deanox

Again, I'm not sure how this is in response to my comment. I haven't suggested he was tested. In fact, based on what I wrote, I believe if he out with an injury that was to be tested that would be listed as injured. If you meant "rested", then again, I think if he was actually rested they would state that (managed). I think the most likely situation is that he has been omitted. Yes he has been playing well, but he has lost his spot to an overall better player. Think of it like this: You coach a soccer team. Your number one Goalkeeper, the best goalkeeper in the world, is out injured. So your number 2 goalkeeper comes in to play. GK 2 plays out of their skin, amazing form, better than expected. But GK1 recovers from injury and is picked in the team this week. GK2 isn't left in the team as well because there is only spot for one GK. GK2 isn't managed or rested, they are omitted. Not due to form, but because others have been selected ahead of them.

I agree with this (his form) but not sure why it is relevant to what I said. He can be our most consistent and in form defender up til now but still be omitted from the team, now that the coaches think the players that make up our best 22 are available.

I suspect he was actually omitted though, unless the official wording has changed? I think it's ok to drop someone like TMac from the team and say "your not best 22 this weekend but not sure to your form and you don't need to go back to work on stuff. You'll be an emergency." Hard to manage someone but name them emergency too? Finally though, I believe that "injured", "managed", and "omitted" have contractual definitions with respect to the EBA, and the status of a play can impact their receipt of match payments, their eligibility for injury compensation, and trigger clauses in contracts. So I suspect that if there is not a physical/fitness reason why someone is being "managed" they probably have to list them as "omitted" even if it feels disrespectful.

I can see merit in all of this, but I don't think it's as simple as "can't play in the same midfield together" either. I think a big part of it is about what roles they are playing and how they are performing. When one or both are out of form, it's a mess. Particularly if it's Clarry, because when out of form Clarry isn't accountable. Even though we have talked about Clarry playing a "tagging" role lately, I do think it has been a different tagging role to what Viney was playing. Vineys was as a defensive, shutdown tagger. Clarrys was more about accountability for beating his direct opponent, which gave him licence to hunt the ball while also being responsible not to get completely outpointed. I think that personal level challenge (one on one with his man) really brought the competitive streak back in Clarey which is fantastic. So I don't think we have seen the end of Viney and Clarry in the middle together. Sure the early season versions of both was a disaster, but my gut says we should test it again with these new roles and form before writing it off. I do think that releasing Riv into the midfield a bit more provides an extra dimension due to his pace and kicking angles, and I agree we should work that in where we can. Between Clarry, Viney, Trac, Kossie, River, Langford and probably Lindsay eventually, have some credible midfield rotations now

To adapt a quote: The AFL is a lucky sport run mainly by second rate people who share its luck.

I actually think the lack of this type of content is deliberate. It's expensive to make compared to the usual boys club bravado [censored]. You need intelligent people, and media outlets will have to bid for them. Many of the genuinely astute people are already in coaching, and they probably don't do "media" as naturally. Also, the AFL wants to control all the media revenue. To get access to footage to use in this type of analysis costs a fortune. It's possible that the secondary camera angles not shown on the broadcast are not even available to anyone outside the official broadcaster. All the real stats are locked behind Champion Data, a company that is majority owned by the AFL. We get a smattering of BS stats that have been published for years and some extra stuff that sounds fancy but isn't useful published via the AFL app etc. Non-accredited AFL media can't access this stuff, and the AFL won't accredit direct competitors taking revenue of the main broadcaster. So in effect, the AFL locks down all footage and data that is needed for analysis, restricts it to the big paying broadcast partner, and suffocates any competition that it won't receive revenue from. As a result, the official broadcaster doesn't actually need to provide a high quality product to compete in the market. They have a monopoly.

A GM of football is responsible for managing the football department budget, and for managing the performance of the football department staff (coaches, fitness staff, recruitment, etc). Relationships are important for all roles, including the GM of football. But it isn't just about being a great bloke everyone loves.

Great call. And what about all the tactical innovations before Yze joined us (his first year was 2021)? Over the last decade we have worked out way through at least three distinct phases of "scoring strategy": Strategy designed to reduce opposition shot conversion percentage, while providing us extra numbers around the contest. (Opposition potentially gets quantity but low quality).(Think Diamond Defence era). After that we played a "centre at all costs" strategy, where we gave the ball off to someone 30 m out straight in front every time, to maximise accuracy/conversion (shot quality not quantity) From there we moved to the extreme forward press with repeat entries (quantity not quality). That won us a flag and got us top 4 for 3 years in a row. On top of that we have had a constantly evolving tactics around "defence, contest, and transition" that has supported the scoring strategy. This has included various defensive zone structures including Diamond Defence, and others including where we push a player up to contest, leave a man free out the back and back ourselves to work back faster than opposition transitiona. We've had contested ball tactics that have utilised +1 at the contest and -1 at the contest. We've used kick it long to Max and force a stoppage tactics. We've had play on at all cost tactics too. Now we use 45 degree cut out passes, short chips to retain possession. We use forward handballs. I'm sure Goodwin has had substantial support from his assistant coaches with these innovations and changes over the years. But my bet is we would find that he is an innovative tactical thinker, who uses sport science and data/stats to drive plans, and that even though he might not be the guy coming up with every plan, he is the guy leading those plans and encouraging his team to do that analysis and make those changes. This doesn't mean I don't think he will have an effective shelf life as coach, that he can get stale, or lose the players. It doesn't mean I don't think he is under significant pressure. But I do think,from a reasonable outside perspective, he has runs on the board (including 3 successive top 4 finishes with a flag) that means he should be allowed to see through his transition to a new strategy and game plan, unless something has gone wrong at the relationship level.

