deanox

Yeah I'd have him at ~20-25. I'm thinking 30 and 47, for Frost and 58 might get it done. I'd consider that. He's 28 yeah? Seems a reasonable deal for both parties.

Yeah he has publically stated he wants to come to Melbourne, that's why it's gone quiet. If it gets noisy again, we worry.

Amazing tank. Good long distance speed. Like ANB and JKH in that respect, and given its importance to our game plan, it's an attribute our coaching team rate. Very well liked, great team man. Unsure how that translates to leadership. Can play 3rd KPF or KPD, can punch hit in the ruck, but most successful position has been wing. Would be fine playing with Lever and May as the third defender. Best 12? Possibly. Best 10-15? Definitely. Personally, I think his versatility would make him one of the first picked, even if you have 10-15 players ahead of him on skill. We don't have many players who can successfully switch around the field, giving us cover for match day injuries but also at selection.

Well if they win, they'll take displace us as the most recent team to win a grand final from 6th (in 1900).

He has played mainly down back until 2018 when he moved to the wing to cover injuries to Scully, so it's not out of position.

Frost might look exciting on TV but as a defender he is a coaches nightmare. He makes poor decisions regarding when to leave his main and when to stay, and he overcommits in attack, causing his team mates to be out of position when he finally kicks it and leaving himself out of position when he turns it over. Tomlinson isn't as exciting, isn't as fast, isn't as line breaking or attacking, but he is more likely to play a role around Lever, May, Jetta, Hibberd, Salem etc. He also has the versatility of playing on the wing with discipline (our issue isn't pace on the wing as much as it is players who knows when to go and when to stay), competing in the ruck and drifting forward. Edit: I'm not saying I'd make this swap, but I can understand the potential reasoning, especially considering Goodwin is a tactics, positioning, team rules type coach.

Breaking even in ruck against Grundy in D50, and getting involved in the contest on the ground with a few tackles, sheppards, etc.

Still in the ruck, more against Reid. Erin the tap and gathered the ball. Kicked quickly forward inside 50 and the mark was dropped by his team mate. Good spoil against Grundy inside 50 when Collingwood going for goal.

Back on at GWS first goal, and into defensive wing position. Mummy to the bench and Tomlinson into the ruck, where he won possession and got the clearance (against grundy). Grundy outmarked him at the kick in and again at an inside 50 attempt from GWS (free against Tomlinson for chopping arms, but it was a poor kick to him).

Yeah watching the game with the tracker gps up. Started on the bench, andwas the last of 8 interchange players rotated on but then stayed on the rest of the quarter. Seems to be playing as a defensive winger. Most of the time he was on the far side of the ground, away from the play, but he was in a position to plug the defensive hole in opposition transition. Was largely positioned away from the ball. Followed players to the other wing a couple of times, including when he dropped back to spoil. Played mostly on Mayne (2 touches, one when no Tomlinson was on other wing) and a bit on Reid. Has started the second quarter on the bench.

Ah, so you do agree with Option 2 then?

So 2 decades ago one person blew the whistle? Given how performance based AFL contracts are, manipulating such results for the sake of marketing opens a very large can of worms. Secondly, from your cherry picking attack on Goodwin, it's clear you're either result led by sensationalist media or deliberately missrepresenting the situation to suit your line of arguement. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/grand-final-was-the-real-lesson-for-the-demons-goodwin-20190307-p512hl.html "The Demons coach did not spend long dwelling on the preliminary final blowout..." (not "did not review") "The Demons did not do a regular play-by-play review of the game with their players because it was futile when they had played so far outside the way they know they should play, and outside the way they had been playing." (This doesn't imply the coaches didn't review it, and it didn't imply they still didn't review the overall game with the players, they just didn't hammer ever little mistake at the end of a long season) " “I tried to parcel our finals up into three. We had two really great experiences and one poor one. I certainly didn’t dwell too much on the way we played because it was nothing like the way the Melbourne team plays. But you do reflect on the things in our program we keep addressing and learning from,” he said." (Again, this implies they reviewed and took learnings from the game, they just didn't hammer the players about little [censored] on an overall horrible day) If you want to maintain your position of conspiracy theories you at least need to substantiate it. The onus of proof is on you. Edit: for clarity, you're the one who tried to use your opinion of Goodwin to leverage the conspiracy theory of manipulating bnf results. My post talked about coaches and coaching groups in general, and applies across the board to all clubs. Just because you don't like Goodwin, doesn't mean all coaching groups manipulate bnf results.

We've got two options here: 1) the entire AFL industry is manipulating best and fairest results for the purposes of marketing and supporter management, at the potential detriment of performance bonus payments to players, and not a single person involved in the industry has ever hinted at blowing the whistle. Or 2) Coaches that cast votes are a) more knowledgeable of the player role and KPI than the average player and b) influenced by conscious/unconscious bias RE player performance, which also is the basis for making decisions on list management and players futures; so it isn't a surprise to see correlations or patterns in vote results and player movements. I'm going to go with option 2 on this occasion.

