deanox

If you live in the SE it's an hour to the airport. Need to be there an hour early in case traffic, car breakdown, etc From boarding to disembarking Melb to Syd is 2 hours. Board, wait, taxi, take off, an hour 10 flying, land, taxi, disembark. Collect bags for 25 players, plus any club gear and load onto a bus, 30 minutes. Drive to ground. 30 minutes. This is a 4-5 hour process. Getting tp the ground 2 hours early for strapping, warm up etc. Makes it 6-7 hours before the match. For a day game not feasible. For a night game, maybe but it's a killer on that team vs the local team.

Same day travel is horrible, unless both teams do it. I bet only Vic teams will cop it too, not NSW or SA.

Super interesting idea. That probably covers 4 minutes each quarter at least. Time goes back on when you kick. You toy can't do the 55m out "in having a shot" then short pass, and the umpires can't call someone on who is legitimately having a shot.

I wish those stats were available. Tackles only counts a tackle that results in dispossing an opponent (inc forcing a ball up). There are stats for attempted tackles, broken tackles, etc. I think these are aost more important, because in a little handball chain you might have 5 tackles, all which force the opponent to dispose of the ball under pressure but none that register as a tackle. Then we have genuine missed/broken tackles, which are a problem. I don't really like the tackle stats for this reason. Sydney and Adelaide were 2nd and 3rd for tackles this year. West Coast and us were 17th and 18th. Means nothing. We were 6th for tackles inside 50 and 7 of the finalists are in the top 9 for that stat (apart from Carlton and us) so correlates with ladder well. Also our centre mids are great tacklers. Oliver is one of the best in the comp. He had the third most tackles in the comp. Viney was 28 and Petracca was 54.

I think these two tell the story perfectly. We win more clearances than our opposition. We thrive on contested ball. But we try to play a fast pin point disposal game with lower quality disposal. That means we turn it over more and have less uncontested possessions (which are usually long disposal chains). The least opponent turnovers is interesting because we are also the number 1 intercept team (according to AFL Stats pro). I'm assuming this is May and Lever in the back line getting intercepts but less pressure around the ground causing turnovers. Deapite having more i50s we actually average less disposals than our opponents. This goes against the "overpossesion" theory. To me, we are doing two main things wrong: - Kicking into forward 50 isn't good enough. Midfield forward connection etc. - Not forcing enough stoppages. Instead of halving contests and getting a ball up or throw in, we are turning the ball over. This may be a result of losing the TMac contested marking as well as poor kicking inside 50. It's interesting because in raw numbers it looks really fixable. If we can improve 10 i50 kicks per game so that they really in a stoppage instead of a rebound, we'd probably play more to our strengths.

Wagner, Wagner and Dunkley delisted according to MFC website.

Absolutely game style this year. There was great discussion (on here perhaps, @A F?) about us playing the wrong style for our strengths. Instead of moving the ball forward the locking it up for a stoppage, we were trying to finesse and over possess. We arent as strong with disposal skills as we are at stoppages, and thus we had lots of turnovers. Id love to see UP differential, tackle differential and turn over differential.

I like that Oliver is recognised because I think he really grew this year. He looked to kick more, struggled at first then realised he needed to use his pace to gain space to kick (whereas handballs out of packs happen immediately). He made this change while still being one of the most prolific midfielders and best tacklers in the game. Also I think he is criminally underrated by the umpires and gets a raw deal, getting in this squad does seem to help that.

So the club gets a harsher penalty than Collingwood? qwerty7, it's exactly the opposite of how the AFL apply punishments at the tribunal: outcome is more important than action. It sounds like he hasn't messed up because he was negligent (Buckley) or because he was partying (Richmond), it sounds like the problem is his headspace. It also sounds like no real harm was caused. The punishment stinks based on the info we have.

I always wonder if the turnovers are the fault of the midfielders (lack of skills or decision making) or forwards (not in position or moving). I think with us its a bit of both, but I do think if we can sort the forward line out (through cosching, player learning/improving/growth or recruitment) the mids will look like stars.

Yep, agree RE the plans. But what is the $50k fine for? No damage had been done. No risk created. Either he stopped himself from reentering (maybe he realised, maybe someone advised him) or someone else stopped him before it was too late (meaning the system is working). The hubs weren't actually breeched.

Agree but I think it's worth noting that the club definitely thinks we should be threatening top 4, so given we are reducing list sizes, imo when considering "non best 26" players, they will make a call on who can play a role next year, because it is very hard to hold onto players to develop them with smaller lists.

Did he go back in the hub?

When you look at that out of contract list, it's very hard to see Jones going on if there is a reduction in lost sizes. Viney, Hibberd, Hannan, Omac, Hunt, Spargo, Fritsch are all in the "best 26" (or close to it). Smith, Petty, Bedford, Sparrow, Hore, Jordan all seem to be promising, developing or young players who are on the fringe. Neita and Wagner are the only two obvious outs. Plus you need to upgrade Lockhart, and maybe Brown/Bennell. KK won't go on. Jetta is probably lucky to have another year. I think Preuss needs to stay as back up (if Gawn goes down we'd only have LJ). TMac and Harmes have long term deals but haven't been part of the best 22. I reckon we'll see the following gone: Jones, KK, Wagner, Neita, Bedford, Jordan, plus one of Smith, OMac or Hore (the three of them are playing for the same spot and all are out of contract). That's 7. Assume we need 2 draft picks, and have a net neutral trade/FA movement that allows a list reduction of 5, which should be more than enough. If we want to upgrade more than one of Lockhart, Brown or Bennell then we might need to lose another. In that case it might be a hard call on Sparrow (if we retain Brayshaw and Viney). I can't see any of the other rookies getting another year except for maybe Bradtke: but as a cat B, missing that year of football may have hurt his chances.

