deanox

I'm not sure I'm correct just guessing ? But i am sure that the issue was that the players didn't correctly update the app that ASADA ghve provided.

It'll be more about registering a schedule than tracking live location. Ie are you in the country staying at home, or on holidays in Bali? Or training camp in queensland? Are you training at casey or gosch this Thursday? Etc. Rather than "you didn't tell us when you went out to the pub".

This is why we need a genuine reserves comp. Clubs to have a primary list with only ~30 players, who can play AFL. A secondary list of 10 players who can only play reserves (and can't get dropped to a state league), but can be upgraded temporarily in the case of injury, or at certain points in the season (ie allow up to 5 non injury primary/ secondary charges after round 11). A development list of 15 players 18-22, who can only play reserves or in a state league, but clubs have access to upgrade/promote to the primary/secondary list prior to draft.

These things aren't mutually exclusive. The AFL clubs salary caps are nearly $12 million each. The AFL clubs have revenues of $50-$100 million. VFL caps are $350k. A 2nd tier comp with salary cap of $1 million per club (league total about the same as one AFL club) isn't going to have any impact on the ability of the league to also run an AFLW competition, nor have a material affect on the money available at AFL level. But it will mean the best players are playing there instead of chasing money in the diamond valley league. Edit: especially when indirect revenue associated with community and fan engagement, and therefore revenue growth, from AFLW is considered.

I think your point about the lack of relationship between VFL and AFL in terms of player development, form etc. is the exact reason they need to invest in a 2nd tier team. When the VFL cap (~$350k) is pretty similar to EFL cap (~$220k), there's a problem. The reason the standard is poor is because the best players are spread everywhere. The top 15 on AFL lists are a cut above, but 10 are developing, 5 are declining and 10 are journeymen hopefuls waiting to be cut or filling a spot. If a 2nd tour comp existed, with a focus on the next best players in the country, not just development players, then the transition between leagues would be smaller.

Perhaps but it seems logical to me that if the pool of people paid to play and administer football fulltime is double the size then there is more opportunity for development and longevity for careers. Right now it's AFL or bust. A genuinely strong 2nd tier comp fosters better development and acts as a safety net for those cut from the ruthless top tier (either for long term career or as a transition measure back to real life).

I really think they should be increasing the salary cap at this level, and forcing clubs to spend some on 18/19/20 year olds (late bloomers) and some pub the best quality state league players eco might have a genuine chance of AFL impact if developed and drafted late in career. If the 2nd tier is stronger, the top tier will also be better quality.

It's an interesting debate in fast bowling too. Restricting loads to protect from injury might be doing more harm than good according to some.

It makes perfect sense. We could have signed him as a delisted free agent, and he could have trained with us immediately. Or we wait until the rookie draft and get him then. This is an inbetween scenario.

That's not unreasonable. When a handful of players get megabucks the others should baulk. The AFLPA is a terrible union that looks after its rich at the expense of its most vulnerable. On one hand conditions and pay for rookies are terrible. And the general "after footy life planning" got the first 4 years should be a way bigger part of their EBA. Keeping these low has enabled mega salaries for the big guys. On the other hand the "must pay 95% of the salary cap" is their way of arguing that the money at aside for players salaries gets paid to players instead of saved by poor clubs, and I can understand that. But it means free agency is less effective and because the club cycle from bottom to top takes a long time, players are disadvantaged in their career based on where they are drafted. Increasing the cap but keeping the current floor will actually encourage more FA player movement, make it easier for clubs to improve their list by giving them cap space, increasing the salaries of mid tier players and increasing the eveness of the competition.

Define lucrative. From all reports he is going to be on around $500k, vs an AFL average of ~$350k in 2020. According to this article https://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-22/player-payments-revealed-millionaires-on-the-up there were about 140 players earning more than 500k in 2017. The salary cap has increased by over $500k since then, so expect that to be closer to 200 players in 2020. With 18 clubs, that's 11 players per club at >$500k. So $500k is "top 11 player" money. He will be our 6th most senior player in terms of games played. Although he may not be our most attacking player, given his important structural role and versatility, he'll be one of the first picked every week, and certainly in our top 11. He has a track record of not missing games through injuries. All of these traits justify his salary. He's only 26, so we'll comfortably get 5 years from him. By the time the contract ends, he'll be on below average money given the salary cap increase. I doubt anyone who has any clue is concerned.

