Lord Nev

Sorry mate, don't agree. The Dangerfield example wasn't because Adelaide matched the offer and forced a trade, it was because of good will from Dangerfield and Geelong. Geelong didn't even make an offer. Clubs just don't match the offers when they know a player wants out. I might have missed one, but thus far into free agency it hasn't happened once. Add that to how often players stay long term at a club after requesting a trade and it's a bleak picture for Essendon. Essendon have absolutely shot themselves in the foot with this situation. They're left with a player who does not want to be there, whose worth has gone down with injury, may not play this year at all and hasn't even had discussions with the club about next year (contracts are on hold at the moment but discussions can still happen).

He's a free agent chaps.

Not that it would be like the Bombers to run their business shiftily, but do we start to theorise about this...?

Apologies for coming across aggressive, wasn't intended in that spirit. There's just a lot out there. If you're into information in video format then the documentary "13th" provides a good insight into the historical context of systematic racism, slavery and incarceration.

There's a ton out there mate, have a look. If you've found Sowell then you've likely gone past a stack of them already. Using Sowell's view in this context is a bit like wanting to pick up a pot, 99 people tell you it's hot, 1 person says it's not, so you pick it up and burn yourself.

He's been pretty widely criticized as someone who both misrepresents truth and doesn't cite evidence. Your choice in whose views you've decided to seek out for your confirmation bias is telling. But while we're at it, maybe we should ask Candace Owens about the BLM movement or maybe get Trump's thoughts on social media ethics... This thread has been useful in ways I didn't anticipate.

Thomas Sowell.... Seriously? ?‍♂️

They did. Later in the game other players, Salem mostly I think, were taking kick outs and May was providing another marking target.

Think you guys misinterpreted my post, so let me rephrase: Goody got rid of an athletic but erratic and unreliable defender who disrupted the ability of the defence to build trust among each other onfield in favour of seemingly making the backline more steady, reliable and safe. Then Goody places an athletic but erratic and unreliable defender who disrupts the ability of the defence to build trust among each other onfield in his place. Consequently we don't have that steady, reliable and safe backline we had want for. Talking about roles, cohesion and strategy, not list management.

Is joke fellas.

Just to clarify, wasn't calling you a nuffie with that, just that the stat itself is a poor one. Although in saying that, I consider myself a nuffie, so I don't know. No argument from me that he's not in our best side currently, and IMO it's a lock this is his last year. Seemingly a similar one to both Bernie and Jordan Lewis who were in and out in their last year before retirement.

Back up for Lever as he should have been all year. Staggered that Goody would get rid of Frost and then bring in Frost Mk II.

That's disposal efficiency which is a supremely flawed stat. Under certain circumstances you can actually turn it over but have it count as an 'effective disposal'. It also doesn't have any kind of context around disposals or degree of difficulty. It's a nuffie stat. Champion Data had a 'kick rating' stat which measured the degree of difficulty of each kick, the expected amount of times a player should succeed with that kick and then measure players against that rating. It's a far more relevant stat than the useless 'disposal efficiency' stat. In 2019, Nathan Jones was rated number 1 in that stat for the Dees.

For sure, but also means it's a bit of an unfair thing to criticize given he was leading players like Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, Viney etc in his 'efficiency'.

Actually, he was rated as our best field kick in 2019, so not sure I agree on the 'efficiency deterioration'.

Reckon most footy fans would say if there's one player whose career hasn't been "lucky" it's Nathan Jones.

Classic Melbourne that a global pandemic would prevent a club favourite reaching 300 games.

Yep, as mentioned, he's definitely not in great form, I was more pointing out that basing the criticism on the performance of a player he wasn't on most of the night is a bit unfair.

Watching this, it definitely looks like Lockhart has him in the first contest, Nev has someone else in the second, then Nev gets beaten by Rankine in the third. Rankine Highlights

Didn't Lockhart play on Rankine for his first 2 goals? The 3rd one was on Nev but it was also a horrendous tap. Definitely not in peak form, but maybe a bit harsh judging it on someone he wasn't even playing on most of the time. Now that we've got a more solid mix of tall backs I'm backing Nev in to find some decent form again very soon.

Can't agree with this premise mate. It destroys the whole purpose of social media, which is to be immediate and direct. To have what is essentially phony corporate identities representing your brand is the quickest way to lose all your engagement, closely followed by any connection to your company/product/personality/footy club. The players control their brands, it's a huge part of what the AFLPA has worked for over the last decade, and their individual brands are considered separate from the club even though they work in tandem. I don't think anyone has asked for this or remotely expects it. The push is for accountability and the determination of who that sits with from a moderation perspective but also from a publication perspective. It's impossible to stop harmful things being posted, what is being asked for is purely and simply accountability.

Agree with both posts here, and binman you've really nailed one of the core issues in that there is no differentiation on social media between positive and negative engagement. That is one challenge for facebook especially where harmful, misleading or intolerant content ends up reaching a wide audience due to it having negative reactions which are given as much value as positive. Facebook is at an intriguing stage. It's very much going through an internal revolt due it's lack of ethical moderation, and not just of it's organic content. And Mazer I very much agree with your sentiment around the lack of understanding between 'free speech' and 'free of consequence speech'.

I completely agree the AFL was weak in it's action (or inaction) for that specific instance. These are different aspects of the same issue though. One is about direct racist speech, the other about the determination of responsibility of publication platforms. I don't see how Eddie being punished for his racist comment has any influence at all on how facebook moderates it's platform. They're separate things.

I'm a big fan of May, and I reckon he could make a great forward going by his junior years, but for me it's more an emergency option during a game than something I would actively structure and plan for, at least at this stage. I think the trio of May, Lever and OMac is a safe and solid one, Hibberd and Salem are starting to find consistent form, then we have that mix of Nev, Lockhart & Rivers who are fighting it out a bit for a spot. I'm reasonably happy with the backline, and now that Goody has finally caved and started selecting two forwards I think we might start seeing some improvement down the other end too.

Talking about different aspects of the issue there though mate. One is the comment by a club president in his job in the media in 2013. I agree the AFL failed on that one in not only refusing to officially reprimand Eddie, but also holistically in the whole Goodes situation. Gil has admitted as much only recently. The issue we were talking about was the AFL pressing government and social media companies about accountability for the content they host. Clearly both fall under racism as a broader topic, but to conflate the two separate things is not addressing the post correctly at all.