titan_uranus

It’s the same issue with Owies too, albeit he’d cost a lot less than Stringer. We were 13th for average tackles inside 50 this year. Funnily enough though, Sydney was 15th.

He’s worn four straight finals losses and still has a better finals record than Scott. For the record, of current coaches with at least 10 finals, he also has a better finals record than Hinkley and Lyon, and after next week will be equal with the loser of Fagan and Longmire. But he will trail the winner of Fagan/Longmire (who will have only passed him this year), as well as Hardwick and Clarkson (both over 60%) and Beveridge (53%).

Well, there is at least one. Finals W/L - Goodwin is 50%, Scott’s 46.67%.

They’ve done very well to cover their three best 23 injuries (Coleman, Doedee, McCarthy - I’m not sure Gardiner is best 23). But whilst they’ve had those injuries, they’ve also had a great run with the rest of the list. They have 11 players who have played every game this year, and I think a few others have only missed 1-2 games.

Essendon and GWS made the finals in 2021, and the Dogs obviously were the Dogs that year. They might have been "shock" losses, but the "shock" was because of how good we were, not because they were awful sides. We beat Adelaide by 41 points in that game, not sure how "meh" that was. But regardless, FFS Sydney lost in Round 21 this year by 112 points to the side they just beat in the prelim and are now the favourites in the Grand Final. Premiers can have bad games in the second half of the season without it being a sign of a problem or trend. At any rate, last year Collingwood played their two worst games of the year, both at the G, in the final five weeks (losing to Carlton and Hawthorn). Didn't stop them. Looking for ways to suggest we might not have won finals at the G in 2021 is a bit like how you have in the past used the phrase "rent-a-crowds" - it undermines our achievement.

I'm fairly confident if we'd made a prelim in 2022 or 2023 but lost it, the line would be "we failed to even make a Grand Final". The bar is always set differently on here for Goody as compared to any other coach. No [censored]. I said that in the post. We all know that we failed in 2022-23. The question for you is how much worse is that failure than Geelong winning just one final, and not even qualifying in the other year, in their two post-flag seasons. Remembering, too, that Collingwood didn't make the finals at all this year. I reckon Goody would be criticised on here if he had Scott's prelim final record of 3-6, which is 2-6 since the 2011 flag.

Sweet lord what game were you watching last night.

Why is this so triggering to so many? Chris Scott is one of the greatest coaches of all time. That is impacted to some extent by Geelong being extremely well run off field and having an inherent competitive advantage by being in a regional town where a lower cost of living means players can take lower wages to help “beat” the salary cap. Doesn’t make Goodwin any better or worse.

Fagan and Hinkley have never won a flag, whilst Longmire is 1-4 in Grand Finals. If Goody had their records, he’d be criticised for it - the same way he’s criticised for the last two years’ of finals failure (how many on here bite back the moment someone says we finished top 4 those two seasons?). Also you go on to acknowledge that we overperformed this year - doesn’t that show you that Goody can indeed coach when things go against him?

These are separate things. We all want the true MCG GF experience. We all want the GF parade and the day itself (and prelim weekend too). I get the sense though that many cannot separate that desire from the 2021 flag being in lockdown and so start saying things like “it was a fluke” or “we hit a purple patch in the finals” (neither of which are remotely true - we finished 1st with a 17-1-4 record and beat every other club at least once except Collingwood), or that we wouldn’t have won it in a “normal” season, or whatever. Any such commentary IMO cheapens the flag and IMO is unwarranted. As for the argument that we might/would not have won it at if the finals were at the G, yes it’s true that in 2022-23 we flopped four times over, but I’d argue that in 2021 we were fitter and healthier, and in the best form going into September of those three years, and didn’t have any baggage or expectation as we did in 2022-23. I’m confident that we’d have won it anywhere that year. Obviously we’ll never know.

Agree with the majority sentiment on here - Grundy was awful last night and has been mediocre, at best, for most of the season. His inability to compete with Sweet was one of the only things which kept Port in the game through the middle two quarters. It must be tough for Taylor Adams to be missing out when he was in better form than Grundy but can’t get into their stacked midfield. Don’t get me wrong, I like Grundy as a person and I really respect how he handled himself from Collingwood to us and then to Sydney in 13 months. If he wins a flag, good on him. But there’s not a shred of me which wishes we didn’t trade him - he’s in no better form than he was when we dropped him last year.

