deanox

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.

I read that as: "Jones has been dropped (note he was listed as omitted not rested) and now he will have a chance to get to get over minor niggles (which would never stop anyone from playing) which may help him find form again at training. ". As far as I can tell, this is the first time Jones has been dropped since 2006. It's nice to soften the public blow.

It's hard watching on tv rather than at the ground but I really think one of our biggest problems in this area has been about the timing of leads. Often the bombing long is in direct response to not having players leading at the carrier, or not being in space. When the forwards are stagnent or grouped, the kick has to be a bomb long. When the forwards lead too early and then track back towards goal it looks like a bomb long. (If the lead is even earlier, then the track back into space is a great option, but the timing and distance needs to be perfect). And I think that's what Goodwin means when he says "connection". I think it's the problem with the forwards not the mids. TMac gets lost when inside 50 (he likes to roam up ground). Hunt's leading patterns last Saturday were good. We'll see what happens this week.

I disagree. The opportunity cost of what we paid isn't as high as you think it is. You'd need 1.7 of those picks to get a 100 gamer. On exposed form, Lever will be a 100 game player. You'd need 6 of those picks to get an AA caliber player. Lever has already been named in the squad. Holding on to the picks in the hope that we got 2 100+ gamers or even that we got one player better than Lever was the real gamble play here. We took the statistically smart decision.

This is a great point. We traded for Lever when we were playing a purely zone defense. No one on one's. The 666 meant we needed to rethink that and we traded for May.

Id love it if they tried to put Parish on Oliver. He'd run amok.

My take is that draft picks are risky. https://www.draftguru.com.au/analysis/pick-value-comparison Pick 6-10 averages 120 games. That basically means 1 in 2 players drafted in that range have a great career and the others get a lot of games to try. 1.7 picks are needed to get a 100 gamer in that range. 6 picks are needed to get an All Australian. For anyone concerned about taking pick 10 and pick 19, those stats should put your mind at ease.

Well it obviously all worked out for adelaide, and they are flying now.

Agree he has not been in form, has some weaknesses etc. But at his best he is a gun who reads the play beautifully, and will be an integral part of our next 8 years. Yes we have up two first round picks but it was 10 and 19, not 5 and 8. The trade was equivalent to "Lever and 72" for "pick 8". That's less than we paid for May and about the same we paid for Weideman. He will play 180 games for us if he stays injury free from here on it. It was a good deal.

He had 14 touches in 50% of game time, meaning his per tog ratio was amongst the highest on field. He had a couple of touches that showed his silk, one gorgeous handball to advantage really stands out in my mind. It's not only his personal hesitation and uncertainty that is understandable, but the game has changed in 4 years. Speed is differentin competitive matches than during training match sim. Anything above minimum acceptable output this year is a bonus while he readjusts.

He keeps getting selected as an emergency though. I'm interested to know how it plays out. Without a VFL it'll be hard for him.

We've struggled with "connection", and I wonder if that is part of the driver being the "mid sized" forward line? Round 1 we went short. ANB, Bedford, Spargo and Kozi together didn't work. All too small which makes it a bit one dimensional. This time it looks like the focus is TMac as the tall, Kozi the small, and the rest as medium forwards: Melksham, Fritsch, Jones, Petracca, Bennell, Jackson. (I've added Jackson here because even though he is tall he won't play like a KPF given his mobility and lack of strength). This makes us more flexible. There is a bit of marking ability, and skills and speed when the ball hits the deck. We'll be a bit more flexible in the forward 50, which may help if the connection isn't working.

When you compare our current squad versus the 2018 finals squad, its a lot better: In May, Lever, Tomlinson, Langdon, Bennell, Kosi, Jackson, Rivers, Bedford, Lockhart, Brown, Out 4 2018 prelim selected players have left: Hogan, Lewis, Frost, Tyson. (Jones, Weid, AVB, Hannan, Salem, played but missed round 1.) A fair arguement that we lose in KPF quality, but gain in KPD, wings and small/medium forwards. I know that I'd rather have the ins than the outs as a group. It's a better list. But with that many new players, they're going to have to gel quickly in a shortened season.

I'm not saying he is perfect, and he is definitely yet to prove himself and needs to do that over the distance. But 2019 was a massive write off with injuries, and while we need to bounce back and round 1 was disappointing, it's a sample size of 1. With injuries the team hasn't really played together since late 2018. We made big structural changes bringing in the wings. Lever and May haven't played together often. The coming months will tell us more. But after 1 game critique and question, not roast.

The moment you allow 1000 fans in the door you have hundreds of security guards, gate attendees, aisle attendees, police and first aid costs, ground HR management, power, water etc. It isn't unreasonable to expect that it costs upwards of a few hundred thousand just to open the gates, especially one you factor in general MCG overheads and costs. 20000 tickets at $15 each (estimated average price after membership, cheaper tickets, kids etc.) is only 350k. Those tough calcs may not be perfect, not they are in the right order of magnitude, so not unreasonable.

I really don't understand the virtiol towards Goodwin. All actual information and signs are positive: - He has a reputedly relationship with the players. - He has shown a real interest in tactical innovation (the "center the ball at all costs because high percentage shots are more valuable" morphed into the 8 man back line running off the square, which became the 4 man diamond defense) - He has rotated players through positions to try and find a fit (17 players lined up on the wing in 2019). - He has recruited to fill holes in list/structure (added Tomlinson and Langdon to fill the wings, added Preuss/Brown as forward/ruck depth), probably made the right call on Hogan and got us May, brought in small forwards to compete for spots). - Other than 2019, every year has been upwards while he has been involved. -2019 was documented to be horrible with pre season injuries, and then in season injuries. We sucked, but he regularly had 5-8 of or best 22 injured, it was a tough year. I understand that after the 2019 disastor we need to bounce back, but damn he gets a lot of hate for someone whose only fault seems to be not having answers during one injury interrupted season.

Yeah absolutely agree. Ive been banging that drum for years too. At the moment the congestion around the ball is caused by players deliberately standing close enough to "tackle" their own team mate so that it becomes a ball up, rather than a free kick against. Coaches use this tactic to try and avoid ongoing contested ball situations, because they are uncontrolled and parts get drawn out of position. This will force the players wider because they'll need to knock it out quicker in contested situations.

These three are perfect and three best way to get rid of congestion. Use the whistle and stop congestion. Pay holding the ball as soon as someone is tackled with the ball. Don't grand stand the signal for the crowd. Quick whistle, run in and throw straight up within 1-2 seconds instead of waiting for teams to set up or for nominated ruckmen to arrive. The ruck becomes a "follower" again. The 8-15 seconds between calling for a ball up and actually doing it is what allows the congestion to continue. This will also shorten the quarter's, by reducing time on (what the tv wants) and have similar effect to reducing rotations by removing the players rest time. Also watch old games and they do this. If they want to retain nominated ruckmen for center bounces and throw ins, that could be ok, because they take time to set up.