Axis of Bob

I think the final step is to change the OP back to its original form and undo all his posts that he deleted. Then people may even stop laughing at him.

I'm surprised that they are cutting them. North have invested heavily in experience to try to pinch a premiership. Personally, I would have thought that, given that they have invested so heavily in experience then they would have held on to them while they are still being productive. They have already mortgaged their future, so why wouldn't they see it through when the premiership race is as open as it has been for a long time? They made the mistake 2 or 3 years ago when they misjudged their list. But there really isn't much to be lost going for an extra year, because the downside isn't very high (relatively .... they're screwed at some point, be it next year or the year after).

It's one of the amazing things about having good players around you. Tyson has a lot of class, but lacks the explosiveness to dominate under close attention. That means that he is a solid player in a poor team, but an excellent player in a good team. As a reference, think Jordan Lewis; good player, but excellent when you can't afford to dedicate resources to stop him. He's playing as the number 3 midfielder in our stoppages, behind Viney and Jones. You have to stop Viney, or he'll kill you. If you can, you should stop Jones because he's more dynamic. But by the time you get to Tyson, you're just going to have to hope that your next best midfielder is going to do more damage than him. That's how teams get better, because Tyson is getting better but will probably keep getting pushed further down the pecking order when players like Oliver, Petracca and Brayshaw start kicking on.

Good, mature win. We did the business early, were challenged and then won it going away with it. Just did the hard work and that was enough to win. Another strong step forward, albeit not as thrilling as last week.

Gold! I love that you went back after 2 hours and edited a post about how you didn't care what people thought .... in order to correct a spelling mistake that someone poked fun you about. And you still misspelt it! And in a thread talking about how you disingenuously deleted and edited your posts after the fact!! It feels like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm! Also, I am quoting your post here just in case you delete it or edit it again.

That isn't what you originally said. Otherwise you wouldn't have gone back and changed all your posts.

picket, one question ...... Why have you edited the OP months after you wrote it and also deleted most of your previous posts in this thread? It's almost like you know that this thread is biting you on the ass and will continue to do so forever. Also it show that you are an untrustworthy poster with no character, integrity nor credibility.

As far as future prospects go, I really like the look of Joel Smith. Excellent pace, good size and very composed.

That was the argument I was making. To say it doesn't matter what their stage development is, is incorrect. There is a good reason why they should be looked at differently, which is why any argument linking them is ridiculous. I think the major difference for you is that I'm making the argument, not Saty.

I haven't read the to and fro of the last page, but the Oscar vs Weideman thing is ridiculous. Oscar is a second year defender who had consistently performed well in the VFL for the past season. He has shown ability in the AFL before, fills a need as a mobile zoning key defender and his will improve filling that role at AFL level. He is replacing someone who is clearly struggling with the new game plan. Weideman is a first year player who is coming off a limited preseason, and barely played at all last year due to injury. He has shown good signs at VFL level, but no more than that. Currently he'd be filling the role of Watts, who is performing well at AFL level. The argument is ridiculous.

Dunn is capable and none of those things you mentioned are really important. But being capable is different to actually doing it. I am capable of baking a chocolate cake. But if my boss asks me to bake a chocolate cake and I keep on making bicycles then my boss probably won't trust me to make him a cake for a while. In the same way, Dunn is capable of playing a role in our defence. But he didn't do it when required and now needs to show the coaches that he can be trusted to do it when required.

The stats don't mean anything in this case because when you are looking at a zone defence the more important thing is that everyone is playing their role in the zone. If he got 100 kicks a game it wouldn't matter because the team as a whole is worse while he isn't playing his role in the zone. The number of kicks he gets becomes irrelevant. If Oscar is playing the role asked of him, then we are better off as a team than we are playing someone who isn't playing their role. It can be hard for older players to change the way they are used to playing footy, so he's probably being given time to work on that in the VFL (where it isn't costing the AFL team goals).

Was there a balance that worked? Yes. Your solution is to find a gameplan that, despite an inexperienced playing group, will score highly whilst restricting the opposition to very low scores. So you either a) want a gameplan that wins each week by 100 points with a mid-range team, or b) you don't know what you want.

Why should he take the number 1 forward? Is that the role he's going to be playing in the AFL? The players have different roles. Playing on the number 1 forward every week may well limit his development, since it would only expose him to a very narrow part of the game.

In comparison to previous years, our balance between defence and attack is much, much better. We have bad weeks due to our inconsistency (which will be a constant this year) but our balance is much better, as shown by our 5 wins already this year. When we let them get easy goals, it's due to problems that occur well before the ball reaches our defence. It's all about pressure around the ball and disrupting the cleanness of the opposition's early possessions. If we don't do that (which our well out-of-sorts midfield didn't do on the weekend) then any team will be able to score. But if we apply pressure then our gameplan is able to limit the damage of the opposition while allowing us to score easily from their turnovers under pressure. It's all about balance.

