deanox

While I agree with not getting carried away, our record over the last 13 games is pretty incredible, including lack of opposition goals in second halves and in particular last quarters. It extends further back than 4 wins this year. 100% we need to beat the top teams over the next 4-5 weeks, and until then we should be circumspect. But I don't think this is "they haven't beaten anyone yet" territory.

Future picks that must be traded for players is the best possible assistance a poor performing club can get. I like that it's a future draft giving them two years to trade it: they aren't held to ransom as easily. Other benefits better than early picks and more kids include some salary cap concessions, to help them attract players. You could also give them alternate FA rules: no offset of FA in and FA out for bottom 4 sides. It means they can recruit FAs without diluting a band 1 or 2 compo. An extra 2 list spots means they can bring in AFL ready journeymen to play now without losing the spots needed for development of juniors.

This year Fritsch averaged 2.2, Pickett 1.6 and Melksham 1.5. In 2022 Fritsch averaged 2.3, Pickett 1.8 and Brown 1.6. In 2021 Fritsch averaged 2.5, Pickett 1.6, McDonalnd 1.3 (special mention to Brown who averaged 1.9 from only games). The last 3 years McAdam has averaged 1.7, 1.5, 1.7. From his limited games. I don't think his goals per game average is a problem, it's a strength. At the end of the day he is replacing Melksham in the forward line for a few years as a defensive forward who can kick goals the other way (he played on Lever when we played them trying to disrupt his intercepting). We aren't paying a lot for him. But he has a spot as a role player over the next few years if he can keep form.

While it started as a HIV scare, as a player, I never particularly wanted to get someone else's blood all over me. Playing rugby union, and having an opposition prop bleeding from the face ahead of a scrum was not a particularly comfortable experience.

I reckon if you want a complete re-design, you'll be disappointed. Our game plan has been the most successful in the comp over the last 4 years. We haven't had a consistent rival in that time (Brisbane the closest with a significant home ground advantage). This year we lost only one game by more than 10 points. And all stat indicators (leading to xScore) pointed to us winning the majority of those games (including 3/4 finals that we lost. The other final against Sydney was a <3 point loss on xScore). In 2022 we had significant injury and fitness issue that saw us fall into a hole at the end of the season, cooked. Some injuries can't be helped but we also had a new fitness lead. We made major changes to our conditioning and injury management programs in 2023 for significant improvement. In 2023 we have again battled some key inuries (everyone has them but ours were often particularly key players like Gawn and Oliver). The injuries were almost entirely concentrated on tall and medium forwards. That part of our structure never settled, yet we still probably should've won both finals. We'll make further, incremental changes to the game plan, recruit some players and try to solve the forward issue with the players available to us. But wholesale changes aren't on the cards.

Turns out football is really predictable except for the whole goal kicking accuracy thing, which is often a random number generator in the equations. Premierships aren't easy to win.

And only 7 second half goals in those 12 matches (3 of which were 3rd quarter with the wind today).

If you're judging the coach because of he is a "monotone bore" when he talks to the media, then you probably don't get it, and won't.

Grundy is gone. And I think with Bowey and Rivers, Salem isn't as critical as he was in 2021, so could have currency. We'll get something for JJ (as a free agent, or as a trade if St Kilda don't want to dilute their FA). And Harmes might be on the way out too. But Sparrow is going nowhere. He is a goal kicking mid. Seriously strong. Great kick. No way will we trade him out. Particularly with Viney 30 at the start of next year.

We can be disappointed, and feel we have underachieved, while noting that a major factor (and possibly THE major factor) in our underachievement has been a share of bad luck in injuries (in both 2022 and 2023) and also in accuracy. Even score reviews against the Blues in season. As @Webberhas said, add any number of Petty, Melksham, JVR or a fit TMac or BBB back into that finals series and we probably have a different result. The only thing I think that appears a stand out problem that our football department truly had influence on is the Gawn/Grundy experiment. It didn't work. We didn't make it work. That is on the footy department. Everything else has actually been pretty good, and got us in the position where we were a genuine top 3 competitor this year.

At least that should stop the usual suspects claiming he won't review it!

Don't do it to yourselves lads. Make sure a large chunk is AFLW focused, just for your mental health :)

We've selected TMac, Smith, and Fristch as our tall forwards. Yes Fritsch is more a medium forward. But Goodwin would have selected JVR, BBB or Melksham (also a medium) if available. He wasn't about to select Jefferson to debut. Grundy isn't a forward as demonstrated time and time again. We wanted it to work but it hasnt. And Schache has demonstrated over his career that he is a finals type competitive animal. So Goody's choice was to select the forwards that he has selected, or roll the dice on Turner forward or go back to Grundy ruck, Gawn forward (which is really robbing Peter to pay Paul). Where the OPs question is relevant is "is our list too short?". We have a number of very short forwards and mids. Our KPPs aren't giants, often around 192cm not 195-197cm as other teams have. Do we need to draft more for height? (That isn't a Goody question)

I don't think we are short up forward per se, we have TMac, Smith, and Fritsch. So shorter than some, but all three play as KPF not "smalls" (ok we could classify Fritach and Smith as medium but you get me). I like the Spargo move in that I think he is one of our best field kicks and best users of the ball going forward. He isn't there to kick goals, he is there to lower the eyes and get dangerous ball inside the 50 I think. That being said, it is an underwhelming selection for me!

