deanox

I understand: -For the player it increases the likelihood they get to the club their dad played at and they have probably had a relationship with during their adolescence. If they want to go there (and have familiarity and certainty) it increases their chances of getting there. If they just want to play AFL anywhere, then nominating is a neutral (neither positive or negative). If they don't want to play at that club (maybe concerned they'd be too far down the pecking order for their position?) then nominating is probably bad. -For the club: they get a 20% points discount if they match a bid. Personally, unless the player is concerned about that club, I could only see nominating as increasing their chances to be drafted. Perhaps there is an "embarrassment" associated with nominating and not getting drafted?

Oh your answers were great Luci, good to bounce! My speculation was about whether we'd take Brown or not!

To clarify: my post was just my speculation mixed in with the actual AFL list rules. Thanks for your thoughts!

@Lucifers Hero we've got lost lodgement deadlines on Tuesday 31 at 2pm and again before the draft on 14 Nov. Do you know if the club needs to declare it's list make up (i.e. 36/6 or 37/5) at one of those list lodgements? Or are we free to go the draft do our thing as long as the outcome fits within the rules? If it's the former, then I suspect the club are playing it like this: - the club is going to wait and see what happens on draft night. - if we can get Brown as a Rookie (ie no one else bids) then we'll do that. - if a bid comes 56 or later, I think that thanks to the 20% points discount, he can match for free - presuming we have a list spot left. -if our draft hand stays exactly as it is, and we can manage any other trades, it will depend on whether we rate Brown at 42 or would prefer someone else. But based on Tim Lambs comments I can't see us using 42 as well as 6 and 11, unless it's for Brown - So my guess is that strategy around selection otherwise (ie before pick 56) will depend on any trades we were able to make to improve our top picks, and whether they give us any pick in the 50s or 60s back that will enable us to match a bid - In short: we'll take him if we can, but we aren't stock piling assets for him, we are trying to get the best top end talent.

RE the best club in Australia: Whether you used AFLW S6, S7 or a combinatuon of both, if they had awarded the Mcellend Trophy using the same formula in 2022 we would've won it last year as well. 2021 didn't have all 18 clubs in the AFLW, but we would've won it that year too, based on the club's that were in. 3 years in a row being the most dominant club in the land.

Her third quarter was immense.

Just disappointing we didn't pick up another James.

I saw it published last week and had the same thought RE the $1 million game. Perhaps the richest ever game of Australian rules football?

Honestly, I loved what Steven May said, and as a supporter it felt great. He could've qualified it by saying "We really let ourselves down with our kicking so didn't perform well enough to win BUT I think we are better than Collingwood on our day" or something, but he was a few drinks in. That kind of personality from players is fantastic and helps build the contest! But list strategy? No chance anything real gets discussed external to inner sanctum.

It's part of the CBA, basically the players are promised X million as part of the deal so the club's must pay the floor. It's partially because clubs like Footscray and North and possibly us were deliberately underpaying in the 90s and early 2000s to try to manage club finances. Personally I think there are better ways to manage it: - instead of clubs getting as large a dividend, all wages are paid by the AFL directly not by the club's, so the club's don't "save" by paying less than the cap (clubs can still pay what the play is worth, but they aren't incentivise to underpay) - clubs can pay down to a threshold (say 92.5%) but below that all unpaid salaries go back to the AFL. That money is distributed to the players at the end of season in accordance with a formula (bonus on match payments for every player? split equally amongst every player on a list? Split proportional to actual payments? Split only to the bottom 40% of players league wide?) I actually think the 92.5% rule makes it harder to attract FAs for lower clubs. Because you think "WCE/North or in the day us have a [censored] team so must have lots of money available for FA" but in reality they don't, they have max ~700k (the cap was $13,540,000 for the 2022 season, with a salary floor of $12,863,000).

