Lord Nev

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.

1. Sure, but you kinda said 'so it's not an indicator, but here's how I think it's an indicator....' And referenced a post that talks about MG as an indicator of fitness. 2. Correlation and causation. Because metres gained indicates disposals, game style and the link then performance of your opponent will directly impact it as well. We had only 5,682 total metres gained against Collingwood in round 21 yet many have commented about how it was the fittest we've looked for weeks. We had a whopping 6.953 metres gained in round 15 against Brisbane, yet that is the week after many believe we started our heavy loading period. It just doesn't add up accurately. 3. I didn't say our style changed. But quality of opponent, defensive pressure, personnel, success of the game style will all impact our ability to have high metres gained numbers in comparison to our average. For example - the Brisbane game above, we had 35 rebound 50s, the Collingwood game above we had 25. That's one factor that would impact our metres gained total.

Now you're talking. Or even the 'repeat sprints' one that is talked about. That kind of thing is a better indicator I reckon than something that is mostly due to disposals. Champion Data hoard all that stuff though don't they?

Jack Watts once had a game in the negatives for metres gained. Must have been dead...

Christian Petracca leads the Dees for average metres gained. There is no chance he is our fittest player or covers the most kms per game. Using MG as a metric for fitness doesn't stack up IMO. It's more a measure of style of football. We rebound, especially off turnovers and deliver the ball deep, particularly when we're playing well, this means our metres gained number goes up as we're not chipping backwards. In terms of fatigue - a team/player may simply decide to 'go long' more often to save the running, this would then increase their metres gained. Too many holes in this theory I think. Again, "run and carry" is irrelevant here - Metres gained is a total of distance ran with the ball, distance you kick it and distance you handball it. Unless you have the breakdown of the percentage of each of those in relation to MG then it's not an accurate measure of fitness or distance covered. To add to that, one of our strengths is how players run when not in possession, yet that's not even touched on by MG.

Hang on, metres gained includes kicking and handballing as well as running. How would it be an accurate measure of fitness in that case?

Wouldn't blame him if true. Shame to lose him though.

The LJ budget space becomes the Grundy budget space I suppose. Weid is a fair chance to be traded (if we find anyone interested), but his wage off the books won't make any difference at all, he'd be on very very little. Tommo still contracted and handy depth, won't be going anywhere. There may be other players who make way though. But if you think about who we've re-signed the last 2 years and who we have to sign the next 2, it makes sense we'd be mostly looking at the draft for now.

We're also red hot in the salary cap. We may opt for picks more in the next couple of years than we have in the last couple.