deanox

I think the real reason to force the draft selections is to make sure teams aren't selling the future farms for older players. If the WCE were trading a first rounder for a 3rd year 21 year old player, I feel that would be reasonable. But I can't see them allowing WCE to trade this years pick and next years pick. And we'd want more than just one pointy end pick, as he is a top 3 pick, with demonstrated skill and start quality, having won a club best first year player, two rising star nominations, and the competition rising star award, and having just hit 50 games experience. On average, 39% of players picked between 3-5 play 200 games (one every 2.6 picks) and Luke is currently trending above the curve with respect to this type of metric, so "two top 3 picks plus something else" is not an unreasonable trade demand given his age. https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison

I actually think that only the only thing a ruck needs to be good enough to do is negate the opposition ruck. I haven't got stats (because they don't provide them) but I think HO's to advantage are a furphy, and are offset by HOs to direct disadvantage. But if you have a poorly skilled or undersized ruck, then the average ruck can really dominate in those midfield situations. But for the majority of the top level and journeymen rucks, its close enough that the stoppages aren't overly influenced and it is really about the mids. There are of course exceptions, but these usually come in some kind of unique flavour: Gawn is a giant (giving him an edge at the stoppage) but because he is more mobile than most at that height, he covers ground and provides the drop back defence option as well as the push forward extra tall option. Most giant rucks move a lot slower, so can't do all of this. He also does a lot of other things, and most people consider him the best in the comp, and perhaps one of the best rucks ever. So he is hardly the bench mark for what is needed. The mobile ruck is another flavour. Nic Naitanui, Paddy Ryder, Luke Jackson. They jump, they pick up ground balls, they dodge athletically. They are the proverbial 4th midfielder. Pretty rare, and while they look great but can often be more flash than substance because much of the time they also aren't as good as the giants in the ruck, and also aren't as good as the midfielders on the ground, meaning it is hard to truly dominate (a bit like a cricket all rounder who isn't really good enough to bat in the top 7 but also isn't a front line strike bowler). The ruck/forward: a solid ruck, but their value comes from also being a genuine forward player, leading patterns, marking kicking. Flavour of the month in the late 90s and 2000s. It's great to have one of these, because they add flexibility and can also be an extra weapon for the team to rely on. But plenty of teams have won flags with just a serviceable ruck who holds their own at stoppages and takes a few marks around the ground.,

20 years (a generation) of us being crap and getting crap time slots and coverage during a period where the AFL has deliberately maximised revenue by scheduling the "big clubs" at the popular times. This has meant 25 years for those clubs to grow and gain supporters, whereas smaller supported clubs have suffered. This doesn't go away because we won the flag: we need a dynasty over 3-4 years, and a 10 year successful period winning, playing finals and attracting supporters before we even start to turn this around.

So we should be talking up the great crowds?

Essendon v Freo at Docklands got 24k Geelong v Freo at KP got 20k So our 29k is 25% and 50% higher attendance than Fremantle's two other Victorian games this year. Is it great for a tip 4 match up? No, I'd like more. But it is pretty much on par for AFL crowds in 2022.

On one hand, constitutions need to have motherhood statements, that is sort of their role. Changing the word Chairman to President (for example) is window dressing because it doesn't change the role. But it does signal quite clearly that we are modern and inclusive. On the other, and from a member survey/consultation process perspective, the support of motherhood statements could be misinterpreted as a mandate for specific wording interpretations that the survey reader did not envision. I haven't completed the survey yet because I want to read further. A nominations committee is a standard modern practice which is often considered best practice, and certainly has its advantages (including making sure quality, suitable candidates are identified because let's be plain, how would the average member know if a candidate has the skills or is capable or of they would be able to work with the other elected board or if they are a jerk?), but there is also a big risk of introducing a systemic bias in the selection process which could present as job for the boys or result in lack of diversity of thought across the team.

The constitution currently specifically mentions the AFL competition "and any other competition the directors choose to nominate for". So changing to the "men's and women's AFL competitions" means that the teams are equal in the eyes of our constitutional purpose.

He is 6th on the all time "tackles per game" list at 5.9. And he has the highest ever "contested possessions per game" at 15.3 (a long way ahead of Cripps who is 2nd with 14.6). So he is in the all time record conversation for disposals, contested possessions, clearances, and tackles, yet people think he needs to kick more goals to be one of the greats?

8 points is a pretty large lead after only 10 rounds. That's 15% more votes than Cripps. There are 4 players in the next 8 point gap. I know it is also a one game turn around, but it is worth noting.

I reckon he could make a very dangerous resting forward pocket, with strong core strength, ability to get the ball into space, and reasonable mark. But he does need to be closer to goal, not HFF! And for now he doesn't seem to have any problems running out 85+% of game time in the guts. Sparrow I think does quite well on that HFF where he is a pretty good kick for goal over 50 m off only a step.

