deanox

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.

They cost money, but if the AFL wants to capitalise Sydney, now is the time to keep them. Union is dead (they might not survive this) and league is so greatly reliant on pokies that they will hurt from this for years. If there was ever need for two Sydney teams, now is it.

They should scale back the "base" contracts and increase the match payments, so that they are 75% of the salary cap. A) why should big name players be able to get payments for sitting on the sidelines, whether due to form or injury? B) They claim their salaries are because "they are the product", and this will tie their pay directly to their product. C) Players will be rewarded on form and performance, not based on how well they negotiated a contract. D) The league will have flexibility in the case that games are ever cancelled.

I think we've built a lot of the game plan around the idea that TMac will be at least useful, not he really hasn't been.

There is no way the game plan is bomb it long to 3 on 1s. So what's going wrong?

Broken foot, 3 months. Announced this morning.

It'll be like watching VFL on TV. With the small crowd there seems less focus on bad decisions and mistakes. I'm looking forward to it.

I think the original plans were to try and squeeze 2-3 games in before everything hit hard, suspending the season. That way they had the option of pushing back a few weeks (removing the byes and pushing back the GF could gain a month) or even resuming the season with a new fixture (ie reduced rounds,- everyone plays everyone once - or compressed - 6 day breaks and mid week games). But if they bail now it could be disastrous.

This is in line with my thoughts. We've had a perfect storm: -AFL directive to "let the game go" because no one likes stop start football and they want it to flow, this umpires don't make quick calls on free kicks or even ball ups - Coaches realising some really basic stuff: They want to be in control of the game, so they prefer a stoppage where they can set up, to a truly loose ball entire the outcome is left to chance. They want to prevent opposition taking possession - because that sounds them scoring - and therefore prefer to keep the ball contested, even if that means they don't win possession themselves. These two situations have meant the AFL has let the coaches turn AFL from fast flowing attack into bogged up scrums. Instead of introducing new rules (which the coaches will just exploit) they should simply make it less valuable for coaches to have players around the ball. The switching of % to points for might be a good catalyst. But I do think that clubs play to win first with percentage a long way second, so it will have limited effect on most games, except perhaps to open up in the last quarter.