If he hasn't come back into the hub then there should be no financial penalty for the club. The problem isn't leaving the hub, anyone is free to do that any time (the first 14 days notwithstanding), they just can't come back in.

I hope so. I heard freo were up there thurs or fri?

As you can see in this photo, the two are obviously close, and comfortable with this type of action. Is it professional? No. Is it in anyway related to the Richmond incident? No. If society cannot differentiate those two incidents, then its not a surprise we are still grappling with sexual assault and harassment. It's really disappointing that the commentary and club statements miss the part about consent, because it could be a "teaching moment".

It's his defensive efforts that have won me over. He really seems to get those smothers, tackles, blocks, taps, etc in at the right time, and then to double it down his few disposals have been very clean and penetrating.

This. The only response should have been "we are disappointed the players were not fully focused on Goodwin, but have no concerns with the actions as they are fully consensual, unlike other incidents which have been highlighted." It's really important that this is differentiated, because this apllies to non-football situations too. The problem is not touching. It is the lack of consent. As a society we really struggle with understanding this difference.

Do you really think that "chase down tackles" are a good measure of his performance? A chase down tackle occurs when an opposition has the ball in space and is caught unaware without talk from his team mates. If that happens once a game it looks spectacular. "Perceived" pressure is crazy important. Rushed disposals and decisions, turnovers, creating opportunities for others to tackle and disposess.

I don't think any of my suggestions were rule changes. They were more resetting interpretation creep, and restoring the way it was umpired in earlier times. They will open up the play and make it easier to attack/ harder for defenders. So they will help from the first bounce to the final siren. My problem with bonus points is that they will always be an after thought. No coach will plan for them. It is always defence first, secure then win, bonus points if is secure. This is an older article by it says similar: extra trys do occur, but basically they only happen in blow outs. The bonus points encourage junk time rampages/floggingss, not shootouts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274968739_Secondary_Behavioural_Incentives_Bonus_Points_and_Rugby_Professionals Further bonus points in rugby are gamed. They are over represented amongst home teams and while they have increased average tries slightly (I read 3.7 to 4.2 per game) they have actually reduced the number of high scoring games, as once teams hit the 4 try mark (and gain the bonus point) they switch back to defence first to protect their lead. https://theconversation.com/points-for-tries-the-rugby-world-cup-shows-how-bonus-schemes-can-come-unstuck-124892 In AFL BPs will overly favour teams coming off longer breaks, playing in better weather conditions, playing without in game injuries, playing against younger sides that are more easily routed. It isn't a fair measurement or performance over a season, which is why it's a perfect 2nd measure as percentage or points difference. I actually don't mind the netball system, but it doesn't necessarily incentivise scoring. A BP for each quarter and 4 for the win means 8 points up for grabs every game. This may incentivise teams who jump out of the blocks to keep attacking instead of trying to defend the lead for 3 quarters? But are we really interested in increasing both sides attack when they are already down by 6 goals and there is 3 minutes to go? Netball is always high scoring. That's because defending in netball is really hard. And personally I think instead of incentivising scoring in AFL (which will always be secondary for the coaches) we need to make changes to free the ball up, allow it to move easier/faster, and make it harder for defenders to defend. That will mean that even the most defensive coach will only be able to do so much.

I disagree with incentivising scoring via premiership points. It won't work. It doesn't work in rugby or netball, it won't work in an even more chaotic game, because coaches will always focus on the win. In fact, I think it will be bad for the comp as the bonus points will go against those teams who role over on occasions, regardless of opppnent. If you want to increase scoring, go hard on losing free kicks for shepparding in marking contests. It's already illegal to prevent someone from contesring a mark, unless you too are trying to mark. Penalise every screen and block, every third person body, unless they are going up realistically. That will open up key forwards. It will bring crumbers into play because the only way to be a 3rd player is a legimate attempt leaving your player open. The other option? Speed up all the stoppages. Pay htb quickly. Call for a bounce, run in and do it quick. Don't wait for teams to set up or for rucks to get there, just whistle, run in and throw up. This gets the ball moving fast and atops zones setting up leading to one on ones.

The Brown v Jackson selection this week is possibly the hardest selection call all year. I don't envy them. When we got Jackson and Weid together early this year is when it all clicked. Our forward line has function best with that line up. So it's the obvious choice. But Jackson's a first year kid, not that dangerous, not really a forward but really a ruck, coming off a long injury stint, so he's off the pace and no exposed form, while Brown played ok with 7 marks and 13 disposals last week, so leaving it unchanged is the obvious choice. But Weid has been out of firm the last 3 weeks with only 16 disposals, 4 marks and 1 goal in that time. He needs a week off, so running with Jackson and Brown is the obvious choice. Personally I think I'd roll the dice and go with Weid and Jackson because that's when it worked best, and we have struggled up forward since Jackson's injury. But I suspect no change is the safer choice.

Adding to this, there is absolutely no reason why they should have discontinued the VFL. There should be a state level competition, unrelated to the AFL clubs.

If they are fair dinkum, the new comp will have 18 teams. One aligned/ representing each of the 14 AFL teams in Qld, NSW and Vic, and 4 non alligned teams. The second tier comp can then mirror the AFL fixture, with games played in the same state as the competing AFL clubs (except for those trips to Perth and Adelaide) on the day after the corresponding AFL match, so that the emergencies can all get game time. The AFL should fund the player salaries of the 4 stand alone teams sufficiently so that it can be concentrated with the next best players and best kids who missed the draft (instead of these players spreading over diluted minor leagues). It will act as a pool for development and recruitment of mature aged players either at mid season or end of season drafts. But they won't. It will be a [censored] storm of byes, early games, weak stand alone teams etc.