Axis of Bob

This is possibly the biggest load of rubbish I have read on Demonland. Not so much the message (which is near on indecipherable) but the actual collection of words in the screen. I assume you are attempting to say that because Jesse hasn't been traded to WA yet it means that he can still get traded WA, and the way to fix that is to trade him to WA. It's like the People's Front of Judea, if they were all high.

McClure has a Carlton source, which is how he knew about McGovern. He's just extrapolating his 'Mcgovern to Carlton' info into 'Freo is not getting McGovern'. The Hogan add-on is just a guess because it will get clicks.

It will be really interesting and I agree. We are so lucky in that we have 3 assets that other teams would rip up their lists for, but we need to massage around a bit to make it work. It's like winning tattslotto and then noting that your portfolio is now overly skewed towards cash! Hogan is our best forward, but would also be our best defender. McDonald was a defender and Weideman would also be an excellent defender. At least they all play the game differently. They other thing to ponder is that we have played more even numbers ahead of the ball in the time after we used 3 talls, so there's a chance that they would work better with each other now. Plus Weideman is a much improved player since then. Weid had also taken many of his marks in packs with other talls, which provides a different option to the wrestling of Jesse and Tom. I think we'll play 3 tall forwards next year and then set up the team around them to make it work. I imagine there will be less focus on the talls to mark and more on the defensive actions, knowing that we have more marking options. I have no idea on how we will use them all, but it's going to be a really interesting discussion. I think 2018 was a year we could get away with it, given that Weid is developing, but he won't wear that next year too.

Looking at the stats of McDonald when Hogan is playing vs not playing: McDonald’s scoring shots have gone down, his disposals have gone down, his contested disposals have fallen dramatically (7 down to 2.5), has not taken any contested marks, taken less marks inside 50, kicked the ball inside 50 less, etc. His stats have fallen off dramatically since he’s had to play on the opposition’s best defender. Conversely, Weideman’s stats have improved. In fact, they are better than McDonald’s. Weid, the last 2 games, has averaged more disposals than Tom in 2018, more contested marks than Tom in 2018, and more contested possessions than Tom in 2018. Perhaps the question shouldn’t be “Hogan + McDonald vs McDonald + Weideman” but rather “Hogan + McDonald vs Hogan + Weideman”. ?‍♂️

Are you saying that Hogan = Kelly + Lynch? We spent 2 first round picks on Lever, and he was uncontracted. You’d have to spend more than that on Kelly alone. Plus Lynch is RFA, so draft picks aren’t important. If we got pick 5 and Cerra for Hogan, we’d give them straight to GWS for Kelly. Then we have give Lynch a vault of cash .... which we can’t afford after paying Kelly who got that to re-sign with GWS on a long term deal. You haven’t thought this through.

Before Hogan was injured he took 24 contested marks and McDonald took 28. Since Hogan has been out of the team, McDonald hasn’t taken any, while Weideman has taken 6. It’s funny what happens when you have to play on the number 1 key defender each week.

I’m pretty sure that doesn’t apply here.

Actually the original post declared that we should trade him for 2 first rounders. But the thread shouldn’t be closed just because it’s a stupid thread. It should be left open as a shrine to the dim wittery of many football supporters. Trading the best young key forward in the game for draft picks when we are about to push towards a flag ..... that is just stupid. Free speech allows you to say many things. But once your view is out there then it can be derided by anyone. Trading Hogan for draft picks is an opinion worthy of derision.

Who would give us a better overall option than a proven 23 year old marquee key forward? The idea of trading him for something 'better' is moot, since that would have to be so enormous that it would croke another footy club to the point that there would be no point doing the deal. Plus, even if we trade him for 5, Cerra and another first round pick, we're trying to win premierships in the next few years. This is going to be Hogan's prime and the draft picks will still be developing. People give the goals stats, but Hogan's best game for the season was probably in a loss against Richmond. Hogan plays a different style to TMac, who is lower possession and higher goal kicking. Hogan plays much better than Tom when further from goal and is a far better goal creator. As a key forward, Hogan averaged over 18 disposals and 2.4 goals a game and Tom 15.5 dpg and 2.8 goals. We have a proper competitive advantage, and people want to trade that away?

