deanox

In their defense, 3 of the expected first picked back 6 currently aren't playing.

Just adding to this, the reason this will work is because coaches are instructing players to crowd the contest so that the above can occur. Players without the ball need to jam in close so that they canconstantly scrap for it (gather, takle, drop, repeat) without giving away a free kick until they manage to get a free possession. Players need to stay in close to support their team mates by jumping on them and a tackler quickly, to avoid holding the ball being paid against them. If you ping those things above repeatedly players will naturally stand further away from the contest in space so that they provide more options to get the ball out. They will also be forced to play man on man because you can't give your opponent space around the stoppage.

You've never watched old games have you? No one used to "showcase skills" they hacked it forward while punching each other and extracting themselves from the mud. The game has never stayed the same.

666 doesn't lessen congestion. In fact it may make it worse as teams are forced to play with 6 forwards, so although the midfield is more open, the 50s are automatically more congested. 666 only stops 2 things: 1) extra numbers back to defend a lead late in the game, and 2) coaches experimenting with spatial tactics and game style. An example of 2: last year we played a 4 man forward line with 2 extras behind the ball. But both of these extras ran in to compete in the square. In effect, we generated our run from behind the ball and kicked into open space forward off the ball. Now, all teams must play the same style and kick to 6 on 6 forward of the ball. I agree with this (although might be happy with 20). If you want to fix congestion around the ball you need to do the following: - Strongly enforce holding the ball / illegal disposal. Don't let players gather/drop, gather/drop. - Stop allowing a third player (ie a team mate of the player with the ball) to wrap up a tackler and keep the ball locked in. This stops holding the ball decions being paid. (It is just holding the man, so pay a free kick to the tackler) These tactics are coached deliberately and are designed to ensure stoppages are win or draw only (not lose) by creating a secondary stoppage if you cannot win clean possession and dispose outside to a team mate. If you want more one on one contests then play for "sheparding the making contest" free kicks against 3rd players who try to block or screen. At least 10 per game occur.

Is this the round 4 22 player team or the whole list? Looks like the first post is just the 22. Can you easily pull the age/games for the round 4 selected 22 of all 18 clubs?

I was never convinced he had the pace or body positioning to play off the HBF, plus he isn't a beautiful kick, but he has always been a strong overhead mark and reasonable set shot for goal. So I've been baffled as to why we've attempted to play him back. I'm not sure he has the place or agility to play as a permanent forward, so hope we keep rotating him in a way that creates a mismatch for his attributes. Hopefully he can find consistent form in that role to hold a spot.

The players have had their shortest preseason due to finals, plus players going for surgery. They are a bit underdone. Following that, we've kicked off the year out of form: marks not sticking and kicking being terrible are good examples of this. We're struggling to adapt this year for a number of reasons: - We played a zone defense the last few years. We can't set up a zone anymore because the transition from 666 to zone would leave us exposed. - We played numbers behind the ball who then entered the contest in 2018. This meant we had extra numbers at the contest, more space in front of us and free runners behind the ball. We can't do this with 666. - 666 means more 1 on 1 contests, less zonal play. This means the ability to run hard for (and kick well to) uncontested marks or take contested marks becomes even more valuable. We've never been strong at leading for uncontested marks, preferring to win ground contests. And we've lost Hogan, while May and Lever have been out injured and TMac, Gawn and Weid struggling for form: We've had no big man aerial winners. I think as we overcome the above, we will find form. I know certain players aren't playing well, but I'm sure it's as bad as it looks on paper. This is mainly because Goodwin has shown himself to be tactically innovative which means he is likely to adapt. We've seen that Goodwin's tactics have been largely based on data/ statistical information, and he isn't that big on changing tact during a match. These traits may indicate we'll take longer to adjust than other sides, but when we do it will be the right change. In addition, although here are only 4 unavailable from our semi final against hawthorn (Lewis, Hannan, vandenBerg and Tyson) (Spargo also played by has been dropped). The ins have basically been Hunt, KK, Lockhart and Sparrow (plus a couple of games from Wagners etc.) all young/inexperienced replacements. And finally, I'm also not sure about rounds 2 and 3, but in R1 I understand we had the 2nd youngest 22 in the competition. Yes the above could be seen as excuses but I think it's more about explanation. Yes we need ti improve our output, including 2 way running and kicking skills. Yes leg speed would be nice but we can counter that with game plan and position.