No it doesn't. Our defensive game starts before then. Where do you position yourself beforehand? How many numbers do you commit to the contest? When do you start running forward? We lost the game because we lost the contest and, when we lost it, we didn't make the possession scrappy enough to put pressure on them. If you look at defending as simply what happens when they have the ball, then just throw 3 players behind the ball to make it harder to score. Sure, you won't win, but you'll be better defensively. Alternatively you can implement a better combination of maximising your chances of scoring while limiting the damage the other way. This means making compromises. Man on man worked in the 80s, but you'll get smashed today.

Furthermore, he was sprinting back from the wing after he had rushed up on Robertson to shut down an attack when Brisbane were out. It forced a turnover, after which Harmes turned it over in the corridor and Oscar was forced to run hard back to the goal square when the defence was caught out of position. He would have been stuffed after repeat long sprints to the wing and back, and it was actually good play when seen in the full context. Check out the replay .... it's at the start of the 3rd quarter.

Seriously? That's your smoking gun? That, after trying to run back to turn a 2 v 1 into a 2 v 2, he didn't win the crumb against a midfielder in a 3 vs 2 contest? If that's your evidence then you are really struggling to build a case.

So your analysis is that they "looked second rate", despite their ability to stop the opposition kicking goals and that they completely eliminated the influence of their tall forwards? Anything more to offer than just, you know, like, umm, the vibe and stuff? You can measure the individual, but it is microanalysis in that individual's ability to play their part in the team defence. Oscar, after starting indifferently, played pretty well for the most part. As a 2nd year key defender, he had 18 touches at 80%DE and played his defensive role. He does very well at positioning himself at the moment and helping out team mates like his brother does. Having two rangy key talls to help with team defence is very handy. He's doing exceptionally well in comparison to where he would have been predicted to be in his development.

Hogan had a very good game, purely based on his work rate. But one thing that this game showed is that a second genuine marking tall forward would really help our forward line. I think we were a little short up forward. Hogan's work rate is one of his best attributes, but opponents can drop off him if he works up the ground too much because there isn't a credible second bomb option inside 50s, so the tall defenders can drop off and know that he can't really move the ball too quickly. Watts' ability to create is fantastic, but he's not a bomb target. This is where a ruck/forward with some workrate, or a genuine tall like Dawes/Weid would help us a lot. It means that Hogan can work up the ground and deliver the ball, but also that his opponent now needs to respect him up the ground to stop him being able to give the other tall opportunities inside 50.

Playing as part of a backline unit, Oscar's team conceded less than 10 goals in a 10 goal win (where the inside 50s were 52 to 45). That suggests that the backline unit performed well. Also, given that the way defend has changed, defending as a team is important and the specific matchups aren't as important. In comparison, the last time Dunn played we conceded 20 goals from a similar number of inside 50s, and Dunn was shifted forward towards the end of the game. The game has changed, and the chemistry of the defence is more important than the ability to defend one on one. Oscar is very mobile, reads the ball very well and generally makes good decision. He positions himself in dangerous spots and helps out his team mates well. The Brisbane talls (everyone, regardless of whether or not they were played as forwards today) combined to kick 1 goal. The two permanent tall forwards combined for 13 disposals in total. Oscar was part of that. This is (predictably) a very poor thread.

Why do you always make this issue about politics? If you are trying to argue this issue scientifically, then political ideologies should not matter. Is it because this is the basis for your own belief that climate change is a hoax is simply an extension of your political allegiance? Or did you settle on the science first, and then just find it was a happy coincidence that it aligned perfectly with your political ideology?

Oh no C&B, Stuie even has you covered on your cheap shots! Ha! How embarrassing!

Ha! You're not making it very hard! (PS- You are losing this argument, embarrassingly, to that 'scumbag'. Please make another appointment with my receptionist on the way out.)

I know you aren't trying to weasel out of it, which is your main problem. You've instead decided to double down on a ridiculous point because you feel threatened. You saying that "we should not be treating Martin like he has murdered somebody, because he hasn't", is like saying that we shouldn't set ourselves on fire because we aren't flame resistant. Yes, that's true, but a) it's obvious, and b) it's not in any way relevant. In addition to this, your phrasing (" Let's not lose grasp of the fact that ....") devalued the actual crime by comparing it favourably with a more serious crime. This was the problem you had, and what you should be saying is: "I phrased it badly, but what I wanted to say is ..... " and then explaining that you found his actions awful and that he should face recrimination for them. Your language later in this post (and other posts) shows that you clearly care about what the other posters think of you. You are embarrassed to be losing an online argument to Stuie, who you and your mates (who, interestingly, have left you largely to yourself during your recent struggles in this thread) use as a whipping boy. You're trying to bluff with a high pair .... everybody knows, but you're just going to keep throwing in chips out of pride. The only person losing money is you.