titan_uranus

Agree. Remember too that, with almost everyone available, our Round 1 side had JVR, Jeffo and AJ in it. AJ took the relief ruck, so we never were down to just Jeffo. Laurie has to be a midfielder given the time he spends there at Casey. I don’t think his speed, size or spread will ever allow him to compete at AFL level but we all deserve to see him played before we confirm that.

If the answer is “there isn’t any other option”, all that does is highlight our poor list management. Goodwin keeps telling us in pressers that we need to develop our younger players “the right way”, but that we’re “in a hurry” to improve. How is that going with JVR? Never plays more than about 75% game time, of which a portion is in the ruck, has been dropped a few times, then brought back in without developing a body of form at Casey. How is rucking him, in his 67-75% of time on the ground, helping him learn how to position/lead as a forward, or work with Petty/Jeffo/Melk, etc? We drafted AJ to take second ruck minutes so his injury doesn’t help, but he wasn’t exactly dominating when he was in the side. Is rucking JVR really the next best option for our future? I strongly believe it isn’t, and that some other inferior second ruck option would ultimately be better.

I have serious doubts over Jefferson but none of us can be 100% sure if he’ll make it until we see him get multiple consecutive weeks to have a go at it. The same principle applies to Laurie - I’d rather see him in the side than Sharp, who is contributing next to nothing. I fully expect to see Petty and Spargo replace Jeffo and Tholstrup, though.

Last week we planned for Viney to play forward. Lasted one quarter before we gave up. This week we didn’t even bother. We gave Lindsay 2 centre bounces and otherwise only used Trac, Clarry, Viney and Koz. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that Goody and the FD believe that putting faith in the same core players is the way forward, and that with time our problems will be fixed - eg I expect to see Petty and Spargo back this week, if fit. The “problem”, perversely, is that we outperformed against anyone’s expectation. Who seriously thought the margin would be 13? Or that we’d lead by 28 at any stage? The worst thing we can do between now and Round 1 next year is to assume that with time, our forward half game will resolve itself.

To me it isn’t the result that defines a pass mark but how we play. No pass mark if it’s another limp first quarter. Seeing us waste a stack of inside 50s and have them open us up on transition will rankle me even if it’s a close loss. But show up with consistent effort and an attempt to take decent shots on goal, converting them at least to AFL average, and that will help even if their talent means they win.

Nothing. No better options available to replace Petty and Howes.

You posted this at, what, 8am? And as always, you can speak for yourself. We’re having a rubbish year but there are only 23 games for us to watch the team we all love (well I assume you do. It’s almost impossible to discern from your posts though). Like Dazzle said above, today’s another chance to see the kids in our team try to bed down their spots. It’s a chance to see if/when our senior core will pull their finger out and work out how to harness our faster ball movement without constant turnovers. And it’s a chance to see whether, with zero expectation, we can repeat our Fremantle and Brisbane upset wins. Plenty to care about. If you can’t muster that up, that’s on you.

No, it doesn’t tell you how much or often a side scores. You can move it as quickly as you want but if your final kick is constantly a turnover, you’ll never score. You are overlaying your own assumption that faster ball movement is conducive to higher scores, but the stat itself doesn’t say anything about scoring.

Not quite, although the correct figures are hardly much better. We’re 6-15 from our last 21 games, and 10-20 from our last 30 (which goes back to when we were 6-2 after beating Geelong at the G last year).

They would have lost 2-3 times in the last month, had they not played us, St Kilda and West Coast. They had their lull of the season coincide with the soft part of their fixture. Right now they’re unbackable flag favourites, although a prelim against Brisbane will be interesting.

It’s just speed. It says nothing at all about scoring, efficiency, winning, turning it over, anything. It is nothing but a measurement of speed.

Unsurprising changes. I’d have liked to see Billings replace Sharp, but I didn’t get my hopes up.

Look, they're on a 5-day break and had a few forced outs through injury, but also: They're now down by 49 points, but probably could be more given they're yet again kicking accurately at 13.6 compared to the Dogs' 20.14 (i.e. 32 scoring shots to 19) For all of their "improvement", the only sides they've beaten are us, Richmond (just), West Coast (just) and Carlton (just). For all of our problems, we have two wins over the top 6 On the live ladder they are 9.5% behind us. And our percentage stinks.

