deanox

I think I heard Goody say Woeys corky wouldn't be risked on the long flight to Perth but they were hoping he'd get up for a game in the VFL. Makes sense.

I reckon if a coach is below Neeld on the records list we should probably forget about them!

For anyone interested here are the stats of all coaches to coach 100 or more games, as well as all premiership coaches.

In a few weeks Bevo will have coached more games and to more grand finals than any other WB coach ever. Maybe some think his record may not make him an all time VFL/AFL legend, but he is about 39th on the all time games coaches list, and about 9 of those haven't won a flag. So he is in good company. Goodwin has a long way to go to get past Norm Smith or Checker Hughes*, but he is a comfortable 3rd at the moment for us. His record is fantastic, and if our kids keep travelling the way they are, he'll be around many more years.

I reckon with the modern game and zones, the 15 m or 25 m penalties will be more of a punishment. They stop the game and allow the opposition to set up and give you no territory bonus. I think if you wanted to make this better you could do something like setting some distances or locations where the penalty advances the player too. - When paid anywhere in D50 allows advancing to a location on the D50 line of the players choosing (so can move to CHB from the pocket). - When paid outside the D50 but in the back half, the player advances to a point in line with the centre circle (in a direct line between the penalty location and the goals). - Anything forward of centre advances to the F50 (in a direct line between the penalty and the goals). - Inside F50 advances to the goal line. It takes the measurement out of the umpires decision (which has proven difficult). The anomaly would be if the penalty occured close the one of those lines. You could set a "minimum penalty" of say 10 m or 15 m, and if the penalty will be shorter than that you advance to the next line.

We did it before the Carlton game too I recall, bucket of soap water during the early warm up. In the presser Goody said improving our wet weather game had been a big focus, I think he said we'd lost 9 of our last 10 in wet weather. So it's good they are aware and working on it.

I'm pretty sure we traded our future second and kept Sydney's.

@binman and @Binmans PAmy observations on Sat night were that we started with the -1 at the stoppage set up we've used previously and tried to play a loose defender. That shifted to even numbers in our defence, I assume they sent one forward to man Lever up and even up at the stoppage. Essendon then adjusted to their own loose man in defence, and we used a +1 at the stoppage, but it was often sitting half a kick off the stoppage. At one point, Essendon managed to create a +1 in their forward line for quite a while (ie not just a single play) and during that patch we had the extra at the stoppage. I think they scored a goal once when it got out the back from a centre stoppage and they had an extra number forward. It was a little odd that we left it for so long to be honest. It was hard to tell what was happening, because of the way it seemed to constantly shift, but that was what I managed to piece together. I could be totally wrong, it's hard to tell especially in a congested game.

Grundy - paid pick 27 Grundy - received future 2nd and pick 46 Hunter - future 3rd round (around pick 50) Schache - future 4th round pick Fullarton - pick 47 Billings - future 3rd round pick McAdam - future 2nd round pick The Grundy trade has basically broken even. Sure it has tipped slightly their way with their good year, but no major damage. All of the other trades except for McAdam have been for a bag of chips. And they are bags of chips we probably wouldn't have used at the draft anyway. Given the cost was so low, the trades were probably worth the gamble, with high upside if any of those players turned it around at Melbourne at virtually no cost. McAdam hasn't performed yet and we dropped down the ladder, so that trade looks like it might be a bust (although make a prelim and the cost decreases significantly). But McAdam has found some form at VFL level and it's possible that the injuries and lack of preseason are the major factor, meaning he has a role to play over the next 3 years. Jury is out. All in all I think this list of players is "low cost gambles from a team with little capital to spend". If one of Fullerton or Schache played 50 games we'd be laughing.

Yes. It is a selection from the players who weren't good enough to get drafted last year, including the rookie draft). It is basically a delayed rookie selection after you see a bit of exposed form and development as an under 19.

I think both are good measures to look at in tandem, neither tells you everything. Median helps remove the effect of outliers (like a Brent Harvey or Goldstein), and is also likely to be more consistent week to week. So if you want to know "half the players are less than a certain age" then median is the stat. Average puts more emphasis on those outliers, and tells you about that top end (given the bottom end is limited by draft age). For example, two squads could have the same median age, but one might have a higher average age because it has a group of seasoned 250+ game players all over 30, whereas the other list has a lot of players in the 26-29 bracket. Edit: a distribution graph is probably better. You want to keep the mode (or age with the most players) lowish so you don't risk falling off a cliff, but not too young that you're too inexperienced.

@jnrmacand @whatwhat say what Footywire.com has average age and experience stats for each team for each match played (under the heading stats). I've found I need to use desktop mode to see them on my mobile. A quick look indicates we are equal 7th youngest team in the comp this week, with the dogs, both at 25 years and 4 months. Below us is: Freo 25 years 2 months GWS 25 years 1 month Hawthorn 25 years North Melbourne 24 years 8 months Adelaide 24 years 7 months Gold Coast 23 years 3 months About 6 teams were above 26 years on average I think.

