deanox

Early work from ANB has been really promising, involved a lot linking up. It's been lacking the last few weeks. Similarly a couple of marks to Ben Brown up the ground are a good sign.

Wrong footed as well, Fritsch. Bad choice.

This year's indigenous jumper isn't my favourite of all the art works/designs we've adopted, but I do like certain aspects of the design that I hope we will retain: Mindi the devil snake in particular! From a design perspective, the white and black Bunjil (wedge tailed eagle) is what I think throws the balance off a bit. And I think that if that image was in red and blue people would get around it much more. Here is all of the designs we've had if anyone is interested: http://www.footyjumpers.com/melbourneindig.htm We've stated in our RAP that "our vision for reconciliation is to unite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with non-Indigenous people through the game of AFL". This doesn't just mean once a year. If wearing an indigenous art designed jumper 4 times is a method of helping bring those groups of people together, then that's a good thing. If non-indigenous people think "it's too much" or "I just want our old jumper back" then perhaps they are the people who the club are patiently leading, by taking them on the journey they have identified with the indigenous community in development of the RAP. It's also possible they'll never be convinced, but the representation and visibility matters, and it will have a positive impact on the next generation coming along regardless of some people holding out. So, everyone is free to dislike the particular artistic design (although as something we have commissioned and chosen and has meaning this is lightyears away from the forced clash jumpers of the past). But the concept and frequency? In a week where NSW announced it was taking it's flag off the harbour bridge, and a year where the VicGov is progressing a treaty and the federal government is making strides too, this isn't going anywhere.

I seem to recall us previously requesting (or at least claiming to have requested) lots of home and MCG games in the first half of the year to help us build momentum on and off the field.

On TV it looked like we struggled with the ground and footing, never really confident running, and how the ball was bouncing, how slippery it was etc. while they seemed pretty comfortable. I put it down to "home ground advantage" (cold dewy Thursday night in Geelong with stadium missing winds, is basically how they train).

Almost exactly what I had @chook fowler. I just didn't think Oliver was effective enough to be as high rated and thought Gus and Hib both did a great job under a lot of pressure. 6 Lever 5 Trac 4 Viney 3 Gus 2 Hibberd 1 Oliver

@Demon Dynastyyeah everything I could find has his draft day weight (84kg) still listed, although I find that hard to believe. I also found unofficial website with stats for this year. It list positions this year as FB/HBFL so consistent with what you've said, but I wasn't sure if that was just named team positions. https://vfl.aflmstats.com/player/Fraser_Rosman It would be great if they could turn him into a replacement for Hibberd (or even Smith) as a flexible running/tall.

He was drafted at 84 kg, any idea where he is at now?

I was very excited about Rosman's potential when we drafted him. At 194 cm and an elite endurance runner already (with speed as well!), He had all the tools for development. It sounded like he was making some progress up forward last year but I haven't heard much about his progress this year (admittedly I haven't looked).

So one in play as a clumsy tackle (not saying it was acceptable but it was part of play) and the other an off the ball act, and they get the same penalty?

Agree I'd like to see him get more of it, but he does put it a lot of work off the ball, lots of pressure, and some weeks that turns into opportunities and shots on goals. However is is our 3rd highest goal kicker for the year, and we're not exactly scoring slouches (6th highest aggregate in the comp). He is =40th in the competition for goals kicked. So as a forward he is doing his job. The reason I though he rated a mention this week was because I think he had 7 disposals for 7 score involvements, indicating he didn't waste much when he did get it.

Other than Fritta he is out leading goal scorer in both total goals and average goals per game. He definitely isn't having a great year and output could be higher. But he is still out best tall forward this year.

Here is the moment of impact. Lever never faces Fogarty, just moves him away from his team mates and congratulates their efforts. This is effectively a coward punch from Fogarty. He punches a bloke who isn't even looking at him, who isn't engaged with him. It's just assault.

IMO Fogarty's act was the worst of the lot. Out of play, from behind Lever (so he didn't see it coming). Just a cheap assault to be honest. If someone hit any one of us in the guts like that, from behind, while we were not prepared or expecting it, we would drop like a proverbial sack too. I don't know why it is considered tough to take a punch off the ball.

Do you mean Picket?

I reckon this proves that at stoppages the real role of a ruck is simply to make sure that the other ruck cannot dominate (neutralise). (Obviously this assumes your midfielders are able to compete with theirs) An advantage they got at the stoppages was ROB got 4 stoppage clearances (of their 22 for the game) vs Weids 1. With Gawn in, they might not have got those. Where not having a ruck can be a big disadvantage (or having a good ruck like Gawn can be an advantage) is their ability to influence the game around the ground. Intercept marking and spoiling, linking up in attacking play, and body work in close to help your kids find space are three key areas that a ruck can influence. ROB did slightly out-perform his own season averages (for intercepts, disposals etc) in this match, and did statistically more than Weid did, but with only 5 marks and 6 intercept possessions in total ROB didnt have any influence on the game. As the only ruckman on the ground, and with the size advantage he had, he should have been able to influence more. So either Weid did a good job keeping him quiet or we deliberately used a game plan that kept him out of it.

