deanox

Nah I reckon the Tiger made a mess of it.

Play for the free kick, get pinged for HTB

The Zone is lazy today. We're not working hard to get back and cover the spare that gets created when others push up. It's why there is constantly a free man ahead of the ball for the tigers.

Langdon having a shocker. Positioning, disposal, just struggling

It means that they don't have a lot of faith in Tomlinson playing well consistently, and are happy to throw Petty forward this week, then next week drop Tomlinson when he is slightly below par and swing Petty back and put Grundy forward after two strong weeks in the VFL. Edit: I think Tomlinson has been pretty good, but based on selection patterns this year the selection pattern don't think he is the answer.

I am absolutely shaken. This is the first time I have seen or heard anyone involved in AFL media use the word laconic correctly.

@Demonland and @binman on the pod there was discussion around why listing Grundy as omitted vs managed or soreness. I am pretty sure that the CBA requires players to continue to receive match payments when they were in the team, but are unavailable for selection due to injury. I would hazard a guess that this is part of the reasoning why clubs choose to manage players sometimes but omit other times. Unsure if it applies here.

Honestly, I had no idea, and couldn't find anything on the champion data website too describe it. But I found a research article published by researchers at Vic Uni (including a WB staffer) that stated Debits were points lost from dropped marks, no pressure errors, and missed tackles. So I think the champion data definition I quoted above is tautological.

Maybe they should listen to the Melbourne theme song over and over again in preparation for the match?

@joeboy I always enjoy your post because it's a great way to get a vibe and test my own thoughts against other thoughts quickly and easily. Whenever I disagree I always try to find an alternative three word assessment that captures my perception. It's harder than one would think! I can't imagine doing 23 each week.

Curse aside, it's a really interesting question. As drafting and recruitment gets better over time, there should be less speculation further down the draft board. But obviously luc, environment and development would play a big part in any drafting. I think what it really comes down to is how much of a lock the selected player is. At pick 1, there is often a standout, or maybe 2-3 in the convo. At pick 50 there might be 20 players in the conversation. So the likelihood of getting a good player may depend on when it starts opening up in any given year. In some years there are a clear top 3, then the next 4 might be not as clear cut. In the case 4 v 6 is going to be much more influenced by drafting nouse and development. If there is a clear top 4 though, then 4 v 6 is going is much more likely to be about skill/quality of the draftee.

Such a big game for our Swans!

Take that back sir.

I have been surprised with how we chose to deploy Gawn and Grundy this year, typically leaving one as a forward and one as a follower. I thought we may have tried to get both between the arcs, with one a kick behind play, offering two chop out options, but we never did it. With the recent form of Trac forward, I'm wondering if that offers an opportunity for playing two rucks like this. Effectively Gawn start at ruck (as does Track) and Grundy starts forward. However after the clearance, Petracca drifts forward and Grundy comes up the ground. It could create mismatches: does Grundys defender try to take Trac, leaving our opposition with an extra mid around the contest, but short string the ground? Yes we'd be one down at the contest, but with ANB and Spargo playing that high half forward role, we'd cover the extra running. And they wouldn't have proper cover for Grundy up the ground unless they run a tall defender with him.

Goody favourite could be translated as coaches favourite. To finish high in the bnf means 4 coaches are rating his game week in and out throughout the year. And he has multiple top 10 finishes. I can't see any reason why a coach wouldn't have players they rate for what they bring to the table, even if that's not outwardly obvious. I can understand "coaches favourite" being applied to someone who seemingly does nothing. But ANB clearly does. Even if he has flaws.

How's this for the dropped mark/clangers definition: Dropped Mark: An uncontested marking opportunity that is dropped, resulting in a contest at ground level. Does not include marking contests with an opposition spoil. Dropped marks inside 50 are recorded as clangers, however, they are only clangers in all other areas of the ground if you drop the mark and don’t pick the ball up again uncontested at ground level. So basically might be a clangers. Might not. Depends what happens after and where. I can see the reasoning but it also makes many stats genuinely useless. They are better off having extra stat categories to cover the different scenarios: Dropped mark possession retained without contest Dropped mark possession retained after ground ball contest Dropped mark possession lost

Nibbler had 5 clangers. Here is the definition of a clangers: Clanger: An error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side. Disposal clangers are any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over to the opposition. Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers. Given he had 2 free kicks against, there was a maximum of 3 disposal related clangers. I have a recollection that he dropped a mark too, so perhaps it's only 2 disposal related clangers? Nibbler definitely isn't a one touch player, he is prone to fumbling at critical times (mostly because he has worked hard to get to the ball at those critical times). But the AFL definitions around effective disposal, disposal efficiency and clangers etc arent conducive to this type of analysis.

The 3 word rating was "was rarely sighted". I highlighted that he was one of our most prolific players on the night, therefore clearly "was often sighted". I also acknowledged that he was flawed and made mistakes, suggesting alternative three word ratings. I'm not sure what point your post was trying to make in the context of this thread. Edit: also of his 5 clangers, 2 are free kicks against. I'm unsure what the other 3 were, but it's not exactly a crazy number. Joe Daniher had his best game ever according to some, with 9 clangers. We'd all love him to be a one touch player. But let's be honest, if he was he'd be on $650k+ per year and probably playing as a mid not a half forward flank.

Sydney beating Dogs, Carlton beating Port, and GC beating the Saints, are all fantastic results as part of this deathride. Richmond, Hawthorn and Adelaide wins tomorrow will be icing.

ANB had the 6th most disposals for the dees and the 8th most on ground. He had 20 pressure points: our third highest and 7th on ground. Kicked a goal and had a goal assist. So "rarely sighted" is a bit harsh. Plays role continuously? Limited but industrious? Always gets involved? Contributed but flawed?

You have just guaranteed that they'll grow up to never leave early, just in case...

At the very least it's the best win since round 23 2021, Gawn after the siren to beat Geelong at KP by 4 points.

The Demonland Podcast might be able to accommodate Naughtsie for a segment, but the Deebrief certainly isn't long enough to accommodate @binman!

Also not in the goal scoring era of Dunstall and Lockett, but in the defence first era. Overhead marking definitely not a strength, but I'd argue he was a tall strong flanker rather than a true CHF in that sense. And I reckon he'd have a fair case as the GOAT HFF!