I expected to log into this thread to find that my post had earned me a suspension! ?

Why not? He is a talented ball user, leader, a great size and provides us with some composure in a young defence. Former early draft pick that I think can flourish with a change of club.

I love looking back at the draft videos of players once you have a broader perspective of their development. I especially like Oliver’s because he was such a fatty!

It doesn’t matter about the other countries because the punishment handed out will be done in the best interests of the Australia as a sporting nation. It may well be that other countries accept cheating from their sporting teams but, culturally, Australians don’t. Check out what happens after every sledging episode, with people arguing for and against, especially with those who have played being mostly for it in the right context. And what happens with ‘spirit of the game’ things, like walking. These are wishy washy things that are not specifically illegal, so it comes down to gamesmanship. Even whacking players in Grand Finals, which is exploiting the rules. Then check out what happens when Essendon is done for drugs .... year long suspension and almost everyone (except Essendon supporters) say “good riddance, drug cheats”. And in this episode it has been universal condemnation and an appetite for a fair and substantial punishment. This is different in other countries, where the deliberately cheating is not viewed as badly as in Australia. But they may also view things like sledging much worse than us. There are cultural differences between the playing nations, which is why the ICC is so weak on ball tampering. We are a country of laws and the rule of law is held much higher here than almost anywhere. So pushing the boundaries within the law is often accepted, but deliberately breaking the law is not. They need proper suspensions to show the public that the team still represents the values of Australians because, as of a few days ago, they do not.

Warner's runs are totally irrelevant. If he's there to "shut up and make runs" then he shouldn't be VC. That's CA's mess. The players and coaches need a strong blueprint for what the team should look like (culturally), provide support to the players to change and put in place people in key positions who live those values already. It's not a short term fix.

It's the risk CA has taken in giving a relatively young Smith, an ultra-competitive and single minded player, captaincy without providing the support around him on the field to temper him. Instead they have made Warner vice-captain, who is older, hot-tempered and prove to overstepping the mark under pressure. Smith is being guided towards this end of his personality rather than counterbalanced with a calm, rational leader. I can see how this happens in that team. The conversations are about reverse swing, SA's success with it, linked to Faf's history of tampering and how they need to do it to make it a level playing field. If they keep agreeing with each other then eventually it seems acceptable. But with a wise, calm, older and respected head on the team that conversation gets shut off before it gets anywhere near that point. If a young Michael Clarke (purely as a hypothetical) starts down that path then Hussey and Gilchrist quickly tell him to pull his head it, and the train of thought ends there. I'm sure Smith could well have been a fine captain, but there's nobody in the team to tell him to stand up to him when required. The only senior players are Warner and SMarsh. Warner will egg him on and Marsh has never been a leader. As a result, Smith has had too much say, whether he's been right or wrong, and has never been able to learn how to lead properly. While Smith is ultimately responsible for the ball tampering, Cricket Australia has failed him badly. I hope that this sad day can be used as a catalyst for genuine culture change within the team for the betterment of Australian cricket.

I think there are two reasons: 1- They are being ranked in relation to their peers, but their peers will develop more in their final year (or the latter half of it). As a result, any development of the injured player is invisible to recruiters, while the uninjured players continue to improve. So the recruiters need to extrapolate any potential development to be able to rank them equally with their peers. This represents a risk, especially for a player like Spargo who may have developed earlier than others. 2- It may actually be a really nasty injury that could affect the player. Burton was, Stringer was, Lever could have been (see Menzel). I agree that shoulders are unlikely to, but there are others. Will they be the same player again? Probably, but it is a genuine risk when you have invested a top 20 pick and a lot of money. I think the first is more relevant to Spargo. When you are 17, a year of development is a lot. So he may have been an earlier ranked player with his peers before he was injured, but the rest are now better players than Spargo was before he was injured. The risk is in the unknown.

