deanox

Rusty how does metres gained get calculated for kick outs? May took most of them, I'm assuming that if he kicks from within the goal square it doesn't count (it doesn't count as a kick either), but if he plays on for a few metres first it counts for both?

We could just leave them in their positions at quarter time, so they play back in the 1st and 3rd and forward in the 2nd and 4th?

Lever was recruited pre 6-6-6 rules being announced. Our game plan was a full ground zone with no 1-1 direct match ups. Remember the "diamond defence" with only 4 defenders? Lever - one of the competitions best intercept marls - was to play a pivotal role in that game plan, alongside OMac (whose best attribute is reading the flight of the ball and knowing when to go to the contest and worst is his 1 on 1 defending). It is worth noting that this game plan also involved extra numbers at the contest to win it in close, thus the focus on contested ball winners in drafts. We were blindsided by that rule change, and it hurt us more than other teams due to our game plan. The year after 6-6-6 came in we went out to get Steven May, a strong 1 on 1 defender, to try and balance the back line. Remember how dominant Jeff White was when we drafted him? Long run up, great leap over the top, but not strong and was short for a ruck. The AFL changed the rule to bring in the centre circle to prevent knee injuries, but it also reduced his effectiveness in the centre circle.

Jack leaving benefits us, only if he leaves on his own terms. If we push him out or low ball him to force the issue, it's a culture damaging move, unless there is an issue behind the scenes with his relationships.

I like these changes.

That would explain the differences in kicking for goal accuracy. Used to the breeze.

I think it's relevant, if just so I can highlight that in this thread (and all threads really), I try to be agnostic on players. I tried to word that deliberately so that I wasn't actually making a judgement on OMac, but in what we expect of someome in his role ie how to judge him. I think we've all done that in this thread, which is good. On Tomlinson: his versatility is great. I think when we are back on the G his running and ability to protect space see him back in the wing again, given we struggled with the width in 2018 and 2019. @Engorged Onionregrading enjoying this thread, it would be great if we could have a board dedicated to analysis like this, with threads about specific aspects of the analysis, dissecting individual plays out highlighting similarities between situations. I guess it would need to be heavily moderated ro keep it on track.

I'll go back and have a look at that goal and provide my thoughts, but I'm those breaks it's often that the other defenders or mids don't overlap back into their defensive positions fast enough. The one on one defenders who are competing do have a subtle job though: slow down the play, without giving away the 50. I've noticed Lockhart do this well a couple of times, bringing down his opponent in the contest so that seconds are lost as they regain their feet. I've always thought Oscar's strength has been his decision making on whether to hold position or pressure the player/contest. He rarely leaves his position or man and doesn't at least impact the contest (ie doesn't get stuck in between). He may not win that contest he gets too, but the goal is to slow it down so that help can arrive. When assessing his performance, he isn't great one on one or on a lead. But not many are. And we don't want him to be defending one on one or on a lead. If he is, we've already broken down somewhere else, so we need to pick him on the requirements of his role, not on Steven May's.

Very good insight. Some takeaways: - that loose ball gather would have been a contested possession for Dougal, unless he marked it and then it would have been an uncontested possession. Stats can be useless. - we could have been in trouble if that happened, with loose saints able to rebound while our defensive zone was out of position (we were swarming forward) - the value of players like OMac and probably Lockhart, ANB and Spargo, isn't always in what they obviously do (on camera) its in how they hold the team together in those crucial moments. Their continued selection is a balance of whether their positioning discipline out weighs their other deficiencies, with respect to players competing for their spots (Smith, Bennell, Hunt etc. who aren't getting the games). - Given the importance of structure in the modern game, selection must be a nightmare given the reserves are playing 12 on 12, so structure can't be assessed.

I can't watch that now but my recollection was that we asked him to take a pay cut otherwise we'd need to trade him, he said no, so we did the deal, and he got surprised and said he works have actually taken a play cut if he thought we were serious. Does that ring true?

We don't always have the best support in the NT with crowds often seeming to lean towards Adelaide and others, but I hope that if we nominate an Alice Springs final, that the whole state gets in behind us. I actually hope we do too. Its probably the only time Alice will ever see an AFL final, it would be an amazing gesture.