I think this is exactly it. He isn't a front running mid-forward who finds himself on the ends of the handball chain ready to kick the goal. He is a genuine centre midfielder, at the fall of the ball, winning and extracting, dishing off, linking up and running back to cover. If he found himself in the position to kick more goals, we'd probably lose his value in extracting and setting up scoring chains.

He is averaging 8.2 per game this season, so it isn't out of the question. A couple of big weeks brings the average required for the other weeks down. Even if he doesn't get it, amazing to think he is in the frame to be second fastest player to 4000 disposals and 2nd faster to 1000 clearances. That type of inside/outside skill mix is unbelievable. For context Cripps will need about 20 extra games than Clarry to hit 4000 disposals, and Sam Mitchell only has 771 clearances to date.

I agree that the media will claim it is that he doesn't hit the scoreboard, but in reality it's because he isn't doing the finishing, he is doing the extracting and set up, so they don't pay enough attention. There is a reason he won the AFLCA Champion Player Award last year (and will be leading it again once this week's votes come in) yet the media still talks about Pettacca first.

On track for 138 games making him 2nd fastest to 4000 as well. He has played 121 consecutive games too, 2nd longest current streak only behind Jack Crisp on a remarkable 173 (10th all time streak).

It was soft to give away, especially because I think TMac dropped it anyway, but the defender wasn't watching the ball and made front on contact and contact to his arm during the marking contest, so technically there.

Narrm FC has never lost a quarter!

Agree RE the umpiring decisions there and about Rivers. It's been a while since we've had goal kicking defenders and midfielders.

I swear we had this conversation in 2004 right after we drafted Bate, Dunn and Newton and there was an argument about whether they were the wrong size at 192 and 193 cm.

Concussion is the only bad outcome because it is the only looming court case.

I think it should be pretty clear to all by now though that nothing about this is intended to make any sense except for the purpose of being able to provide a big stack of documented evidence to demonstrate that concussion related injuries aren't the AFLs fault. Every time anyone got concussed it was against the rules and the person was punished. Look at the transcript from our advocates, they say the player should have stepped aside instead of made contact, etc. What more could we have done if players kept breaking the rules?

My take on Chandler: Tackle is at absolute speed. He tackles from behind, tries to turn the player so he doesn't land on his back, but due to the way Foley falls he turns back. I think you can really see the intent to turn Foley there, it just wasn't successful. Chandler let's go of Foley's arms on the way down, not perfectly, but he does. They aren't pinned when he hits the ground. Chandler also doesn't land on Foley's back. To me this is actually a pretty exceptional effort: he manages to get his body across Foley from left to right in the tackle and then lands on knees and his hands to avoid just riding him into the ground. To me this shows care. It was graded as careless. But I think it is more fairly considered an accident that occured when a player was performing a legal action (tackle) while trying to stay within the rules. And I don't think you should be suspended for accidents while trying to stay within the rules. It certainly wasn't intentional. And this is also different than say throwing a random elbow out and "accidentally" getting someone high, in which a player would be careless.

Faulty, thanks for acknowledging a change in position in light of other info or evidence, it doesn't happen enough! And while the seriousness shouldn't be down played, I do agree with the sentiment that it isn't really back page news too. It can be completely unacceptable, but still "minor" in the scheme of things and therefore barely newsworthy.

Unlicensed and unregistered means uninsured. The risk that poses to other people in the community when you don't have access to insurance to covers costs associated with potential damage (to either property or people) is just unacceptable. It is completely unfathomable that you could think this isn't a big deal for Majak or anyone.

I hadn't even thought of Harris as being a risk of leaving. I think she left Brisbane to come to Victoria, not chase money. And it's pretty clear she did not gel with Carlton as a club. The money demand was leaked by Carlton but was also a request for a full time job year round at the club as well as the footy. I don't think that is an unreasonable sort of request given the situation those women find themselves in. But ever since she crossed to the Dees she has been absolutely embraced and seems a much loved part of the group. She also seems really down to earth tbh.

I'm resigned to the bounce going too @La Dee-vina Comedia. I've always been an avid defender of the bounce in the game but you're right about it holding back the best decision makers. But the bounce has changed. It used to be pretty random, angles, sideways, whatever it was play on if the rucks couldn't both get there. But with the circle, they've made it much harder on the umps, and if it's not pretty much perfect it gets called back. If a perfectly straight bounce and ruck contest is what they want, then go the ball up and get the better umpires. Or find a way to go back to random bounces being a part of the game*, allowing those other ups to break into the AFL. * Allowing random bounces might also have the positive effect of teams to set up a bit wider to try to protect against the opposition fast break from a crazy bounce, but also having the effect of less in close congestion?