Lord Nev

Thanks mate! Appreciate you posting that. We did so much work on our points conceded from turnovers the last few years, but it feels like tweaks we've made to positions this year have brought it back somewhat.

Yeah, the match committee are not very 'innovative' hey? I wouldn't expect JVR to actually play, just what I would like to see.

I put last night's loss down to: - Swans having our measure. Their pressure was fantastic, we didn't cope. - Team selection. Been too stagnant this year, cost us last night. - Against an intense pressuring team; the niggles we're carrying were found out more. I'm not in the exact same camp as binman, my opinion is that we did the loading some time around the bye (but probably not during the bye) and that we were aiming to be 100% by round 23. I don't put our performance last night down to loading or not loading tbh. To add to the existing niggles, we also had Fritsch pre-game, Petracca during the game, and Spargo and Melksham also all 'injured' which IMO tipped the balance too far when combined with players like Gawn, Jackson, Brown, Hibberd, Salem and probably more already not 100%. In the end, it wasn't a shock loss, I'm not sure why many seem surprised.

4 great games? Averaging over 8 turnovers a game since gong into the middle (3 more than Viney and Oliver). His disposal is a liability in the middle.

Brown played 73% game time, he just didn't do anything.

OUT: Melksham, Rivers IN: JVR, Bowey And swap Gus and Harmes' roles, both were poor.

I didn't say Gus single-handedly cost us the game. Will be interested to see the scores from turnovers though, was a factor tonight. Also, we had more marks inside 50, yet they had twice as many tackles inside 50.

Angus Brayshaw - 20 disposals, 11 turnovers. Back to the wing please.

Is he...?

Pretty sure Goody was just down at a discount warehouse picking up a new TV to watch the Brownlow...

I reckon 'Landers can decide for themselves tbh. If you've been annoyed by their posts for years then just put them on block. There's plenty of trolls here, some just follow specific posters around making comments about them (Hi Ethan), but what I've learned is the block function is your friend. They're not worth it if they get to you that much. Not defending anything GNF has said or will say, just trying to save you the drama.

Not to defend GNF, but if you hate his/her posts/think they're rubbish; why not just block him/her? Makes for a better site than the current personal attacks.

I have a mate in that group.

Didn't come from a manager, reckon it came from the former players group chat via a former captain turned beer baron...

We're probably getting a few wires crossed here - I'm 100% in the loading camp and expect us to be looking pretty fresh from here on out. The original point was I just didn't agree with Denoos saying that metres gained was an accurate measure of fitness/loading patterns. Won't start it all again, but that was where I was differing.

But that flies against what some have said in this thread about how immediate the impacts are of the 'release' of the loading. Binman went on and on about how it would be 6 weeks before we saw the benefits. That's my point about how little we know as fact and how many times the goal posts have been moved on this issue. What's the explanation then for the round 21 MG figures that were very very low?

More fervent Casey watchers will know, but I seem to recall Bowey a game (or a fair part thereof) at half forward near the end of the regular season. Kicked a goal or two as well.

Far out. No mate, I didn't say that. I was pointing out you contradicted yourself.

Hang on, you said before that increased fitness was responsible for run and spread, but now it's better for contested footy? No, I don't agree with that entirely. Our game against Collingwood in round 21 had very low metres gained for both sides, yet that was an intense, pressure filled game. Round 15 (expectations from posters were we'd be flat) - Huge metres gained. Round 21 (expectations were we'd be hitting our straps) - Very low metres gained. Don't roll with the strawman stuff mate. Nowhere have I said increased fitness isn't a factor in increased performance. I'm simply pointing out using metres gained as an indicator of fitness is flawed. Incorrect. Go back to the post/page I've already linked and see the predictions were we'd be flat. I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I firmly believe in loading and that we've been doing it. I just don't agree metres gained is an accurate metric for it and have provided data to back up my argument.

I reckon the argument has flip-flopped based on results week to week tbh, which is part of my problem with many of the arguments made in this thread. You'd have to go back and check out what people were saying at the time, but I reckon you'd also find many have changed their thoughts across the journey. If you go back to the famous loading expert's post here he implies our fitness will mirror that of 2021 when we were flat for a few games after the bye. He agrees with another poster it "could take several weeks after the bye to see the effect", yet that first game after the bye there we are with a huge metres gained number.

But you can also kick it long to the boundary, then get a clearance from the throw in and kick it again... Doesn't mean anyone is doing tons of running. Just way too many holes in this argument.

Yet our highest MG for the year was the week after the bye when many (myself included) think we were doing heavy loading...

You get the metres gained whether you hit a target, kick it to the opposition or kick it to grass. Quality of possession doesn't come into it.