Engorged Onion

Whats the general consensus on how the midfield would go if we didn't have Gawn (or Grundy) 'dominating' hitouts... would we win more clearances, due to an ability to shark the opponents hitouts?

Bandi, my old mate - what do you think the selection logic is? Serious Question.

IF HE DOESN'T DO A PUBLIC APOLOGY - DELIST HIM! 😈

Mmmm, you don't think both parties came to an arrangement 6 weeks ago (if not longer)... they're not NOT discussing with him, nor are the 'signaling' to him.

(I know I know... nostalgia) I used to drive up from Portland (4.5 hours) to the MCG perhaps twice a year, with my father to watch, some fine work by Lovett, Tingay and Stretch.. anyway, watching Darren Cuthbertson in the curtain raiser was often the highlight of the trip! Bring em' back!

I havent listened to SEN for a decade... so 😁

Context of each year doesn’t matter…Unless we get a threepeat, we’ve failed? And the team has let ME down. Am I doing it right? *sorry for the condescending tone.

I love your overt cynicism (and probably subscribe a touch to it) -any thoughts on why they don't do this EVERY year?

That's every teams ideal @Boots and all - rarely is it like this due to defensive structures, zone defence and aerobic capacity of all players. That's why there is ostensibly ZERO one on one defence any more, unlike the 'halycon' days of 1980's and 1990's (or whenever any of you reading this was a child, pre 2000). 😁 So if it's true that it is the ideal, then, do you try to manufacture the ideal, or do you accept that you cannot really manufacture it due to those factors listed and look at other strategic ways of of winning, where an open forward line is unlikely. Looking at a range of metrics of what give you a greater percentage of chances or goal scoring opportunities (irrespective of the outcome)... closer to the boundaries and hard shots, or aim for the middle and as one consequence, get cut up on the rebound... These are the things that the great minds of the game (including Goodwin, much to the chagrin of some) ponder, whilst looking at the list in its current form and how do we get the best from a list, who have had much of the forward line either injured, or returning from injury...

Chaos was the reductionist terminology used. It’s not chaotic (Hardwick and co would have loved that phrase), as the interpretation is that there is no real strategy. that is patently false. there was structure AS well as move it toward at all cost mentality - or as I’d put it - a territory game.

In my opinion, It’s Fugazi. It’s a piece masquerading as insightful, and fails to highlight the times we hit people on the chest, (see all games). We have a greater number of I50’s typically due to our setup. Thus the scoring rate goes down due to density. Melbournes approach, staves off quick scoring out the back for our opponents By the very nature of a tactic, there are always ways to counter it, and Goodwin aims for risk minimisation - it’s why we have been in the top 4 for 3 years, and with the exception of Essendon this year all games have been lost by less than 2 kicks and we typically comfortably have more scoring shots. This is the risk vs the reward. 5 years ago none of us in our lifetime could have dreamed of our consistency… and we have it, yet some are not quite nuanced enough to see why there is the approach taken FWIW - The media highlights these things as a simple remedy… and it ain’t that simple because they don’t delve into the costs of changing strategy. *there needs to be 2 acknowledgements, one the quality (of all) opposition, which of course being the national league, is really very good, thus their structures are great. secondly, our forward line has had to be restructured numerous numerous times throughout the year and thus leading patterns are not as refined. so it’s both structure/strategy and personnel as to why it’s adopted. and I know we all know about the injuries to forward personnel, I’m confused why people fail to see it as a significant contributing factor… YET we still lose by under 2 kicks.

Surprised Maynard didn't get 5 votes from Fly, seeing as how much influence one bloke had on the outcome of a the game.

Que? Porquoi?

How many [censored] lawyers are there in this place 🤷‍♂️😂

@binmanintuitively it makes sense that there is a response from people who invested every thing to become an afl player. You live your playing life in a bubble and no one else ‘quite gets it’ no one else understands the ‘rigours’ and what they had to put their body through. Because they were institutionalised by their peers, coaches, club stalwarts and the media, that glory comes through physicality and pain. and if you don’t quite get it, how can you understand the lived experience of what it takes, and the acceptance of brutality and that collisions are ‘part of the sport’ that made ‘me’ who I am? it’s an affront to the identity of those players who are less self reflective and less evolved that culturally we have shifted as a society.

Funny, I thought the same thing - Horn, whom I rate as a journalist, left me a little gobsmacked with that last bit.