I only cop the May ruling because I believe the AFL is trying to (optimistic version) ensure all players are as protected as possible when it comes to looking term head injuries (or the cynical version) create a track record which demonstrates a no tolerance approach to head contact, with respect to liability for concussion related injuries later on. That being said, I do believe that in the May case the Brisbane player had a duty of care to pay attention to the player in front of him and protect himself from otherwise legal contact. May didn't run or line him up, didn't elbow, didn't blindside and didn't hit with unreasonable force. The bump wasn't late, it was intended as a physical screen to prevent the player running on to the next play. And given those facts, I think it is unfair to suspend him. This I can get behind. May's bump had a legitiment football purpose. All players consent to the risks of physical contact that may result while passing AFL football within the rules. Those punches didn't have a football purpose. Apart from being assult (physical contact not concerned too) they are basically outright cheating: trying to momentarily stun someone or decrease their short term performance or wear them down faster. Also if I had kids Id rather them see the bump from May than a gut punch.

He has two way running and a tank, but isn't fast or particularly damaging. In general he is competing with ANB or the wings, however the 6 6 6 may mean pace on the wing becomes an important weapon, rather than playing a defensive winger. Also, with Lever back, we may be even less inclined to play a defensive winger because he is such a good reader of the play. The was a role for him last year

I don't think this was a bump. He didn't line him up, he didn't hit him hard. All he really did was brace for impact, effectively screening, to stop him continueing to the next phase of the play. He tucked his elbows in, braced for the hit, and the fact he stepped back after the contact shows he absorbed part of the impact force himself. He is allowed to shepherd to stop the player being involved in thur next phase of play. His other options were to get real low and bump him in the guts, which would have hurt more, or side step. Surely the player has responsibility to look where he is running and brace for impact? If the lion had've turned or braced even partially they would have bounced off each other.

How do we think the set starting positions will affect Hunt's game? I feel like there is more likely to be space in front of him, which will help his natural game: he isn't great at choosing/hitting targets and will do better with one on ones ahead, rather than spare opposition players. I think his one on one defensive game is ok too, which is a good thing.

Apart from one on one physical-strength meeting, Hogan's elite-level strengths are his mobility and aerobic capacity which were exposed as a 17 yo, and therefore made him a "certainty" as far as KPFs go. While visible as a junior, Weid's potential "elite" level attributes (things like his aerial marking and goal kicking) required development to enable display at AFL level. Similarly, I think there were minor question marks over his athleticsm and agility, especially with the ankle injury. It's feasible to think those with closer knowledge would be able to better predict the end development. If he keeps developing the way he did on the last rounds of 2018 it will be exciting.

I thought we still had another list position? Or did we fill it?

Mills hit him repeatedly in the side before Bugg retaliated by throwing a punch at someone he wasn't looking at. Mills went down and Bugg didn't even realise until he turned around. Throwing the punch was a dog act. The force was excessive for the situation. But throwing a punch in retaliation is different (imo) than Gaff who squared him up and threw the punch either deliberately in frustration or as a way of trying to get an advantage on the field (ie disable him momentarily and run past him).

We will be playing 3 KPF's at times, from TMac, Weid and Preuss. If one goes down, we'll still have two up forward. If two go down we will consider playing a back up KPP such as T Smith or Pedo, but we may also consider playing AVB forward or shifting one of the medium/KPDs May, OMac, Frost or J Smith (we probably won't play all four in the backline at once) forward. I think Tim Smith has effectively been kept as our 3rd ruck option to protect TMac in case Gawn and Preuss go down. He might get a run as a forward on form but that isn't likely. However it is unlikely that Pedo would get a run either.

