deanox

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.

This would be an excellent outcome, turning Bedford and 32 into Grundy. And it is something that senlems reasonable too, depending how much of his cap we take on.

This is really insightful, thanks! I do think that it is hard to draw conclusions without some other data too, namely our opposition's performance in the same stat each week (so we can see if we are performing above/below trend). Its also tough because high speed distance is subject (what's high speed? Do we do lots of work just below this number). But I think it's a great proxy!

I think if you add a second pick back to the dees from the dogs, or an upgrade of 2nd round picks, it balances it a bit I think? But honestly, I think every club is reasonably happy with some small variation of this. Except Freo who claim they won't lose Lobb, but in reality trading "a 30 year old who wants to leave, a young fringe player (albeit higher potential and young) and a top 10 pick" is a good deal for Jackson.

No the logic I was using is that it is illogical to even try to compare "privacy" issues where one is a journalist report about system racism and the other is about player injuries.

She didn't get heaps of it but when she got it she broke lines and kicked long, a real weapon, particularly in the AFLW.

False equivalence. One is an investigative journalist reporting on a public interest story, the other is a club releasing medical information about players out of season (when it doesn't have an impact on this week's games).

I know this makes us look like an older team, but after Daisy and Paxman (34 and nearly 34) the next oldest that week was Ivey (29). This week Goldy (32) was third oldest, and we had Gay (26), Hore (27), Pearce (29) as the only other players older than 25. Given Paxy and Daisy have been playing an increasingly secondary role (as Purcell, Hanks, and West step up), I feel like we are pretty well balanced to be a strong team over the next 5 years. I just hope we can win one for Daisy and Paxman!

Last week against the Lions would have been different if Harris played I reckon.

Purcell and West have been two great picksl ups without having to go to the early draft, haven't they?

I thought they said during coverage last week that someone stepped on his foot? If so, it might be a bad luck situation rather than poor management.

A well deserved result for a great season. The boys really deserve it after the difficulties associated with Covid and hubs etc

Well yeah I'd love him to dominate everything but not all players do. I think he plays the 2nd ruck role to a better standard and simply wonder if spending cap and trade capital on other positions and roles might be more value than spending on a second ruck. I feel that his second efforts and follow ups when the ball hits the ground are much stronger when in the ruck than in a forward marking contest, and I think that really helps him have an impact.

He's looked really good at times and has kicked it well too. I was very surprised we didn't persist because I thought he had a future as a small defender.

Yeah this ruck role really suits him. I know we're keen on Grundy, but I'd really be tempted to spend the money elsewhere.

He really fluffed that after Chandler's hard work didn't he?