Axis of Bob

Didn't do any preseason due to his foot injury. Came into the AFL team off just a couple of half VFL games (where he also struggled) and people are surprised that he is struggling to get involved.

Running is a very important part of playing AFL football and Petty hasn't been able to do any due to a long term foot injury. If you can't run then you can't play.  

10 goals to 2 in the second half and only gave up 5 goals all match. 

Demonland can be the absolute worst sometimes. 

18 hours ago, daisycutter said:

you keep saying greene wasn't contesting the ball. he certainly was, up and until it was deflected and a collision was immininent. this was in a SPLIT SECOND before contact.

it is disingenuous for you to insist he was a non-contestant

At the point of contact with the player (who is contesting the ball), Greene was not contesting the ball. 

Your words even say this, that he was "up and until it was deflected and a collision was imminent". As such, when the offence occurred, Greene was not contesting the ball and therefore committed a reportable offence. 

He has two options once he is jumping at the ball: 1) Contest the ball, or 2) stop contesting the ball and protect the player who is still contesting the ball. He chose to stop contesting the ball and made no effort to minimise the harm to the other player's head. That's a reportable offence. 

52 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Surely GWS argue he was contesting the ball.

If he was contesting the ball then he wouldn't be in the brace position, he would be reaching for the ball. GWS can try to argue that he's contesting the ball but it'll only need that one photo of him bumping the head with his arms tucked in to show that he wasn't. Just because he jumped with the intention of contesting the ball doesn't mean he was contesting the ball when he bumped into the face of his opponent.

52 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but the ball was deflected by boyd at the last split second whilst greene was in a marking action. at this point it couldn't be marked and a collision was inevitable. even if he continued in his marking attempt there would have been a serious collision.

If the player he was jumping to was Jesse Hogan or a small child then he wouldn't have braced himself to bump, he would have shown some form of protection. A collision of some kind may have been inevitable but bracing yourself to bump your opponent with your shoulder was not inevitable. If one person is contesting the ball and the other isn't, then the responsibility for the collision lies with the non-contesting player. Greene messed up by not trying to protect the player contesting the ball and, at best, treated the player contesting the ball with negligent indifference. 

45 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I can't believe he got a week. Was going to mark then the ball changed trajectory, so he braced for contact. If he marked it the conversation would not be being had.

If he marked it then he would have been contesting the ball, which is legal. Bumping the face whilst not contesting the ball is reportable.

The hit rate on category B rookies is very low, but the hit rate on the dregs of under 18/VFL/country league players is also low.

Recruiters aren’t trying to draft VFL players, they’re drafting potential AFL players. There are heaps of guys who can play VFL but have a ceiling that is almost worthless at AFL level, so drafting any of them is a waste of time and resources. Recruiters can be pretty certain what they’ll get with those players, with the range of potential outcomes being very narrow. At least drafting a 206cm kid who hasn’t played much before exposed you to a very wide range of outcomes, some of which might include being a valuable AFL player.

Whilst the average category B rookie will be much worse than a state league player, the likelihood that they’ll be a valuable AFL player is probably significantly higher. Jason Taylor isn’t a VFL recruiter, he’s an AFL recruiter.

I have similar thoughts but probably for slightly different reasons.

Since the evolution of tactics in AFL, from an '18 one on ones' style before the mid-2000s, we now have an ability to refine the gameplan far more to suit the philosophies of the coach and the personnel they have available to them. In that time (last 20 years) pretty much every good team has set that balance of attack and defence in a similar way ... except for us. 

2005 Sydney - defensive gameplan with great forwards (Hall, O'Loughlin, Goodes etc) and undersized defenders (Barry and Bolton)

2006 West Coast - attacking gameplan with great defenders (built around Glass and Wirrpanda) with ordinary forwards (Hansen and Lynch)

2000s Geelong - attacking gameplan with great defenders (Scarlett, Enright, Mackie, Milburn, Harley, Taylor/Egan etc) with comparatively ordinary forwards (Mooney, N Ablett, then smalls like Johnson etc)

2000s Hawthorn - defensive gameplan with great forwards (Buddy and Roughy) and undersized/ordinary defenders (Gibson, Gilham, Lake, Spangher etc).

2010s Richmond - defensive gameplan with great forwards (Riewoldt, Dusty, Lynch) and comparitively ordinary defenders (Rance for 2017, but just Astbury, Broad, Grimes, Vlastuin thereafter).

2023 Collingwood - attacking gameplan with great defenders (Moore, Quaynor, Howe, Maynard etc) and a bad forward line (Mihocek, Elliott, McStay).

We have been different, with our strength being our amazing defence (May, Lever), ordinary forward line but still going for a defensive gameplan. The reason why this is mismatched is because the marginal gain of May and Lever is small when you set up your team to protect them whilst, at the other end, you're asking JVR and Ben Brown to compete against the odds all game (which they aren't really good enough to do). 

