deanox

Is Sparrow with the squad? Im guessing not: we left 12 behind and only 13 haven't played a game this year.

6 Gawn 5 Viney 4 Langdon 3 Oliver 2 Petracca 1 Omac Apologies to May, but those couple of grubbers late cost him the 1.

A few times i felt he has been nudged under it a touch perhaps?

Lockhart good pressure this quarter and effort is good but just isn't there.

Assuming that's the one percenter end pressure act?

Dirty day for Lockhart. 1 free kick against, 1one percenter, and 1 pressure act, being his only stats. Its possible the one percenter and the pressure act were the same action.

This!

Omac one of our best so far

Neither is he.

50 m penalties mean we don't need to worry about connection between the mids and forwards. Soft 50 though.

First quarter of "trying to adjust our pace". We should have been doing it for years but assuming it was a real focus this week, it hasn't been bad. They still need to work out when to run and when to pause. But it's a good start.

A first for viney!

Clear they are trying something. Might take a but to get it right. Hopefully it doesn't take too long.

Visible change in game style so far. Let's see if it continues.

I agree with this. I've wondered if one of the reasons they are persisting is because he is one of our best kicks inside 50. So despite the wretched form, his upside is critical to fixing our main problem.

I can agree with that. But it's only 1 year "too many". He is on a four year contract. I'm guessing that that last year is the price we pay for buying a free agent (instead of a draft pick), and I'm ok with that. He had 140 games of exposed form, so we knew what were were buying. He may have performance clauses in the contract, he may not. But the cap was expected to raise during that time too. https://www.afl.com.au/news/52273/inaugural-giant-tomlinson-joins-dees-as-free-agent-compensation-revealed

"Goodwin is too stubborn" "I can't believe Goodwin is giving up on the Smith-down-back / Mid-size-forward-line / Tomlinson-trade / insert-other-tactical-option plan already!"

It's not when you realise that includes draftees. For a player with 140 games experience, it's the going salary.

This is one of the reasons why some people felt Angus was expendable in the right trade. All our mids are competitive beasts but none is consistent by foot. Oliver is the best at clearances and fast hands. He is also a ball magnet. Viney is a bull and a club leader. Despite also being capable, that leaves Angus as the last picked in the role, and therefore the most expendable. If the right player could be found it could be a win win trade.

This is definitely a coaching issue here. I know they love Smiths versatility, but he should really be competing with Lever or Hibberd for a spot, and May and Omac should have the 1 and 2 defenders. I don't think we can play 3 of Lever, Smith and Hibberd. And there's a 4th in Rivers (who is playing Hibberds "role" too). But I don't think the defenders are where we are losing games. That's on the mids.

The coaches will never emphasise the one on one contests. Ever. When thinking of new rules, we need to consider why coaches have made these changes in the first place. The answer is always to reduce risk and uncontrollable situations: Players are around the ball so they can more easily shut down the opposition if they win the contest; sure it reduces our own chance of breaking away from the contest and scoring, but that's fine, it's about risk. Maintain possession instead of kicking to contests: as above. It doesn't matter if that slows us down, we back ourselves to be more methodical in our attack. Zones instead of one on one? Exactly the same. Coaches love to get their forward line one on one and their defence in a zone. Why? Because it reduces risk of being scored against. I think this will reduce congestion, but at the cost of more umpire involvement. The beauty of the game is its free flowing nature (contrast with rugby union of NFL with lots of referee related stoppages) and this rule will need to be policed heavily. It'll also result in very crappy tactics, like dropping a man over your 50 line near one boundary to release a player on the other side of the ground whose opponent can't follow him. That'll make it a farce when there are players who can't pursue their opponents. Imagine winning contested possession then stepping over the 50 line and they have to stop tackling you? Not explicitly. BUT it makes guarding space much more difficult, and now kicking to leading players is much easier. So although it won't fix the congestion around the contest, it will help alleviate the full ground zone that stops teams attacking from half back. The ball will move through the midfield easier, and although there will still be a zone D50, it will be very hard to "build a wall" to hold the ball in your forward line with two less players. They already use all 18 players for that zone, so it isn't like the coaches can sacrifice any more attack to add to this defence. I like this idea, but I don't think it will have an effect until late in the season when teams are desperate for points (roll the dice to try to sneak in). Otherwise it will benefit teams that go on a rampage against a weak opponent (which already happens randomly now). The problem again is risk. Coaches would rather guarantee the win by playing dour than increase the chance of losing for a single extra point. I think the only way to reduce congestion around the ball/stoppages is to do the following: Call ball ups quicker. I mean really quick. If the ball is getting scragged and knocked and no one can get a clean possesstion: just blow the whistle before it gets locked in. The idea is that you never want the ball locked in or under a pack in a way that takes 3-10 seconds to get it back to the umpire. Scrap the nominated ruckman, and don't wait for the ruckman either. Umpire just blows whistle (much more regularly as above), runs in, grabs the ball and throws it straight up, regardless of who is there. These two umpiring style changes alone will probably fix it: quick ball ups followed by 3rd man up will result in more clearances. If coaches can no longer control risk by creating congestion because clearances are faster and easier, coaches will need to control risk by keeping players out of congestion to defend. At the moment, coaches would rather wrap the ball up for a set play (low, controlled risk) than hack the ball out of a pack and risk turning it over on the rebound (high, uncontrolled risk). So switch this up through umpiring: pay free kicks around the close contest more often. Pay holding the ball 20 times per game instead of 4. Pay it when someone takes possession at a stoppage and gets wrapped up. Giving an opponent a set play (free kick) at a contest is VERY bad for risk management. So suddenly the lower risk option will be to boot the ball out of congestion, even if it is to a 50/50 contest. Similarly, pay holding the man for the "3rd man in" to a tackle. Why should you be able to tackle the tackler? It's against the rules and creates congestion. Just pay it, then we'll either have the ball spill lose or a free kick, reducing the number of times the "ball is wrapped up".

I've been banging on about 1 and 3 for years. You are absolutely spot on. I do think 16 a side would help because it will make it harder to cover space in zones up field while also covering the D50.

Schrodingers defender, hey? Continually loses one on one's, but gets well looked after in his match ups. Which is it?

I think we'll look to go unchange. Consistency and team work is where we lack and we have close to best 22 on park. I thought I heard Goodwin say he thought we gassed the right mix forward when asked about Weid or another tall, so it seems unlikely we'll make that change for team balance, as much as I'd support Weid for Melksham. Personally I'd rather OMac than Smith because I think he combines better with Lever/May, but it seems unlikely as well. I'd happily have Bennell in best 22 based on skill/ability, and he may get a look in if they are trying to take it slow with him and Vanders and rotate them, but I think it's better to try and get a few games in one of them and vanders is the incumbent. I only see changes occurring if there is a deliberate tactic to rotate to keep players in match touch. But I think they'll favor consistency over that right now.

Something like 90% of people show symptoms in 5 days, and 99% within 14 days. But there have been reported case of 25+ days after exposure. They have chosen 14 days as the bench mark. Also, if asymptomatic and not tested, he may have had it since his 14 days quarantine (May 30) but just didn't notice until the test this week (3 weeks later). Seems unlikely, but possible.