I reckon you could write it yourself: "We think our current list is really well placed to continue to challenge over the next few years and our aim is to make it better with top end talent. Even though Grundy and Gawn didn't work this year, we were confident it would've worked with a bit more time, but we respect Brodie's decision to want to be the No. 1 ruck elsewhere so we facilitated his trade. We needed to replace Grundy and we're confident that Fullerton is ready to take that next step up this year and can't wait to see him out there working with Max. One area we wanted to improve was our forward line efficiency which is why we targeted McAdam who is an elite shot for goal. We have a few kids who we expect to challenge for senior games next year (maybe name Laurie, Howes?) and wanted to add some more elite talent. We traded up because we thought that the players in the top X of the draft were high talent, but even still we were excited when Y was available at draft pick Z because we had him going much higher than that. He has elite Z talent. There'll be no pressure on Y to play next year but if he has a good preseason we might see him in the seniors throughout the year." I'm sure that over the next 2 months there will be a bunch of interviews with those kind of statements and you can piece together your own cliche post to rival mine.

Can you point me to an example of a club ever commenting on list strategy in the way that you mean? Sure, there are generic examples like "we really needed to boost or tall defender stocks and we think X will add depth in that area" or perhaps "we would have loved to have kept X at our club and offered him a contract but salary cap means we couldn't offer what he wanted" or "we have built a war chest for next year" (from a bottom side). But anything about overall list or cap strategy?

I DO think though that repeated efforts, and accuracy misses leads to lack of scoreboard pressure by us, and an increase in scoreboard pressure ON us. So even if we are creating sufficient shots of sufficient quality to win games, there may be a mental/psychological factor which reduces scoring likelihood even further which the xScore isn't considering, meaning some kind of tweak to the game plan might be required. * alternatively we kick a bit straighter earlier in games and we break the hoodoo and all is good in the world!

I disagree RE poor shot creation. xScore take into account a range of factors which assess shot difficulty and success likelihood. And on that metric we should have won a lot of those games we lost, including the final against Collingwood by 20+ points.

That's a 2 goals a game forward most weeks!

Future 2nd is overs for an uncontacted 28 year old who has played 50 career games, played 7 games last year and is borderline best 22 for them. I'm happy with the offer from us because it's a fair and reasonable offer. Theyl trade will go through because it's more than fair and Adelaide's demands "we want a player" are unreasonable and also out of our control.

Depending on how his contract was structured, future 3rd could be a good deal.

I generally agree and think that's his best spot (despite inaccuracy in front of goals late this season). But in reality Sparrow held that forward/midfield rotation position and was in better form than Harmes. He can't play ANB or Pickett's roles. He doesn't play Fritsch or Melkshams role. And he doesn't play Petty, Brown or TMacs role. And ultimately they went with Spargo, Woewodin or Laurie ahead of him at times as the 7th option. It's a surprisingly tough forward line to crack!

If both Melbourne and Brisbane keep winning, that last round match between us could be playing for a $1 million.

Yes. We beat them during the year. And we should have beat them in the first final. I think we win that game more than half the time as well.

I think Pickett's high rating from the coaches should be a good indication that he is under instructions to fly for marks in the forward line. It's a defensive tactic designed to bring the ball to ground and prevent an intercept mark, and he does it consistently well, rarely giving away a free kick.

At 40 votes per game maximum (4 coaches each give a rating for each player out of 10), there was only one game between 3rd and 10th this year. Unbelievably even season.

2023 2nd 2022 4th 2021 16th 2020 3rd 2019 2nd (Gawn/Oliver = 1st) 2018 17th 2017 2nd 2016 1st 2015 2nd 2014 11th There is the full set (I can't find 2013 though) Adding in a 3rd and a 4th, it's a pretty good run. 7 top 4 finishes in 10 years. In 2018 he only played 10 games.

Is that Vineys 4th 2nd place?

I never understood the decision to move Harmes to the HBF as I thought he played his best footy in the Tom Sparrow HFF/mid-rotation role. He has reasonable hands overhead for his size and I felt he was always a chance to cause trouble drifting around the flank. He did this a couple of times, but not consistently. But I never thought he had the kicking skills or defensive accountability to play HBF.