@kozzyisalegend Kentfield was overlooked by every club in last year's national draft and rookie draft, as well as any opportunities for supplementary signings (ie if we wanted to push to replace Brayshaw). He was then taken as pick 11 in the mid season rookie draft. So think of Kentfield as a player that we drafted as a rookie at the end of last season. First we have low expectations that he will make it. His selection is as a project player that we hope might develop. Most players drafted as rookies never play an AFL game. Secondly, if he does make it, we expect he'll take a couple of years to develop to the point where he might push for an AFL game. Tall players take longer to develop. And he is as much a project tall as you'll ever get.

Yeah bizarre article for me. 11 of those were in our 23 this week. That's a super young team. JVR, Kozzie, Windsor, and Rivers are all regular top performers and could be in that "star" category. Turner has unlimited potential as a young KPP at either end of the ground. Judd McVee, Bowey, and Sparrow, have all shown they are consistent AFL level players. That's a core of 8. Kolt has shown he can perform at AFL level but is a year or two away from breakout. Jefferson looks super promising at VFL level. Thats 10 who are likely to have a good run at AFL level over the coming years. For a club in the finals race, I'm pretty happy with our youth.

Just a note that AMW lined up on Waterman, and Darling a few times today, particularly in the last quarter. I didn't see him lose a contest to either but doesn't mean he would have coped one out. This was when we only had 2 of May, Lever and TMac on field, but WCE had Waterman, Darling and Allen forward.

His body work at stoppages is worth looking at too. Happy to take contact and pressure and open up channels. He gets in their way, and it is really annoying for opposition. I reckon he's going to be good.

We wanted him to stay but he didn't.

But harsh, he has played 182 AFL games. On 30 players in VFL/AFL history have played more games for the MFC than Tomlinson has played in his career. Sure he hasn't been a superstar, but I reckon a player like Cam Pederson was a journeyman with 80 games over 8 years. Tomlinson has been a solid AFL player over the journey, it's just that he is behind in the pecking for his position at Melbourne.

Nailed it JNM. Jefferson is a long term prospect with plenty of talent, not a short term fix to any problems we are currently having. He gains nothing by being outbodied at AFL level by stronger, more experiidefenders. At VFL level he can learn his craft and gain a lot of confidence. A taste to reward him might come this year, but if not a 2025 debut is on the cards with a view to being an integral part of the forward line from 2026 onwards.

I actually think @BoBo helped me out here with their detailed post. I hadn't looked at this incident as close as they obviously have and just assumed it was a solar plexus hit. In general, I think that striking someone off the ball shouldn't be allowed. The Pendles example is quite good. If you can hit someone in the solar plexus and have them drop, giving you or a team mate a free run at a stoppage, then I think that should be suspended, not a fine for low impact. It's a deliberate striking action and isn't part of football and should be discouraged. Oliver cops then all the time. It's gross and we shouldnt be teaching kids "hawhaw its just a little love tap to make him earn it". In the Maynard type situation, yeah I'm being sarcastic because I know the AFL will never deal with it properly. Realistically he either did strike him with enough force to incapacitate (which is not a football act) or Maynard is staging. Which is it? Well the AFL decided it was the former, so surely that strike - that doubled Maynard over - should be punished appropriately? But instead they are trying to sit on the fence and give the easy decision - a small fine that won't be challenged. The whole thing is a farce, from AFL house to the media and commentary.

I hate Maynard as much as anyone, but this absolutely shouldnt be staying and absolutely should be a suspension for striking. If the strike is able to temporarily incapacitate the player then it isn't low inpact. If striking someone like that can give me an advantage in play, by taking my opponent out, or by disadvantaging them in physical exertion and contests for the next 3-5 minutes, then it should be suspended.

Jesus. This selection was not about ready made depth. Kentfield was overlooked in the ND and rookie draft last year, and after exposed form in the first half of this year we have given him a shot at development. Imagine if we drafted a very late, key position prospect in the rookie draft last year. We would expect them to have 2-3 years development before they are AFL ready. He is 1.5 years plus about 70 draft picks behind Jefferson for example.

This is one of two things. Either Maynard is staging for a free kick, OR the strike has sufficient medium/high impact that justifies Maynard going down in which case it is a suspension. The AFL can't sit on the fence between those options.

For me Sestan is all about his fitness capacity, because he needs to be able to cover ground AND have burst speed to play his role. So I reckon an extension for Sestan is about whether they thing another preseason is what he needs, rather than pure talent.

Yeah I agree, I reckon this was the right call. But if he wasn't complaining or getting checked my medicos,the situation of "call him of the ground and sub for JJ" could draw scrutiny in the way I suggested it. I also agree other clubs were rotting it during the year. All I'm saying is that maybe there were legitimate factors that, inside our clubs football department, established a process for how/when to use the sub while complying with the rules, and maybe they were followed to the letter on grand final day so as not to risk anything. That level of integrity and risk aversion on our big day might not be consistently how other clubs might have done it, nor with how some of us might have done it. But that doesn't mean claims that "Goodwin treated JJ poorly by not getting him on" are fair.