old55

I think you'll be disappointed if you're hoping for "battering ram".

Buy low.

Did you see him marche on Le Champs Elysees?

Twomey and Beveridge are two of the best analysts and most informed AFL journos. You fancy yourself in the draft and trade space, surely you must acknowledge that Twomey is very good in this area.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face ...

Makes sense if we cycle him to the Rookie list

If they believe the deal will advantage them they'll still do it.

and get JVR instead ...

I agree Watson's kicking seemed rushed and a bit erratic in that GF but his ball winning and handling at full pace (and his is fast) was very impressive.

Sorry it was my mistaken axes labelling - the x axis is time and the y axis expected score and win probability. So as you expect. Don't blame the author for my mistake (now corrected above in the original post for first time reader clarity) The goal scoring position charts are very informative. I am old school on this, a big fan of Edward Tufte. He would be happy with the work we're discussing. Suggest you look just a little bit harder. Did you actually expand the Tweet?

One major factor in Collingwood's win, despite their overall inaccuracy, was their finishing from set shots outside 50 at crucial times. Crisp x 2 (he did it against us too from exactly the same spot), De Goey and Sidebottom all nailed long goals - we very rarely do that. There's ball to be marked around the 50 and we can do that but we rarely convert from there - either the long kick to the pocket for a stoppage or take the risk of a point and turnover. Who do we have with the range and accuracy? Petracca, Sparrow and Rivers definitely have the length. Melksham has both but will be out - maybe McAdam can do it? Petty and Joel Smith may be able to - not enough examples yet. Salem probably used to be able to but seems to have lost a lot of depth. This is a very important asset when the 50 is crowded.

I think it's important to get elite talent from developing states to the clubs in those states. Take away the points discount and enforce that the first matching pick has to be within one round ie 18 picks of the bid. Firmly re-instate that picks must equal available list spaces. That will ensure fairer value is paid.

It's a very good graphical representation of the data. The x axis is time, the y axis is expected score and the dotted line is chance of winning. One thing I saw immediately from the score charts was confirmation that Collingwood kicked 4 goals from set shots outside 50. That was a huge difference in this game.

Is everyone on the streets of Adelaide talking about the McAdam trade? I knew it was a bit boring there but that is a surprise!

Adelaide supporters on Big Footy are pretty salty to lose him ...

If they signed an extension that took the beyond the inaugural Tassie year their managers should be shot.

Amazing that people are unhappy with the Academy advantages the AFL is gifting to GC but still consider it's worthwhile for us to draft McKercher or Sanders. You just know the AFL is going to put rules in place to make sure they get to the inaugural Tasmanian team, it fits the pattern.

He won't be there because Academy and FA Compensation picks will intervene.

You're actually arguing for abolishing Academy, F/S and FA compensation. That's a legitimate position to hold. I'm OK with them but I understand your point.

I think there's a legitimate case for Sanders to be part of North's Academy. He said on Gettable that they have helped foster his development and he has had his Aboriginality confirmed. He is now actually confirmed as North Academy but they cannot match before 40.

He was never going to be a "freebie". North wanted the rules bent so they could match a bid before 40. They still would have had to pay the points with the discount. I'm pleased the AFL didn't allow this.

Yes but @drdrake point is O'Sullivan is actually 8th best player in the available pool because Walters and Read aren't available. Still see my argument above that the earlier the pick the less detrimental effect this has.

I do understand your argument and you are technically correct, pick 18 delivers the 13th best available pool player who is actually 18th best player in the draft. If we can trade up then we can get access to a player whose quality is closer to the pick used. For example, as it stands pick 5 will deliver the 7th best player in the draft (after the Walters bid is matched and North's McKay compensation). If we can trade up into that range with 10 and 13 we decrease the deficit.

5, 10, 13 quite likely to be 7, 13, 18 in the actual Draft after Academy (3), F/S (1), FA compensation (1) picks intervene. I'm in favour of trying to trade up.

The proposal would be something like 25 + 33 + Grundy pick to GC for 10. Gives them more points.