Axis of Bob

4 minutes ago, demoncat said:

What are the benefits of doing these drills where the ‘attacking’ group outnumbers the ‘defending’ group as per Andy’s post above?

The coaches are trying to teach the players what success in that behaviour is. For example, in this drill they are being taught the right system to move the ball up the ground. In order to do that you need to get them comfortable doing these behaviours in a controlled environment so that it becomes automatic, which is incredibly difficult to do under match conditions. equal defenders and attackers causes chaos and the highest pressure is not a good way to learn new behaviours that aren't habits yet since all you will do is fail or fall back into your old habits/instincts. As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy (or, as Mike Tyson said, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face!).

The progression for this would be to do it with no pressure, so that the movement can be seen under perfect conditions to get in the habit. Then add a little bit of pressure at a time (extra defenders) until these behaviours become habits in more pressured situation. There's simply too much pressure in even numbered drills to learn a new skill or behaviour because it doesn't give you time to think about what you're doing. Less pressure means more time to think and hence more time to practice the new behaviour until that new behaviour becomes the habit you fall back into under high/game pressure.

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

Or that people would shorten phrases to words, like chillax, bae or inspo

Few things make me happier than the thought of you strutting through town, casually throwing around the phrase "Chillax, bae!" 😁

13 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Thanks @Axis of Bob. @Timothy Reddan-A'Blew signing out.

Welcome to pre-xmas Demonland! 😁

My apologies for it all getting out of hand, it was just a little thing in the back of my head that I'd typically ignore. A particularly slow work day combined with a particularly slow everything else day somehow made this a conversation worth having. I actually don't have a very strong opinion about it at all, I just enjoyed the discussion. 👍

16 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

"Our rightsizing journey"

The right size for this phrase is zero.

2 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

So, if a coach wants to use 'learnings' at a post-match presser, it should be framed as 'there were lessons from the game that we hope/intend/expect/etc will become learnings for the players'.

You're missing that the coaches are part of the collective receiving the knowledge. They aren't just the teachers anymore, they are students with the players.

Learnings, in this context, could be replaced by 'things to learn'. The game provides many things to learn. The distinction for coaches is that learnings are information whilst lessons are events. Not everyone will draw that distinction because culture has changed over time and that difference would have previously been unimportant, but the new language is about promoting the games to players as opportunities to learn rather than simply final judgements of their worth.

20 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

When I hear someone use it, I would love to instantly think "Ah, that person is interested in what students actually get out of education." Instead I almost always think "That person is either out of their depth or a bit of a [censored]."

I'm sure that this is the case a lot of the time. I have many, many of these where incorrect usage drives me up the wall. Things like a bouncing football being the 'personification' of luck, or similar idiocy.

I just think that in coaching, which is an education role, the usage change is more reflective of a change in the perspective of the coaches that are doing it. Coaching used to be about yelling and screaming. It was an active role where the coach told players what to do. Now it's more of a focus on the collective and the importances of process, which leaning is certainly part of. I think the language change has happened alongside that because that distinction was important for the modern coaches who popularised the terms - coaches who played under a different coaching philosophy (Goodwin playing under Malcolm Blight, Hardwick under Sheedy, Beveridge under Northey, etc).

Each new generation moves the language slightly to better reflect the cultural changes that have happened in their time. One of the great strengths of English is the variety of borrowed words it has to say the same thing with subtle difference, like calling someone a porker or a swine - they're both technically a pig but have subtle differences. I think this is one of those instances (and very different from those monsters who describe footballers moving laconically!!).

58 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

great explanation - all makes sense to me now. Thank you AOB.

I will add that this isn't anything official etc, just my particular interpretation and how I use it/see it being used. However there is a pretty clear distinction in the use (from my view) between the two terms.

2 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

A pet peeve of mine, too. 'Lesson' has the sense of something presented and available for use. 'Learnings' has the sense of the use being made.

Our last coach clearly meant the former in his frequent use of the latter. Many on here would say the latter was rarely realised.

One of my pet peeves is people complaining about the word 'learnings'.

In a teaching context, a learning is a student-oriented term that refers to the information by its importance to the student, whilst a lesson is a teacher-oriented term that refers to the information based on its delivery. It's a shift in the education from being teacher-oriented to student-oriented, and our language didn't have a good way of making that distinction as it happened. Students are taught a lesson by a teacher but there's no guarantee that this lesson results in learning. The learning comes from the student.