I think if you read back through the quoted posts my point was that the it didn't matter what the coaches did this year (ie what Plan B they had), circumstances conspired against us. Change to 666? 1) Bring in a lock down defender (May): injured. 2) Bring in a running wing (KK): injured. 3) Invent new match tactics/plan: post season surgeries mean no preseason match practice. Key injuries (tall forwards and our best i50 delivery in Melksham) cruel any advantages of 666. 4) Tracking young players new tactics plan: Change in "runner" rule, making it hard for coaches to instruct young side. 5) Implement intensive leadership training with players/ line leaders to upskill on field communication: key players get injured. 6) Poor on field performance? Injuries mean there are limited options for "plan B" (meaning alternative players/positions).

Haha it would have been a great season to sleep through! It's hard enough to work out who could have done the job assuming everyone was available, let alone knowing the injuries we had. To me this exercise should demonstrate why we need to give some leeway to Goodwin for 2019. We're a young, inexperienced side, lacking leaders, who had significant injuries before and during the season, while trying to accomodate major tactical rule changes (666 and runners). I'm not saying "free ride", but I am saying we should recognize just how out off the ordinary these circumstances were, and how the different issues all compounded together, affecting our attempts to navigate the challenges.

The BnF will reflect how well the coaching group think a player has played his role and followed the game plan. Sure brilliance will get votes, but they won't give full votes to players who ignore team plan/rules no matter what the outcome. I expect Frost will poll a bit lower than many supporters will expect. Yes he is exciting, he breaks lines, he attacks, and he had great highlights in a solid year. But his no.1 role is being part of a defensive 6, and I think when it comes to Frost, that often comes second. Leaving his man at the wrong time, spoiling team mates, poor positioning during the i50, means that at times he struggled as a defender. Many of his highlights came after he had messed up. Many highlights end in him messing up (e.g. running too far snuffed confusing the timing of our forwards). I'm not saying I want him gone, but I understand why he may be tradable.

Good point. With Lever out, I would have picked May, Lewis or Jetta as player from the back 50 to do this. TMac or Melksham would have been my pick for a forward 50 leader. In the midfield you'd expect Jones and Viney to do the job, but neither are really leaders and Viney struggled with his own game this year. But given the wings are usually the structural players in the midfield, maybe we should have selected KK, Stretch or Salem to organize the midfield? Who do you think the coaches should have picked for these roles preseason?

Or 5) with 666 the coaches made significant positional and tactical changes to our game plan, including moving us from a purely zone defense to a combo man on man and zone. Preseason injuries limited our opportunity to practice and ingrain the plan within the squad before the season started and as a young team (close to the youngest in the comp during the first few rounds at least) we didn't pick it up very quickly and, without runners, weren't able to provide on field direction throughout the game.

I think the issue is that we were planning on playing three 3rd defenders (players who read the ball, zone and punch) but then they changed the rule to 666 and we needed to bring in a 1st defender (who locks down and plays one on one).

So which is it? Is Goodwin too head strong? Or did he spend big because he recognized that we needed to add a high quality lock down defender to the list? We had been building a list that was based on winning the inside contests by brute force and zoning in defense. 666 changed all of that and we clearly tried to make changes by bringing in May and KK. But we got smashed by injuries while trying to change, so we don't know if it works. We'll now try again with Langdon. To me that demonstrates how we are trying to modify and adapt. Also the reason we've persisted sorry players out of position is really clear. 1. When you are terrible, outside uncontested players look terrible, so you focus on improving ball winning ability. We did this under Roos. 2. While building ball winning ability we invested in development of talls, and zone/rebounders. 3. We had no outside players so had to keep playing people out of position (as you mention) 4. We tried drafting outside players but they haven't come off yet, as per DeeSpencer, so we keep trying.

Oliver is also 4th for clearances, 5th for tackles and 6th for overall disposals. His role is to compete at the coalface, get the ball out and stop his opponent doing so. He does that better than anyone, even if his outside game and ball use needs work. He had the highest ever average number of disposals per game by an MFC player this year. Beating his own records from 2018 and 2017 which are now in 2nd and 3rd place. On performance, he deserved to be named in the top 40 this year.

Captain's goal!

Seriously, why is that 50? He punched the ball in a spoil attempt...

At least 10 of those are certain best 22, and another 3 would push for selection. Add to that injuries being carried by Lever and Gawn, plus the fact that another handful of the selected players who would normally be in the best 22 had virtually no preseason, it's not a surprise how we are performing.

This isn't silly. Fine motor skills like kicking accuracy would improve with decreased heart rate etc. Low fitness therefore affects this.