deanox

Looks like up to 13 players can be signed by those 4 clubs BUT 8 of those are to interstate clubs (Sydney 5, PA 3) while Vic clubs only have 5 spots (Hawthorn 3, Essendon 2). However, a relocation reimbursement can be paid to players moving. Given the restrictions on payment (must be paid in tiers) it seems like it would be pretty hard to get players to move clubs generally: it's only about $8k per year to go from Tier 4 to Tier 3, or T3 to T2. Not a lot to leave the club and culture and potential success behind to go to a bottom club. If a team can offer a T2 to T1 (~$16k) a T3 to T1 (~$24k) or a T4 to T2 (~$16k) increase it might be more tempting though. My guess is the highest risk players for us are any interstate players being lured home: they could get their relocation costs paid plus a $16-24k pay rise. Do we have many interstate players who are likely "under tiered" in our structure? I can't think of many from interstate, although there might be a couple of strong performers who could attract a T4-T2 increase for example.

Yeah absolutely, she's be unfairly malligned in the media. My understanding was that the "numbers" thrown around for her at Carlton were actually what she was discussing for her multiple off-field roles. Rubbish reporting.

It's so great to see the movement and growth in these numbers. It also shows us how hard it will be for us to keep out list together. Hanks, West, Zanker, Harris, Purcell, Hore, Bannan, Birch, Mithen, Gay, Lampard, Lauren Pearce. Work out which of those 2 get tier 1 and which 6 tier 2, and which 4 get bumped to tier 3. Add Goldrick and Mackin travelling from Ireland. A developing Eliza Macnamara and Gillard. And you still need to pay the veterans Daisy and Paxman. So 5 of the players I've named are in tier 4 at the Dees. Other clubs are sure to circle, it's a surprise we didn't lose any during expansion.

One thing that has impressed me about Gillard @FarNorthernD and @WalkingCivilWar has been her willingness to move up and back to make sure she is in position, whether that's tracking her poster, guarding spsce, covering a loose player etc. I felt she's held up the anchor in defence role quite well. Her marking hasnt quite been as good as expected for her height, but I think that will come with strength and experience, and she's better than expected beneath her knees for one of the tallest out there. A Really great prospect!

There is a simple solution to this: make sports betting on categories where one person has full control or could have specific inside knowledge illegal, and only allow betting on categories where integrity cannot be entirely compromised by a single persons action. So for Brownlow bet on player total, club totals and overall winners. No one person can know these outcomes unless envelopes are compromised, widespread collusion, etc. For individual match votes you could even have betting before that match has commenced but not after. Bad luck if it reduces overall categories.

Reminds me of Hibberd at his best, but every week. The Irish connection and willingness to take the game on is what they have in common, and as players they are very different but I really want to highlight how much Mackin has improved throughout the year. I think is her understanding of the play and positioning has grown significantly and on the outside she does a superb job of knowing when to drop back and cover and when to take off to provide an attacking option running by. She must have covered a lot of ground on Friday night and was constantly running 80+ meters just to provide an option (even without being used) and also directional changes from defensive to offensive runs or vice versa to either cover or create the mismatch. I think if we can add Elize MacNamara on the other wing next season we'll have a truly unique set up in the AFLW with elite endurance and outside structure, combined with inside strength from Purcell, West and Hanks. It's very exciting!

Quoted as 2555 in the report on AFLW app. Others have said we'd get bigger crowds at inner city venues. Maybe not?

My best 22 here will all current listed players so you can see who is in or out. I'm really not sure if they plan on starting both Gawn and Grundy on the field - they might but I would start one in the bench then bring on the other to create a mismatch. I also can't see us playing TMac, JVR and Brown with Gawn and Grundie in the team, so I've left Brown out to start. Harmes is stiff, but he just doesn't have a position unless he is replacing Sparrow or Jordan (very possible). Spargo gets the nod over him as the only forward on the bench (especially with extra tall forwards, the flexibility is needed). If there is a 5th on the bench I'm unsure if we'll go an extra tall (Brown) or a runner like Harmes. We've got decent cover in most positions, but like most sides, 4-5 injuries will really test the quality of that depth. B: Michael Hibberd, Steven May, Harrison Petty HB: Angus Brayshaw, Jake Lever, Christian Salem C: Lachie Hunter, Clayton Oliver, Ed Langdon HF: Tom Sparrow, Tom McDonald, Alex Neal-Bullen F: Bayley Fritsch, Jacob Van Rooyen, Kysaiah Pickett Foll: Max Gawn, Christian Petracca, Jack Viney I/C: Jake Bowey, James Jordan, Charlie Spargo, Brodie Grundy Emergency from: Ben Brown, Kade Chandler, James Harmes, Trent Rivers, Jake Melksham, Daniel Turner, Joel Smith, Development (potential games): Bailey Laurie, Blake Howes, Taj Wowoedin, draftees, Development Rookies: Kyah Farris-White, Andy Moniz Wakefield, Judd McVee, Deakyn Smith Likely Backup Only: Josh Schache, Luke Dunstan, Adam Tomlinson

I think Charlie suffered from our lack of tall forwards this year. With our forward line performing poorly, Charlie (and ANB) were up the ground much more often, and therefore delivering into the 50 not kicking as many goals. On paper he actually had a "better year" statistically. More disposals, pressure acts, meters gained. More "shots at goal plus inside 50s" in 2022 than 2021. 2022: 11.8 disposals, 2.8 i50, 1.1 shots at goal, 4.2 score involvements, 2.4 tackles (1.0 i50), 4.0 marks (0.4 i50), 11.5 PAs, 195 m gained 2021 11.5 disposals, 2.2 i50, 1.6 shots at goal, 4.4 score involvements, 2.4 tackles (1.0 i50), 3.4 marks (0.7 i50), 10.8 PAs, 187 m gained

Absolutely this, Jaded. It's a weird feeling knowing I've been posting and talking to some people here longer than most friends IRL, yet have only met a handful of people a handful of times.