I had previously read the "ongoing problems were neck related not concussion related" but this article adds a bit more insight. Apparently he kept failing concussion tests until they identified that the neck muscles ere giving him comparable symptoms. From his debut he played 67 of 75 games before the concussion issues. Missed the back half of 2017. Came back for the first 4 rounds of 2018, had lingering issues, thought it was concussion and took a couple of months to identity the issue. Commenced the neck exercises, and came back for 4 games towards the end (playing out of position as a KPD) when he was injured again. Has really only missed 1.5 seasons with the injury, and it was clear he was ready to leave during this season given the rumors etc. Lot's of upside for us.

Honestly, this shouldn't be interesting. It was only the crazies who were carrying on about how Josh was losing trades etc. Most people understood what the situation was and were happy with the trade.

Although I'm not normally a defender of Satys tone or approach to other posters (appreciate his input though) I thought the description of the study tour as a junket was pretty derisive, so can understand why Saty comes across defensive here. Personally, I think if you are so flippant as to write such a learning trip off as a junket, you are orders of magnitude away from understanding a) how it would benefit the individual in their skills and knowledge and the club in terms of fact knowledge base and contacts and b) how valuable this sort of knowledge development and self improvement is in high performance culture.

@Demonland I'd love it if you could spend some time on questions regarding the structure of the club, his role. We have an executive (CEO), then we have a series of departments such as Coaching, Football Operations, List Management, Fitness and Conditioning (all of which would be considered the "football department" by some but are apparently independently managed groups which interact) as well as Marketing, Finance etc. (which I'm less interested in). There are a lot of names on our staff list, many of whom we never hear about, but I'm sure they play important and valuable roles. It would be great to know more about how they interact to achieve success and how or by who particular decisions (inc. decisions to trade, recruit, draft etc.) are made. http://m.melbournefc.com.au/club/people/staff-members Within the public football supporting community (such as us on demonland) this often isn't clear, and the media don't really help as they often just pick the public face and heap praise. Edit: I figure the "why did we trade Hogan", "are you happy working with Pert" and "are we interested in Kelly" type questions will get a lot of straight bat / standard public answers, but questions on the above areas will allow Josh to elaborate in an insider way for the benefit of the listeners.

Maynard is a rookie, but yep defs missed JKH as a possible. Lots can happen in 12 months, but it looks like less list spots will be available next year than right now.

It still wouldn't surprise me to see some late pick trading, giving up picks next year in for this year. Only 3-6 potential delistings or retirements next year: Lewis, Baker, Garlett, Wagner, Stretch, Jones. So we might not be planning to use as many picks in 2019. Our 2019 first pick for WCE 2018 pick 20 and pick 61 would give us six picks in the first 62 this year.

I did. And my comment was very clear in stating that a court of law requires sufficient evidence to find someone guilty, however in terms of doing business with that person in the future other people are free to make character judgements based on any available information, just as they do for information that doesn't relate to sexual assault (such as shoddy business practices). I was quite clear on that.

Missing: Fritsch, Frost, Preuss, Stretch, Hunt, Joel Smith, Garlett, JKH, Wagner, Baker, Petty. Rookies: Tim Smith, Maynard, Keilty Probably the best 22 named, with the jury out on KK.

I hate it when best 22s don't include the next 3-6 that have been left out as "depth" so that there is something to contrast immediately.

When it comes to moral/ ethical/ behavioural issues, why should there be a presumption of innocence in the court of social media? Did we collectively afford the same presumption of innocence to Scully, Clarke, Hogan etc. with respect to their behavior? What about the comments people make about Schwab, or Caroline Wilson? What about the east that GNF has been continually described as a troll? Where is the proof that he didn't have information, but that he just didn't have the whole story? Should we be treating him as innocent in this court of social media? Or does it only apply to some accusations?