shakeandbake

Jackson Clark posted this. Not sure if it's been posted elsewhere. WAS KING MAKING EXCUSES – OR MAKING SENSE? BY – LORIS BERTOLACCI Was Steven King deflecting after Melbourne’s loss, or was there genuine performance merit in the “lethargy” comment? I actually think it was both smart leadership and strong high-performance thinking. After the Essendon loss, King said Melbourne “didn’t look as sharp as last week” and looked “a bit lethargic.” Some fans hear that and think excuse making … I don’t. I think it was a smart coaching move to shift the review from emotion to process, while also having very real merit in the public data. The scoreboard alone gives the first clue. Melbourne actually led at half-time, but then lost the second half 69–18. That kind of collapse immediately raises better questions than simply saying, “we just played bad.” The better question is: what changed in sharpness, repeat effort and outside shape after half-time? The available numbers strongly support that assessment. Compared to the previous week’s strong win over Gold Coast, Melbourne dropped from 138 to 115 contested possessions, 39 to 32 clearances, 59 to 39 inside 50s, 79% to 71% disposal efficiency, and 42 to 67 total errors. That alone suggests a side that was slightly flatter, slower to first possession, less clean with ball in hand, and not sustaining territory. But the real red flags were the outside game indicators. Essendon won uncontested possessions 261–197, marks 139–78, inside 50s 54–39, contested possessions 142–115, and clearances 40–32. This is where King’s comment has real merit. When coaches say a team looked “flat,” they are often talking about the exact public clues we can see here: less support running, slower spread, and reduced repeat efforts late. From a sports-science perspective, this is exactly the type of game where internal data becomes critical. Rather than berating players, the review inside the club would immediately move toward GPS high-speed running, acceleration and deceleration load, repeat sprint drop-off from first half to second half, RPE and wellness trends, HRV and sleep status, Gather Round travel disruption, the six-day break after three big weeks, key midfield and high-speed players’ freshness, and maybe even force plate jump neuromuscular readiness markers. Individually, the coaching staff can decide who simply played poorly versus the above factors. It’s often multifactorial but the public loves “team” reasons for losing. From my own experience, after three very strong emotional or physical weeks, the fourth week can often be where the line drops slightly if freshness and periodisation are just off enough. This can often be statistically confirmed in elite sports training and competition, not just AFL. That doesn’t excuse the result, because full credit must go to Essendon. The Bombers didn’t just benefit from Melbourne being slightly off, they also forced the possible lethargy to be exposed through pressure, spread, overlap support and second-half ball movement. And they did play better in last two weeks and went into this game with better availability. So the real football truth is usually this: a slight drop in freshness plus the opposition’s best game often equals an ugly scoreboard. That’s why I really liked King’s response. He didn’t hide behind emotion, he moved immediately toward process, preparation, travel, sharpness, second-half repeat effort and readiness markers. And then individual assessment of each player – from tactics to skills to fitness readiness. Sometimes a loss is tactical, sometimes the opposition is simply better, and often the truth is both. The public sees a 45-point loss, but the better football conversation is … Did Melbourne’s sharpness drop just enough for Essendon’s pressure and spread to brutally expose it? LORIS BERTOLACCI has worked as a High Performance Manager in the AFL system for 20+ years and has experience guiding athletes in various sports from all around the world. He is an expert on coaching, strength and conditioning, and rehabilitation and has been working in these fields since the early 1970s.

What you mean these nerds earning 100k for a job I would've done for a slab of their name sake. https://share.google/1ErHHoOGdxZ8sE6je

Surprised they don't all read 'the dees are crying out for a key forward and didn't get one so they failed.' Also Fox footy tell us you use chapgpt to edit your writing — without telling us.

People losing their mind over Pickett going a few picks before he was projected to in Cal's Phantom - to go to Roos. His stocks had obviously risen. Roos pick Dovaston instead. Could be a bit of Kozzy/Cody Weightman about it. I know who i'd rather have.

Good enough to be one though. Especially in this draft

I know plenty have gone into bat here but it literally says it as a disclaimer every power ranking. 'The final Form Guide will be released a week ahead of the draft. Remember, this is a ranking and not our mock draft on where players will be drafted – that will come in draft week.' Cals eye test and looking at stats, best ons, form, etc. Plenty of people have said clubs rankings are different to the media, and that media ranking doesn't always correlate to AFL. Cal nailed last year until Faull pick then it went pair shaped. JT must looking at who will become the next Bailey Fritsch ie Nairn.

Yeah neither. I think JT must see some similarities to Fritsch who he would have tracked for a long time which is too good to pass up on.

All good. Comment is purely based on footage of his back half play. Some blokes will listen and take on feedback more than others. Which is important if he's playing a high risk run and gun game behind the ball. You'll get punished the other way if you cough it up

Is he coachable is going to be the biggest question with this kid. Needs to pick and choose when to run and take the game on and not do it with reckless abandon like he does sometimes in his highlights. Definitely has the line breaking and link up speed the modern game requires though.

My go at it. Going from little snippets of info along the way. I think Adams plays FB due to rumours dogs were into him. Need to give him an opportunity. They mentioned they believed CJ plays his best footy at HBF. I think Lever will get a crack at interceptor allowing Turner to go forward if his body is all good. Though I love Turner in that role. Otherwise he's back and JVR or Kentfield forward. AMW to get a crack at replacing McVee 🤞 his knee is alright. Langford could easily start as big bodied inside mid, though with Steele and Viney, I don't mind him on the wing. He and Culley to drift forward as the cross goal option. Langdon repurposed as a high forward connector. Heath as tall forward/back up ruck to prolong Gawn. Salem Adams Lever Bowey Petty Jiath Culley Windsor Langford Langdon Turner Chandler Fritsch Miochek Melksham Gawn Kozzy Viney AMW Lindsay Steele Rivers Heath Emer: From Tholstrup JVR Sparrow Kentfield TMc 1st rnd picks etc

But JVR, Riv, Kolt, Kentfield, Adams and granted he was draft from SA, Kozi, all seem happy enough. JTs strategy to draft the best player usually works out. Turned 1 first rnd pick into 2 + a second rounder in LJ, and Judd a rookie into a second rounder. Farrow looks like he has a good head on his shoulders. Poise, class, good aerial game and decision making. Can win his own footy and physicality to go inside as well.

First point agree. Need to target two guys who will be extended bench and putting pressure on minimum. Ball movement is the key to all. Last point why I've liked Robey. Though it might not be the yr for a guy like him with a fwd line of Melk, Mihocek and Fritsch, who I think will all play the whole season and prosper from better ball movement. Kozzy will be a mid imo so will need to draft energy like Dove and Pickett. Langford natural progression to mid but I don't mind him wing with Culley. Steele might allow this. With Viney, Windsor, Kozzy and Rivers midfield looks alright. All points not good for Kolt though. I still like him long-term but think he'll still be fringe.

We'll win 10 games. Goody's game plan was outdated. If we draft well we're potentially replacing 3 best 23 with 5-6. Tracs a loss but we have a more even spread of contributors. Clarry and McVee are easily covered on last year's form. Sharp isn't on my extended bench.

Good summation. No disrespect to the kid he looks a quality player but it sounds like we're being baited to use a higher pick on him. Clubs know he'll be a carrot to keep Kozzie happy, so others slip through.