titan_uranus

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?

He has the 7th best W/L record of current coaches, at 57.10%. The current leader is McRae on 68.92%, then Chris Scott on 68.32%. Then Longmire, Hinkley, Kingsley and Fagan (who is just in front of Goodwin at 57.80%).

Because the asking price is our first rounder (plus more), which is pick 5 in a strong draft laden with midfielders, which we also need. The gap between what we get from Houston (28 years old) and what we get from pick 5 (18 years old) isn’t big enough to warrant the level of outrage you seem to demand of us.

Ridiculous thing to say. Hogan leaving led to us getting May. Without May where would we have been the last 6 years?

We lost to Sydney by 22 didn’t we? We also beat one of the two SF losers and lost to the other by less than a goal. Do we take solace? No. We finished 14th.

If we end up with a Geelong v Sydney GF again then it will mean those two clubs plus Hawthorn, Richmond, West Coast and Collingwood, will have won 18 of the last 20 flags (the Dogs and us being the other two). And then the other two sides won the four previous flags, which mean that we are guaranteed to see that 23 of the last 25 flags (2001-2024) have been won by 8 clubs.

He kicked their only goal in the fourth. Had a poor year by his standards, and probably by any standards tbh. It’s somewhat remarkable that GWS were as good as they were this year despite him being mediocre.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Geelong looked great last week but how much of it was Port not showing up? Their H&A form going in wasn’t that impressive. I would have had GWS favourites next week had they hung on tonight. A bit like us last year, had they avoided the choke and got through with the pressure off I reckon they’d play with more freedom and their best IMO is second only to Sydney.

Not sure about Fagan. To me it was more a combination of Brisbane finding some goalkicking accuracy, the mids lifting in the fourth, and GWS [censored] the bed. Still, he has four prelims in 6 years of contending so he’s clearly doing something right.

This sort of makes my argument. Gibbs had 1 year left on his contract. He would have been traded the year he requested but the deal fell through at the last minute. Papley had 4 years left on his contract, so Sydney held him to it. Trac is more like Papley than Gibbs. Having 1 year left presents the club with the risk you leave the following year for less/nothing. Very different to a player with multiple years left.

We never led Collingwood and we never played well enough against Carlton. GWS were 20+ points up at 3QT in both games, 44 up in the third and 30+ points up in the fourth. At home, against an interstate side.

Won them a few games himself this year but was awful tonight.

That free was bad IMO but they never should have been in that position. 44 up 20 mins into the third and 31 up 4 mins into the fourth.

Surely Brent Daniels didn’t hear the whistle when he took the advantage…