deanox

I've double checked and the Diamond Defence started in 2016, not 2017, which is actually supported by the change in ratio from 2015 to 2016.

Does that count as 3 score involvements on the stat sheet?

This was actually a big part of our game plan in 2017/2018. The Diamond defence? All based around protecting the areas where it was easy to kick goals and forcing opponents to shoot from pockets and flanks. Up forward we also went through a period where we constantly played on or gave off inside 50 to try and find a player in a better position.

My problem with the hit outs to advantage, is that they rarely report hit outs to disadvantage. My bet is that on average they are close cancelling each other out on average over the league. I think rucks need to neutralise the opposition ruck (so that the they don't get a free ride), and then it is more about how do they use their bulk to assist clearances, and height around the ground to mark both offensive and intercept balls. For that reason, an athletic ruck like Jackson has the potential to be a force around the ground, but also an athletic ruck who doesn't make use of their height does risk being just a slow, worse midfielder.

I feel personally attacked by this content. I'm pretty sure I joined the original board in 2002. That's 19 years of my life in one place!

Need to get past freo first but I am happier to be in Adelaide's side of the draw than Brisbane's.

When it comes to contract we should give him the length he wants, and the salary that puts him top 3 at the club. Gawn as captain and games no. 1 ruckman, and Petracca as a the explosive forward/mid are both up there. The next tier down would have May, Lever, Brown, Viney, and maybe Brayshaw (TMac and Brayshaw based when they signed the contract). Agree with bush demon that it mgiht be a bit tight at the top, so we may not be able to match the big splash to keep him, but it wouldn't surprise me if that is why we've resigned Lever and Gawn now as part of a restructuring of the salary to bump the offer.

I know it's only 2 games in this year but after those 2 games he has 76 disposals (3rd in the league) and he is 60th in the comp in meters gained (4th for Melbourne), so that is not an unreasonable ratio. He is leading the comp in contested possessions (36 vs next best of 30), and also has the most ground ball gets in the competition (22), two stats which why he has such a high handball top kick ratio and also lower meter gained than some others. His disposal efficiency this year is 77.8% and his KE is 74%, so his kicking doesn't seem any worse than handballing. For comparison, Jack Mccrae who has 76 disposals this year has 881 m gained, DE 80% KE 63%, 20 ground ball gets. Oliver's performance is elite, there is no two ways about it.

Looks a real likely type, doesn't he?

Adelaide beat Collingwood by 1-2 points in a low scoring game could work.

Collingwood is the only top 6 side we didn't beat in the 9 round season. Given we also played the dogs who will finish 7th, we only played 3 teams in the bottom 7, so have had a pretty tough draw. I have a feeling home finals will make a difference here. Unfortunately it looks like we might travel week 2 regardless (if Collingwood win v Adelaide we'll finish 3rd and play 2nd (Brisbane) week 2, if Adelaide win we'll finish 4th and will play 1st (probably Adelaide or Brisbane) in week 2. The is a chance that Adelaide win and the percentages will fall our way, so that we finish 4th but Collingwood finish on top, but it would need Collingwood to lose by a small margin in a low scoring game.

But he did play according to his stats

If Chandler was credited as playing a game last week, then surely he should be listed as an "out" this week?

I wish the AFL would say: "All coaches at all clubs have 4 interchange players available to help them manager player fatigue and injuries. These 4 players are not selected on the field, they do not need to enter the field except at the discretion of the clubs. It is the responsibility of the clubs to use these resources in a way which manages player fatigue. If a club designs it's game plan using these 4 players, but does not build in reserve capacity or contingency in case of injury, then it is failing it's duty of care to the players selected."

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.