Axis of Bob

I think I still get harrowing visions of Josh Fraser being physically belted for 100 minutes a week every time I see an 18 year old being thrown into the centre bounce!

He's a smart player but he's not the high ball competitor that we need. Jackson has been admirable in this facet since he's come in, which is a string that you could easily imagine him not having as a first year ruck. I think we saw the forward line as being TMac and Weid, with Jackson getting a few games for development and Brown being a solid back up if our more mature bodied keys forwards were injured. We've been fortunate that Weid has been fit and productive, and Jackson has been so competitive as a forward/ruck in his first season (coming from basketball too). Effectively TMac has become the backup to Weid and Jackson, which is a luxury at the moment. I don't think Preuss is redundant because I'm sure they'd rather use him as a battering ram to protect Jackson early in his career if Gawn is injured. The ruck is a brutal slog of a position and Jackson is worth protecting.

I can only assume that you're talking about a cross between Voss and Mitchell ..... because Voss and Mitchell are nothing like each other as players!

Or maybe even another Ginger Baker:

I think what Sparrow does is provide the counterbalance as a defensive minded mid. He lacks polish but not power and he's an excellent tackler. It's similar to what Harmes would do a few years ago. You need players like this to stop the opposition being able to take the ball unpressured out of the front of a stoppage.

Agreed. They seem very confident in the top end talent available and are taking their shot. They've given away quite a bit, both younger and older players. Usually you would associate this with a cleanout of older players to focus on rebuilding with youth, so I'm interested to see what the overall strategy is, or whether there are just some players available that they really, really like.

I think it's probably more about playing him more often in the forward line, than making him a forward. He's a proud player who has won B&Fs and just lost the captaincy. The last thing you want to do is give him implied reinforcement that his value is diminishing in the club. He usually plays lower minutes than most midfielders, so I would be telling him that we want to have him on the ground for longer, so he's going to do more minutes up forward, especially during the condensed fixture and given his importance once finals come around. He'll have success up forward so you'll be able to play him more up forward as the numbers show his quality up there. He's also a player that you want around the footy in big games and at big moments. His power and aggression in stoppages and around the ground is really, really valuable in finals. He was the leading contested ball winner in two of our finals in 2018 (on both teams) and he plays well when the pressure steps up. I'd play him as a 50/50 mid/forward. But in big games he still plays mainly midfield for mine. His power and aggression around the contest wins finals.

The 666 is only a minor tweak that happens for a very short time, but I do think it has an impact. 1) With numbers behind the ball a hack kick forward from a rushed centre clearance is barely worth anything because it will be cleaned up by the extra numbers. We do see quite a few goals from the centre bounce, which is good. 2) It makes it a bit like an onside kick in NFL when the game is reasonably close late in the game. There is an increased ability to score, so there's always the faint hope that you could kick 3 quick goals in the last 3 minutes to win the game, even if you've only kicked 4 goals for the game in total.' It makes the game a bit more chaotic. It's probably the most exciting part of the game now.

What he does do is play 90+% game in the midfield with manic running. This leaves the bench space for other midfielders to be fresher for longer.

I agree generally with @Pollyanna though, as height is important and not many players of Spargo's height make it. If he was 180cm he'd be a lock, rather than still being speculated on. The problem with very small players is their ability to win the footy in contests because they get knocked off the ball easily (look at Daniel). Spargo doesn't really because he's still quite strong (and wins contested footy) and the role he plays doesn't require him to be a big ball winner but rather a clever facilitator. Most of the really small players need a special trick. It's usually speed (Boomer Harvey, etc), but I'm really happy that the game has changed enough that there are roles for short players who are real, genuine footballers (like Spargo and Daniel .... who is probably my favourite non-Melbourne footballer). Pickett is even shorter but has a trick or two .... speed, agility, power, vertical leap, skills, hands, game sense, work rate, dance moves, goal sense, toughness. I hope I'm not underselling him.

Spargo didn't test at draft camp that year due to injury but prior to injury he did a 7.83 second agility test. The draft record is Stephen Hill with 7.77s, and 7.83s would have been 5th best of all time.

I agree that he'd make it for sure as a 6 footer. I think it will be interesting to see how he goes otherwise, because he's a real footballer. In his favour is that he is pretty strong for his height, has agilty and that the game has changed a little. He's an excellent decision maker, good defensively and a real 'gamer', who does a lot of little stuff that helps a team win. So the only real issue is about whether he can win enough of the footy to be worth a constant spot on the team. He's not lightning, but he's good in tight and has agility. He's a good fall of the ball crumber but I think his real value is as a forward half midfielder. He doesn't have the size to win one on one contests, but in that role you don't often have to. You need to push up and defend and then be a link in the chain going forward, as well as being a crumber and pressure player for the long ball. He has great attributes for that, especially in a tough, high pressure finals game where good decisions, toughness and 'doing the little things that it takes to win' are at a premium. He's not the player to bust it open, but rather the type that enables others. He has good endurance, a natural brain, is quite strong over the ball as well as making excellent decisions. I think he probably ends up playing the ANB role minus the ball-in-hand-liability.

