Skuit

The nick-name 'Tomald' is revelation enough. It can even be used as a verb. Like when you Tomal the ball directly to the single opposition player standing in the middle of four of your own teammates.

I agree.

I think you can compare player-to-player by year at footywire. Though in my mind there is no doubt that Clarry is comparatively a fair way ahead.

The most contested possession across two games (career): Trent Cotchin - 36 Dane Swan - 37 Joel Selwood - 39 Dustin Martin - 40 Jobe Watson - 40 Gary Ablett Jr. - 41 Chris Judd - 44 Nat Fyfe - 46 Josh Kennedy - 46 Clayton Oliver - 46 (2017; in career games 30/31) Patrick Dangerfield - 48 (2017; in career games 190/191)

We should lend him the club Corolla with some bourbon & colas in the glove-box. Imagine how good he would be with another kick-up-the-bum? Add a few more indiscretions and he'll eclipse Dusty in no time.

I was coming at it from the presumption of Lever leaving Adelaide and choosing between us and a wealthier suitor. That if for example, Lever was offered 650,000 by Adelaide and then 700,000 by us and 800,000 by Collingwood he would be more likely to take Collingwood than if he was offered 500,000 by Adelaide and then 700,000 by us and 800,000 by Collingwood. In the psychological sense that if Adelaide are seriously low-balling, then any much greater offer is already considered a significant 'win', which leads to greater consideration of other factors. I'll see if I can dig up a paper.

This was my take a few weeks back after the last comments coming out of the Crows. In a completely unfounded amateur pop-psych marketing-principle sort of way, I get this vague hunch that a serious Adelaide low-ball may be somehow extra beneficial for us. As in: if you're offered a choice of two monetary deals that are already significantly better than your current position, you may be less inclined to simply grab the higher figure and instead better consider other factors. @Danelska? Any behavioural economists I can cite here? Kahnemann or someone?

46 contested possessions in the past fortnight. Against two big-bodied mid-fields. Insane. Can someone with Twitter ask Champion Data what the two-week and three-week records are? (This question was asked re. tackles earlier in the year and quickly answered).

Ben reminds me of an enthusiastic young Labrador with boundless energy and the equivalent trainability. If North tell him to stay, he'll stay.

Still being managed though T.O.G. And you can tell when it's happening, as it coincides with our flat-spots in the centre.

You ruined the bit where people have to ask me what it was. I'm downgrading my experience of seeing you on my stroll as just pretty good.

I once went for a walk and saw something amazing.

Lolz Bulldogs and their Bernie Quinlan curse. Tippet now? Still looking for a replacement after all these years. Why don't they just employ a forward development coach fcs? They think they're Sydney but they're doing it wrong.

I'm curious. For those with the patience to venture onto opposition fan-sites, which Demons players have sparked 30-page discussions on their potential poaching? Probably not 30 pages, but I'd be interested to hear in general who opposition fans think they can prise free, the currency suggested, and their perspective on these players as compared to our own.

Two straight first round picks? Would that be the most ever offered up for one player? The AFL is creating a monster which will come back to bite em' on the ass. Basically allowing clubs to disequalise themselves in a desperate short-term grab for cash and a flag. Note, North and Saints are leading the charge; clubs which need success now to financially survive. But wait until the fans turn away when half the league has bottomed-out after having sold their farms and stretched their caps beyond wiggle - (although that's when we'll likely see the AFL rules-on-the-run specialty come into play). I'm not an economist but I think this requires very very careful strategic planning and foresight - that perhaps we're in an inflationary cycle and could capitalise on the rebound. The problem is, it's happening as we're building our window and we also need success now, and I'm concerned that we will/will have to go with it.

Disappointed to eagerly open this bump and not get a fix of crushed bones and twisted arms.

In 2011, the progression was smash first before learning to win.

I mentioned it in the OP as an exception (although I failed to clarify which season), along with our otherwise ordinary win against Brisbane.

Although the scores were basically level, we did this between the second and third quarters against the Saints after we'd withstood and overrun their crazy pressure and they subsequently dropped their heads - and I was sure tempo-footy was a directive from the coaches box - but in this instance we did it very well by playing patient and lowering the eyes. For a quarter. Before we started fiddling with it again in the last.

Another question: At half-time against Port, the commentators were banging on about how the Port players were up and about in the change-rooms and brimming with confidence - even though they had absolutely no right to be. Throw back to 2016 vs. Port: Melbourne go 43 points up near the 18-minute mark of the second quarter, while Port have managed only the single goal, the first of the game. Are teams aware of our inability to put the contest beyond reach?

I was thinking at least 80 points, but I assume you've factored Watts being able to hold onto a mark into your final equation.

Jeepers. Half you folk are in need of some counseling or a quiet session with Tammy Roos. Developing maturity, building tanks, our manic game-plan, and, left-field - a high level of discipline - are all interesting responses to what wasn't a complaint but an examination of where we might still be lacking. From my perspective, we tend to get out to a big lead quite often and then start fiddling around with it a bit, which allows the opposition an opportunity to put pressure back in our direction and brings them into the game. I don't know why this is. Maybe we run out of legs a fraction from the manic approach and don't spread as well? Or perhaps we just don't know what to do when the opposition gives up and allows us so many free options?

MFCSSFCS

There are of course fluctuations in games, and ‘putting the cue in the rack’ to conserve energy or guard against injuries, but we just can’t seem to put our foot on the throat of the opposition when they’re down – a mark of a ruthless, champion team, and so important as to % with the competition evening out. And junk-time goals against are a serious %-killer. We also seem to have some strange 40-point barrier, and I know this well, as the only time I ever really have a flutter is when I have a sense we might unexpectedly dominate and take the big-odds 39+ option (it’s been killing me, although we got across the magical line against Adelaide with a last-minute goal to Kent). The past two seasons; lead progression points and final margins (I’ve left out 2015 but it’s a similar pattern in our wins). Outside of these matches, we only capitalised against GC and Brisbane to record larger winning margins, while the Bulldogs this season was a reasonable example of cue in the rack. 2017 Port 20.46 2nd – 43 / Final – 23 Western 25.24 2nd – 40 / 32.29 3rd – 50 / Final – 57 Gold Coast 18.37 4th – 34 / 25.22 4th – 41 / Final – 35 Adelaide 6.56 4th – 39 / Final – 41 Essendon 3.59 4th – 45 / Final – 38 Saints 8.33 3rd – 34 / 8.08 4th – 42 / Final – 30 2016 Port 17.53 2nd – 43 / Final – 40 Freo 16.20 2nd – 43 / 12.47 3rd – 50 / Final – 32 Collingwood 20.55 4th – 55 / Final – 46 Richmond 30.34 4th – 39 / Final – 33 Collingwood 10.26 2nd – 42 / 18.22 3rd – 39 / Final – 35

Excuse my language, but that umpire Nicholls is a [censored] [censored] camel [censored] [censored] stain