I've been encouraging him to have more showers ever since!

I reckon Melksham showed why the vast majority of supporters and coaches might think that way today. It's a faint heart beat but it's there. And if we can sneak into the 8, I bet no one will want to play us.

Oliver's goal!

You'd think it was Melkshams call, but I agree entirely.

Oliver's goal.

Yeah ridiculous. Let's drop him. He is only leading our disposals (with 12 at 92% disposal efficiency), our tackles (with 2) and our clearances (4), while being accountable for Lachie Neale.

When the match committee doesn't make changes Goodwin is stubborn, and has favourites. When the match committee makes changes, Goodwin is trying to save his career instead of letting players develop. When the match committee doesn't pick kids, Goodwin is letting them languish at VFL and is the reason they leave. When the match committee picks kids and they don't perform, Goodwin isn't developing kids properly. When the match committee doesn't drop senior players to play afringe, Goodwin doesn't have selection integrity and plays favourites When the match committee drops senior players and fringe players who aren't AFL standard, then Goodwin has no idea and keeps selecting duds. We aren't winning games, so there is critism no matter what happens. I personally don't think they've got the selection right this week. The side is unbalanced. But the constant slagging of "selection integrity" is ridiculous.

From watching him at Casey I always felt he was a third tall, not a true KPF. I think his upside is as a taller version of Fritsch. But that is a really hard role to play when we already have Fritsch and Melksham effectively competing for that role, and we don't really have first or second talls in place either due to injury/form/etc.

Being umpired out of this

They can have Goshes Paddock once the AFL help fund our new home base...

These things are always a bit odd, but this seems a good cause. If the cheers squad is driving it, I reckon they'll get some crowd support. If it's just some random trying to start it himself, well it'll be over pretty quickly!

If Jake Lever is allowed to be a roaming third man while his opponent sits 80m behind the play, I'm all for an opposition coach trying this strategy. I promise you that allowing teams to play 18 v 17, and hoping you get it out the back to the free man will not work. That being said, I do wonder if the "deepest" forwards should look to play aggressively. Making earlier and occassionally deeper runs behind the defenders to try to drag the defense out of shape. The best forwards move like this, you can see it at the ground.

Todd Patterson, our AFLW List Manager, has accepted a role as Head of List Management and Strategy for the new Tasmanian team. From the article he will be involved with their AFL, VFL, AFLW and VFLW lists. Todd has been with the dees for 8 years, including the last 6 as list manager,so has been a big part of our AFLWs program including building the list that won the 2022 premiership. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-05/tasmania-devils-afl-aflw-list-managers-recruited/105245970

Petty did cop one high early, so it's possible the second impact set him over. I read a study (a few years old now and from the NFL) where cumulative knocks during the same match/training session resulted in the individual impact threshold for concussions ll decreasing (basically after multiple knocks, it only took a small knock to concuss).

I thought this was pretty bad as he didn't seem have eyes for the ball and was watching Viney, and then got him with a round arm fist.

Melksham had eyes for the ball and protected the drop and took the mark. However, Reuben Ginbey pushed Petty directly into the oncoming contest of McGovern and Melksham despite not being in the contest himself. Ginbey had no possible way of marking that ball. He had lost the positioning battle to Petty who could have dropped in front of McGovern to attempt to mark. And when he lost that battle, he chose to simply push Petty to a) stop Petty taking the mark, and b) to make sure that his opponent (Petty) was off his feet/unbalanced while Ginbey remained ready to crumb off the pack. It's against the rules to push a player attempting to mark a ball if you aren't trying to mark yourself. Ginbey pushed Petty into oncoming traffic while not trying to win the ball, resulting in concussion of both McGovern and Petty. And Ginbey has priors for pushing players into oncoming traffic once he loses the contest - it resulted in Lalor breaking his jaw preseason.

Conversely, if Hawthorn beat Richmond today, they will have beaten 5 of the bottom 8 sides, with their only other win coming in Tasmania against the 8th placed GWS. And lost to PA and Geelong.