Axis of Bob

I think that the retirement of Mundy at the same time that Fyfe has stopped playing as a midfielder, has had a big impact on how Fremantle operates. Mundy and Fyfe are both around 6'4 (~192cm), so they are big midfielders, and are contest winners with Mundy consistently averaging over 10 contested possessions a game (9 last year) and Fyfe averaging closer to 15 before injury and form issues recently. What these bigger bodies do is take the load off and make it easier for the smaller midfielders in the contest. By comparison, their spot as the top contest winners in the engine room has been taken by Serong (5'10 - 178cm) and Brayshaw (6'0 - 183cm). They're both excellent players but they don't have the physical size to make the game easier for everyone else. Serong averages 13 cp/g this year and Brayshaw 10. The other midfielders are O'Meara (6'0), Aish (6'0) plus whatever's left, but none of them are big midfielders. Brodie helped a lot when he was in form at points last year but has been struggling (and dropped) this year, Fyfe and Mundy could always make the job of others easier around the ball but they can't anymore and now they just can't get any drive from the contests. It's a bit like the Neale, Zorko, Lyons midfielders from Brisbane, where they always struggled in the tough games because they got beaten up with size around the ball. They've picked up some big midfielders in the last few drafts (Johnson and Erasmus) but neither have shown so far that they're going to be the answer. They also struggled last year to get consistent contests in the forward line from their big guys, and with Lobb and Logue moving on they are getting almost no aerial contest inside 50. Taberner has always been more of a leading forward, Jackson isn't that sort of player and Amiss is a kid. Freo are going to have to learn how to turn slow inside 50s into scores, as that's how they're set up at the moment. They shouldn't be as bad as they are at the moment but they've got an oddly constructed list with some big gaps that they need to be filled with few resources to fill them. It'll be an interesting journey.

Our ability to put speed on the ball in transition and use the space available had been really noticeable. It's a good observation.

The location of the kick inside fifty (ie, boundary vs corridor) doesn't have anything to do with the kick inside 50, it's about the events that lead up to it. If the ball is moved really quickly and the kicker is confronted with free options or well spaced one on one options, then the probability of kicking a goal is very high from making an aggressive kick, usually deep or in the corridor. So you attack aggressively because you are so much more likely to kick a goal than of conceding from an opposition's counterattack. If the ball moves slowly, such as being held up by the defence or marking a kick from a stacked defence, then the odds of scoring a goal are really, really low. So low, in fact, that it's actually far more likely that the opposition will score on the counterattack using the corridor or the space on the far wing. In this situation a kick into the corridor is actually a bad move because you give the opponent such a big chance to score, despite the distance from goal. As an example, look at where the Dogs kicked to when they turned it over before Melksham kicked his goal. In this circumstance, you are more likely to outscore your opponent when you kick to the pocket because, whilst you have only a relatively small chance of scoring, conceding on a counterattack is almost impossible. You can score from the entry kick, you can score from a subsequent stoppage or you can score from turnover when the opposition kick out to your numbers. The aim of football isn't to kick goals, it's to kick more goals than the other team. Against a set defence you attack defensively but against an unset defence you attack aggressively.

KFW has competed hard in the ruck, which is all I wanted to see.

JenniferLawrenceOK.gif

The game day thread never fails to disappoint.

You don't think the coaching staff know what they are getting after 7 years? You think the extra month of early pre-season training is going to give them some sort wonderful new insight into him that the previous 7 pre-seasons have not provided? He hasn't been gifted 2 years, the football department have decided that they want him on the list for the next 2 years because he's better than any alternative that they could have drafted.

Go back to some of his previous ratings of drafts. It’s pretty funny reading. For example, in 2018 he rated Carlton a D as the worst of the draft because they selected Sam Walsh over Lukosius and Rankine. He then ranked Brisbane an A because they selected Connor McFadyen and Ely Smith, and Essendon an A for Noah Gown, Irving Mosquito and Brayden Ham. I know it’s easy to cherry pick but these articles mean less than nothing given that there is no object measure of talent. And, without being too harsh, Doerre’s ratings probably mean less than that.

I can’t begin to tell you how much I enjoy reading posts which use data and, particularly, references for that data!

Really like him as a player from what I've seen, so very happy with the pick. Really controls the space in marking contests will, so he takes some fairly unconventional marks when out of position. It's an unusual skill and it reminds me a bit of Tom Lynch in that regard. He's obviously a lot more mobile than Lynch but also not at the same size (nor running capacity). He'll take time to build up size and running power but he has all the raw tools (and tricks) that you need to play as a key forward .... even if that may not be right away.

I understand that, I was more pointing out that an offer for us to usurp that would have been pretty steep. Probably something like 37, F1 and F2 for the Sydney pick.