There was an interesting post game interview one week with Mitch Hannan. He was saying (paraphrasing) that one of the things that the coaches really like about his game is how well he mans the mark. You wouldn't have heard that 20 years ago!!

The real issue that makes a zone so effective in AFL is the speed of the ball through the air, and the man on the mark. You can cover space because the ball generally travels relatively slowly through the air as well as from decision to kick (ie, a step or two, drop the ball, then swing the leg .... it takes time) and defenders are able to use this time to cover territory. So you don't need as many people to cover the ground against the medium/long pass and instead you can use these extra numbers where you need them .... to cover the long kick down the line. The other big issue is the man on the mark. In order to clear the man on the mark, you need to kick the ball in the air, which means that you don't need someone in your zone covering that spot behind them, or you can force the player to kick away from a particular area. You can see this as the kicks will either be long down the line, backwards, or 90 degrees. The most attacking kick is actually the one 45 degrees inboard, which opens up the play on to clear the opposition zone or a long switch to the opposite side away from the zone. The aim of a team, defensively, is to force the opposition to kick the ball down the line because that's where your extra players will be. It's also the most likely to cause a stoppage (and a 50/50 chance of winning the footy back). They key to defending is to take away time and space, create stoppages and force the opposition to kick to contests (especially outnumbered ones down the line). The aim of a team, offensively, is to get the ball past the zone where you have a 1 on 1 or 2 on 2, giving you an excellent chance of scoring, or getting the ball forward before the opposition has time to set up the zone. You can do the former by going around the zone (switching the ball), going over the zone (by a short kick and then play on, or handball to a runner, and the long kick from there being able to clear the zone) or by going through the zone (either a running link of handballs or a big mark down the line and quick play on). You can do the latter by winning clearances (especially centre clearances) when the numbers are relatively even at each end, or by forcing turnovers (which mean that the opposition can't set up their zone in time). The keys to attacking are winning the clearances and, as EO says, taking positive risks. This means often attacking quickly even when the odds are against you ..... just less against you than they usually are. Examples are carrying the football further, giving a forward handball, a quick play on, taking on the corridor when the opportunity is there (eg. go to one on ones) etc.

I was a mid/forward in suburban footy who got older and went to half back. It was the best thing that happened for me in terms of understanding the game. We can't go back to man on man because you can easily expose it by putting numbers behind the ball, creating a 10 vs 10 defensively and a 2 vs 2 offensively. Elite footballers are good enough that, when they have time and space, they will be able to hit open targets or forwards in one on one situations. Give any half decent forward an empty 50 with his opponent and a straight running kicker and they'll have a shot on goal 80% of the time. If you go one on one, and the opposition only leaves 2 people ahead of the ball, then any half decent clearance will probably end up in a score. On the other hand, a clearance to a 10 vs 10 contest the other side will almost definitely end up in a stoppage. So a game with even clearances will almost definitely result in a loss.

This is hilarious. This is what the tough guys around here look like when they go the full melt and start cancelling memberships etc, usually in the form of an 'Open Letter' about 'accepting mediocrity' ..... .... and it's equally hilarious.

For us to 'lose' this trade, we'd have to think that we would have been able to pick a better player than Kossie with our first pick in the upcoming draft ...... ..... and if Kossie was available with our first pick in 2020, I'd be desperate for us to pick him.

Round 23 last year. 9 games ago. But, given the last 6 months, yeah, it probably counts as a decade! ?

25% extra time. But I'm not arguing why, because only those inside the club would understand that and it's beyond my expertise. I'm just arguing that the game has been played has looked one team that could run and one that couldn't.

The team can't run. It's the difference between a team that can run and a team that can't. 4 day break.

You're trying too hard. I don't believe you.

I'm looking forward to the predictable reprint of this article at the end of the year when the media is drooling over Pickett and North is chastised by the media for 'giving him away'. The football media is just terrible.

Agreed, binman. I think it's very difficult to see how you have benefitted from that when you, like everyone else, go through hard times, good times, challenges to overcome, setbacks in your journey and all sorts of things. You can see your own barriers that you overcome (or didn't) and therefore assume an understanding of what those challenges are for others. It makes it so difficult because the temptation is to say "Well just get over it .... my life has also been hard and I have overcome it." It doesn't invalidate your experience, it just doesn't make it directly applicable to this problem. Everyone's life is hard, which is why it is so hard to understand the impacts of racism on a person if you aren't part of that group. We just need to keep working to stop racism, wherever we get the chance.

And I'm happy that our club keeps calling out racism. Aside from being the right thing to do, it also shows our players (and opposition players/player managers) that we care about our players and are willing to fight on their side. It certainly doesn't hurt when we want to retain/attract players.

Simplifying a country like this is not helpful nor is it in any way an adequate explanation of what has happened. They have issues but it's unfair to label a 300m+ population so broadly, in the same way that you wouldn't say that Australians are, for the most part, as dumb as the day is long because Pauline Hanson is in the senate. It's far more complex.