deanox

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if we make the change, but personally I'm not sure it will help that much if countering their attack is our plan, and Goodwin had been strong about forcing the game to be played on our terms.

Smith is 3 cm taller than Fritsch who is currently playing that role. Does that 3cm outweigh the impact of changes on a settled side? I reckon Oscar will go to Vardy, Frost to Kennedy and Hibberd will go to Darling. Frost and Hibberd will both run hard and make Kennedy and Darling accountable for our attack. Fritsch will drop into the whole to cover these two when they attack up the ground. Given we don't have a 200cm defender for Vardy anyway, any one on one marking contest is a lost cause regardless. So we will continue to focus our strategy of keeping the ball in our forward line; defending on the last line is not our preferred option.

Paraphrasing one crows fan from big footy "it doesn't matter that Melbourne finished higher, we were so crap that we still get the same picks we expected (meaning approx picks 10 and 16)"

What caused Pedo to fire up them?

I love how Spargo doesn't go the high 5 anymore, just hugs and holds on tight.

Schoenmakers might get a nod for the emergency list but the other two wouldn't. But footy is a funny game.

I don't know if it's been reported but it wouldn't surprise me if the length of the deal was the sticking point, with us insisting on 3-4 years and Oscar looking for 1 or 2. He will be in demand in a couple of years and possibly commanding big dollars; we also just signed Lever on big dollars (reportedly ~$750k) so I don't blame Oscar for wanting to test the water.

There are lots of jumpers I would hate to see us wear on a grand final day, but I'd be happy to wear the indiginous strip, as I think it's a beauty!

It would be great just to get him to read these questions out loud.

And if Vineys foot doesnt come up, is he too tired/fatigued to be captain this week?

I know the answer will probably be "it's about playing my role and doing the team things" but I'd love more insight to that. Is it about application or execution? Ie is it more important to be in the right position to attempt a tackle or for the tackle to stick? Does "playing my role" mean getting to the right spots defensively? Pressuring the correct player? Leaving your player at the right time? Gut running? Or is it about quality of disposals?

Can you please ask if he is tired/ fatigued and if he needs arest? Then ask if he was/has been tired/fatigued and needed a rest? And if he says yes, please find out after which round he first felt this! Also, I'd love to know a bit more about the instructions/ role given to him in particular. Are there kpis to meet and what are they for him? How are performances assessed (assuming it isn't on possessions and goals only!)? Has this changed for him throughout the year as he has become more experienced (ie are they explicit in the change in targets as he has played more and more games?)

Honestly, I agree he was poor with the ball and was easily our worst player. I think the are two things people are trying to say: 1. "Even though he was poor with the ball, and therefore probably did not positively contribute to our offensive game (ie turnovers and errors probably balanced positives, in that sense), his physical presence was strong enough that he can justify retaining his place in a winning team when the is no player pressing for selection" 2. "If we want to make way for a structural change (ie bring in a 3rd tall down back), even though VDB was probably our worst, the physical pressure he adds, including attack on the man and ball, is preferred to low numbers of better quality disposals because a) it is a point of difference between our other players and b) finals can be physically demanding. Although we have plenty of ferocious players inside (Viney, Oliver, Jones, Brayshaw, Harmes), out on the flanks we have a number of lighter bodied players (Hannan, Fritsch, Spargo, ANB, and even though they are still tough Melksham, Salem and Hibberd aren't physically dominating). As a result, if we are losing a flanker, one of Hannan, Fritsch or Spargo is preferred because they are similar players while AVB offers a different attribute set"

Fwiw clangers also include free kicks against and other general stuff ups. Wikipedia says it includes: -Any disposal or deliberate knock-on that goes directly to an opposition player. -Any free kick conceded -Dropped marks or fumbles under no pressure -50-metre penalties conceded -A Ball-Up Kick In (Stepping over the line when kicking in after a behind) An effective disposal (how they calculate DE%) is either: - A handball that hits its intended target; or - A kick of more than 40 metres to a 50/50 contest or better for the team; or a kick of less than 40 metres that results in the intended target retaining possession. Neither are particularly useful measures because they are so situational.