For a coach, the lesson is unimportant in this context. The lesson is a team kicking 8 straight goals against you. The important thing for the players is the learning, which is an improved knowledge on how to make better decisions.

On 16/11/2025 at 12:34, Pennant St Dee said:

Harper Banfield - father son , just a born competitor, I’ve never seen a desire to win contests and just refuse to give in like I’ve seen in this kid. Reminds me of a young Jack Viney

How is that one going now? The Banfields still keen to nominate as a father-son at West Coast or would he feel safer in the open draft? 😁

9 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

and then told supporters it was a coup.

I’ll take ‘ Things that never happened’ for $400, thanks Alex.

Everyone better get ready to learn small forward!

11 minutes ago, binman said:

Except for that tackle.

That was something else.

I remember the behind the scenes video of the recruiting group watching that highlight on the draft coverage. They all knew it was coming and still laughed with beaming smiles.

So many people having site issues tonight, yet picket fence is unaffected. What a dystopia this world has turned into.

Wow

Rapt. Could not be happier.

It’s happening……

9 minutes ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

Ross Lyon is such a control freak he won't even let someone else present the jumper of whoever they take with pick 50 LOL

* checks draft nomination list for Ross Lyon’s name

1 hour ago, old55 said:

We could do 7 to WC for 13 and F2 so they could get Farrow and we could still get Nairn (or Pickett if Nairn is gone) and then 8 and F2 to Richmond for 4 so they still get Grjl and we take whomever out of Cumming and Robey they don't.

If there are two players we really like at 7 and 8 then we’d be better off just picking them than taking the chance that we’ll get one player we really like and two players we kind of like (pick 13 and F2).

11 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

Consistency of production and contested ball winning.

Consistency of production is a bit of a code phrase. Not many tough, contested ball winners have issues with consistency between games.

39 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

The whole "modern game" thing is overdone by the media too. Finals and premierships come down to clearances and contested ball. Fact. Look at the most recent grand final as an example. The Cats actually won the turnover game. Disposal efficiency was even. inside 50s were close. The key stat that determined the game was Brisbane spanking them in clearances. Clearances just determined a premiership, yet people go on about the "modern game" and speed and inside ball winners not being relevant anymore. Look at the Brownlow winners for the last years:
Rowell
Cripps
Neale
Cripps
Wines
Neale

What do they all have in common? They're all inside ball winners, and they're all impacting matches more than others.

That's all well and good, but a couple of things:

• These are the best inside midfielders in the game. It's like saying that we should pick Schubert at pick 10 because the past 6 Coleman winners were Cameron, Hogan, Curnow, Curnow, McKay and Hawkins. If you think a player is a genuine superstar then you pick him.

• Brownlow medals are won by high possession winners. You select an inside midfielder to win high possession numbers. That's their job.

• Imagine a team where all of those Brownlow winners were playing in the same team. How many extra clearances is Wines going to win in a midfield of Rowell, Cripps and Neale? How many extra clearances is Cripps going to win if he's playing with Rowell and Neale? And how well will a midfield with all 4 of them defend a turnover? The Bulldogs tried this approach when they brought in a surplus of attacking midfield players to an already super strong midfield. It got them a midfield of Bontempelli, Liberatore, Treloar, Macrae, Dunkley and even Wallis. Everyone asked how anyone could beat a midfield that strong .... before they conceded 16 goals to 3 in the GF to lose by 74 points. The reason is that they had all their resources in one area but they were all fighting for the same football. Macrae was shipped out for peanuts. Dunkley left. Wallis was delisted. They cannibalised each other's football.

Winning contested possession is important but it isn't the only thing. You only have finite resources and you work out where to allocate them. If you think Sharp is Matt Rowell then you'd pick him ... or more likely he'd already be well gone by our pick. If you think he's Jobe Watson then you pick him. If you think he's Ben Hobbs then you don't. If you think he's Jye Caldwell then you've got a more difficult decision to make whether you think it's worth using a good pick on a player of that type that needs to take up a valuable spot in the midfield in order to be effective. Or you could take an equivalent talent, like Mason Redman, who doesn't take anyone's valuable position would only add to a team and contribute to winning.

