deanox

We might have booked Scully but the rest of the comp didn't. It's bloody stupid unless you're north supporters.

I only watched the last quarter, but At Kilda lacked a lot of composure, they didn't look like a quality side to me.

Hold on Gather Round, come on down Gamble Round! Just ship the whole comp off for a round.

I reckon the last page of this thread has the pantomime just right! If anyone gets to boo Jackson it's us, but we'll defend him against Kane Cornes because he is an MFC premiership player and just a kid.

Lots of players evey year end up become very good/elite. Top picks are more likely to do so, but top 10, top 15 and top 20 picks all have ended up in that category. It really comes down to whether you: -Combine 3 picks to get the best in the draft (highest potential, but untested at AFL), or -Draft 3 first round players and see which one (or more) develops into an elite player. As @Jaded No More said, they are clearly hoping to find the next super star, to give our list another 5+ years and potentially extend that window. Obviously each year the depth of talent is different. But personally I would have thought two top 10 picks gives a lower risk than pick 1. And I hope we have some info on any Tassie team, including the types of concessions and consider this in our choice.

It's almost like Hardwick doesn't realise we kicked 10 of the last 13 goals! Jokes aside though, if those votes are correctly assigned (ie votes to their caster), then Hardwick felt that poor performance and effort by his players in the second half lost the game, rather than strong performance by the Melbourne players. i.e. he has given no credit to Melbourne, and given votes to his players who he thought played well, despite their teammates efforts.

I do agree with this. I wanted to fit him in my 6 but couldn't. But Grundy into the ruck, freeing up Max to go forward had a big influence on the game.

It was 10-17 Tigers way at half time, meaning we got 13-10 after that point. Its a correlation/causation question in that sometimes you lead the free kicks because you are first to the ball and win the frees for holding the man, too high, etc. and other times you lead the game because the umpires are giving you all the momentum. In that kind of case, momentum from free kicks is often about ground position and who had the ball at the time. I thought in the first half they definitely helped Richmond's momentum.

I won't boo LJ. He seems a special sort who wanted to be close to family. And we weren't held to ransom in the trade (even if it may have felt like unders). Plus I think he is coping enough from the media and his own supporters. The pantomime isn't fun in his case, it's really just bullying.

I think even though we might boo players who jump ship and chase success, that is very different that despising or true I'll will. Often players are only booked against their old team but those same supporters would still have a soft spot for them when playing against other teams. And just as those players might be booked, we would probably go a bit over the top in support of a player who crosses over to us, especially when playing their old mob. Help them stand tall a bit. As I said, it's all a bit of a pantomime. Until it isn't.

Agree with all this.

Really hard tonight because I don't think anyone played a complete game all day. A couple accumulated and did their thing all day without breaking free, others burnt very bright but for a short period of time only. 6 Petracca. The most complete game for me, 26 touches, 12 i50s, for 609m gained, 7 score involvements (including 3 GAs). I thought Petracca was involved all day, but also added some real power and burst at times. 5 Viney. I'm not going to quote stats. They were good but Vineys votes are based on effort tonight. He wasn't as influential with the ball as Tracc imo 4 Gawn: 6 contested marks (Richmond took 8 for the game) and led is for contested possessions with 13. Also snared a goal. He was the dominant big man on the ground when forward. And Grundy looked much better in the ruck. 3 Oliver: Another all day warrior who didn't truly dominate to his standards but was clearly in our best. Disposal was scrappy at times. However his clutch goal on the siren was the spark we needed: it gave us the momentum. Set shots aren't his game, but he worked hard to nail it, and I think that gets it extra credit. Had no love from the umpires when being held. 2 JVR: it was a 15 minutes cameo, but you could argue he won us the game. Strong contested marks in packs meant he learnt those goals himself. No one else stepped up like that when needed. 1 Lever: 10 marks (2 contested), 10 intercept possessions, and the only player to play 100% of game time. I don't know how to find stats for spoils. But I thought he was our best defender overall, reading the play and impacting contests. Special mentions to Langdon, Chandler, Grundy, McVee and Brayshaw who I thought all played pretty good roles and could have nabbed a vote. Also shout out to Bowey who (apart from one shocker used the ball well and defended very well, including that top notch effort and smother near the end of the game.

