deanox

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.

It seems a redundant rule, given players have to agree to be traded anyway. It would be a reasonable rule (ie can't trade a player in the first trade period after resigning them) if clubs were allowed to trade contracted players without needing their consent (to balance free agency).

After today he needs 34 more disposals next week to complete 4000 disposals in his 138th game, placing him second fastest of all time to that mark.

They've paid that against Lever because they reckon he attempted to fend off, but it's a rubbish decision.

Beat me to it.

Luke Jackson's goal

I started reading and thought it was going to say Gus and Gawny help fight Melksham and I nearly had a panic attack.

This is the best analysis so far I reckon, it's the first that notes actually issues. He definitely looks best when moving around the ground and being able to get a few marks compared to standing still in packs. So why wasn't he leading? Did we want him in the pack with Brown, so that Brown wasn't double teamed in every kick forward? This seems possible; a few times I thought Weid looked like he was trying to make space and body in the packs (from Brown) rather than actually contest the mark himself. In those "good games" he was definitely roaming around more and he was able to run into the ball, or the pack, not have it kicked onto his head, which is a clear weakness. So I think we need to workout if he isn't moving around, or if our game plan isn't letting him.

I think they need to pay a full time livable salary for all players so that they can be footballers. It doesn't have to be AFLM money, but working towards a 60k per person minimum at least sets a benchmark which can be "topped up" through other work if desired but allows full time focus during preseason and season as well. I'm concerned about the quality difference between the teams and think that divisions are probably the way to go, but understand it won't be popular. I also wonder if playing 2 seasons of "8 game plus finals" per year, a spring and autumn comp, is actually a plausible option? It minimises long seasons and dead rubbers. There can be 2 teams up and down twice per year, making conferences more palatable, and swapping teams around a lot more. There can be an extra trade period mid year if needed. 6 month player contracts to cover each shorter season might make the financial part more palatable for the AFL.

Weid hasn't been performing, despite actually having his best ever season return on goals per game. I've been trying to out my finger on what his issue is, because I don't like the descriptions about him not being competitive or caring or trying hard etc are quite right. He seems to get caught in the wrong position a lot. Not in enough space to lead to the ball, but also not where the ball falls. It often drops in front of him or goes over his head. Does he misread the flight? Does he not move to the right areas? Pack marks aren't his strength, but he tends to stay still a lot. Why isn't he moving into space, or trying to get the sit on packs by coming in from the side? What actually is he lacking? Is it his skill/application, or is it the role he is trying to /being asked to play? He looks so much better when roaming around a bit more, taking marks etc.

How many first round picks do the expansion clubs get as priority? With 18 teams our first pick is at best 17 and might be p pushed back further. We might be content to simply lose that and keep the list together.

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?