Not sure if this has been posted earlier. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/sep/11/concussion-an-issue-afl-cant-afford-to-smother

I disagree whole heatedly 😁, its a method that has meant we have been in the top 4 for effectively 3 seasons... Disappointing when it doesn't come off.. sure... the method is not the problem, our inaccuracy on the night was.

No bombing.. but kick it long to Max because he is floating and his strength is marking? I'm confused. That looks good on the intercept... but when we are having repeat entries... as per every single game.. all of a sudden kicking to our strengths becomes an interpretation of long bombing...

Wonder if Collingwood supporters things Bucks has it in for them?

Accurate 🥲

What’s the alternate when our F50 has a massive density of players, precision kicking is not the answer, because there isn’t the space. Doing some quick maths 50m x 90m (wider and getting narrower) 4500m / 40 players is guarding 110msq each (that’s a 10m x 11m grid), there is stuff all space. It’s then turned over, and the risk is that the opposing side carves us up and has a cleaner shot. So Goodwin plays the percentages, boundary, sure tougher shots, but it either goes out and we reset or we kick a point and reset… and contribute to the density. We’ve moved on from Pagan’s Paddock due to calibre of the athletes.

Thats a) an overreach and b) no different from other sides throughout the entire season, where it plays out the same for North, for Hawthorn for Collingwood etc etc The context of clean ball is the most important thing, we have less of it due to the gameplan (and that doesn’t mean the gameplan is flawed). Anyway, if you (that’s a general you ,not you @McQueen or @The heart beats true) were coaching, and we had fairly consistent territory in our forward half and re-entry after re-entry - with 40 players in the F50 arc… in all seriousness, what is the best approach when there is such a density of players - that’s the ultimate question. The problem isn’t delivery anymore than any other side, nor is it our act of bombing it… more than any other side, that works fine when there are an equal amount of players, not the defending side having a +1 We play their percentages, and expect the re-entry outnumber will outweigh the amount of times a team can slingshot out of their D50- and thus they have cleaner entries. Our issue this year is that we have 2/3 injured key forwards, which no team can cover that, and then our capacity to have multiple re-entries, which is great, and exacerbates the issue of density of defenders… I for one do not know how to ‘stretch’ the opposing team… when we have such an amount of re-entries.

It is undeniably concerning to observe the apparent inconsistency in the discourse surrounding player safety within the AFL framework. It is imperative for key stakeholders, including influential figures such as Mr. Barrett, to maintain a consistent and unambiguous stance on matters of paramount importance such as player safety. The characterisation of certain acts as "footy acts" seems incongruent with the previously expressed concerns regarding head injury litigations. It begs the question: to what degree is the AFL genuinely committed to the welfare of its players? Regarding Mr. Maynard's actions, upon review, they appear to demonstrate a level of recklessness that is, at the very least, questionable in the context of a professional sporting environment. Such behavior potentially exposes both players and the league to unnecessary legal risk. If the underlying facts as presented are accurate, there is a compelling argument for Mr. Maynard to be subjected to the stipulated disciplinary measures. It is incumbent upon the league to ensure that its rules and regulations are enforced consistently, thereby upholding the integrity of the sport and safeguarding the welfare of its participants. Further - whilst quaffing beers in Cairns after a 6am flight from hell... If Angus is diagnosed with CTE following his tenure in the AFL, the implications for the league could be multifaceted: Legal Implications: Potential litigation against the AFL is on the horizon if there's a direct link between his condition and in-game injuries, presenting a significant financial risk. Financial Concerns: Beyond potential settlements, we could see rising insurance premiums. Moreover, valuable sponsorships might waver if brands opt to distance themselves from any controversy. Reputation: Such a diagnosis would undoubtedly dent the AFL's image, possibly diminishing fan loyalty and grassroots participation. Player Relations: Health concerns could resonate louder among players, leading to calls for enhanced safety measures. Possible Rule Changes: In response, the AFL might contemplate adjustments to game rules, emphasizing player safety, head gear permanent? Emphasis on Medical Research: It would be prudent for the league to bolster investments in pertinent health studies to comprehend and counteract the risks better. On a side note, one can't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes conversations currently underway within the AFL and its 'optics' department. Given the gravity of the situation, I suspect there's significant deliberation regarding their public stance and potential rulings this week. 7 weeks. On another side note, I'm very very much of the opinion I do not want my son to play AFL due to the ballistic nature of the sport and the longitudinal concerns that go with it. He however, can choose to make his own decisions on it.

I strongly think that is a reductionist view Macca. Dealing with it meant we had less rotations, a key player out for 4/5th of the game - and we still got within 7 points (and should have won if not for shonky kicking.