...... you have a terrible, terrible memory. First of all, Cam Hunter was 6 foot 1, while Spargo is 5'8. Hunter was very light for his height, unlike Spargo, who is a nuggety player. Hunter was a high flying aerialist with psychotic courage, while Spargo is a fall of the ball player. Hunter was a bad kick, while Spargo is an excellent kick. Hunter was a flanker who played above his height (but lacked 'little man skills'), while Spargo is a midfielder or small forward. Hunter was drafted based on size and athleticism without form, while Spargo is a footballer who has been dominant at junior levels. Hunter was a massive smokey who only played APS, while Spargo has been well known for many years playing at TAC and carnival level. But you played footy in the same team as him ..... like my brother. You may have been in the same team 15 years ago, but you are either terribly forgetful or a terrible judge of players. Spargo and Hunter are completely different types of footballer, both in playing style and how they were drafted. As I said before, I would struggle to find a worse comparison.

I could not think of a worse comparison. You obviously didn't watch Cam Hunter play at all.

Pace and competitiveness. It's definitely a theme.

Dangerfield was also a free agent. Geelong could have got him for nothing, but instead paid more than we did for Lever.

Fully agree. We haven't been in this position for a while, but now is the time to use good picks to get guaranteed value in important positions. More kids doesn't help us much anymore. If we picked Lever at pick 4 with 3 years of development, then we'd be very excited.

Two things. We could drag it out, but getting a deal done early means that we can do other deals too. We have consistently shown players and player managers that we are a club that can get a deal done. That makes us a more attractive club for players. It's probably post of the reason why Lever chose us.

I think Petracca is going to be the better player, but I'd be reluctant to go too hard against McCartin. He could easily be an excellent player. If you want a comparison, I think Josh Kennedy is the right one for Paddy, in terms of style. Straight line, hard leading, contested marking forward inside 50. His output was similar at the same stage of their careers. I'd rather Trac, though. We don't desperately need McCartin for structural reasons, and Trac is a special talent.

A lot of talk about the quality of Oscar McDonald. I think it's important to see how the development of key defenders is generally different to most players. Oscar gets pushed around a bit by the really powerful tall forwards (Hawkins is one) but he competes a hell of a lot better with them than almost every key defender of his age and experience. At this point in their careers (just turned 21 years old): Frawley was playing as a medium defender (on smaller marking players), Tom Mc was playing as a back up to Frawley and Dunn, Harry Taylor was not yet drafted Brian Lake was still undrafted (and was still Brian Harris!) Heath Grundy had played 11 games in 3 years as a forward. His games were ... underwhelming. Ted Richards has played 12 games at Essendon as a forward. Very underwhelming. Josh Gibson had not yet debuted (and would not debut for another year too) Ben Stratton had not yet been drafted. Zac Dawson spent that season and the following season in the Hawthorn VFL team. Sam Fisher had not yet been drafted Ben Rutten had played 2 games as a struggling forward. Dale Morris was still a year away from being drafted in the rookie draft. Rance had just rejoined the team having spent the majority of the previous year in the VFL (he was being kept of the AFL side by Luke McGuane, Kelvin Moore and Will Thursfield!) Scott Thompson was still not yet drafted Sam Rowe was still 4 years away from being drafted! Jeremy McGovern was still a year away from being drafted Now, far be it for me to labour a point, but it takes key defenders a lot longer than most players to develop into AFL standard (even the exceptional ones) because their job involves being able to physically compete with big, physically strong opponents. Oscar does this very well at this stage, given that he is not yet fully physically developed. He is tracking waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy ahead of where he should be at this stage. We're very lucky there.

Many people are talking about McCartin like he's a bad player. He is not. McCartin is an excellent contested mark and tracking pretty well for a young key forward. He's tracking a lot better than Josh Kennedy was at this point, who is probably the type of player that McCartin is most similar to. Just because we have a great talent like Petracca, doesn't mean that you need to rubbish McCartin to justify it to yourself. We are not the basket case we were. Petracca being good doesn't automatically mean the alternative is bad.