deanox

It sure was complicated https://www.draftguru.com.au/trades/2015-jeremy-howe-ben-kennedy-paul-seedsman-jimmy-toumpas

There was a discussion about crowds, focussing on the last two weeks. It's worth noting that we are 5th on the list for average home crowds in 2022 with 39200. However take out our home game in Alice Springs and we average 42500, putting us 4th behind only Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton (all between 45900 and 48600). https://afltables.com/afl/crowds/2022.html Turns out the Demons have been turning up!

I wonder if the full zone is more effective, but more taxing so we shift deeper during the earlier stages of the year (including during loading) and we'll see the zone get closer to our goal as we get closer to finals.

I think this has been recurring in a lot of stats and discussion around the effectiveness of our small forwards. I've wondered if it was a factor of the following: - Lack of continuity with our tall KPD players (Petty (6), Lever (5), May (2)) all missing games, been unfit/injured etc. When these 3 aren't set, we need to defend deeper because we can't rely on their reading and impact contests. - Langdon missed 1 and the effect on our zone showed - TMac has missed 10, Brown has missed 5. Last year with both playing, they linked up the field and delivered i50 to the other. With only one most of the year, have the smalls (and thus our forward zone) had to play higher/deeper?

Just let that sink in.

Between this, and the other messages from the club in the last week, I think we've got a clear strategy on how to manage this. Radical empathy. We're not going to pressure the kid. It's his decision and we'll put a case forward at negotiations, but more importantly he is part of the team and enjoys being here. If he leaves that next year fine, but while he is here enjoy it. This demonstration of cultural excellence and empathy, is a big counter offer in itself when the other club and media are heaping pressure on you.

Yeah the patches looked bad and you could see how different they were underfoot. I recall the commentators describing the patches as being slick on top and hard/dry underneath compared to the existing surrounds, which were soft and waterlogged right down deep due to longer term rain in recent weeks. They said it was noticeable walking across it I cringed everytime someone ran across it.

Just to add to our "forward half concerns: After 19 games we've scored 22 points more than last year. And we've only had 16 more points scored against us. Our percentage is slightly higher than this time last year. So interestingly the woes haven't resulted in less scoring, or more scoring gainst due to the ball bouncing out fast. Attached is the top 10 this year so far. I cant find the same list for last year to compare who has dropped out and who has come in.

How much impact do you think the weather has? For example we only took 64 marks (vs 99 when we played Adelaide) and part of that is probably weather. Are marks rated high points? Are there other stats that might be affected by the weather are kicking efficiency (bombing it long affecting effective disposals)?

I've found that I often get surprised by the TOG% stats because they way they were sitting at half or 3/4 time are very different than end stats. I think if someone was interested and dedicated, they could use the AFL app and manually record them after each quarter and back calculate. It's not something I'd encourage every week, but a sample size might reveal a few trends.

One thing is that he might get a hard wrap on here but the collective will of all MFC supporters just want him to succeed. To heat the crowd yell "Weid!" in unison when he takes a mark or kicks a goal is fabulous, and I hope gives him a feeling of support and encouragement.

And was charged with staging during the 2nd quarter! Anyone have the vision?

1. I'd argue that what you described isn't "out on the full" because the player didn't actually kick the ball (the definition of "kick" in the rules includes both disposing the ball and contact below the knee). But instead should be a free kick against the player who handballed under Law 18.10.2 b) 18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS 18.10.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play. 18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who: (a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full; (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line andd oes not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or ... 2. Handballing into space doesn't seem to be cheating? The onus is definitely on a player to correctly tackle a player with the ball, and if they dispose of the ball legally - whether to a team mate or space - the outcome is the same. I do think that if someone is tackled right as they handball it then that probably play on, not a free kick for holding the man. So this is more about umpires feel for the game rather than players cheating. 3. Blatent cheating. This is against Law 18.2.2.

I'm pretty sure one of the players (Petty?) did this late in 3rd when we had the ball deep as well. Brought back good memories.

I think I understand what you mean. The game has rules, and using them is legitimate. But I don't think this is about exploiting rules tactically, I think this is about going against the spirit of the game and rules. And the spirit is specifically listed in those Laws: 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT 18.3.1 Spirit and Intention A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity to do so. 18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player: ... (c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body; When a player deliberately causes a tackler to make prohibited contact, the football is no longer their sole objective, instead their objective is to try to draw a free kick. The tackler has not - through their action - inhibited the players' opportunity to win the football. The player chose to forfeit their opportunity to make the football their sole objective, so arguably the rule isn't intended to apply. So even if it's not cheating, it definitely goes against the spirit of the game and therefore the rule.

