deanox

Harmes?

Yes because this is about fitness tests for selected players, not about who gets named emergencies.

It is probably the thing that slows the game the most by generating congestion and deliberately manufacturing stoppages. It's so obvious and easy to fix too.

Still one of the most dangerous and most dirty acts i have seen on the field in recent times. Should have been 6 weeks, elbowing a bloke in the back of the head while he lies on the ground in a disgrace and a dog act.

He'll finish around 8-11th in the BnF. Will play enough games to get high votes, but early poor games struggled. The last two weeks he has been great, and it is clear how much he reads the play and helps direct things. I expect he'll finish strongly. Definitely leading him at the moment: Gawn, Jones, Hogan, Oscar, Hibberd, Salem, Petracca Around the mark: Jetta, Oliver, ANB, Vince, Lewis, Wagner Others who may come home: TMac, Viney, Hunt, Brayshaw

Most of the changes I'd like to see aren't about tactics, but are about consistency in interpretations and are about reverting to better umpiring rather than introducing new rules. Interestingly, I think many of these would solve a bunch of the problems we currently have: Only blow the whistle when the play should stop (just call advantage out loud). This will allow "lots" more free kicks to be paid without impacting the game, and will also allow it to flow better without stop starting (which allows teams to "get back" and zone). Faster ball ups. If it is congested, blow whistle, run in and throw up. Do it as quick as possible before teams can "set up". This will create an incentive to stay man on man so you aren't caught out of position transitioning between structures. Penalise the third man in who "supports" a team mate who is tackled. i.e. if I tackle you, and your teammate comes and wraps us both up, then pay holding the man against your team mete. a) I didn't have the ball, so he had no right to touch me. b) this third man in action is purely designed to "tie up" the ball and force a ball up, which slows the game down. Also, if the third and forth man are penalised, there will be less incentive to have so many packs around the ball, with those players instead maintaining a bit of space to receive the ball. Pay holding the ball faster and more often. Too many players get too long to hold onto it. Too many players just drop it or throw it or drag it in. This largely happens in congestion, in mauls and packs. Paying holding the ball quickly (combined with the third man in rule above) will encourage teams to move the ball out quickly, discourage as many numbers around the ball, as they'll need players "outside" to receive hurried ball. Paying it quickly, instead of saving it up and doing the dancing horse theatrical [censored], will enable the players to move the ball on quicker. Pay 10 of these per game instead of 2 and the players will learn to move it onwards. The above are all actually part of the rules already. Nothing new, nothing controversial. I'm unsure on these following changes. They are potentially controversial rules that don't fundamentally change the game too much: Any 50 m penalty awarded in the D half of the ground will bring the mark to ~75 m out from goal. 50 m penalties in the D50 are borderline useless as the opposition just gets free time to set up a zone. Unsure if this will work, but worth considering. If we must zone, then do it on defensive kick outs only. Minimum 4 players from each side behind the half way mark until the kick is taken. It's similar to the centre square arrangement in that it is onlt at those specific set plays, and will help break down defensive zone set ups before they start. The only problem is the "quick kick out" rule which may make this hard to enforce.

I think more than arguing about a press, or any other tactics/strategies being employed, what most people are saying fundamentally is this. That we have less one on one contests these days. I agree that's a pity, but we will never fix that. It is simple math: an attacker will win more than 50% of one on ones against a defender of similar skill, purely because a) the attacker will tend to have the ball delivered to their advantage, and b) the defender is trying to inhibit, which means they will give away more free kicks. So all coaches, from now until forever will try to avoid one on ones in defnece, and create them in attack. Which means even if we set minimum players in positions, the coaches will manufacture a reason to have spare defenders. Do we really think that if coaches can't set up a half ground zone in their defencive half that they will abandon all hopes of stopping goals and go into shoot out mode? Of course not. I think if we were required to leave 4 players forward of the half way line (for example) then most coaches would a) set up a permanent 8 man zone in the D50 and b) leave at a minimum a 5th or 6th defender spare behind half way when attacking. And we'd see a really shitty rebound ping-pong between the 4 v 6 at the half way line, and the D50 zone with the remaining 14 players. The only way to beat it would be kicking goals from 60 m, before it reset. This wouldn't give us new one on one contests. I'm not sure the AFL thinks AFLX will take the place of AFL. I think they want it to take the place of soccer and rugby at a social level. A low impact/contact version of the game, great for kids and social, played on rugby/soccer fields, with only a handful of players so everyone can play. Soccer is the long term threat to AFL, and they have grass roots level, but not elite support. From a business strategy perspective, the AFL need to reclaim as many grounds in suburbia as possible. If they can get groups of friends playing AFLX the same way people play mixed netball or social soccer, they win the strategic battle.

