deanox

@Roost it far I don't want Rivers dropped, he has been fantastic all year. But 8 players don't go into 7 spots. If we want to play 3 talls plus Hibbo down back then we can only have 2 of Salem, Bowey and Rivers. @titan_uranus it's a good idea about Rivers rotation through the midfield, but even with Oliver out and Track forward Rivers didn't have a single CBA. He has rotated through the midfield only a couple of times this year.

Might be an unpopular take, but I thought Rivers was poor last night,at least in the first half. Lots of effort but also lots of uncharacteristic turn overs and out of position a few times. It would be harsh, given I think he has had a great year, but IF Hibbo is fit, he's the one I'd make the change for this week, not Bowey.

The "means" of the government is the tax revenue. It's not like it's out there working jobs. Governments represent society/community and the services we expect/demand. They generate revenue from tax proportional to what is required to deliver those community expectations. Just because you think a particular service, initiative or cost is unimportant doesn't mean other parts of society agree.

Either something else is going on or it's just genuinely an unbelievable situation.

Update. Round - Total KMs - KMs at high speed R1 288 43 R2 293 35 R3 284 44 R4 276 40 R5 289 43 R6 283 43 R7 294 45 R8 292 43 R9 284 47 R10 273 36 R11 276 37 R12 272 40 R13 267 37 R14 - Bye ?

Other than JVR and Jefferson we haven't drafted any talls at the top end though, and KPP are the ones retiring soon.

@rpfc with 4 players off (JJ, Melksham, Hibberd, Dunstan)and one on (Turner) doesn't that leave 3 list spots for the draft (or for trade/FA)?

Definitely looks like this is correct based on the last CBA. https://www.aflplayers.com.au/resources/afl-collective-bargaining-agreement-2017-2022

Given there is a like a version hottest 100 being voted for at the moment I just want to plug this amazing cover. https://youtu.be/TQB6gb3UQbA

My guess is it's to do with match payments. While contracts will vary, players that are omitted are unlikely to get match payments, while in many cases players who are injured (and therefore unable to play) can continue to receive match payments.

I love that the podcast is the longer than the game was (replay was 2:19 on Kayo).

8 players given votes is a big spread. Usually it is 5-7, and I'm not sure I've ever seen 10 players given votes in the same game.

The exact phrase id use.

He seems like a big moment player doesn't he? Loves the challenge and loves the celebration.

6 Viney - is this his best season? 5 Salem - 9 intercept possessions, 10 marks, 24 disposals. He was back to his best today. 4 Hunter - I thought he was particularly important to cut the Pies run and width options. Early on they tried to drag us out of the corridor by overlapping wide, waiting for us to chase and then cutting back. Hunter was critical in stopping that, and was damaging going the other way. 3 McVee - I thought he had such a major influence on this game, through impacting contests, one on ones etc. Particularly early. Only 11 disposals (7 from intercepts) but it was the contests he won that was so crucial for us. 2 Fritsch - but kicked 3/8 goals and kept Darcy Moore accountable. 1 Rivers - continuing a fine season. Bobs up everywhere, intercept marks, long kicks. Today his short kicking game was significantly improved as well. Lots of options for the last couple of votes. Tomlinson was good. Petracca used his strength all day. Joel Smith was important forward. And Langdon was tireless on the other wing.

We worked hard to engineer that early, with Moore wanting to go to Smith. At the 666 set ups in the first quarter we positioned 4 players in the one flank corner. It was a strange set up, but it was designed to ensure that Moore wasn't able to get the space he needed. I thought the way we pushed up on the pies attack to shut down space was first rate, and clearly an intended tactic. We worked hard to own the corridor and push them wide - tactically important decision. We generated turnovers in the corridor when they tried to switch.

Just want to ask if anyone still considers Goody to be a poor coach? We nullified Collingwood's attack today, generating lots of turnovers through the middle. Collingwood's 17 shots at goal was their lowest this year.

8th and 9th in the last two best and fairests, suggests that maybe you aren't sure what you are looking for? His defensive forward efforts and hard running were solid today. And he kicked a clutch goal.

Well we really worked hard to contain the overlap and spare man than quarter. Pushed them wide but cut off options back in board. We dominated possession that quarter, +14 contested possessions, +30 disposals, for the quarter.

Expected score at half time 33 - 27 our way. Inaccuracy letting us down again. Other stats supporting that we have a small edge in a close game, leading tackles, takes inside 50, marks inside 50, contested marks, clearances, and contested possessions. Collingwood with more disposals - 20 more handballs. There is a tactical battle with structures, Collingwood trying to get an overlap on the outside, which they then seem to use to cut inboard while we work to man back up. When they get it, they have scored. When we've denied it they have struggled to move the ball threateningly. Scoring a couple of goals from stoppages early was a real boon for them. Evenly poised, and it might come down to individual brilliance or team fitness.

I don't care where Essendon finish, as long as they don't win a final.

@binmanI've finally gotten around to the pod for this week. I had asked a question about sloppy vs pressure, and it has been talked about the game was actually low pressure based on the rating points. Reflecting further, I don't think the game was "high pressure" in the way the pressure rating measures (pressure on the ball carrier) but as described above I thought our work to set up structures, zones, etc was first rate, and that created indirect pressure (I guess you can call it). It's interesting because I thought that the way we played placed them under a lot of pressure: no where to go, not many options, forward thrusts neutered or repelled. But all without "pressure" according to champion data's definitions. They had 10+ turnovers more than their average. I think this was as much because we forced them to take low percentage options through great zone and defensive work, as anything else. So "pressure" was low, but we generated turnovers through structure. This is probably the best case scenario for Goody and the team. Our strategy (zone) results in turnovers without the aerobic effort to apply manic pressure. Both are needed against great teams and in finals. But it's important to get the first one working.

This is really salient. Historically AFL was pretty light on for strategy: get ball and bang it forward. So throwing around the magnets was a genuine tactical move that made sense. Nowadays, the equivalent of throwing magnets around is more likely to be getting your wingers to hang back defensively, pushing an extra HFF closer to the midfield stoppages, or maybe having your ruck dropping back deeper to cover the D50 instead of the half back line. Ok so sometimes there is a swing man, but it's often more of a hail Mary (like Petty forward in last year's finals).

Was he a mystery injury withdrawal? I don't think he is a listed injury is he? And he has played recent weeks with Casey.

I haven't watched Casey play this year and would appreciate the thoughts of anyone who has regarding Jefferson. He has kicked 14 goals in 11 games this year, but not been named in the best players yet. I feel that a knack for finding goals is a good trait for a forward, even if he isn't earning them the traditional way (contested marks etc). Wondering how we think he is developing?