deanox

I've felt similar. Richmond, Hawthorn, Geelong and Collingwood are tough propositions at the G. I think Geelong is the "easiest" to beat of the lot and we didn't get three job done either time. GWS is scary in its quality but with some injuries and their lack of history in finals they could go either way. Still not an easy prospect. WCE and Sydney are probably the flakiest of the other 7 finalists. But even then on their day are very strong. WCE probably has the better talent but might struggle with injuries and suspensions. Sydney have the mental strength to do anything. I do think we're the wild card though. Could go out easily. But also coud catch others off guard. I honestly think draw and venue's will play a large role in the finals. Unfortunately we've played our best football away from the G, but there's where we'll likely play. Perhaps the best outcome could be Geelong at the G, Sydney in Sydney then WCE in Perth? Although a MFC v CFC prelim at the G would be a thriller!

I noticed that and was annoyed on Sunday but then I realized he was doing it to try and gain separation a moment later. It might not work every time but he seemed to engage in a scrag, causing his opponent to stop watching the ball, then use that moment to push off his opponent or nudge his opponent under the back and turn back himself. It didn't work even the back dropped in front of him because then he wasn't able to push off. So might be atactic. Might also just be poor behavior.

You mean most supporters full stop right?

There is a realistic possibility that finals draw, if we continue to progress, would look like Geelong (MCG), Sydney (SCG), WCE (Optus). In other years I would say that travel is the death draw but having won 5/6 on the road this year (and just losing to PA), and playing those different shaped grounds so well, I think we'd be in a good position to navigate this. Of course, we could lose after the siren in week one.

Yep, watching the way Alir carved us up demonstrated how much we missed Lever. Add Joel Smith and Hibberd, and we have been really hurt in such a critical department.

But I'd argue the same concept applies to AFL. The center square and the 50 arc is largely the same!

I think it's a bit of learn to walk before you can run. We've seen it with Oliver - he is starting to make decisions to run and carry and kick, instead of taking the first option, but Ibet if he tried that last year he would have been caught out. The playing group will start to make these decisions better with a bit more experience. Hopefully starting this week!

Yeah I agree with this too. I think that change in mentality will be when this team clicks. It makes sense it is taking some time though. You have to be very good, and very well styled to follow a game plan perfectly. But you have to be particularly experienced/ elite to know when to break a game plan/team rules, and be successful. Our team is 2 years in into learning the plan, into trusting each other. This week we have an average of 89 games, which is median for the AFL. GWS and Collingwood are anomalies but they also have long injury lists of experienced players (Greene, Delidio, Scully, Shaw, Patton etc.) (Dunn, Elliot, Howe, Treloar) whose inclusions would comfortably bump them close to 100. Geelong (122) Port (119) Adel (116) North (114) WC (108) Sydney (107) Hawks (107) Richmond (104*) Essendon (102) Brisbane (89) Melbourne (89) Carlton (86) Collingwood (87) Freo (83) Dogs (81) GWS (80) GC (76) Saints (69)

Cricket.

@Lord TravisThis is 100% game plan. The @spirit of norm smith has nailed it. There are really good statistics for shot accuracy showing the zones which are high percentage. We know Goodwin is fascinated by this because he started the "diamind defense" last year, which was a structure that conceded low percentage shots (45m+ from goal and shots from the flanks), in order to defend the "high accuracy zone" immediately in front of opposition goal. In addition, we have identified that if we score a goal it resets to neutral contest in our strongest formation (centre bounce) but if we miss the shot, we hand them the ball in our weakest formation (defending opposition transition from defense to attack). Although we've abandoned the diamond defense this year, our new implementation of this strategy has focused on our attack instead. We have looked to gain possession of the ball in the "high accuracy" zone in our forward line. This worked very successfully in the first half of the season, where we're had very high goal conversion ratios. It came to a screaching halt against Port, who countered this tactic by ignoring the bank carrier at our HF, and stacked the "high accuracy" zone in their D50 and picked off all our forward entries when we're tried to pass it. We didnt adapt that night and take better options. We have improved/adapted in this area since, by taking more lower percentage shots, but this has resulted in a decrease in our goal kicking accuracy. The other flow on from this is we are exposing ourselves to more counter attacks from our defense, which were don't defend well. This is a balance our players need to find: when to follow team rules, and when to have a shot. They will find that balance better with experience; we are still relatively young. We saw against Sydney we got the worst of both worlds. Our attempts to kick to the high accuracy zone were cut off by Alir and our low percentage shots went out of bounds on the full or didn't make the distance. Hopefully we can execute better this week.