You have a point but I'm not quite with you. Yes, speed of ball movement has to be analysed carefully with a bunch of other factors. Fremantle is a genuine top 4 contender despite being far and away the slowest ball movement side in the competition. We're a bottom 4 contender despite being tied for the fastest ball movement side in the competition. But we have clearly changed how we play because we haven't rated this fast before. Hoyne's said it on his radio gig this year. We used to be slower. Some have said "oh well we're only fast because we dump kick it 50m direct to goal and turn it over". The data in the article you've linked shows that isn't the case. We are the fastest side in the competition when measuring how fast we dispose of it once we get it. We are also bang on AFL average, 100, for "distance to goal", which measures nothing but metres towards goal. So if our speed was being driven by dump 50m kicks, we'd be higher in that third category and probably slower in the others. Of course, speed doesn't say anything about scoring, or disposal efficiency, or turnovers/clangers, or literally anything else. It just tells us how sides try to move the ball, and it tells us that we are moving it quicker than almost anyone. That is a provable way in which Goodwin has changed how we play. We never used to be like this. But we aren't making it work right now. Not only are we not scoring enough, we are getting opened up behind the ball in ways which 2021-23 Melbourne never would. There's no point going this fast if we can't make it work, and I'm not convinced by anyone who says "all we have to do is give this time and it'll come together". We are so devoid of foot skills and forward 50 marking options on our list that there's every chance we just cannot make this sort of speed work.

Agree. But of course we’ll see JVR forced to ruck when Gawn’s off, and probably only play 70% game time, giving him a handicap in terms of trying to actually play as a forward.

Lever’s named in the 18, which I think means he’s in. Presumably it’s JVR for Petty. I’d personally like to see Billings get Sharp’s spot. Not because Billings is the obvious answer to our problems, but just to acknowledge his VFL form and Sharp’s lack thereof.

You know that you’re guilty of doing the same thing you’re critical of here? You’re letting the coach off the hook whilst simultaneously criticising others for letting the players off the hook. Of course, neither argument is right. Our malaise is an all-club problem. Goodwin’s not flying. The players aren’t either.

Your inability to go a week without football shouldn’t mean the 10th best side (ie in the bottom half of the comp) gets to play a final just so you get another game to watch.

How much less of a “shambles” will it be if we bring this in and then at this stage of the year teams 12-18 are out of contention and unlikely to make it to 10th? A marginal reduction in “irrelevant” games. The top 6 premium is a distraction from the truth, which is that we’re rewarding 10 teams with finals, not 8. Imagine we played well all year but finished 7th, on percentage. Instead of getting to play 6th, we instead play some side which struggled all season and in mediocrity finished 10th, in the bottom half of the comp. How would you feel about risking one bad day after 23 rounds and being straight out? How is that “rewarding excellence”? We’re rewarding mediocrity in favour of letting 10th play one good game and all of a sudden skip straight past 7th. As per my previous post - there is such a thing as too much footy. We are killing the goose that laid the golden egg

Exactly (whether sarcastic or not). What happens when a gap between 10th and 11th opens up at this stage of the season? We’ll get someone saying “why not have 11th play 10th for the right to play 7th”. The BBL did this, had too many games and finals. Ratings capitulated. They realised that there is such a thing as too much cricket. They pared it back. There is such a thing as too much footy.

Our injury list is not something we can complain about…but I’d really love to see Sestan, AMW and McAdam in our side right now.

Last night on SEN Hoyne commented on a few of our players, including Salem. Mentioned that Salem is rated 257th in the league on Champion Data’s rankings (take your grain of salt if you want) and is outside the top 300 over the last six weeks. Then added that he takes the 11th easiest kicks of anyone in the comp. No idea how that’s measured but it’s data which confirms a view I’ve had for a while. He’s just going and we need way more from our half backs than what he actually produces. We get seduced by the concept of him being a good kick but he doesn’t actually impact games with his kicking to the standard we should expect. I think he should be seriously considered for a spell at Casey.

If I’m reading the internet correctly, at the end of 2021 Collingwood brought in Lipinski and N Daicos, plus a bunch of others who haven’t achieved much. Which would mean that 21 of the 23 players who took them to a 1-point prelim loss in 2022 were on their list in Buckley’s final season, in which they finished bottom 2. So McRae largely got them bouncing back straight away without major list changes. Obviously N Daicos makes a huge difference but he didn’t, in 2022, change them from a bottom 2 side to a top 4 side. I don’t understand your constant “but this ignores the countless times new coaches have failed to change a club’s fortunes”. Is anyone saying a change of coach is guaranteed to make us better? Aside from maybe some fringe posters, I doubt it. But you tend to come across as “a change in coach is guaranteed to do nothing without major list changes”, which is equally wrong. Collingwood in 2021-22 is an example.

The club’s photos from today’s training on Instagram show some in blue and some in white, with Chandler, Salem, Tholstrup and Pickett in blue and Windsor, TMac, Laurie, Woewodin and Spargo in white. Not sure if that’s reflective of upcoming selection, or just last week’s teams. Or anything at all, really.

Of course Buckley and other media people want it. Buckley’s even admitted on radio that the main benefit is more revenue, because 10th isn’t likely to win a flag. Having 9 and 10 make finals is stupid. Having a side like us, 5-10 with sub-90%, able to snag a few late wins and finish 10th and have the same standing as a side like Adelaide, Hawthorn or Brisbane, who could all easily finish 7th, is stupid. We’re not one year removed from one of the most even seasons we’ve ever seen. Yes, this year is shaping to be less exciting for the run home, but allowing sides to make finals from 10th doesn’t fix that problem. It just renders even more of the H&A season less relevant.