As an example, Richmond beat Geelong in the 2020 GF because the game was tight and congested, with scoring difficult. At 3/4 time they led 46-44 (7 goals to 6), so it was hard to score. In the last quarter they kicked 5 goals to win it (Prestia, Lynch, Dusty, Riewoldt, Dusty). Between Dusty, Riewoldt and Lynch, they kicked as many goals as Geelong did. Defending was easy with the extra numbers - kicking goals against those extra numbers was hard and that's why Richmond's best players were the ones to do it. Conversely, Collingwood could get relatively easy goals in 2023 (Hill, Elliott, Michocek, Ginnivan, McCreery and Frampton had 19 contested possessions between them - about 3 each on average) because they kept numbers forward and relied on their more talented defenders to win the difficult contests. 

You don't need to make the job easier for your good players because they're going to win you more of those really important contests (like Dusty against 2 opponents, or May one on one against Curnow), so they don't need as much support. But if you can then use those extra numbers somewhere else to make it easier (like supporting Astbury in defence, or playing an extra forward to allow Ben Brown a 1-on-1 and space to lead) then you're helping them enormously. 

May and Lever may help a defensive plan reduce the opposition's score by 20 points, but an attacking plan could help our forwards kick 30 extra points because they need that extra help a lot more than May and Lever do.

tldr; Teams usually create game plans to add support where they need it most, trusting their best players to play well without support. We've given May and Lever too much support when they don't need it, and I am happy that we're now giving that support to our forwards (who do need it). Also sorry it was so rambling! 

4 minutes ago, sue said:

Yes you argued that overall it didn’t affect things. I pointed out that it can even if the stats you presented appeared to say things even out. 

I would be delighted to see a quote showing me where I said this. 

In return I will show you the quotes where I said that umpiring isn’t particularly important and has very little impact overall, which is not the same thing. Basically I think we’re arguing different points.

I also accept that you don’t like metaphors/analogies as a way of further supplementing an argument. It would be like a dog that doesn’t like eating its dinner anymore because it knows someone has hidden a heartworm tablet inside. 🙂

1 hour ago, sue said:

Of course passionate supporters exaggerate the effect of bad decisions and whinge and carry on (part of the fun).  That obviously annoys some who see that as irrational.  But we shouldn't go to the other extreme and suggest that bad decisions can't effect things.

(I suggest you stay clear of dodgey (or doggy) metaphors.  Never a good way to make an argument because it leads down all sorts of rabbit holes as I have learnt to my cost over many years.)

I didn’t say it can’t affect things, I said it is not important. This was especially so in a Melbourne context where it had no discernible effect on us last year. That was the whole point of the trend/noise discussion - umpiring variability can affect things in the very short term but, overall, it has such little impact that it’s barely worth thinking about. Certainly not the obsession that seems to be in this thread.

As for the metaphor, it is to help people understand what is being spoken about. The point had originally been made with noise and trend but this way was more inclusive for those who may not have understood the concept. As a recovering teacher, I usually prefer to help people access new concepts. If you already understood it then you didn’t need the help.

It’s also more fun.

23 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

AFL is the most interpreted sports game in the world when it comes to umpiring. If rules where adjudicated to the letter of the law, all high contacts, all pushes into the back, all kicks in danger, etc etc would be paid.

There lies the grey area stats do not reflect. 

This is called randomness or noise. There are hundreds of decisions to be made every game and there is an element of randomness in those decisions due to the 'grey areas', as you say. But over the course of a game, a season or an era, it doesn't affect it as it's just noise. This randomness only makes the most miniscule of differences to a result, if any.

Think about it like somebody walking in the park with a dog on a lead. The dog will wander all over the place, but by the end of its walk it ends up near the owner holding the lead. The owner is the trend, as they just walk in a straight line towards the end of the park, whilst the dog is the noise. In the end it doesn't matter what the dog does because the owner determines where they end up.

In football, the team performance is the owner and the umpire's performance is the dog. Worrying about what the dog's doing is a fool's errand.

1 minute ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

The numbers of frees for or against don't tell the whole story Bob.

It's when and where they are paid .... or not paid. 

This is the 'I trust my eyes' argument. If it was an issue surely there would be some evidence of it.

Richmond won the flag in 2017, 2019 and 2020. Across that 4 year stretch they were comfortably the best performing team. Their free kick differential across the 4 years from 2017-2020 .... 18th, 18th, 13th and 17th. They were easily the team with the least favourable frees for/against ratio in the league across those four years, and they won 3 flags and should have won the other. 

Last year the most favourable free kick ratio was Freo (finished 14th on the ladder) and the worst was Port (finished 3rd). 

It's just not very important in the grand scheme of things. 

51 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Don't have to go too far back against the same mob where a free kick cost us the game in the last minute. So don't talk to me about the importance of free kicks, young man.

46 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Well it cost us the game last year in Adelaide so there's that....

Firstly, it was round 10, 2021 (3 years ago), so there's that .....

