deanox

I saw on the AFL stats tracker that our 2017 round 20 game against GWS was the highest record distance covered by both teams combined in a game of AFL, 619.6 km were covered that day by 44 players for an average of 14.1 km per player. That is the most, so not an average game. But yesterday, the two teams covered only 483.6 km, about 78% of that distance. Against PA, the two teams ran a little less (470.3 km). Against Brisbane 454 km (73% of max). In the Perth heat in round 1 it was as low as 428.8 km). For this week's context, North did 8 km more than us yesterday. So what are my take aways? Not much from this small data set although it does appear that shorter games correlates to distance run reasonably well. Does this mean faster recovery? Less soft tissue injuries? Does it mean endurance athletes are less important? Or does it make them more important, with a few players running all day and allowing burst players to rotate more frequently? Are any positions doing proportionally more/less? Has anyone had any thoughts on how this is effecting the season?

If we can get up over North with both of us having short breaks, we'll have a 2 day extra break on the pies the week after, and we'd have to be a chance to push into the 8.

Why wasn't that brought back for a review?

16 disposals, 8 clangers.

If that is a free kick, Fritsch should have been lining up for goal instead of giving away a 50 against Brisbane.

Vanders making strong use of the metal plate early.

That's tough for ANB. If Hamill didn't try to kick, it wouldn't have been a sling. Yes, there was a sling result, but it wasn't the tacklers fault.

I wouldn't rest both Brayshaw and Oliver. Rest one, give the other that additional responsibility.

I really don't understand why people keep saying "Tomlinson was never a winger". Yes he has played a number of positions throughout his career, but his last two years he played on the wing for over of the strongest teams in the comp (the grand finalist). Was he the best wing in the comp? No but he was posting the position capably in one of the better teams, was available and filled our biggest weakness. He'll get back in the team and will pay a few more games. We do need some more silk outside though still. Probably off the HBF and HFF, or the wing of course, but the wing is hard because you need silk, endurance and speed.

Amazing to think that we are upset about someone kicking low and hard rather than up and under. He'll get there.

Out: Tmac, Jones, Sparrow, Hannan In: VDB, Bennell, Tomlinson, ANB Harmes and Brayshaw are on notice. Either could be dropped to keep Sparrow in. Also, I know Jackson was poor this week but I think he offers more than TMac atm.

I honestly don't think it's anything to do duty plans: it's all about execution. We couldn't win the clearances, we didn't take marks, we didn't run into space for uncontested possessions. That's not plan.

Good analysis. I like that KPI too, because I think it's actually probably the most important. The role of a tall forward isn't to kick a bag of goals (although that would be nice) but it is to physically compete, hit aerial contests to prevent defensive intercept marks, and bring the small and medium forwards into the game. You do that and you'll create goals around you, and you'll clunk some on the way. That doeant excuse Weids kicking last week though!

Yeah it's an interesting thought. How many 18yo 198cm ruckmen have the tank to do 11.5 kms and basically cover the same ground as Scully? He attacks the ball in the air and brings it to ground but doesnt have the strength to put muscle kpds just yet. On the wing he could be a weapon if he doesn't get exposed for position and defensively. Do you have a feel for his positioning yet? Preseason he looked at sea to me but was adjusting on the fly and improving rapidly. Wing is a highly technical position though: attack too much at the wrong time and you get exposed very quickly. Defend too much and you're useless in attack. I think it would be a wonderful experiment because of its potential.

Jackson seems to have a massive tank (see image from Hawthorn game). I wonder if he has the positional intelligence to play the Tomlinson "tall defensive wing" role? He can run, he'll out mark most wingers, and can drift foreard. Not sure if he'll be able to cover defensively to AFL standard, but it's an interesting thought.

There is no way the 3rd quarter one should have been fined. It was perfect. I can understand the 4th quarter one could be a "sling" tackle.

He was penalised twice with kicks for "dangerous tackles". Both ridiculous.

This is a great thread and topic and I how the AFL deals with this correctly. Firstly: I love their current "hot" approach to holding the ball. The intention is great because it will speed the play up. The umpiring execution is poor because it is inconsistent and ignores when the ball is held to a player who really didn't have a chance. (They need to pay it more often and quicker, not occasionally and drawn out). But to address the next step, the umpires need to prioritise holding the man free kicks. Lots of them. Make it painful and risky to grab a player before they get the ball. Reward the ball player first, reward the tackler second. This will open space. The best players will get another half a second which is all they need to clear it. It will mean that coaches need to try to win the ball not catch the man, unless they deploy a specialist stopper. And opening up these contests will open up the ground to faster movement and thus scoring. The worst thing they can do is relax the htb frees. It'll close the game again.

Are Brayshaw and Harmes out of form because of low TOG% or are they playing a low TOG% because they are out of form?

I thought that last night, rather than the problem being "Brisbane sharked Max", our problem was "Despite our mids often have first hands on the ball, we struggled to take clean possession in the greasy conditions and fumbled quite often, at which point Brisbane won the clearance".

Weid and Pickett missed 4 gettable shots between them, any one would have won the game (in theory) and would have bumped that bottom 6 score. Also it was a very low scoring game, so will weight away from forwards.

I was also interested to see how much ground Jackson was covering: against the Hawks he was our second highest.

Crazy post binman. Cameron is very quick and was on the burst the fact that Oliver stayed with him and perhaps even gained a bit on him was evidence of his pace. For context, see these screen shots of top speed and distance run yesterday.

Pickett was in our top couple for effort today, with more recorded sprints than any player on field apart from Langdon and our highest average speed when we were in possession. Unless he is buggered from todays effort, he doesn't need a rest. We need to manage Bennell and I think a 4 day break may be too much for him right now. Jetta is struggling, both performance and physically, and I think he is due for a break. Jackson does good things and looks promising but isn't imposing himself on the game just yet. The wet today wasn't the best conditions for him, so he might get another go, but it might not have been enough to keep TMac out this week, especially with the short break. I'm not sure whether this will out weigh the chop out he is giving Max or not. Brayshaw and Harmes have been in our worst performers but they are also on low minutes so probably don't need a rest for fatigue purposes, and that low minutes might mean we want to carry them the next few weeks instead of dropping them. Both are best 22 so even though they are out of form they are better options than the alternatives at the moment. If anything they might get more game time which might help them find momentum. My thoughts: Out: Jetta, Bennell, (Jackson) In: Rivers, ANB, (TMac)

Its actually very clearly definined: - A handball to a teammate that hits the intended target; - A kick of more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contest or better for the team; or - A kick of less than 40 metres that results in the intended target retaining possession. So to 75% of his disposals met that criteria. 7 didn't. This doesn't tell whether his long kicks were to advantage, or not but it does imply he kicked long. He was 4th in our "meters gained" stat despite only 12 kicks, indicating he kicked longer rather than shorter.