I'm not really sure which coach is which. Hill killed us early, and Max was unbelievable but he didn't fire in the first when the game was lost. So I can see Goody not wanting to reward that with 5 votes. Would Goody have given votes to Clarry or Oliver?

Coach 1: 5 Gawn 4 Quaynor/Crisp 3 Petracca 2 Sidebottom 1 Crisp/Quaynor Coach 2: 5 Crisp/Quaynor 4 Hill 3 Gawn 2 Quaynor/Crisp 1 Oliver

If Lachie Hunter (who had effectively stopped moving and trapped the ball) has a duty of care to Rozee that extends beyond stopping all momentum, then Maynard has a duty of care to Brayshaw when attempting to touch the ball too.

Me too. I've been really flat since the game. I thought at first it was because we lost. But I actually think it was this incident and the response of the Collingwood crowd that left me feeling this way.

Here is some info: https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/ (check under P) Pressure Factor: Pressure points per pressure chance. Measure only at the team level. Pressure Chances: The number of opportunities a team had to apply pressure i.e. opposition disposals, including tackles that prevent an opposition disposal. The description seems pretty cloudy, but best interpretation is: Total pressure points / opposition possessions Where possessions include every time an opponent gets the ball, whether they dispose of it or not. This implies that if no pressure is applied at all, then potentially it is factored as 0. But the definition of corralling is so lenient that I think someone would always be corralling. I wonder if standing on the mark is corralling for the purpose of this calculation? Pressure Act (Corralling): The lowest form of pressure a player can apply, where they are simply occupying space in front of the ball carrier to prevent them moving forward, or have a run at them, but not quickly enough to record ‘closing’ pressure.

I am pretty sure "Pressure Factor" (the whole team one) is the average of all pressure acts. The lowest pressure act you can do is corralling, so that's why 120 is the lowest possible score. It seems sensible that if a player has the ball in space with no pressure act applied by an opponent, that doesn't contribute a 0 to the calculation. The team factor would only average the actual recorded pressure acts. If one team plays lots of "contested football" e.g. short chipping to free players, there are no relevant pressure acts during that period. Maybe there is a bit of low pressure acts with some chasing etc before hitting up a lead. But if the ball hits the deck and there is a tackle, then pressure factor is super high, because this game style means there are less opportunities for pressure acts, but they are high value in the points system. We play a scrappy game with lots of contested ball winning, ground ball gets etc. So our opponents pressure will naturally trend upwward because the game is played in tight and there is more physical pressure. I think this is why the Pressure Factor for both teams tend to track closely: Pressure Factor is more an indicator of game style than actual pressure.

i was, but swapped from chrome to edge and it cleared up.

I'm not an MCC member so have no skin in the game, but surely actual members should get priority to visitors tickets for big matches like this?

I really think "team pressure" is a weird stat that is named wrong. The pressure score is not the total amount of pressure applied, but it is the average type of pressure when pressure is applied. So every pressure act gets a score of 3.75, 2.25, 1.5, 1.2. All pressure acts are averaged. And then multiplied by 100 to give the pressure score. So 180 means that the average score was 1.8, somewhere between closing and chasing. I don't believe that "no pressure situations" count as 0 or similar. So the score will always be between 120 and 375. Basically the "team pressure" stat is situational. For example, there are times when corralling is better than commiting to a tackle because it slows the player down and forces them to kick down the line. If an opposition plays tight in close we can get lots of tackles and our "team pressure" goes up. If they play wide and uncontested, we are more likely to coral and chase and our "team pressure" goes down So "team pressure" is more about game style and game situation. "Team pressure" is a measure of "is the average pressure situation more physical or less?". Not a measure of how much and how often pressure is applied. I do think that "total pressure acts" and "sum of individual player pressure points" gives a better measure of pressure as a function of work rate for the game. But also, if the number of those acts are up versus average, then we probably don't have the ball.

"Made him earn it" is actually code for created a realistic and significant physical threat that most of the time is just hard physical impact but also has the potential to cause serious injury. "Made him earn it" completely disregards duty of care.

In Maynard's defense I felt he hung near Angus trying to check on him. And I don't believe he intended to do this kind of harm. But it's a bit like the bloke who throws a shove or a punch at a pub and then gets a shock when his victim drops. Of course he didn't mean to knock them into next week but when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Maynard deliberately tried to put physical pressure on the kicker. And did it in a careless, uncontrolled manner that resulted in concussion.