It's been an issue for two years. I am hopeful that is a part of being young and inexperienced: wet weather footy is a second gameplan because it is when everyone comes back to the same level. Further, wet weather is about big bodies, confidence in your team mates helping you out/ being in the right spot, nous to draw the free kick or win the contest and the experience to know when you bomb long and when you have time to find space (a very fine distinction). We are still trying to learn to execute our no. 1 game plan so, and aren't exactly confident we'll win (in the same way a Hawthorn or Richmond squad are). I'm guessing transitioning to an alternative plan is a difficult ask in the short term.

Weid looks exactly like a 12 game, 20 year old 195 cm KPF should look. Promising highlights, some good traits, and in need of a bit of experience at AFL level to put it all together.

Weid is getting better and better. He has such a good marking technique (takes the ball with arms out stretched over head, taking the ball at his highest point) that it was only time until he started clunking them at AFL level. Hopefully this is the start of that form, as he finds his feet. I think wee need to persist with him. He complements Hogan so well.

Disagree. We had the game sewn up and experimented with Weid in the ruck for the last 10, Gawn up forward and Tmac and Hogan on the bench.

Our zone is working realy well. Players are covering well and in good positions when defending. Both their goals have cone from outt of position after bad skill error turnovers. But we are struggling with cohesion in attack. Too many handballs, not leading to space, not honouring leads, etc

Similiar. 21 and humid. Threat of rain.

I understand we gave them the points equivalent of one first round pick, which was considered a good deal in AFL circles.

Dumb and stubborn are one way of looking at it. I think "unlikely to win all games in the short term wile trying to set the team up for the long term" is better. I believe Goodwin was trying to stick with the plan which the players weren't correctly implementing. It can important for a young squad to stick to their guns when under pressure, to try and do the right things. If instead Goodwin said "oh you're playing badly so I sit trust you to do it correctly and ill change your structures and not give you a chance to with it" the players wouldn't learn That being said, I think we passed the point of learning on Sunday and he should have changed it up. I just understand why he is reluctant.

6 Oliver- easily our best with 30 touches and 10 tackles. Didnt quite dominate but tough when you are Pat Malone. 5 Jones - sacrificed his own game and did a solid job on Mitchell. Still got some of it. 4 OMac - our best defender, rarely beaten. His attacking thrusts didn't use the best option. 3 Hogan - 24 touches and a goal as a forward in a team that was beaten. Should have been used on the ball. 2 Salem - Great disposal at times, tried hard, not many other options. 1 Kent - Raffle this point. At least Kent had a good first quarter with 3 goals before he disappeared. Gawn won hit outs but we didn't get an advantage and he missed the goal the started the rot. ANB did some nice things. Brayshaw had great endeavour and will better for the run.

Hit outs are a terrible stat. I can't imagine clubs use it. Hit out to advantage differential seems more likely. And that would be for each potential ruck pair and for centre, throw in and ball up stoppages. I think intercept marks and marks from kick ins are also two important stats. Is there a way to measure body position/block once the ruck contest is over? That is more important than the hitout too.

We all know he can do the third tall intercept thing at elite level but at 22 he hasn't had the chance to develop his one on one, key position game yet. Does nobody else think that this is all part of development and growing as a team?

Of course they are. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of design and marketing and science brought together for the sole purpose of trapping people into addiction. The machines aren't fun to play and provide no entertainment value. The fact that only a small proportion of people even use the machines demonstrates this. They are designed to exploit. If you think that people choose to do this, that they have any control or that they have the abilty to out smart the hundreds of millions of dollars then you lack understanding of the situation.

Pokies are designed through neuroscience to entrap and addict people. People can't simply "take responsibility" these machines are so advanced they will always catch a certain percent. The government should represent the peoples interests when they can't represent themselves. That is why government should step in to protect people even if it unfortunately limits the "rights" of others especially when the rights in question are inconsequential (who really cares about being on the pokie??).

The extra player back is a result of our decision to set up that way with our own extras back... One of the most entertaining games involving Melbourne info the last decade. This was the difference. We were the better team around the ground but forward entry is where we lost it. Could have won by 5 goals.

Can we end this Wagner experiment at half time or do we need to wait till next week?

I think that shows how far back we came from, rather than that our rate of improvement hasn't been fast enough.

So as much as I hate this, having a trend like this is a great thing when analysing how we can improve next year. There are 20 examples of 10-20 minutes in length we need to focus on. Based on your numbers, ~100 goals were kicked in those lapses. That's about 1/3 of all scores against us this year. All of that came in ~300 minutes, or 10 quarters. That's out of 88 quarters. So 33% of scores against came in ~11% of game time. We improve that by 20% and we win 3-4 more games and finish in the top 4.

blow the siren!