Secondly, umpiring has very little to do with the result of a game of football. Last year we played 24 games. The free kick count was equal in two of those games. In the remaining 22 games, the team winning the free kick count won 11 games and lost the other 11 games. 

The winning team had the most free kicks literally 50% of the time!! It had no statistical impact on who won the game! If that doesn't show you how much of a non-issue it is then I don't know what will. 

For the amount of complaining in this thread about umpiring, a reader might be mistaken for thinking that it was actually a really important part of the game.

Windsor has already shown us that he’s got pace, class and is a road runner up the wing with defensive intent. He’s shown that he’s a safe bet as a decade long wingman even if he just maintains his current level.

Being that, I’ve been very impressed with his ability to do some work in tight spaces at AFL pace. He’s winning some impressive contested balls and using his athleticism in closer to extract himself and using it really well under a lot of pressure. This is beyond what you’d typically expect from a wingman. He definitely shows a lot of scope for future midfield time, which would be a plane pleasant bonus. 

It is only very early in his career but he’s shown enough to think that there is a possibility he could develop into a better player than we (in the public) imagined.

10 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Someone will get the specifics right... andeffectively out of each teams scoring shots in each game - you have a slightly higher percentage that is goals than points - ie: 60% of your scoring shots are goals. Then they've added in, where those shots are taken... that is my understanding.

So for last night -

Ports - 13.11 becomes 15.9

Mebs - 15.6  becomes 12.9

and then

Close.

It depends on what the average is for shots taken at each location. For instance, a shot from the goal square is converted, say, at 95% accuracy on average. So, on average, you should score 5.75 points from that shot at goal in average (95% x 6 points + 5% x 1 point). But from 40m out directly in front you would kick a goal 50% of the time, a point 40% and no score 10%. So you have an expected score of 3.4 points (0.5x6 + 0.4x1 + 0.1x0).

The expected score just stops counting before you kick at goal without caring if you miss, whilst the actual score cares very much about whether or not you miss.

20 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The revisionism is that you were trying to make it sound like Goodwin reinvented the game and was prepared to trade a bona fide star Hogan for May and Lever.

Nah, that's not it. You just wanted to shoehorn in a way to dunk on an ex-player, Oscar McDonald, for no good reason other than that you seem to hate him.

He's played AFL footy at 3 clubs despite being cruelled by some very serious injuries, including fighting his way through the VFL despite having spinal fusion surgeries. He also seems like lovely guy and a really weird played to have a grudge against. 

6 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Name them , who he got rid of since 2023

He got rid of noted plodding mids James Jordon, Taylor Adams and brought in speedster Dylan Stephens.

…..wait …. Sorry …. he actually brought in the plodders and got rid of the speedster.

8 minutes ago, seventyfour said:

I don't disagree with this, but you also select teams to win all year and win in September.

Which is why it’s important to get the better player into the team early in the year so that he can build confidence and chemistry with the other defenders. It’s not like Tomlinson, who has played fewer than 10 games a season since he came to Melbourne 5 years ago, has suddenly been blindsided that he’s a fringe AFL player.

I think that’s the nub of it. We think one player is better than the other, so we’re picking who we think is the best player.

I can't believe the hand wringing about dropping Tomlinson. Actually, that's not entirely true; I've been here long enough.

Tomlinson was outpointed positionally several times last week but was saved by the slippery conditions on several occasions. No basic level key defender should be beaten defensively on that postage stamp ground in slippery conditions, so being serviceable last week is no particular recommendation. There were 3 contested marks taken by forwards all game and they were all Sydney players - it was an easy day to be a defensive tall defender.

The point is that Tomlinson's game was fine enough but not exactly a defence for him being replaced by a better option. If TMac comes in it's because he's a better footballer than Tomlinson. TMac is slow but he's certainly no slower than Tomlinson, and TMac is much better at everything else. 

Did Tomlinson deserve to be dropped? It doesn't matter because we're selecting a team to win this week. Whether a fringe veteran 'deserves a game' isn't relevant because that isn't how you select a team, you select a team to win the match you're playing. 

Has that classic “I decided to go back to footy because I just love hitting people” style. Love it.

Big bodied, power player.

https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/news/1072208/aflw-draft-ryleigh-wotherspoon-multi-sport-athlete-cricket-soccer-softball-melbourne-brisbane

Classic Smokey play at 12. Rayleigh Wotherspoon wasn’t even on Sarah Black’s late mail names for consideration!

We’ve got a lot of aerial power but you need a forward line that can create goals even when things are messy.  Pisano looks like a strong, powerful player that can use her legs and kick to create scores even when the game is messy, like finals often are.

 Certainly seems like the right type of player to be adding to the group.

It's kind of depressing watching some people here who have so much of their identity wrapped up in Melbourne being terrible that they desperately want to pretend we're not good. It's really sad.

If Kyah Farris-White develops superhuman speed and flight this preseason then he'll probably win the Brownlow.

Am I doing this right?