I didn't see it anywhere else on here but I thought it was pretty amazing watching the cheer squad and surrounds sing happy birthday to Ryan on Saturday night (the printed photos were a good touch) after the players ran through a banner with his face on it as well! Wholesome reacts only everyone, what a great club and supporters!

I really think this is spot on. Comparative vs opposition, and it would be worse for shorter or 5 v 6 than longer ie 8 v 9 after a bye. Also cumulative short breaks (ie repeat short breaks) would add up too. I often wonder how much of it is also the luck factor each year. Some body soreness and injuries can be sorted with a single long rest of say 16 days. Others might need 8 otherwise they get progressively worse. Other injuries or niggles can come up fine repeatedly each week as long as they get just the right break, but if they get one day less just can't function. If players have interupted preseasons the short breaks would have bigger impacts too, as the full rest is needed, no training or fitness could be slotted in. So the type of injuries and fitness issues a club carries in any given year would really affect how the draw impacts the playing group. What's good one year might be terrible another year.

It's actually really interesting that we had terrible TV timeslots at the start of the year while in winning form but now that we aren't we are getting the good slots.

The way I think about this is trying to put my body (or imagine putting my body) into those positions. Both players are running. Redman's rear leg is fully elongated in a regular running stride, he is reaching forward to tackle. It is a pretty normal looking position, much like the 3rd from right in the image below (near the swing) and seems like it would be a comfortable position to be in when running, and doesn't involve any "non running" type body positions or movements. Ginnivan on the other hand has both knees bent in a split leg lunge position. He is landing - like the far left or right sketches here - but the angle of his front knee seems much lower. This means he has dropped his body position out of a normal comfortable normal running position and into a crouch, and is dropping/leaning towards Redman. Here, the next frame only, Redman has been able to extend his stride, and now looks like he is in the end position (far right) but at pace. Again, imaging that position it feels like a natural running position. Ginnivan on the other hand, has both feet together, so he has actually planted his front left foot and propped! This is why the first image looks like he is "lunging", because he has planted the front left foot and instead of pushing through forward continuing to run at pace, he has dropped and stopped in front of the tackler. Basically, if Ginnivan kept running here he may have gotten away from Redman, or he might have been caught and forced to handball. But either way he was a solid step out in front of the reaching Redman. It was Ginnivan's choice to try to "draw a free kick" by propping and turning low into the tackler that caused this incident to occur, and frankly it shouldn't be rewarded because it's dangerous, and also it goes against the spirit of the game. I've attached another angle, which shows just how far Ginnivan chooses to drop even more clearly. However, I'm firmly of the belief that this situation crossed the line pretty quickly as this went to ground and Redman dragged Ginnivan down and held him in a headlock. High contact was Ginnivan's fault, but Redman had a duty of care to release once he realised the potential danger. The umpire also had a duty of care to blow the whistle and stop play quickly. It should be immediately holding the ball: Ginnivan chose to duck into the tackle instead of disposing of the ball, and that is the same level of prior opportunity as choosing to fend off.

If you want to know just got close the pies wins have been...

I think it's reasonable for mo to give some vague info this way. He has told us that it isn't an issue with our club. Indicating it's not a player rift, a coaching argument, poor facilities, poor offer from us, etc. It's good info to share to us. It's something personal for the player that mo knows and says he won't share. Which sounds pretty reasonable.

We actually went 4.5/9 if you stretch it out as well. We are currently 3/8, so win next week make it 4/8 and it is pretty close

This year we are second with 52 points. After round 19 last year we were 3rd with 54 points and the Cats and Dogs both above us, having just lost to the dogs. I'm not saying it's the same as last year or that we are playing well now, but I think a bit of context is important. This is the second best position your football club has ever been in after round 19. Ever. In its history. There is still a chance this plays out ok.

If it is mental and not physical (injuries, lack of fitness/conditioning/match fitness, loading, etc.) then I think that is understandable after lockdown, hubs, travel etc. followes by the comedown from the buzz of winning a Premiership. Especially after winning 10 straight to start the season despite not getting out of second gear. This would also suggest that when the real pressure for a top 4 spot comes in the next few weeks and the finals game steps up, that extrinsic motivation should kick in again.

@Diamond Jimif that's the case, do you think he is competing with Spargo/ANB who have been playing further up field and deliver forward, or Pickett who tends to stay closer to goal? I'd also add that Melksham tended to stay quite deep on Sat I think, regularly starting in the square. So that could add to him being a reasonable like for like positional swap.