I'd assume that is at least in part due to the lack of finals, with the more successful clubs' players getting an extra 20 possible games in a career. But that doesn't explain it all does it? Edit: perhaps our stats are lowered by the longevity of the club: changes in season length, the effects of wars etc. while the averages are skewed by the younger clubs?

Given of the 1,350 players to pull on the red and blue only ~25 have made 200 games (1.8%), ~33 more between 150-199 games (i.e. 4.3% of all players above 150), and ~98 between 100-149 games (11.6% above 100 games). If we draft/rookie 5 new players per year on average, we only get one 100 game player every 2 years (1.15 to be more precise). All that being said, I like Lockharr. I he'll make it to 100+ games.

I'm taking that as after effectively 5 years out of the game, a first seemingly successful surgery in July and a second (other leg) a month or so later, her will be back running in November, taking 6-7 months to slowly ramp to fitness, get some kms in the legs and a block of VFL under his belt. I really don't think that is a surprise. Imagine the value and spark he could add in the back half of the season coming into finals.

This is rubbish. Goodwin has track record as a tactical innovator. The question is, are the idiots brave enough to back the data and innovations or will they continue to scream "kick it long" every chance they get?

It's clear the footy club think McDonald and Weid and take us forward. We were the highest scoring team in 2018, without Hogan for periods, so the playing group can't be that far off. I suspect they think the "connection" and "structure" is the reason for under performance rather than personel. Adding Tomlinson and Langdon to the wings, allowing Gawn, Oliver and Petracca to rest forward more, and have TMac, Melksham and Weid free of injury means a significantly differently functioning forward line than 2019. Fingers crossed.

Respectfully, it can't be a 2 way street. There is a game plan they all need to adhere too. If the forwards lead but Frost ignores them and runs an extra 10 m they are all out of position and he can't kick to them anymore. They are caught out. Next time they don't lead because they wait to see what he will do. His random play ruins the structures.

The KPP sized guy who played on a wing, and instead of going to the bench pinch hit in the ruck, during finals. Edit: here is an article describing him in GWSs top 3 endurance runners. https://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-17/running-men-whos-your-clubs-endurance-king

"Time on ground" might not equal "hard running" but for midfielders who run around with the ball as the key part of their game, it's fair to say it equals high endurance and on field recovery ability, vs being a "burst" player. Addong two elite endurance runners to the mix definitely frees up our other mid to rest up occasionally.

I think it's clear the footy department rate him higher than the general supporter base, and I wonder if they feel he hasn't really had a run to show what he can do the last two years? Like ANB he has a good engine, covers a lot of ground and goes all day: he has mainly played in the wing role at AFL level, but is unlikely he'll do that again for Melbourne. I've always felt that he doesn't do a lot wrong, but he just doesn't really damage with ball in hand. With 3 lost spots and picks 3, 8, 97 and 115, I'm not sure that I'd delist either JKH or Stretch just so I can use pick 115, but I think Stretch goes first.

I'd rather 6 and a player than 3, if we can get someone who is best 22.

Supporters 2017-2018: Goodwin's a terrible coach, he plays Oscar McDonald, who's terrible, and his game plan sucks! Goodwin: learns about key rule changes that will affect his team's game plan, due to a weakness in his playing roster and takes proactive steps to fill that hole by trading in an opposition captain and trading out a player with currency, but who is also a future flight risk and under an injury cloud. Supporters 2019: Why did you trade away drafting opportunities? You only care about short term results!

Could now trade 3 to St K for 12 and 18? Is 8, 12 and 18 is better than 3, 26, 50 and ~16-24 in 2020?

Yeah we'd need to get something else back: the value isn't there in what is written. But also, apparently next year's draft is super compromised. 17 of the 48 players selected for the under 17 all stars side (arguably the best players for best year's draft) are academy or father son players, plus GC priority picks. So perhaps our first pick might not be until the 20s?

On trading: I just realized that we have traded out all picks in the first 5 rounds except 3, 26 and 50. We also currently have 3 list spots. So instead of just focusing on the total points traded, the Frost and Lagdon trades might also need to be viewed in terms of "giving away picks we were going to use anyway". That being said, Stretch and JKH are still OOC. Maybe a pick comes back from GC for Stretch (58, 78 or 90). Maybe we split pick 3 to two top 20 picks and delist JKH.