deanox

Honestly, Lever not being in the top 3 is criminal. His reading of the play and intercepts today were outstanding, and he influenced 4 quarters of football.

Lever TMac Gawn Langdon Petracca Hibberd Apologies to Pickett and probably Oliver.

We're playing rubbish and are 2 points down with 3 more scoring shots. Good signs if we can click even a little bit in the 2nd half.

The point of it is not to be self sustainable though. The point is for it to be good enough to support the proper development of young players and good enough that journey players (who are good enough to be on the verge of the AFL but clearly not career stars) aren't lost to the game because they don't get paid. Basically the reserves league is propping up the quality of the main comp. Thus the investment. I like the idea of something that adds interest, and I think salary cap or draft picks would be a good idea. Edit: Draft picks might work as a balance. Keeping a strong seconds list means higher draft picks. Drafting too many raw kids means the ressies get smashed and the picks go down.

I think the issue is 9 rounds in a 14 team comp. We had a much harder draw than any other team, and finished equal on winds for the year. But the harder draw meant we didn't get to beat up on the new, weak teams and gain percentage, so we were forced to play away finals. Had the draw been even, we'd probably had finished top 2, had a bye and a nice rest week 1 of the finals, and a home prelim at fortress Casey which would have meant we'd be odds on favourite for playing in the GF.

Why does the reserves comp need to be financially self sufficient? If we fund the reserves comp out of the AFL money, it will increase the quality of the AFL product overall. Increased quality in AFL product would mean increased revenue overall. The only problem is that this is a long term approach to growth (a but like sharing the TV exposure around). And the AFL have taken a short term approach to maximise the earnings of the top handful of players (a bit like playing Collingwood every Friday).

13-17 wins are the typical range of the top 8. 15+ should get us top 4. We've got 4. So need 9 of 18 to play finals or 11 of 18 for top 4. So I think these 8 point games are about top 4, not top 8.

I didn't say it was effective, but it isnwhy the rule is there.

Wait, you mean the AFL is not operated professionally?

I think the problem is that all the money is going to the top handful of players, leaving none for the journeymen. To make this work, the full reserves comp needs to be full time, not a mix like currently (ie our Casey players are effectively amateur), with overflow only going to a 3rd tier if needed. Minimum salary for AFL players is $115k next year and $85k for rookies (plus match fees for AFL). The reserves grade need to be around the $100k mark to make it a reasonable career choice, retaining the best 2nd tier players in one comp. I'd also consider having the reserve squad having a minimum number under 21 and a minimum number over 23 (or something), so that clubs are forced to keep career 2nd tier players on board and therefore keep the competition standard up, rather than turning it into a development squad of kids.

If De Goey and Howe are both out for an extended period, the odds of upcoming matches (like next week v essendon, the sun's the week after) or even odds on Brownlow betting, could shift. If Howe or De Goey told their family "yeah we're both injured for at least a month", their is a risk of betting with insider trading info, before it is publicly releases. That's the issue here, not "will they gamble".

I still think the best thing they can do for footy is to expand back to a true seconds competition, for the full AFL competition. The distance in quality between AFL and VFL means that kids need to develop at the top level, lowering the overall standard again. Each team to have 2 squads, a small AFL available squad (~32) with a maximum number of under 20s and secondary reserve/development squad (another ~25 players). Interchange between the squads allowed on long term inuries or limited other occasions. Due to the limited AFL squad, it will encourage clubs to develop kids in the reserves competition and keep the best players in the main squad. Raising the standard of the AFL matches (less developing players in AFL). The ability to interchange between lists should encourage clubs to keep the best non-AFL players in the country on their lists, raising the standed of the seconds competition and therefore the AFL too.

Disappointed that no one has mention Oscar McDonald. On track to be the greatest of them all until his recent injury.

St Kilda playing the tiges into form for us?

Down back Petty is currently behind May, Lever and Tomlinson, and they are considering Hibberd ahead of him tonight. So while I absolutely agree he is a defender first, he is also a quality, developing player stuck in the reserves, and we have 3 of 4 main forward targets out, presenting an opportunity. If we are weighing up the opportunity for exposure and development of Petty (and his ability to probably go ok) vs Mitch Brown playing a game, I'd rather Petty gets the nod.

What is good is that there are actually heaps of options. -Gawn forward, LJ more ruck. -Petty forward, Hibberd back. -Melksham forward, Sparrow in middle. -Mitch Brown or Majak Daw. All are real options, and all come before Weid and Brown return from injury. Also May is out, and we've got Petty and Hibberd as potential replacements. We've got Sparrow waiting in the wings for the midfield. Harmes is a few weeks away. Bowey and Laurie may be a way off but they are a chance to get games if needed as a rotation. Lockhart will come back from injury and put pressure on Jetta. When a team plays well it looks likenit has depth. Our risk is needing too many of these depth players at once.

I'd consider Petty forward and Hibberd back for May. We'd still have the flexibility to throw Petty back if we need the extra height. Petty won't play there long, but I'm expecting Brown back for the tiges.

80 career games for 70 career goals and only once kick more goals than games in a season while at Melbourne.

I thought it looked like he was deliberately bringing the ball down at times. He would contest from the side and palm towards our crumbers. Contested pack marks in the wet are difficult and rare, so it's the % option.

Melbourne traded out: picks 2 (GWS used it on Kelly), 22 (on-traded to Brisbane, who selected Gardiner) and 72 (passed) in exchange for -picks 9 (Salem), -57 (Hunt) and -Dom Tyson (94 games) who was traded for pick 62 (unsure who that was) and Preuss (who we got 2 years back up, then traded for pick 31. Then 31 (plus 43) became 25 (Caleb Poulter). 25, 68, 69 and our 2021 1st (currently 17) became 18 (Bowie at 21), 19 (Laurie at 22) and Brisbane's 2021 2nd (currently 21). (That's currently a win of +700 points, or the equivalent of pick 27).

The "Spargo Ratio": Score involvements divided by disposals.

You're probably right, I used the wrong words. I think he has the capability to kicks those. His field technique is not bad, but set shot looked horrendous on the weekend.

Exactly. In fact if he kicked 2 or 3 goals we'd actually have the media carrying on about how dangerous he is and how he can't be shut down etc. And to be honest, I reckon he kicks 2 of those most weeks.

He was well held, but had he kicked those goals forward it would really be another string to his bow. The ability to rest him forward and be damaging while breaking a hard tag would make us very versatile with Petracca in the team also. Oliver has the strength and marking ability to do this, so I hope he tidies his set shot kicking.

These are the two changes that are on. This week? Maybe not, but they are the hard calls. Geelong may be slow enough that Jetta (and Jones) stay safe. Sparrow didn't do enough, and as one of the last picked that always places him on shakey ground. Spargo wasn't as good tonight as the first 2 rounds, but I think he did enough to hold his spot for now. TMac is on thin ice when Brown or Weid are ready.