Skuit

It's almost Monty Pythonesque. Bennell states his desire to join our club. We're then concerned about his mental state.

Not sure if anyone has forwarded knowledge of any special relationship. But the speculation is probably due to Martin citing Betts as a factor in his determination to get to the Blues. If he's deciding his future on such a triviality, it adds weight that he may be swayed by a friend's recruit elsewhere. Just guessing here.

I can confirm you're the early clubhouse leader EO.

Is your workplace the Central Hotel or Courthouse? If so, yes. A number of times.

TL:DR - see bolded: Thanks to a combination of factors (mostly, I think the current standard of football is [censored], and I personally derive more entertainment from watching elite teams crush all-comers and occasionally come up against each other rather than some notion of ‘evenness’), it has got to the point where I barely watch any football games not featuring the Melbourne Football Club. Because I see the world through my own biased lens, I just assume that anyone else who comments with conviction nowadays on the attributes of a player outside of Patrick Dangerfield or Dustin etc. from another club – as if they’ve actually watched said player enough to develop an informed opinion – is simply talking out of their [censored], pretending to have insight. I’ve probably watched about eight of Jack Martin’s 90-odd games to be honest, and likely wasn’t paying much attention to him unless he massively stood out. Anyways, running with the idea that most of us in truth have limited exposure to opposition players, it got me thinking about exposure bias: and how that might impact opinions on this board vis-à-vis their performances v. the MFC. So, without further ado, introducing: This is the Price is Right – MFC edition – sponsored by ‘it’s no from me’ in conjunction with ‘he’s a dead-set gun’. As we enter familiar territory in patiently waiting for the AFL national draft, I thought we could run a little experiment. The following forwards have either been cut, traded, or were rumoured to be on the move during this trade season. What they have in common was that they have all inspired threads on Demonland. The game is simple. Are the following statistics above or below career averages? (You’re welcome to cheat, but really, is it worth it in subjecting your soul to that deep down enduring shame?) Two clues from combing the stats, the MFC appears a defensive powerhouse, and accuracy plays a clear part. Quote the below and add 'above' or 'below'. The winner will receive one free consultation from a one-time Crystal-ball thread winner ahead of next-year's home & away season: Jamie Elliot v MFC: 7 goals from 6 games Mitch Brown v MFC: 2 goals from 3 games Josh Jenkins v MFC: 11 goals from 8 games Tom Papley v MFC: 7 goals from 4 games Eddie Betts v MFC: 36 from 20 games Josh Walker v MFC: 2 goals from 3 games Dan Butler v MFC: 1 goal from 3 games Daniel Menzel v MFC: 14.5 goals from 6 games Josh Bruce v MFC: 15.2 goals from 9 games Mason Wood v MFC: 7 goals from 3 games Freddie Clutterback v MFC: 0 goals from 0 games Levi Casboult v MFC: 6 goals from 5 games

Profile picture doesn't check out.

Haven't seen a second of him, but based on the name alone he sounds super clumsy.

Dub - Regardless of the on-field outcome, I'd happily sacrifice a list spot for the statement it makes and the small skerrick of excitement it brings to the supporters. The wage will probably pay for itself in memberships within a week of the signing.

Presumably referring to the happy and keen to stay part of the hypothetical.

That's the beauty of it LH: you don't need to be a Harmes-basher to bash a Harmes thread. Match the potential posters with the hypothetical quotes: 'A five-year contract for just another bland inside-mid!' 'And so how far did Harmes get us last year?' 'Why won't we grow a pair and spend that cash on a player we're crying out for in Martin?' 'McCartney was responsible for developing Harmes, and stubborn Simon sent him away' 'It reminds me of when we signed Artie Cambridge in the summer of '22 . . .' 'Something something Jordan Lewis something something the club is forever ruined'

Taylor discussing trading for pick 8 and the comprised 2020 draft: Deduction one: we’re targeting a specific player. 5.40: ‘Because it’s compromised, we thought it might have been a good opportunity, and we liked a player in the (whoops, stutter) . . . in the range . . . umm . . . for this year, so (recovers composure) . . . It’s a simple as that, we’re not targeting a specific player.” Deduction two: That specific player isn’t ready-made. 5.50: It’s just getting in another early draft selection, getting them in a year earlier and get going. Taylor discussing pick 3 and there being about three players in the mix Deduction three: Luke Jackson isn’t one of those players (at 3). Leading question: is Luke Jackson in that mix? Taylor (super-casual): ‘Yeah, he’d be in that mix, I’d say, umm- (Long discussion of flexible traits) ‘. . . he’s a unique player in that sense, but obviously there’s other players that have got some high-end qualities in their game.’ As has been mentioned, Taylor then refers to not outsmarting yourself at pick 3, and picking the best player. The following discussion, on the lessons learnt from earlier early picks at the MFC (2014 and 2016), is super-fascinating for its nuances. I won’t speculate, but it starts at 12.50. Selective quotes: ‘I take myself back to home interviews, or one-on-one interviews, and the little things where you think I wish I would have asked that, maybe found that out a bit different . . . They take time to mature, players . . . They get challenged, you want to make sure they’re up for the challenge.’

