseason), and is contracted until the end of 2026, meaning he has another 2 preseasons of development before his contract runs out.

Haha this may be the first documented instance of the whatever the opposite of MFCSS is!

I think a real factor in the decision to trade or not was "Petty's importance to our premiership tilt in 2024 and a lesser extent 2035". Even if the deal was a good one on an assets basis, we didn't have a replacement tall forward lined up for this year and had (have) questions over BBB and TMac. Draft picks last year were nice but that trade would need to have been serious overs to take that hit to our 2024 list. Edit: especially with question marks over Brayshaw and Oliver at that time as well.

@Dee Boys I listen on 1.5 or double speed and it sounds fine. I much prefer the depth to other pods that are very superficial but the time can be hard to squeeze in.

@DeeBloodhas the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and leave a 5 star review, but in the review complain about @binman's ums so that @Demonlandneeds to read it out on the pod.

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?". In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow. On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player. However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

I am comfortable with it being a week because I feel it is about time that potential for injury is considered. But I do think the AFL needs to take a consistent line on what mitigating factors are sufficient to show duty of care. The wording of the rule appears to allow the potential to cause injury clause to be mitigated if the player is shown to have tried to minimise the impact, including through body position. (Effectively saying if you demonstrate you have exercised a duty of care but contact was still unavoidable then you can get off the hook). In Kosi's case I suspect we will argue he didn't intend to make contact, and expected to pass behind Soligo, but once he realised it was inevitable he did the following to exercise duty of care as best as he could: - he brought his arm down to protect his own ribs as he was in a vulnerable position too -he pulls up as much as possible, minimises contact force - he brought his arm in to make sure he didn't lead with the elbow. Note it looks like his elbow flicks up (reflex action, like looking at a tree while riding a mountain bike) but I think he actually controls it and drops it back loosely. - Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he doesn't actually brace for contact. You can see his arm is slack and his hands are open wide, in a soft body position ready to absorb impact, not tensed and tucked ready to dish out contact. The reason I believe the last is most important is because the tribunal has previously discussed hands open v clenched, and the tribunal rule specifically describes body position that affects impact. To be clear I'm not making a position here that he definitely did all that he could do to mitigate it. Just describing what I think we will argue. I do think he attempted to mitigate and reduce impact - he could've run through him, he could've hit him firmly, but in actual fact he barely touched him, which means he was successful in applying his duty of care. I don't know if he did all he could be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances or if it still crosses the line of where we want to be. Given he did successfully mitigate the impact, do we truly expect more? What would that look like?

Careless/low/high = fine apparently but medium impact would be 1 week. Also here is the wording of the new smoother rule. I truly believe they could just have charged Maynard under existing rough conduct rules.

Footage on the AFL app if you missed it. Gut and heart says he has to go. We've got a duty of care to protect the head and he did get him. Ironically it was close to the Maynard rule, jumping to smother and then caught him high. There are actually some technical aspects to it: Will they charge him under the specific rule for smother that they brought in? Or regular old high bump? Or rough conduct (they then don't need to prove it's a bump). First look he almost pokes the elbow out but then tucks it in. Does that make it worse? Or is it actually evidence of him trying to tuck in to avoid elbow to the head. Also, one mitigating factor for Kosi is that he had open jazz hands not clenched fists when the contact happened. The tribunal has used clenched fists and tense muscles as a proxy for bracing and bumping, as opposed to open hands, which they claim demonstrates a you didn't expect the contact and tried to show a duty of care to the played in an accidental situation. Bizarre but they've written that multiple times in their official adjudications. One to watch.

Actually yeah @Chook