Not my area, but I learnt through a friend of mine (not due to a death thankfully) that there is a sizable (and growing) "social media after death" industry, helping families reclaim passwords/ownership of accounts, post tributes/convert profiles into inactive accounts, advise online communities and friends of the situation. It definitely isn't something we really think about or plan for, but with many of us having increasing online presence, and communities, it is probably something we need to think about with respect to "having our affairs in order" and probably from a younger age than for other things.

@Nasherit's definitely Dean-ox. Nickname started in highschool and has continued ever since, there might have been a bit of a David Schwartz reference in there originally as well given my love for the Dees at the time. @WalkingCivilWarsometimes I forget that's still my avatar, as it's the only one I've ever had. I had probably just read Clockwork Orange for the first time when I created my Demonland account all those years ago!

Her aerobic capacity is a cut above most, and it adds a real weapon on one wing.

Also with Weid, I think a major factor in not making it is suitability to our game style. He likes a bit of space to roam in and lead into. We like stagnant tall forwards in a pack that we kick to, intentionality to halve a contest and create a contest or stoppage. I'm not saying he'll be Matthew Lloyd, but I do feel that when a bit of space is created around him, he is more likely to succeed. We've seen this when he has had purple patches on field. He doesn't suddenly become the Hulk in a pack, he is allowed to play his natural game, most likely because of how the opposition is playing.

If we are looking for future picks, it is so we have capital next year: if we aren't going to use the pick this year, it has no value if we can't on trade it.

I feel like she has been progressively getting better throughout the season. Maybe reading the party better, improving positioning, getting a bit of confidence. It wouldn't surprise me if she has a bit of a break out game later this season, just puts it all together and gets a lot of it.

To be honest, I'm not sure if Jackson could locate Freo on a map, he just wants to play footy and knows it's close to home.

The best part about SoO in the modern game is it would be completely one on one, no zones, no fancy defense, just the best players going at it in an old fashion style. Given how much the AFL love a spectacle and a media circus, I just don't see why they aren't pushing this to be a thing.

We paid equivalent of ~pick 5 for a player with enough exposed form and runs on the board that it was pretty guaranteed he'd play for us in a key role for 10 years. Statistically that isn't overs. The KK neck/concussion thing: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/29/afl-concussion-adviser-paul-mccrory-investigated-by-australian-medical-regulator https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/tv-shows/on-the-couch/i-was-gobsmacked-explayer-kade-kolodjashnijs-explosive-claims-about-former-afl-expert-paul-mccrorys-concussion-call/news-story/6eb3f9a3eb67b7bc4936bc0e767da8d6

Yeah that's not in dispute. But it's got nothing to do with the suggestion that Geelong rested players more than us and therefore played their developing players more, so they won't leave (which is why it's in the Bedford thread).

Geelong had: 5 players play every game, 4 miss one game, 3 miss two games, 3 miss three games. Melbourne had 4 play every game 5 miss one game 5 miss two games 1 miss three games Very similar across our top 15 players. Dangerfield is 32, just one of how many old guys in that team? (I have double checked how many played, but I think they 13 over 30, 10 over 31 and 6 over 32 on the list?). We had Hibberd, Melksham, Gawn and May above 30. The two "smalls" were rested across the year. You can go find the chart on Fox footy, or look it up on AFL tables yourself. But the stats I've given indicated that it doesn't matter whether it's the top 5, 10 or 15 players, the way we handled the year in terms of games played was pretty similar.

Or we've tabelled 3 years at money commensurate to where he sits on our list: no. 20-28. While GWS tabelled a 3 year deal at money that has him 10-20 on their list and he is mad not to take it? Some would say that's pushing out but I think it's just pragmatic list management.

I just want to point out some stats that show this is false. This year, Geelong used 35 players to our 33. The 15 Melbourne players who played the most games played an average of 22.8 games each.The 15 Geelong players who played the most games played an average of 23.7 games each. Make it the top 22 games played and the stat is 21.3 vs 22.3. Take out the extra game (grand final) and their top players played the same games as ours No matter how you dice it. No extra resting, no more spread of players. Their 13 players outside of the top 22 games played averaged 6.5 games each (bumped up by Jack Henry with 17). Our 11 played 7.5 each. In fact our 11 played 99 games to their 13s 84. So we gave more games to players outside the core 22 than Geelong did.

His life or yours? 🤣

This is rubbish. A bunch of loud angry people here wanted him gone. And it's pretty clear that those people are reactive and not analytical, with the only common detraction from Goodwin being that he doesn't throw players around into random positions as a "plan B", which is some kind of weird 80s nostalgia because it simply doesn't happen at any club.