deanox

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?

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.