I don't think they'd give more than Spargo. In fact, they'd make us worse by not following the team plan. Their lack of synergy with the rest of the team has been obvious this year.

Amazing tip from Tim Michell.

ANB has kicked 26 goals 18 behinds. Set shot I'd tend to agree but stats aren't available. Petracca has kicked 18.19, so ANB is a level above for accuracy.

Statistically not much between these two this year, but if you consider Kent's career averages, Spargo probably shades him. I don't think that Kent adds sufficient upside over Spargo that is worth risking recurring injury, lack of form/fitness due to injury, or team synergy. Also Spargos smarts are more valuable that Kents strength/attack, particularly against Hawthorn, and given we have Trac, Viney and VDB in the team.

I'm not sure why Hannan is a definite stater in the convo. Fritsch is a better mark and cleaner with the ball, and I feel less prone to go missing. But he isn't as likely to bob up for a goal. I think you could make a case for either, as they will be competing for the same spot if Smith comes in. Spargo will be too, but I personally feel he adds something different. In that case it will come down to who the coaches think is better placed to succeed this week. Also the more I reflect on the Hawks line up, the more I think we need some extra height down back. But Smith only gives us 3 cms on Fritsch...

Harmes gave some credit to retiring teammate Bernie Vince for his emergence as a genuine head-to-head midfielder, saying the veteran Demon had helped him grow on and off the field. “He’s taught me a little bit — I probably try to keep my elbows in a bit more than Bernie though."

I hope this has been properly discussed at the back of house. I can understand this approach, in that reporting and suspending such acts are subject to a whole bunch of grading issues and will result in real variations between what is allowed and what isn't allowed, resulting in inconsistent outcomes for similar acts. But if umpires are told "pay a free kick any time this happens", it'll stop pretty quickly. Particularly if GWS is told the will be a crack down this week.

I agree that no one wants to drop any of the players listed, but I also agree they are probably the ones in the gun if the coach wants to bring Smith in as cover. AVB is the other on the list but I think despite the concerns about his disposal, his physical presence sets him above these guys for now as it is a unique and important edge in finals. I think Goodwin's plan all along was to only have two talls, with one of them Lever. That took a while to warm up and it will be interesting to see what his thoughts are for 2019 and beyond. Joel Smith was the back up to Lever but couldn't hold down the spot, Frost has been a revelation. So if in 2019 Goodwin see's Lever replacing Frost we will see no change this week. If he thinks Lever will play with Frost and OMac, then Smith is likely an "in" this week. As per your discussion, players currently playing that role are Hibberd and Fritsch, and Hibberd is a lock so let's consider Fritsch. He offers more in disposal than Smith and is also more versatile in moving to the wing or forward. In reality he is being played out of position. So if Goodwin wants the third tall in Smith, Frisch is the swap out of the back 7. The next question is whether you prefer switching Fritsch forward and dropping Spargo? Personally I think Spargo stays because he adds distance, while Fritsch players a similar role to Hannan. Unfortunately I think we are actually an inside midfielder too heavy and Tyson will be squeezed out (edit: this is my opinion on team balance). I'm not convinced Tyson or Jones can play on a flank/wing, and Oliver/Harmes/Viney/Brayshaw are already competing for those centre spots and are all above Tyson in the order. That being said, the arm was agood reason to drop him. Even if declared fit, "we don't want to take the risk in finals" is an easy statement. And they didn't take that option, so I suspect it will be Fritsch for Smith (edit: my opinion of what staff will do).

I don't think it falls under kicking in danger because I believe that rule specifically refers to "attempting to kick a ball in a dangerous manner". But there are already rules around kicking and rough play that are appropriate.

Lol

19.2.2 Specific Offences Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence: (a) intentionally or carelessly: ... (ii) kicking another person; .. (vi) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable; ... (h) attempting to kick another person; 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: ... (d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football; ... (k) engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable; It is unsportsmanlike, dangerous, goes against the spirit of AFL. We don't need another specific rule that says "you can't raise your foot in a marking contest"; the rules are already there. The AFL just needs the balls to charge him. It's a disgrace.