There's quite a difference between 27 plus the 2nd and 3rd rounders of a 'rebuilding' Hawthorn, and whatever the equivalent of from a contending Melbourne.

This has some strong country Grand Final presentation vibes.

Massive effort to give up the first two and keep them goaless after that. Dominated the last three quarters. Held their shape even when under pressure. Just an awesome effort. Also, Tyla Hanks is probably the best pure footballer in the league. Absolute jet.

The media will also always use star players as a comparison because they're the players that people know. The comparison that Sheahan was previously making for Jefferson was Harry Jones. It's no surprise that they're now using Max King as the comparison, since most casual fans would say 'who the hell is Harry Jones?' It's why every year some slowish player with great composure is compared with Scott Pendlebury but not many compared with Harley Balic or Dom Tyson. It's more about giving the casual fan a general idea of the player's style, rather than their quality.

The other scenario is if you think the player/s you rate at 19 is vastly better than the one you think will be available at 37. If we have players that we rate as being worthy of pick 13 and think that one/some of them will be available at 19, then we will effectively be trading for another pick 13. And, of course, some players are far more valuable for some teams that they will be for others. What do you think the likelihood of Freo selecting a ruckman or Carlton selecting a key forward with a first round pick? Conversely, imagine that scenario with Freo picking the tall forward and Carlton picking the ruckman? There will be some players that complement our playing group better than others, so we will rate them higher than others. There's certainly an element of guesswork about what players will be available. Part of trading up is to remove a lot of that guesswork and you will pay a premium to remove that risk. We're lucky that we have a lot of good players and we can really focus our recruiting on getting a few quality players rather than needing to take as many picks as we can to get talent into the club. That means that the premium to target specific players is worth more to us than it will most other teams.

I think the difference is that when you are trading up the order you aren't trading for a draft pick, you're trading up for a specific player or a couple of players. A first round pick next year gives you a wide range of potential outcomes, including that the players available at your pick aren't the types of player that you're particularly interested in, whilst using it on a player now reduces that uncertainty and (theoretically) improves the likelihood of that player succeeding in your system. If we have a player that we are confident will be around at 19, and we are super keen on getting them because they fit with our team/system/whatever, then I'd have no hesitation in trading a future first round pick +37 for pick 19. Because at that stage we aren't trading a future first and pick 37 for pick 19, we're trading it for player XYZ who we want. It will depend on the quality of that specific player (and needs, team timelines, etc) as to whether the trade makes sense or not. If you're just looking at it mathematically (future pick 18 + 37 > pick 19) then it won't make sense .... except that the players themselves aren't draft picks, they're unique individuals. I'd happily trade one of our future first round picks for a player we really want. We will at least be guaranteed of selecting a player we really want, rather than just the possibility of doing so next year.

So your vibes are based on a player we drafted 12 years ago by a different recruiter and a recruiting department that probably has nobody remaining from that time? By my calculation, the only person in our football department from 2010, when the Cook selection was made, is Max Gawn who was drafted in 2009. It may be strong in your mind as a supporter but I don't think it is relevant at all.

I'll be happy for Isaac Keeler! 😁

I have only seen a few games of his (plus the highlights) so I have some knowledge but certainly not enough to be an expert at all - which is a caveat to the opinions I have on this year’s draft class. This is intended to not try to deceive anyone and also give context to any opinions I have …. those opinions might even be wrong! 😁 Based on those caveats, I gave my opinion from what I’ve seen. It’s not a matter of his body shape, it’s a matter of his competitiveness in the contest. Jefferson is a constant aerial threat and, in aerial contests, very competitive, brave and composed despite his current size. That’s what you want from a big man in our system. I’m not sure Keeler has that willingness to fight in the contest, which is why I wouldn’t draft him. I’d rather draft a player that I thought had some chance of playing a role in our team. There are a few differences though. Jackson is super competitive around the ball and fights to win the ball or defend. He isn’t currently able to affect aerial contests much but it’s a skill thing rather than a mentality. Also the small man skills are very different ….. Jackson has small man skills the equivalent of a small man, not just ones that are ‘good for a big man’ like Keeler. Jackson also competes in the ruck. But, of course, maybe I’m wrong.

I’ve only seen very little of this year’s draftees, but I don’t think I’d pick him with any selection and I would be shocked (given how Melbourne play footy) if he was on our list of potential draftees. As a big guy he has some good little guy skills …. but that isn’t the role we’d need him to play. We need big guys with good big guy skills, players who compete in the marking contest and compete in the ruck contest. He’s a small player stuck in a big player’s body. I’m sure someone could take a chance on him …. but it wouldn’t be me. Apparently not Adelaide either.

You're ruling him out as a player based on 2 minutes of loosely brought together junior highlights?

So ….. no?

Could anyone please post where they found this speculation? AFAIK, there isn’t anything in it beyond the circular rumours of the internet.

Ok boomer.