deanox

Wouldn't surprise me if he is still there in a leadership capacity. I suspect it would be unprecedented for an AFL captain to still be on a list 6 seasons after stepping down as captain. Hopefully he can snare a few more games before he's done.

Only thing I can think is that shoulder AC doesn't stop you running, it just stops physical contact and maybe overhead ball handling. First few weeks Viney seemed underdone fitness wise, hopefully he has been able to work on that.

That outside of thur not kick to Lochhart was sublime. Lochy's effort to waste 30 seconds, turn and kick to Melksham was the smartest piece of play all day. The umpires decision to call Melksham to play on, after he marked inside 50 and said he was going to have a shot was a disgrace. I think exploiting the 30 second rule goes against the spirit of the game, but it doesn't mean the umpires can choose to disregard it.

Jeff is the only quality small forward we've had in the last decade and he has been out of form since 2017. We have instead relied on a group of medium forwards playing small. They all play "taller" than they are (pretty good jumps and marks) and all have a bit of pace, but none are true crumbers and they get caught out of position in crumbing situations. They also have a tendency to all go up instead of staying down. This group has included the following players at times since 2017: -Melksham, Petracca and Spargo (still there) -Harmes and Fritsch (playing other positions) -Garlett, vandenBerg, Hannan and ANB (injured or dropped) -Bugg, Watts and Kent (all moved to other clubs). With talls in Weid, Tmac and Preuss (last year Hogan), we've needed three of these medium/small guys at any one time. The combined 7 players that either left the club or are injured/dropped leave a big hole in our options, especially with Harmes and Fritsch playing mid/back. We couldn't expect that we'd have these issues with the players we retained. Not many options to juggle right now! I think this also compounds with having 4 of our preferred ~8 defenders out (May, Lever, Lewis, Smith) plus a 5th (OMac) out of form. Finally, we have not had a tall player as a "winner" except maybe Preuss. Gawn, TMac, Weid, OMac, have all been out of form, dropping marks etc. *edit: which means that "crumbing" players definitely aren't on the right position because they expect thur contest to be different.

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.

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.

I don't see this as a problem. In the employment world this happens all the time even if someone is fully invested in their current role. With a maximum 12 year career, and only 2-3 choices/opportunities to maximize both financial outcomes and personal happiness, and with a small industry with only 18 potential employers nation wide, I'd be surprised if these conversations weren't happening.

I hope we don't. This has been conducted with the highest levels of public integrity. We know he has had issues and struggles. I'd rather it's clsp and support him. His statement is brave. I can't remember reading a quote from an AFL player that puts family and friends above final in the way that he has stated it.

You'll be disappointed when he starts round 1 and starts in the team all year then.

Having said all that ^^^^ I want 6 and 19 for Hogan now!

Also we are all judging the value of Hogan as an isolated asset, not as part of our list. Hogan on his own: highest value. Hogan to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward: less value. Hogan, who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward: less value Hogan, who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward, and the risk that another KPF will leave if Hogan doesn't: less value Hogan, with a potentially serious foot injury that could impact performance next year and who we believe will leave next year, to a list with 2 other KPFs, plus Gawn who can drift forward, and the risk that another KPF will leave if Hogan doesn't: less value When I refer to "value" I mean the value to us. So we need to define what we value Hogan at, with respect to all scenarios and scenario factors. Then we need to consider what our trade partner values Hogan at. If there is a cross over, then a deal can be made and all parties will achieve a win-win and be satisfied. Within the zone of potential agreement the will be "the least we are prepared to accept" and "the most they are prepared to pay. Ideally, both parties want to get as close to the other parties maximum for "best outcome". Either isolated asset value or the "best outcome" is often how the media and public judge overs/unders, but the negotiator will judge it against the value they rated the asset at to the current list.

It's this attribute that has gotten me around to bringing May on board. OMac isn't fast/agile enough, Frost isn't smart enough, Nev isn't tall enough, and as well as acombination of physical attributes that make them unsuitable, we don't want Lever/Hibb/Salem/Lewis tied down from their usual role as interceptors/distributors.

I've wondered about this. There were rumors of Weid wanting to leave and other clubs being keen. We obviously wouldn't want to lose both. Perhaps with Hogan wavering and not committing beyond 2019, we made a decision that trading Hogan was needed to ensure we didn't lose two KPFs this year and next.

Valid points. I'd be taking a risk assessment approach based on recent industry experience. Their culture is poor, they are trading out senior players, they have little leadership and were belted all year. Will these kids make an immediate impact or will they need a few years to hit their straps? What is the likelyhood they arent as good as discussed? How big is the go home risk? (Remembering that GCS have really struggled to keep players the last few years). The 2010 MFC model was get rid of senior players and bring in star kids. It didn't work. Are they better off bringing in 4 x 2nd tier but ready to compete players for 2019, with a view to stabilizing and building of field culture in 2019 and bringing key talent in for 2020, or spending it on 2 risky but massive upside kids?

Pick 5 is much more valuable than 6. Seems unlikely, but while port held pick 6, both port and Adelaide would have traded lots for pick 5 so that they got the highest SA talent. Now neither will want to trade up to pick 6. Very smart move by port. I'm actually surprised GCS haven't given away pick 2 for pick 5 or 6 or similar and a player. They can't keep kids, and need mid tier players.

My guess is we intend to trade it for picks this year. We have 7 list spots, GCS only have a couple. GCS have lots of top 30 picks, we currently have 0. GCS have academy players next year so need future draft points. So swapping our future 1st round and this year's pick 36 for this year's pick 19 and pick 29, may be the deal.

Why would Pert talk to Bell? In fact, why would Pert be involved in football last management or trade meetings fullstop? It's not part of his job, and he has only been in the place for 2 weeks.

The other mechanism is trading future (2019) drafts picks for earlier picks this year. I understand GC have more picks than they can use this year and mostly high picks, but they need points for next year's academy players. So 2019 1st rounder might get us overs in this year's draft when we have spots to fill.

May is quality and is a clear upgrade on our current defenders. I'm not sure I've seen many posts suggesting otherwise. My main concern is that I don't think the value of pick 5 is the same as the value May adds to the team vs OMac over the course of his career. That is based on: - we rarely had kpf's kick multiple goals against us this year (and when they did it was often lack of midfield pressure); - we have Lever coming back into the defense; and - OMac performed well this year, is underrated on this site, and will only get better next year and the year after. But I understand that others (list management included) perhaps see the value of May in the short term as much higher than pick 5.

This isn't the complete answer to my question but it's a start. The following key forwards, who May might play on, have kicked goals on us this year: R1: Menzel 4.2, R2: n/a R3: Brown 4.1, Waite 3.1 R4: Roughhead 3.1, O'Brien 3.0 R5: Reiwoldt 2.2 R6: Stringer 3.3 R7: n/a R8: Day 2.2 R9: McKay 2.1 R10: n/a R11: n/a R12: Cox 5.1 R13: bye R14: Westhoff 2.1 R15: McCartin 2.3, Battle 1.2 R16: Cox 2.0 R17: Schache 2.2 R18: Hawkins 7.0 R19: n/a R20: n/a R21: Franklin 2.5 R22: Vardy 1.1 R23: Cameron 1.4 Other than Franklin, Hawkins and Cox, no one got off the leash. Hawkins was a result of the midfield. Cox only kicked one goal on OMac, the others were on Gawn, Pedo and Smith. I can't remember who played on Franklin. Add better midfield pressure and that improves again. Add Lever back as an interceptor and it helps further. Would May have made that much a difference this year?