It's a difficult decision. There are just some positions on the field where you can only have a small number of players before the returns on them drop off. The Bulldogs could only put 3 of them in the middle when we went bang, bang, bang. We couldn't play two AA ruckmen in the same team. The situation is different for each team. But if they think Sharp is Matt Rowell or Lachie Neale, then they'll pick him and send Viney or Steele to Casey.

It wouldn't just be Carlton, as there are reports of several clubs trying to shift their first round picks into 2026. They would all leap at the opportunity to get the GC F1 pick.

4 minutes ago, Dee Boys said:

Oh right. Haven’t seen that anywhere in the media.

I'd love to see a source for that because I don't think anyone has seen it.

I'm almost certain that, if that were true, we would already have an extra first round pick (plus some extra picks) in this draft. It would also shock me if that were the case.

16 minutes ago, Young Angus said:

Why are we so into Nairn when no one else seems to be?

(sorry if this has already been discussed)

Because we think he's a better footballer than the other footballers available.

I don't mean to be glib but it's just that different teams rate different players differently. Also, pre-draft rankings don't really mean anything because they are just done by enthusiastic amateurs who have a tendency spend their time looking at the players that get the highest number of possessions and goals in games that are easy to see. As an example, Dyson Sharp has been racking up huge numbers for years, spent most of the year playing midfield in the SANFL seniors, whilst Nairn has been getting the ball 20 times a game in the SANFL Under 18s. Which one of those games do you think a hobbyist in Melbourne is going to notice?

Cal Twomey's Phantom Form Guide: Top draft prospects' July ranking

This is Twomey's guide in July. It's hugely different to his Phantom draft because in July he doesn't have much intel on what clubs think, unlike what he does 2 days from the draft. He couldn't know all the players because he doesn't have those resources nor doesn't he really know what he's looking for. He has Farrow rated at 21, X Taylor at 15, Cumming at 13 and Lindsay and Greeves at 7 and 11.

It's not his fault, it's just that the clubs know what they're looking for and put the effort into looking for it, whilst casuals don't know and have difficulty accessing the means to find it out. As a result they overweight guys who play really good junior football and underweight guys who will play good AFL football.

I mean, who would seriously choose to watch Central Districts under 18s play Norwood on a cold Friday night in July just to watch Cam Nairn slog it out for 10 disposals and a goal?

1 minute ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Good comparison. I'd be a bit disappointed if Nairn was only as good as Hannan above his head at AFL level.

True, he looks better overhead although Hannan was a good leaper (it didn't translate as well to AFL). Nairn is much more conventionally good overhead and appears to have much more feel for the game.

It's only a comparison of style to this point in his career. It's certainly not a comparison of quality as there's no stage of Hannan's career, no matter how shallow the draft might be, where he could have been considered to be worth a first round pick.

47 minutes ago, hillie said:

Nain seems to me to be a spargo replacement. High pick for a role player

They are not similar players. Spargo being a clever, fall of the ball small forward (173cm) whilst Nairn is long striding, high leaping, marking medium forward (188cm).

They won't be playing the same role at AFL level (or indeed any other level). A closer comparison in role (well, at least to this point in his career) for Nairn might be Mitch Hannan.

1 hour ago, Ted Lasso said:

I am really really surprised we aren't keen on Sharp, i feel like he'd make us better right away, offset a bit of what we've lost and the word is he's a brilliant leader.

I don't think there's any doubt on that, it's more dependent on what each club has. I think there are always one paced inside midfielders available (both in draft and trade) but only a limited market for them. Those one paced midfielders need to be really good to justify their spot on a team (like, really good) because of the inherent weaknesses that they have (transition play, defence, versatility etc). If you're Matt Crouch (from 2016-2020) then you are worth it but if you're Matt Crouch (2021-2025) then you probably aren't. It's a fine line.

And that isn't to say that every club wouldn't take Sharp, the question is which available players would you draft before him. In Melbourne's situation, there would clearly be a wide range of players we would prefer to a one paced inside midfielder, particularly when we already have two inside bulls (Viney and Steele), an excellent (but slow) young Langford and a stated desire to play a faster, more dynamic game (reflected in our recent drafting).

I don't think the league needs too many tea leaves to read to know that Sharp is not the type of player we would be interested in at that point in the draft.