Right. So do we refrain from criticising Goodwin for coaching issues when we know there is a coaching group? Or Taylor if there are drafting issues when we know he doesn’t make decisions on draft picks in a vacuum? That others share responsibility for list management doesn’t shield Lamb from criticism for list management issues, given he’s the manager.

If he were in line for the B&F perhaps the club would have made more of an effort to move the B&F? (Not a rhetorical question, a genuine one - when was the date first announced?)

I suppose I'm "absolutely clueless" then. Is it "clueless" to query Lamb's involvement, and therefore his overall performance, in the following: The decisions to bring in McAdam, Fullarton, Billings and Schache? (I'd add Hunter too but, to be fair, his 2023 was good) The balance of our midfield (i.e. did we go into 2024 with enough depth in terms of who can play midfield outside of Trac, Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw and Sparrow - when Gus went down, did we have enough cover?) Players who appear to only have one role (e.g. what can Sparrow offer other than being a mid, and is that lack of flexibility appropriate given our planned reliance on Trac, Oliver and Viney as mainly mids going into 2024)? The lack of instinctive key forwards on the list (leaving us to fashion key forwards out of key defenders in Petty and Turner) The lack of any ruck depth The decision to take a key forward in the mid-season draft when we had pressing issues in the midfield given what had happened to Gus and what was happening to Oliver The decisions to re-contract players like Schache and Laurie before they had established themselves on-field - particularly given, as it turned out, Schache played one game all year (yes, this is hindsight, but wasn't exactly hard to foresee) Nothing's black/white. People get measures on a whole host of metrics. Is it not possible that Lamb's done well in some regards (e.g. getting our core talent contracted through for years) but poorly in others? Or are we all [censored] and only you guys get it?

Given he's a Red Bull ambassador, I wouldn't be surprised if he has a contractual requirement to do this camp every year even if he didn't want to do it, and so this could all be nothing more than a scheduling clash. Sadly, it's a bad look and the media love that.

What's not correct is the insinuation that "all of that" was to avoid board candidate being interviewed by Gerard Whateley, as if that was the only thing Lawrence sought in what was left of the dispute to be decided by the judge. The combination of his desire to have the disparagement clause removed (having rejected a compromise offered by the club for reasons which made no sense to the judge) and the ability to campaign on all forms of media (including social media) was to have a far wider impact than simply being interviewed by someone. What's lost in the "but the judge accepted his position on that was reasonable" argument is that the judge also accepted the club's position on those issues is reasonable too. It was, and remains, reasonable for the club to have decided that we don't want board candidates going on radio, or TV, or online, and effectively mouthing off at the club, its directors, and other board candidates.

Without commenting on the cost that has been incurred to get to this point, and the impact that has on the club, the bold is incorrect and you know it Hawk. You have substantial "high ground" against the club after its highly misleading and disingenuous email following the judgment, but comments like this erode it.

I see you’re clearly not familiar with DeeSpencer’s work on Fritsch.

Lions, 49ers, Chiefs

I’m very much in favour of exploring the Matt Kennedy situation. We need more midfield power. He wants that opportunity. But he can genuinely play forward which helps with rotations.

And two of the last 17!

I would have thought W/L is one metric, amongst others. Goody has a better finals W/L record than Chris Scott. Doesn’t make Goody a better coach but it’s still a relevant metric. Flags are obviously another relevant metric.

Chargers, Niners, Seahawks

Correct. Hadn't missed a game from Round 10 last year until he got injured this year and needed surgery which ended his season. Lachie Keeffe, who hadn't played to that point, took his spot as the third tall/back-up ruck (with Hogan and Cadman the other two).

I don't understand this at all. Firstly, why are there players within NGAs who are ineligible to be drafted under the NGA rules? How does that happen? Secondly, why is this only being reported now, as if it's a new thing when the journalist, Cal Twomey, said on X that it's not new at all? If it's not new, why did he just write about it? If it is new, why?