I think this explains it well. Midfield lost the contested battle. Defence won it back (good defending or poor delivery inside 50 from the Saimts or both?). We won the uncontested game (in that our full ground zone meant that the saints uncontested possessions were about maintaining possession, often chipping around the back, while our UPs were attacking or moving up field). We were more efficient up forward, from limited opportunities. So putting those things together, the quality/effort of our defensive zoning combined with our ability to move the ball offensively, was more important than winning contested possessions or large numbers of up forward possessions. Imagine if we could combine our strong contested ability with our full ground defensive zone effort in the same match! Some additional info here: https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/804456

One thing that jumped out at me this week was how our 6 forwards (Weid, Pickett, Spargo, Brown, Hannan, Melksham) combined for only 43 disposals of our 287, and 3 goals. They were our 6 lowest disposal winners. They are also the bottom 4 and 6 of the bottom 9 in your scoring. But then we only had 30 inside 50s (vs 46!). From the heat maps it looked like a of the game was played very deep for us. I know disposals aren't a great measure, or comparable across positions, by it has a big effect here. We won with 12 scoring shots vs geelongs 22: that's a lot more points available for score involvements for example. 3 of Geelongs 6 named forwards are in their top 7 with scores above 3. I'm not sure if this is saying "our forwards did enough with what they had" or "our forward line is still a massive problem. It's probably a bit of both.

Surely there is an inside mid/half forward flanker on the outer we could trade for?

My hobby horse too. I think this would go a long way to "fixing" those common gripes with the modern game. Currenly coaches encourage this third player in to tackle, to deliver a stalemate/stoppage instead of a holding the ball against them. But remove this tactic and they'll need to instruct their players to release the ball and knock out to players who are clear, because else you'll be caught by 2+ opposition players and definitley gove away a htb. If the "tackle the tackler" is penalised then there is no incentives for coaches to have all their players in close together when they are attacking, and the attacking players will need to be dropping away to the outside (ie the wings) to win the ball that is knocked out of the pack. Space will open. Ball players will be protected. Faster movement away from stoppages. Just pay it quickly though. Don't hold the whistle back.

If the third player in is from the team in possession then he is either holding the man by "tackling the tackler" or effecting an illegal disposal by taking it off him. There is no situation where the third person in solely tackles his own team mate independent of the above situations. IF that did occur, they would be jointly holding the ball in, so easy decision against them.

GOTY. 1 on 3 clutch goal at crucial time.

I don't mind having lawyers. The problem is that there is a lawyer in the prosecution, a player advocate who can't bring up precedent or external evidence (just the vibe), and a tribunal panel of players from an era that means they probably have brain damage. Make the same three lawyers the tribunal every week, and allow precedents to be used in prosecution and defence. If the judgement they reach is not what the AFL wants, ask the tribunal to advise what changes to the rules they would need to get that result in the future, make the change and move on.

I came here to say he would be an upgrade on TMac right now. The ability to rotate him and Jackson would be great. He has potential down back post Steve May too. The squad would know if he was a positive or disruptive influence. If he isn't too bad an influence, his talent is worth a late pick in a confused draft.

Its all lip service. I'd bet they have legal advice that says something like: "In order to avoid liability in a future compensation claim for brain injuries, you should have a visible record of punishing every instance where a player is concussed to demonstrate that concussions were only caused when other players broke the rules i.e it is their fault not the league's."

A few years back someome was plotting winning/losing margin vs uncontested possession differential. The correlation was amazing, and the outliers had very obvious explanations i.e. a losing team with more UP actually had lots of them in their d50 while they chipped it around unable to make ground instead of bombing long and losing possession. I wonder how hard it would be to pull this data this year?

Honestly, that's what I thought he was trying.

I was thinking of it being a good way to get players 33-50 on a list and paid, rather than just to the game. I think at the moment a lot of the tier 2 footballers are lost to the game. They aren't in the best 25, and they aren't in the developing 12 kids, so they are cut. This means the reserves comp is full of developing kids not the second best 22s. If we can find a way to retain the second tier players in a single comp instead of spreading them over 50 clubs in 4 leagues, the elite kids will have a higher standard to develop in, injury replacements will come from a more concentrated pool of quality players, and late bloomers have an opportunity. The best way to do this is really big or really small lists. Hybrid lists (small list plus a large, interchangeable supplementary list) is a good compromise.

This is a great move. An AFL seconds comp is very important for development of juniors, form of reserve players and retention of "second tier" players who can plug spots. I don't understand why all three of "stand alone", "allign" or "spread across teams" are an option. With 10 Vic and 4 interstate teams, this should be a 14 team competition, with each AFL team being able to either field a stand alone (i.e. Carlton) or a joint team (i.e. Casey Demons). All other existing clubs should also play in their respective VFL or NSWFL style comps, and any allignment clubs should be able to field a "seconds" in their local comp too. So Casey "reserves" can play in the existing VFL, providing top up to the Eastern League where needed. This is an opportunity to change the list sizes in a good way: smaller AFL lists (say 33 players) but longer supplementary lists that can hold development players and potential top ups, who play in the seconds comp, but can be "upgraded" throughout the year, either based on long term injuries (any time anyone is injured for say 4+ weeks) or on a form up/down thing (i.e. a maximum number of changes can be made over the season, but they can be made at any time).