I'll take 2 goals down. We haven't played well enough to be any closer. Yet it could be closer: they have had a couple from frees/50s and we effectively had one taken off us (Fritsch mark).

We're not going to win today. AFL has ordained it.

Terrible free against May then. Didn't get the arms just a contest.

Ambit claim to prevent free agency getting more beneficial to the players I reckon.

I think that booking is ok when it is part of the theatre, the pantomime, of the game. It can add to the atmosphere. Traditionally it's been the "villains". The players who gave it back to the crowd as well, and seemed to thrive off the interaction. In that situation it is two way and is good for the game. Players defecting to other clubs, particularly rival clubs, become pseudo villains for that match. A good boo from the crowd early in the game is balanced by it waning as the match goes on, plus the friendship between ex-teammates after the match. Again in this situation it is largely two way. Recently booking seems to have become a bit more mob/pack driven. The booking of Goodes clearly got out of hand, it clearly wasn't two way. The Horne-Frqncis situation is frankly bizarre: being booked by clubs not involved makes no sense. And booing players who were cut/delisted/traded out (such as a Mitch Hannan or Weid) makes no sense either. I'm not sure at what point the crowd lost understand of its role in the pantomime, but it is disappointing.

This 100%. When a tackle happens call ball up or holding the ball. Don't let them wrestle against each other. Don't wait for the rucks and no inate, just run in and throw it up, it'll solve lots of problems. Similarly, if someone is being tackled and one of their teammates jumps in, and effectively tackles the tackler, creating congestion, then call holding the man against the third man in. It is a tactic designed to stop the holding the ball decision (by wrapping up the tackler and the player with the ball, the ball is now stuck in there so it's a ball up). It's really simple the AFL just have no idea.

If Oliver is on the mark then he can smother the handball, the same as he would another a kick. If he stepped over the mark to smother then it should be 50 unless he played on first. If Oliver knocked it out of his hand before he could handball that would be a 50 too.

I don't know why they scheduled Sydney at home. You could have done VFL gather round this weekend in Melbourne.

I watched the stats guys at a Casey game once and there was 4-6 recording stats just for Casey. They obviously had a system, different people recording different information, it was pretty intense. I am unsure how it works with Champion data at AFL level, but with GPS trackers in every player (and possibly the ball) they may be able to enter data directly into a system that is already catching stuff like possession, and ball location (i.e. nothing whether the ball was kicked or handballed but the system already has the location and the player in possession. And if location of kick and recieve if auto recorded, then the computer would be able to auto compute things like "rebound from 50", "inside 50", long kick vs short kick, etc.

Yup, not gifted, but it might get the nod in a line ball call.

Personally, I think there is space to get someone to 100 games for father son rule, especially if they have a couple of kids. With all of the equalisation measures, there are few areas that can be exploited as an advantage. If you have two players pretty equal for the sub role, I think you'd be willing to roll the dice on a couple of sub games to get him there.

I don't have a hope of tracking everything but I did try to track JVR and Grundy in the Sydney game. There was a clear pattern in all four quarters to how those two interacted, positions on ground and when they went off for a rest. Sort of like: Start of Quarter: Grundy in ruck, JVR forward. 10 min mark: JVR off for a rest, Grundy in ruck 15 min: JVR on and into ruck. Grundy off for a rest. 20 min: JVR goes forward, Grundy back in ruck Very approximate but it followed the same pattern in terms of order and positions each quarter. Against WCE though, this pattern definitely wasn't followed. Timing was different and so were positions, with others including TMac and Petty taking centre bounces. Their time on grounds were a bit different each game too, Grundy dropped from 77% v Swans to 71% v WCE, while JVR was similar with 72% v 74%. I wonder if the change in TOG for Grundy was a preservation thing? We had already won, have a long flight, and play a team with a lot of talls on a 6 day break.

Do you need to post questions in the thread to get Andy to discuss them? Have you ever tried leaving a voicemail in a disguised voice?