deanox

I didn't see all of the game but even if ANB was bad I'd be surprised if he got dropped. His strengths are the teams' weaknesses. He is one of the hardest two way runners, regularly is in the top 5 on the ground for stats like distance covered, average speed in defence, total time at high speed, average speed in defence, etc. He was in those groups today too. He also led the team for pressure acts. All this despite having the least time on ground of any demon. Given we generally suck at running hard after our opponents, he is invaluable. And if he kicked 3.0 instead of 1.2 tonight we'd all be singing his praises.

Is it weaker, or is it just less experienced and still learning a game plan? Their senior coach had been with them for 8 seasons and 180+ games, given them time to learn a system and tweak and improve. They've played finals 4 times in the last 5 season's, meaning they've been well analysed by opposition during that time and have had to keep evolving. On the other hand we are 1.5 years into Goodwin's tenure and the time that we have been worth analysing by the opposition. Before that we had 3years of rebuilding from the foundations. Dont confuse Melbourne in 2013 with any other club in terms of development. When Goodwin took over we were only just AFL standard.

Weather and ground like this, the game could almost have been called off. No benefit and potentially dangerous.

I actually love the umpire teams idea. One of biggest problems is not inconsistency between weeks it's inconsistency between ends. Umpire the games together and then coach and review together. Get the team on the same page. That being said Razor and Pannel are two of the worst in my opinion. With Nichols close to them both.

Its assault and had nothing to do with the football game. It's only purpose was to gain an unfair advantage (cheat): to take out an unsuspecting opponent before the contest. I expect the "grow up outs a contact sport" or "stop being a soft [censored]" response here but this had nothing to do with toughness or physicality in the game of football. Accidental or incidental contact in game should not be punished. I even think they are too harsh on negligent contact when it is part of winning the ball. Punching someone off ball? Never acceptable. Absolutely should be a free kick and a suspension. No one really thinks the $1500 fine is a deterrent do they?

I think the talent pool is there, but because of the reluctance to draft mature age players, and the way the AFL club's use the reserves as development for draftees, the talent doesn't want to play there. The VFL isn't the next best group of players it is full of kids. There are better players in other leagues, who can't get a game at VFL because an 18 year bean pole first year draftee is keeping them out for "development" reasons. The only way I can see this being fixed is to run a separate AFL reserves comp, and increase the list sizes to 55+ (maybe a primary list of 35 for AFL, and a secondary list of 20 for reserves only). When drafting, Club's should be able to place a player on either list (with release clauses after x years for draftees who aren't promoted). Club's should then be able to upgrade off their secondary list for long term injuries, and should have first dibs to automatically elevate any secondary list players before the draft. Basically, by having a smaller primary list you couldn't afford to have lots of undeveloped kids. By having a larger secondary list that was available for upgrade or exclusive draft, out would encourage club's to retain the best tier two talent in the system to fill gaps.

You'll need to give more than that JR. Everything published indicates Goodwin is a big communicator: He doesn't have an office (sits out in the open to make sure he is part of the team and part of the casual chats), he was definitely the "good guy" when Paul Roos was around. It's a big accusation to throw around without putting substance on the table. We also went on to have 2 big wins the next 2 rounds, so it feels unlikely that anything he did had an impact on footy.

The week we beat Carlton by 109 points? He did something to lose the entire playing group?

Too many medium forwards. They spoil KPFs and don't crumb enough

Yeah maybe it's late enough!

Don't go too early...

Another terrible free kick for a goal.

I think the theory in the article that our coaching staff are focused on quality of shots is supported by the "diamond defence" we have deployed at times. The concept of that defence was that we protect the "High percentage" shot area in a zone formation but concede the flanks and pockets, where conversion rate is low. This year we have applied it in reverse: always drop the eyes and look for someone in the hot spot. For anyone concerned about Goodwins coaching, this article should lay those concerns to rest. It shows we are constantly analysis and changing and improving. I agree we need options for when Plan A is countered, and we will learn them with time as we learn the counters. A coach doesn't did this level of analysis and planning and then stop, He constantly tweaks.

I never thought Id say this I hope Essendon beat North this week. It could really help separate the pack sitting 5th to 10th, and a win to us would put is on the right side of that pack.

