rpfc

When I saw the blue star next to the title thread I thought this would have been a thread where I queried Green's captaining... Don't want to go back there... To those that didn't see Jones as Captain in 2011 (I was one that would have overlooked him) the difference between the Jones of 2011 and the Jones of the last two years is quite stark.

It is my understanding that the LG was voted by the players. I happen to completely agree with that. The choice of captain is aside from that and shouldn't be wholly up to the players, but the LG is the group that leads them - they should be represented as they wish. They wished Byrnes and Dawes last year in a larger LG, they haven't this year in a contracted 6-man LG. I feel it is that simple. I don't really see the arrival and empowerment (from the players themselves) of Byrnes and Dawes as harmful to the mindset of the players already at the club. Who should have been ahead of them in the LG? Whose toes did they step on? The players were mentally shot before Byrnes and Dawes arrived I am afraid to say. If 186 in 2011 was breaking the players, 2012 broke them, I don't think the subsequent arrival of Dawes and Byrnes made a negative difference to the playing groups mindset at all.

It's just an overreaction to his poor form, no need for names.

That's an excellent point. Ownership of decisions is important, a head coach deflecting ownership of that decision is an insight into his capabilities.

Yeah, I am critiquing the mess around the can. Well glad-wrapped though...

Being 'liked' and 'respected' are parallel lines of influence. And you can be one and not the other. And they can both be aspects of leaders.

Well, another issue is number of games played and touches acrrued. You will turn it over less if you get it less. I just wouldn't read much into these stats full stop. As I have said before - I would rather somone get 6 clangers if they have the workrate to get 20 touches, rather than having a perfect 10 touch game that might be considered timid at best and ineffectual at worst.

He gave off the 'impression' he didn't want to be at the club and having bad body language? This reminds me of the poster that was convinced Hogan will leave - his evidence: the fact that the kid rarely smiles in photos of him that he sees.

I don't think these stats are that conclusive about anyone's ability to perform under pressure. Disposal efficiency and clangers don't tell a definitive story of courage under fire. For instance, a player may not even get the footy in a contested situation after being in a position to get the footy. There will be no negative statistic recorded for this negative instance. And DE and clangers have definitions that bring negatives to a positive - for example, a clearance out of the middle to Clark when he is outmarked is a clanger and an inefficient disposal. It would statistically be a net negative but it really shouldn't be - not to the player who managed the clearance and the long kick forward.

Thanks Range Rover.

Well, I for one hate the next clash jumper...

Used by Sarah Palin. She lionised herself, and 'hockey moms,' with the joke: 'What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.'

Small mercies - our midfield (or what there is of it) seems to be having a good Pre Season. Those are the players you need to have a huge Pre Season. So far, touch wood, they are up and about.

FCS Lil Goffy, spoiler alert!

I don't think there will be change. Maybe they are just trying to get the non-colour right...(IWUAEHIIUE) And besides, that presser with AHG had a few of the boys in the new strip without the collar, and one was definitely the white heritage jumper. Lol End thread now if you don't want a debate.

Look, I am happy to see people trying to bring a SABR-like focus on AFL analysis, but Baseball has such defined roles that this is much easier to do. When it comes to Wins-Above-Replacement (player), the roles are comparable ie. a closer to another closer, slugger to another slugger... With the AFL the lines of demarcation for player roles are blurry, and to say that removing one player for another because they both play 'midfield' can bring a certain probability of wins increasing is a bit rich... Love data, but keeping it team based is probably best for its analysis in our game.

I know we are excitable but can we wait until the real stuff starts before we panic. That's how I do it, that's how my dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked well so far. [little Iron Man reference for levity] Roos would be calm, let's try and emulate.

We had a percentage of 54. We are starting in a different solar system to 'competitive.'

Tyson, Salem and Hunt vs Kelly/Aish/Scharenberg and Gardiner/Crouch/Hartung. Because there are more options for the negative (those we could have picked had the trade not happened) this may look like a worse trade than it is. But I am hopeful, and it is always good practice to trade down if you don't think there is a discernible difference in talent over a certain number of picks.

The bigger debate will be Tyson and Salem vs Kelly/Aish/Billings. If Tyson can get over his injuries of the last year, this trade will play a large role in moving us up the ladder.

Why does a 'collective accountability' require everyone to be removed/fired? Geelong held Mark Thompson to account in 2006 and the rest is history. As for that last line, you are being a tad specious don't you think? 'Don't know if they are better, they could be worse?' 'They could be agents of the devil? I don't know, but there is that possibility...' Perhaps Jackson believes they can contribute? Maybe Bartlett thinks they can help? Does anyone here think that the previous board hasn't been held to account?

Is that what I was saying was I? Telling Matt Burgan what a few choice [censored] on here think of his output is not the crux of the 'game, set and match.' You can patronise me or you can try to understand what I am saying. Hell, you can try both at the same time if you want to...

If the players get exposed to it 'everywhere' and it is pointless to shield them the 'adult world we live in' then why do they bother telling players to not read this site? Maybe you should tell Mahoney of this incongruity when you next see him at training?

Did you know the club intructs players not to visit this site? And yet, here you are defending the relaying of any "opinions, baggings, comments, snide remarks, player assessments" to the players?

He's a fully grown up person who can take some constructive criticism just like the rest of the human race. We all appreciate any poster who can give their time and report on training - but that is not a double edged sword - no supporter needs to go to training and report on Demonland to those at the club. This is a nerve center for the anxieties of a supporter base - it sometimes (more often of late) is brazenly caustic, facetious, and unfairly rude. Relaying any 'relevant' information to players and staff is not desirable. If you disagree, please explain why it is a good or benign thing.