There's something odd about this thread. But I'm sure it will correct itself soon enough . . .

I think people need to keep in mind what we sold to get pick 8 - and why we were willing to sell what we sold.

Curious if anyone knows the relationship between Bennell and Martin? Not that I'm huge on getting Martin, but if we want him and they are mates it would be a clever maneuver.

It's admittedly going off Jackson's highlight package alone, but I put together a quick sketch for you DeeSpencer:

Cheers LH. I think quite different roles but there's been some blending over time if you look at the duties performed on LinkedIn. I don't want to talk out of school - but a quick comparison of resumes shows Roberts completed a Intermedia/Multimedia degree in 2004 (during his stint with Hawthorn), while Younger added an advanced diploma in mathematics & statistics last year to an earlier BComm in actuarial science. It seemed that Roberts ran technology and sat above our analysts. My take - we'd be switching this around. Have an analyst drive the tech function and farm out the grunt work (apologies to any AV guys among us). If so, a good move - but a little slow to evolve. Err, thanks Sorry Kids.

My line of thinking wasn't down-trading for two picks in the teens. More that we'd be dangling for a Carlton/Adelaide 2018 type deal to get us to the the top end of next year. Failing that we could slide for one pick in the teens and pick up something for next year similar to what we sold to get to 8 - scoring a free/cheap pick in the teens.

If we traded to 8 to take a shot at Kemp - and I believe we have (taking Jordan early last year provides a clue to our approach) - and Kemp is off the table: it will mean there's something solid still available. There's about ten decent players being bandied about who appear to be considered quite even after the top 4, and then there's a sharp drop-off - trading to 8 is really hitting that 'sweet spot' of the draft. If we're not interested we can start live trading down for freebies - possibly more than once - and maybe down to Weightman territory. These are the clubs below us. Let them fight it out for the last scraps. Carlton Freo Hawks Port Bulldogs Geelong Brisbane Richmond

Wasn't there some other data dude who just left? I didn't look into it much but got the impression he had been there a while - and maybe not entirely qualified for the role in a contemporary landscape.

Intriguing. I recall some of his analysis had been referred to on this site a couple years ago with respect to where we were taking our shots on goal - i.e. as close as possible with minimal angle; something I had been mildly critical of - as forgetting the pros and cons I felt it was curtailing footy instincts (and in my opinion led to the demise of Garlett, among other issues). I've always believed Simon is an out-an-out stats-nut - looking to uncover small advantages in an increasingly tight competition on the gains v losses ledger. The high press is a perfect case in point (and for the record, I don't think we genuinely fired a shot with respect to the game-plan in 2019). We leak like mad, it looks ugly, but then we hope to outscore through the attacking advantage. That's fine. Simple. But then questions emerged around feasibility. Is the game-style too exhausting to maintain for example? Along with other potentially unforeseen consequences. I think Simon is super-bright as to tactically analysing the long-game of football, but the recruitment of Rob may help sharpen up the insights and bring balance to what we implement. Edit: Here's maybe the article I was referring to. https://figuringfooty.com/2017/08/10/the-quality-and-quantity-of-shots-created-by-each-club/

Can you kindly point me to where he said it Axis? Was it on the radio? I just cant find anywhere in print where he's used those words - only journos interpreting the other line to mean an area we want to address . . . at the draft.

Can you rephrase this for me? I'm not sure I get your drift.

Where did all this Weightman business come from? Tom Brown reported a month ago that the Saints were into Cody at five, and also us at two, which seemed kinda crazy. Then we took a punt of Eliot, who as an affordable free agent of that caliber you would take regardless of needs. Then we moved on pick 8, which made sense considering it cost us 26 and a likely 15ish in a supposedly crap draft. Was the rest just two and two equals five for a small forward, led by Twomey and then widely followed in the media? These are the quotes that I can find attributed to Mahoney, interpreted by various agencies in completely opposite ways. "Part of our strategy during this Trade Period was to improve our draft position by using our future picks... Next year’s draft will have a high number of talented Academy players, and we value another top selection in this draft." Achieved, and widely acknowledged as a factor to consider. But with respect to missing out on Jamie Eliot;. "It's an area we want to look to address – that small, crumbing forward – and there might be some players on our list who can play that role... In 2018, we were the No.1 scoring team. It didn't work this year for a number of different reasons but we think there's still enough power there to kick winning scores." These words don't remotely add up to our supposed interest in searching for a small forward in the draft at all. Have I missed something from a SEN interview or somewhere - or is all the Weightman talk just random speculation?