In they context of afinals spot that could almost balance out Gawn's miss.

I wasnt at the game and those who were may provide more insight but on tv I felt that Port were blocking up our usual attacking spot. In a way they ignored the ball carrier outside 50 and didn't need to defend the pockets as much but blocked the space we led into and made sure there was always congestion where the ball landed. I wonder how much of this was due to their study of our ball movement patterns?

I think we are at a different stage. Last year: new up and coming, inconsistent with a game plan unfamiliar to opposition, able to beat anyone on our day ("upset" wins) but still seen as an easy scalp by the bottom teams. This year: more comfortable with our new game plan enabling us to win every game against the lower teams (and beat them well). Top teams now recognise us as a threat, have had time to study our plan and know how to counter and put pressure on us (ie we can't "upset" them). Ideally next year is: Comfortable in executing our game plan under pressure, and also aware of possible exploitations and limitations. Players have enough experience and group familiarity to shift mid game to plan b tactics.

I think this is contradictory. We are attacking from our defence, and this attacking intent is the reason we have sacrificed some of our close checking defence. Our strategy is to defend as a unit, up the whole ground, preventing the ball from reaching our D50. We do this by playing more attacking defenders, who sit up the ground, repelling attacks in the midfield and launching our attacks. This is a risky strategy, but has huge upside. If the average team concedes 5 inside 50s each week, and a conversion against of 50%, they'll concede 25 shots against. If we concede 35 inside 50s and a conversion of 60%, we'll concede only 21 shots. If we are relying on repelling goals by our defenders on they last line we are in a desperate position.

Where do we rank on the inside 50s against stat? I'd rather defend from the midfield than rely on repelling from D50.

Who says that's the dream or even the kpi required? Maybe its a certain number of repeat sprints? Maybe it's his effort and positioning in our defensive structure/ zone. Maybe its not Garlett specific but larger tactics: we are using the small forwards up the field more as flankers. Spargo, Hannan etc have all been playing up the ground, harassing, tackling and linking. This adds additional players in our midfield zone structure to supplement having the third tall forward who isn't as agile or mobile. This "up the ground small forward" then needs to get back to the forward line to crumb. Maybe the problem is Garlett doesn't have the tank to do this ie he needs to stay forward to be effective, and we can't do this with 3 talls? I'm just spitballing here but it isn't far fetched, and it would make more sense than "until he kicks a bag I refuse to play him".

I'm still not convinced that the back line is the problem. Oscar will take McCartin and J Smith will take Battle. No other talls needed. But getting the forwards in the right positions will enable us to kick to advantage instead of to packs.

If you can get an upgrade into level 2 of the southern stand it is a bit more enclosed and you can wrap up away from the breeze. Technically its premium members guest passes but they may let you buy them given your reason and the lowish expected crowd.

He wasn't in a good way. But Ireckon the high contact was caused by the Port player ducking and trying to evade the tackle.

Despite losing, out opponents only kicked 75 points. We also won the contested midfield battle. Where we struggled was not defending, it was delivery into forward and converting possession into goals. So changes are either about improving our delivery or about changing the forward mix/structure to be more efficient and/or offer better targets. "Delivery" is often as much about the positioning of forwards as it is the kicking skills of the midfield. Create space and delivery looks amazing; stand still and delivery looks crap. Adding Weid may straighten us up. His strengths are his leading patterns (which make space for others) and his ability to not loose marking contests (he either marks well or halves the contest). This may improve both our forward efficiency and our delivery (by adding a target and creating space). Garlett, despite form, may increase efficiency by creating opportunities. He won't help delivery by changing structures or creating space. I'm not sure we have any "highly skilled" mids waiting in the seconds. Stretch and JKH are it. Are they major upgrades on current skills? In Weid, out Smith for mine. Garlett the other option if wet think he can generate more opportunities than another small forward.

Because they are scared of long term liability associated with brain damage from concussion. Their legal strategy is to suspend every player involved in a concussion where there is even a of breaking the rules. That way when they are eventually sued by former players they will argue that it isn't their fault, they've done all they could to protect the players. They don't have the same risks from broken ribs or punctured lung.