deanox

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.

Could that be because the team hasn't other players around him aren't in positions to recieve the ball, or because his dismissal has been worse?

For most of us, it's pretty clear we can and will play May, Lever and Frost in our backline. So if he leaves for opportunity, it will be positional (ie wants to be a no.1 or 2 defender or play on a wing etc.). I think it's more likely he would leave for money: we'd be paying Lever and May a lot. Salem would be getting good coin. I suspect other clubs may be dangling more cash than our first offer.

This sums it up. He isn't displacing Oliver from on ball. Viney can't play elsewhere. Harmes is the starting run with player and can do a a bit of inside as well as finish. So his role for us is to rotate into the centre when someone else gets a rest. And he isn't clean enough to play on a flank/wing for 80% of the game. Last year, with Viney injured, he was able to play inside most of the season.

Goody is too safe? The coach who: - experimented with a 4 man "diamond defense" and an 8 man back line with 4 runners into the square; - went after the best intercept defender in the comp as part of an attacking zone game plan; - was willing to trade out a troubled but star key forward for a gun lock down defender in response to 666 changes; - was willing to back in a young KPF and a rookie instead of sticking wih the safe journeyman; and - was willing to reinvent players in different positions such as Frost to the back line, TMac forward and Lewis forward; is too safe?

I think this is probably right but completely justified. We were definitely in with a shot and came home like a steam train until we, well, ran out of steam in the prelim against eventual premiers. We knew things would be tough, but the struggle with recovery made it worse than expected. We collected injuries after Christmas and in early rounds (May, Jetta, Lewis, TMac, Melk, Smith, all happened close to our in season) instead of slowly getting healthier. We didn't get match tactic practice coming into the biggest rule changes in decades. May's injury in combination with the 666 change magnified our defensive issues, and 666 in combination with lack of opportunity for trial/practice, ruined our attack. The biggest issue is that a season this bad can be damaging for morale, belief and cohesion amongst a group.

Assuming we finish 16th we have picks 3, 21, 39, 57, 75, 93. We may only want to use 4-5 of those but still have 11 out of contract, so need to re-sign or upgrade 6-7 players. Pretty much certain to be retained (assuming they agree to stay): Frost, Baker, ANB, J Smith. Seniors who could retire: Jones, Lewis. 2nd tier players who may be re-signed: JKH. T Smith and Lockhart are worthy of upgrades. That means it seems likely that the following will be moved on: Maynard, Stretch, Wagner, plus one or both of Lewis/ Jones. I think Keilty needs to be upgraded if he is to stay on the list, so may be gone too. There aren't many out of contract next year who we would want to delist, with Bedford, Jordan and Nietschke the only who aren't best 25 or close and young (Hore, Sparrow, Spargo), but even they are all only 20. So we may see a couple of players given an extra year so we have outlasting to delist next year too.

Surely by winning a 1 on 1 contest you are stopping the other player from contesting? This it's a sensible rule that should only apply if a 3rd player stops a player from contesting or if you don't contest the ball yourself ie don't get the hit or don't try for it.

Largely agree with this. I think Brayshaw is the most expendable because he is one of the few players we can move on without "robbing Peter to pay Paul". He is our 3rd inside mid, and despite being good at this role is actively contributing to our major weakness: disposal by foot and decision making. We really need some disposal class through the midfield. I'd only trade him if we had a player lined up who filled this need though.

Oliver was fantastic today. His work in close was genius. It doesn't always come off, but the problem is typically the disposals after him, not him.

Spot on post, every point. I'll raise May's field kicking again because it was fantastic. Regularly hit great targets from tight positions, which is very important. He also set us up beautifully after the Jones 50 m penalty, directing players to position, but Frost made a mess of it with a clumsy attempted spoil. The uncontested possession focus was clear from the first quarter as we kicked quick but to advantage, to leading players. Was great to watch.

OMacs greatest strength was zone defending, where he could park in space and drop onto a contest. He's not Jake Lever but he isn't a hack playing this role, and it suits him physically as he gets to the contests and can use his reach to impact. He isn't a one on one defender, as he doesn't have the strength, the body on body awareness of where his player is nor the pace off the mark to stop the lead. I don't really understand why this place has been in meltdown this year when it was obvious that 666 was going to really test our gameplan which used runners behind the ball, numbers at the contest and a zone defense in the backline. Not only is that game plan but it's clear we had drafted/ recruited for that zone D50 play with OMac, Frost, Hibberd, Lever, and the use of Fritsch and Hunt down there. The spend on May was to try and balance this with a strong anchor down back, but his injury and our lack of preparation ruined any chance we had.