deanox

The AFL are probably salivating at the prospect of Franklin being called on after the siren, the swans losing as a result, the ball sailing through but not counting, and the month of news cycle it will generate.

I didn't know that, so happy to retract my statement. Personally I'd suggest consulting with the playing group, and potentially a representative group of TAC cup players and asking what they'd like RE crediting games or not, and go from there.

I hope they call Franklin for veering off the line too

You know we have already considered it more than the AFL rules committee did.

I actually like the rule as long as they keep being super hot in calling play on, the moment the player sneezes sideways (this needs to include kicking for goal). Otherwise it just feels like a player is trapped. I think it will promote faster ball movement and maybe take away some of the importance of stoppages, but more goals means more centre bounces, which makes rucks and mids really important. Also the ruck role becomes very important as a sweeping marker, in defence cutting off, or as a kick out target, or up forward. So less about ruck taps, more about contested marking. I actually think it will suit us. We like to rush and play on, this helps. We also like to zone and cover space, meaning we are more likely to chop off or slow down attacks vs man on man defence. I'm positive.

I can't work out how to get the stats to confirm (I've checked numbers against a small group of players, but not across the whole competition) but I he has one of the highest "score involvement per disposal" ratios in the league. Sounds like a niche stat but it supports the idea that he is creative and uses it well, and that when he is involved we have a higher chance of improving our field position. He does need to lift his average disposals a little. If he was pushing 20 instead of 10 he'd be particular valuable.

This shouldn't be hard. Either: - 4 interchange plus a medical sub; - Medical sub can be activated temporarily during concussion test, but be deactivated; and - Medical sub can be activated permanently for any reason but player must not play again for 12 days and must follow the "return to training after concussion protocols" as well so there is an effect even if it is a player who would have been dropped and its a VFL bye anyway. OR - Return to 3+1, 2+2 or even go to 4+1 if they want and say that "the sub can be activated any time for any reason". Either way no game should be credited unless the player gets on field.

The Saints have: - Had a hard fight in the last to win; - One day less recovery; - Return travel; and - They ran a combined 294.8 km vs our 275 km (nearly 1 km per player extra). I'm not sure how much this matters in round 1. Are the players fresh so it doesn't matter? Or is the first hit out tough to recover from?

I don't think we should be counting chickens just yet. Don't get me wrong I'm super excited by the potential ofbthese young guys, but they have a long way to go to be more than potential. Saying "we got this right unlike past early picks" is premature (except maybe Toumpas!). In Cale Morton's first 2 seasons he played in 40 games (6 wins), for 825 disposals (20.6 per game). Injuries (broken finger I think) and poor coaching stumped his development. And he gets remembered harshly because of the Lade pantomime. Trengove looked great from the outset.

Yup 12 days and return to training should follow the concussion protocols of no contact for the first bit etc. To stop it being used on an out of form player who was going to be dropped anyway.

I read something after that game where he or the coaches said how he had been training down back but with injuries in the game they said "look we know you've been training with the defenders but just go out and have some fun" or something like that. If I can find it, I'll post it.

We recruited Levee to play with OMac in the Diamond defence / zone defence era pre 666. The rule change hurt them both by forcing us to play them man on man. We recruited May to help rebalance. Omac was not able to adjust up as well as he needed to to keep a spot in the ones, he was let go as part of list management. Could have stayed as back up but we are debating the choice of number 30+ on our list. Omac trained down back at Carlton and was thrown forward with no preparation after injuries in a practice match. They haven't developed his potential in any way. Maybe a second club or different coach has helped remove psychological shackles he had, but that not to do with Goodwin. Good luck to him.

There are many easy ways of doing this. The AFL will choose the worst option.

I have heard that the goalkicker coming off the ground is a sport science thing. The pressure of lining up for goal, the thrill of kicking the goal, etc. is related to a surge in adrenaline. Increased adrenaline masks feelings of pain associated with injuries. So they bring players off so their adrenaline drops quickly, so that they don't miss muscle tightness, small injuries etc. and aggrevate them.

If we gave him the 3rd year we'd still have this thread but it would be about how everyone takes us for fools, we pay overs for players and we are a retirement home blah blah.

This is way OTT. The fact we didn't seem to be linked doesn't mean we didn't try, nor that we put all eggs in one basket.

One thing not mentioned here is that the ladder to date has been heavily influenced by an unofficial "conference" style system. Freo: Giants (W), WCE (W), Adel (W), GCS (W), Bris (L), WCE (W) Bris: Richmond (W), GCS (W), WCE(W), Adel (L), Freo (W), Giants (W) Adel: WCE (W), Giants (W), Freo (L), Bris (W), Saints (W), GCS (W) The teams ranked 2-4 on the ladder have all played 4 games against the bottom 6 sides, and are all 1-1 against each other. Someone has to win those games against each other. How would they have gone against the "middle of the table" teams like Carlton, the Saints and the Dees. Meanwhile, Melbourne has played the teams currently positioned 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 14th. We've won 3 games against the bottom 6 sides and we're 1-2 against top 7 sides, but we lost to the Bulldogs after we kicked 2.12 (7 scoring shots to 14). Collingwood seems to be a head above this year, and it wouldn't surprise me if 1 or 2 of Freo, Bris or Adel get found out in the last three weeks as they come up against teams like Collingwood and the next tier (North, Footscray and the Dees).

Williams joined us 2 days before the draft. Probably too late to seriously influence our strategy, but maybe not too late for some influence into individual decisions. Declase seems a "similar" type to Rossman in that he is a tall running winger. We don't have any other similar players on our list. Perhaps this is an opportunity to have a more developed mentor for Rossman in terms of how they play? And assuming Declase is more developed, it might also place some competition on that role as well, which is always a good thing.

R1 last year we went with: Pickett, ANB, Spargo, Bedford Plus Fritsch, Truck, Lockhart, etc.

So he is better at goal assists than our board and coaching staff? Fwiw I agree with you about his worth. He was critical in 2018. My problem is that when out of form he is a liability, and he needs to regain that form.

Not at all. He is ultimately responsible for this getting done, but as CEO he is responsible for all of it getting done. This person reports to the Chief Commercial Officer, who reports to Pert. Two steps down the chain.

Yeah terrible idea. Unless you have a committed group of board challengers, backed by the core community, don't do this. Even if you do have that alternative ticket, go sit and talk to them across the table and force changes not blood spill. This is a good way to get us to fold.

Should have let Burgess go to Adelaide when we had the chance! It's all Missons fault! We've never recovered from Bohdan Babijczuk's time at the club!

I agree with this. There is no way the AFL will pull the plug on GWS or GCS, they are long term investments that are effectively intended to be loss leaders for the sake of growing the game in multi sport states. 19 teams won't happen. 20 isnt likely either and only happens if they push out to "play each team once". But there isn't enough money to go around post covid. North have 1 foot in Tassie. Their AFLW team does too (they are officially called the North Melbourne Tasmanian Kangaroos). North are surviving but don't have great prospects of thriving in the future. It's hard to say it but it is probably the best option for them.

What frustrates me is that this whole situation could have been avoided my umpiring it correctly originally. They allowed players more and more latitude to play on sideways and not get called play on, so the man on the mark started creeping sideways to counter.