titan_uranus

I can't see us winning this without bowling India out for 200-odd. Chasing 250+ on a wearing wicket with night-time swing and Ashwin's spin is going to be too hard for us I fear. The quicker we can move on from the Burns/Wade combo to any two of Warner, Pucovski and Harris (who should have played over Burns), the better.

Bills, Seahawks, Chiefs

For those who like playing this game, there's a photo of Laurie in today's training gallery where he looks to be wearing a jumper with a "1" as the first number? 16, maybe?

Packers, Titans, Saints

Tough week! Going to go Saints, Raiders, Colts.

Ah yes, another opportunity for the usual suspects to do the whole "actions speak louder than words" thing. There aren't any actions we can implement right now that aren't susceptible to criticism. Even with many of our players doing early pre-season fitness work, I'm sure plenty will argue that training means nothing until game day. What's funny about this article is that amongst the obvious fluff is an acceptance from Gawn that we look back on 2018 and consider that a fail. So for those who think the players think it's all going to happen because 2018 happened, this article actually helps you see that's not really what the players think. Yes, the rest is guff, and yes, we all want to see us perform in 2021. But given that's not currently an option, just let the articles roll around and accept them for what they are.

Dolphins, Browns, Seahawks

Happy for Lockhart. M Brown I guess is cheap insurance. Surprised re: Bedford and Chandler.

Just announced. Five Demons sign on for 2021 Bedford and Jordon stay senior, Lockhart promoted to senior list, Chandler and M Brown stay rookies.

I'm neither misrepresenting nor misunderstanding. The AFL wants players to stop running so that there are fewer players at each contest. I get it. I'm just not convinced that it will work. There remains the risk that reduced rotations will only serve to put a premium on runners, with coaches backing in fitter players over skilful ones, and the result being barely any different. There remains the risk that players who have been conditioned for years, if not decades, to run both ways, go full pelt, and leave nothing on the field, will continue to do so (no matter what their coaches say), and find themselves more fatigued than normal. None of it's a certainty, but it's a risk, and that's why I don't view Dangerfield's comments as a conspiracy theory/vendetta but rather just the voice of concern from the playing group.

I agree with the importance of fitness. I don't agree with your comment that "less rotations will see the better players excel in the latter stages of the game". Your comment would be more accurate if it said "less rotations will see the fitter players excel in the latter stages of the game". We have had many discussions on here about the club drafting players who are fit and athletic but not necessarily good football players. This could very well increase that trend: clubs will want players who can run out games, even if they can't kick. As to Dangerfield's comments, the issue the overarching playing group has is that they are being asked to produce high quality exciting football when the AFL has openly stated the goal of these rule changes is to make them fatigued. It's a genuine concern that isn't necessarily motivated by some sort of personal vendetta he has.

Does there always have to be a conspiracy theory? Maybe, instead, he's just doing his job as the president of the AFLPA and representing the majority of players who are concerned about the AFL wanting them to be fatigued/exhausted in matches and the potential for injuries to increase on the back of that.

I reckon the AFL's got this very, very wrong. I suspect most people will want to do anything but sit at home and watch football on a Sunday-Wednesday night next year. If we can get out and about, we'll want to. The success of footy on weeknights in 2020 was wholly abnormal and I don't think will be repeated. And the rolling fixture thing is ridiculous. Start with clubs. How are we supposed to manage training loads or plan for our season if we don't know when/where/who we'll be playing? Fans get shafted too, not being able to plan any more in advance than a month. A floating final month, maybe (with defined match ups and grounds already locked in, just timeslots to sort.out). Not this.

Peak Lewis Jetta would be a great get, but then again peak Lewis Jetta wouldn't have just been delisted. Unfortunately he's past his prime.

There's an opportunity cost associated with every good player. Anyone on a high salary or who cost high draft picks (whether as a draftee or in a trade) can have the same argument made: sure, they're good, but who knows what we could have done with that money/pick. It's a pointless exercise.

Steelers, Dolphins, Packers

Your anti-Lever bias is outstanding but if think May and Lever have "made us worse", I really don't think there's much point having any ongoing debates with you on the topic. As far as I'm concerned, that position is wholly untenable. Our defence, on any fair metric, was superior in 2020 to what it was in 2018, when it was our biggest weakness. The argument that Frost/OMac in 2018 = preliminary final is a classic case of correlation vs causation.

I agree with most of this but not reducing to 16 per side. A possible major side effect of doing that is that, as you've eluded to with rotations, you put a further premium on fitness. You also may well find that the empty space isn't at the contest but is at either end of the ground. Clubs may sacrifice a forward to ensure they can add a number to a stoppage. IMO it's not even close to a guarantee to fix any of the problems we have. Agree wholeheartedly with the two rules you've highlighted.

Why chalk and cheese? Are you suggesting we should be offering him 2-3 years more on his current base money? Why would he sign that? He's signing up to the end of his third year. If he lives up to the promise he's shown in 2020, he'll be asking for a bigger contract. Fair enough.

100-goal seasons are irrelevant to me. Higher scoring football can be exciting. But it can also be boring. Our Round 2 game vs Essendon last year is a prime example. Lower scoring football can be boring. But it can also be exciting. The 2005 and 2006 West Coast v Sydney Grand Finals are prime examples. My point is this: free flowing, high scoring football does not, IMO, always result in a better product. I'm not nearly as interested in the history of the interchange bench as I am the consequences of a change. Some of what you're advocating here relates to the position of players. IMO we're already seeing coaches moving towards holding forwards deeper and further away from stoppages - Brisbane and Richmond this year kept forwards deep to stretch the opposition's zone and defence. If we accept that reducing rotations has the impact you're suggesting (which I don't think is a fait accompli), it runs the risk of unintended side-effects as I've outlined. So I'd much prefer us look at less radical options which could assist in what is supposed to be the problem (keeping play moving and reducing "congestion") without opening pandora's box.

It's great news. I wonder whether those who wish it was a longer contract also bemoan the TMac contract?

How hard is it for a "journalist" like either of those muppets to Google Petracca's contract status before making [censored] up? What does that mean?

It's all about tiring players. The rationale is by reducing rotations, players fatigue, and the fatigue forces coaches to instruct them to run to fewer contests as a result. Maybe it could mean a more skilled game. I've argued above why I think it could also lead to a less skilled game. I don't know what you mean by "less predictable", I don't think AFL football right now is "predictable". And the argument as to "attractive" is questionable - it relies on the assumption that freer flowing football is "attractive", and I disagree with that.

Well why didn't you say that? You don't get to hide behind the "it's constructive criticism" line when all you post is "about 70 of those [games] were gifted".

Coaches and players have spent the last two decades developing a brand of professional football based on rotations. It's absolutely radical to suggest we should diminish that substantially or entirely just so we can tire players out and see what comes of it. Maybe, for example, clubs will turn their focus even more so to fitness, at the expense of, say, goal kicking or skills. The advantage to be gained will be in those players who can run harder/longer than their opponents. I can easily see clubs continuing to draft and recruit athletes with less football skill. It won't matter if you can kick it well if you can get to more contests with fewer rotations. I don't see the need for a second tackler. It's often designed to lock the ball in, so that the player being tackled doesn't drop it or let it out. Ostensibly that's to try to get a holding the ball free, but half the time (or more) it's a defensive move to slow play down. There's no need for it. If a player's already being tackled, leave him be. If it comes out, that's good. If it doesn't, blow the whistle, throw it up and move on. I'm not against a sin bin but it needs to be worked out fully before implementation. Using a video umpire could slow the game down if we're making calls to sin bin minutes after the indiscretion.