Goodwin said Weideman had worked “really hard” to handle the demands of playing in the AFL. “We’ve seen a huge change in his physical capabilities,” he said. “He’s launching at the ball incredibly well at VFL level, so it’s an opportunity for him – a really strong opportunity – at an important time for us.” From his media conference today

I agree with this. I fell his efforts in contests are quite good and he actually gets his hands to the ball alot. They haven't quite stuck for him yet, but I really think they will soon. He has the natural technique to be the best mark in our team, when he has the strength of the nearly 27 year old, 109kg Gawn or the 26 yo 100kg TMac, then they'll clunk for him.

Stress fractures don't "happen" they "develop". So what you wrote didn't happen.

Does anyone know the highest percentage of any team not to play finals?

I'm not sure we're can miss if we win one, unless crazy results go against us. If we win one game then three of the following would need to happen for us to miss: -Geelong would need to win 2 by 85+ points. -Port would need to beat both Collingwood (mcg) and Essendon (AO) -North would need to win all 3 of Dogs, Adelaide (AO) and St Kilda. -Sydney would need to win 2 of Demons, GWS (spotless) and Hawthorn (SCG).

Winning any one or two games will leave us 6th, with Sydney beating Hawthorn looks like the only real possibility* of us finishing 5th. And assuming we beat Sydney tomorrow, they will be out of the race in round 23 unless they beat GWS. Win 3 and we will finish 3rd and have an away final against WC. I must admit I see lots of value in the second win because it means beating another finalist on the eve of finals, helping to create that belief which I hope translates to finals. Someone said earlier this week that a win tomorrow could set us on a roll towards late September but a Los could see us miss entirely. I agree with this. * the other possibilities involve Collingwood losing to Freo or Port.

Ive had a quick play and from here: -Win all three and finish 3rd -Win any one or two games and finish 6th (i think there are a couple of permutations where we drop to 7th and one where we're climb to 5th) -Lose all 3 and miss finals I'm sure there are some scenarios where that doesn't play out but they will require major upsets.

This is the problem. He didn't murder anyone. He didn't mean to maim his face and knock his teeth out. He didn't mean to cause permanent damage. It was all an accident. He just meant to hit him, too take his frustration out a bit and to incapacitate him long enough to run off. And he is a good bloke, and this is out of character. Never before in 20 years of sport. He has such a good track record. BUT This action could have killed someone. Maybe not on a football field, but on a footpath. Or in different circumstances. And in that case we would be crowing "coward punch" and "thug". If the action has that sort of potential for harm, it shouldn't be acceptable and should be called out. Worse is that it is on tv, in front of an audience as a role model for kids (whether we like that or not). The outcry is justified as is the punishment. Because society needs to see this view of behavior as unacceptable, whether the victim stands up and walks away or doesn't.

He is currently 5th on the AFL coaches association champion player of the year award leaderboard. The top 4 are Mitchell, Gawn, Cripps, Oliver. He is definitely that good and would easily be one of our top 5 players, albeit he will start to decline in three next few years.

I think it helps that we're entering premiership mode and could also very much use an outside gutrunner with good skills.

They are lovely numbers. I think Richmond comfort and familiarity with their own game plan, compared to our players learning, means they shade us at the moment. But over the next few years this could be alot of fun.

Why do they bother with a 22 round season?

Good points. I suppose I draw the line on "football act". Cameron's elbow was horrible and brutal but he was within the rules to attempt to mark or spoil (and contract associated with those acts is consensual), and despite how clumsy, negligent, reckless etc. he was, I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to elbow him like that. Gaff threw a punch. Off the ball. Punches are never part of the game (unless an attempted spoil, which this wasn't). A push may be consensual in this case given the players were jostling to make position (and that "may" is enough to ensure charges couldn't be laid for that act) but the punch was deliberate. He looked at him and swung with a closed first. He may not have deliberately hit him that hard, or deliberately hit him in the head, but the decision to punch was intentional. The punch was against the rules and not part of expected play, which imo would make it non-consensual. Does that explain my position?

Great point about Victoria v WA! But the legal contact associated with football is consensual, punching isn't: "In Western Australia, an assault may occur by, for example, striking, touching, moving, or applying force of any kind to another person, either directly or indirectly, without the person’s consent."

Agreed RE what warrants and what doesn't warrant. The issue is it will be used for accidents, that won't warrant. Also if the poster red carded can't be replaced it will be 21 v 21, including the interchange, but 17 v 18 on the field. Statistically, you are better off giving away a red card to save a certain goal than letting the goal get scored, as long as it isn't in the first 15 minutes (or something close to that). I don't think this is manageable in AFL. Our game doesn't allow us to play one less forward and count attack, because there is no offside rule. (I can't think of an international sport with a send off rule where there aren't some form of player positional/movement restrictions). How would this play out if they enforced minimum players in the zone at stoppages?