6 Pettacca 5 Oliver 4 May 3 Langdon 2 Lever 1 Viney Kudos to Pickett who had lots of impact with his handful of touches, Petty who didn't do much wrong, Salem, Harmes, Brayshaw and Sparrow who played good games as well.

I know the have the orange trim but pretty sure it's Carlton tonight.

Under the Tribunal Guidelines, he could be charged with Carless Contact with an Umpire: "A Player may also be charged with the offence of Careless Contact with an Umpire by pushing or holding an opponent into an Umpire or their direct path. A charge of Careless Contact with an Umpire will be subject to a fixed financial sanction." I'm guessing that was the original line of thinking. It is possible they are charging him with serious misconduct instead: "Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike or where it had the effect or potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute. Acts of Serious Misconduct will be referred directly to the Tribunal." However they don't actually need to specify the offence, and are allowed to amend the offence whenever they'd like, and also: "In addition to the Direct Tribunal Offences referred to in section 3.2, the MRO or the Executive General Manager Football Operations may in their absolute discretion having regard to all the circumstances refer a notice of charge to the Tribunal for determination (see Regulation 16.12(i)(vi)(A)). In such circumstances the Player will not have the option of an early plea however the Tribunal may favourably consider a Player’s guilty plea. The MRO may refer a matter to the Tribunal under Regulation 16.12(i)(vi)(A) where, for example, it is not able to determine a matter based on the evidence before it. It is noted that the MRO has investigative powers for the purpose of ensuring so far as is possible and regardless of the apparent conclusiveness or otherwise of any video, that the MRO can still classify offences, as it sees fit. The MRO may also refer a matter to the Tribunal if it considers it appropriate to do so based on the circumstances of the offence, the record of any Player involved (particularly for similar previous offences), any suspected mitigatingf actors or other unusual features of any report." For those who are interested, here are the 2022 tribunal guidelines: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2022/03/15/111be938-8f58-4118-9753-8e9ced332989/2022-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Thanks @WheeloRatings, this was my understanding too. @Demon Dynasty I don't think it's too big a deal, but it is something I noted watching Charlie Spargo, who often has a high ratio of SIs to disposals without many scoring shots, while BBB or Fritsch often get similar ratios but lots of scoring shots themselves. I think the "score assist" instead of goal assist are because if you set up a shot at goal, you've done your job, even if the other player fluffs it? For everyone, here is a gloalssarybof all these stats: https://www.championdata.com/glossary/afl/#:~:text=Contested Possession%3A A possession which,central area of the ground. (The definition of scoring chain seems to include the disposal that scores the goal, and score involvement is all disposals in the scoring chain, so makes sense it is counted under that definition.) There are some strange interpretations in our statistical game too: https://www.championdata.com/faqs/afl/ Win the hit out to advantage but get no stats if a free kick is also paid (similar if you take a contested mark but the umpires you a free kick for holding the man. Surely we should credit both stats here?) Goal/score assists only count from intentional acts. Miskicks that are marked are deemed unintentional and therefore are not assists. (As if our game doesn't have enough grey areas!)

I know this is nitpicking, but I was pretty sure the score involvements included the goals/behinds, they weren't "as well as" their own scores. Is this correct? If so, does that mean for kicking a goal a player would get points for both the goal and the SI?

Agreed. I though we had a lot of role players tonight, which is why we played so well as a team. Hibberd sacrificed everything to stop Cameron. Weid was really aggressive whenever and wherever he was thrown. Petty was dour. Bedford and Pickett were ever dangerous and swarming, and with Spargo used the ball well ever chance they got. ANB and Langdon ran hard to position all day. No passengers today, although Fritsch could have been a bit more team oriented.

6 Lever - His best game of the year, and just intercept and rebound after intercept and rebound. Also great by foot today. The reason we weathered the storm long enough for Viney to be effective in attacking the game. 5 Viney - Captains game. Pressure was immense and lead from the front, the team rallied around him and is probably why we lifted from the last 3 weeks. 4 Jackson - More than held his own. McInerney may have used his size but Jackson was more influential. 9 tackles, 21 disposals and 10 score involvements is huge from a ruck. 3 Harmes - Shut down Neale, stole 2 goals. The onfield equivalent of an "8 point game". 2 Oliver - Slow first quarter but blew the game away in the second (and third). Dominated the stoppages, and the contested ball. Took the pedal off in the last when we were clear. 1 JJ - Big impact game off limited game time. Lots of touches, used it well, big metres gained, snared a couple of goals, and a whole bunch of intercepts as well. Really influential role playing, a big part of the win.

This feels like classic AFL controversy generation. Leak an idea into the media that they suspect will be particularly controversial to either a) test it with the public first and the deny all knowledge if the idea stinks or b) create a big carry on so that they can gently slip in their preferred outcome in the background seemingly under the radar.

RE a player like Harmes taking the option to go: he wouldn't be on big money and is contracted, so I can't see us sacrificing him. But I could see us saying: "hey team X are interested in you, and while we don't really want to lose you and would be happy for you to stay and be part of the squad, if you can get an extra 250k per year and 2 years on a contract out of them, you'd be mad not to think about it." I know it is next year, not this year, but it is Oliver I'd be saving the money for, not Jackson.