Its Time for Another

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This entire post is extremely well-written and makes a lot sense. The only negative is that you posted it only one hour ago. The deadline for nominating a proxy was 5pm today. Considering the No vote needs to make up only 25% of all votes in order to “win” this would’ve been absolutely invaluable had you posted it before the deadline. 

Oh well. Maybe it will be useful to any people attending the meeting. 

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

I think you just downloaded a virus.

Nah. Caught one. From someone I never wanted to have contact with 

On 10/23/2022 at 5:33 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

Some people are being overly precious and I find it all quite hilarious. Getting your knickers in a twist because someone sent you an email, oh lord how will we sleep tonight?!

Dr G normally love your work. But this is not your finest. I'll tell you a cautionary tale. I got my email address hacked a couple of years ago. The hackers used my email address to send out automated emails to 30,000 plus addresses every hour all over the world. This lead to my email address being registered on international registries as a spam address and being permanently blocked. That leads to it being rejected everywhere and everyone of those emails that goes out generates a detailed anti spam warning back to your email system. It literally means you're getting up to 100,000 email rejection notices per day. And it's impossible to stop. It goes on for weeks. This jammed our work email system and caused it to shut down so the entire business lost it's emails for some days. I was forced to quarantine and shutdown my email address. Have a think about how many places you use your email address. All had to be scraped and started again. I can't begin to tell you how many hours were lost over many many days for me and our whole business. Plus it damaged our corporate and personal credibility with people getting hundreds of these emails. They don't care it's from a hacker not you. You might think that's hilarious but I can assure you my business and I didn't. 

We've just seen the devastating impact of hackers getting hold of people's information at Optus and Medibank. It's turning into 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars of damages. Both these companies had excellent cyber security. This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data and how unhappy a lot of members are about it. What cyber security do you think he has to stop the scenario above from happening especially as he has made himself a target with his publicity.  I have contacted them twice asking for their details so I can contact them and to find out what cyber security steps they are taking to protect our data. I have not had the basic courtesy of a reply on either topic. I am extremely concerned about this. 

Don't be fooled by this bloke and his faceless group. They might claim Democracy, transparency and accountability but they practice the opposite. They won't even tell you who they are, how many of them there are or their details so we can contact them. But they have litigated to get that information from all of us. If there were enough to be relevant they would have said so. I'd be very confident it's just a couple of people he's drummed up. A couple probably called Fido and Daffy.  

This is not an election. It's not a campaign with a couple of policies, it's a Constitution with hundreds of paragraphs and he wants to change them all. Do we get hundreds and hundreds of emails from all members voicing their opinions about what they want or don't want on each paragraph of his new Constitution. I could have done that. So could have other people I know who submitted suggestions that didn't make it. How do you go about doing this practically. You are never going to get everyone agreeing to the same thing. I accepted the process the Board set up with a Committee of experienced qualified people. We all got the opportunity to respond to changes that were sent through to us. If this gets stopped whats next. I don't agree with virtually all his amendments. Some I strongly disagree with. So what negotiations are going to go on. How do we ever move forward. I find most of the proposed amendments important and necessary.  

When you go on to his email which is supposed to be about responding to the Constitution you find content referring to Bartlett's legal actions as some sort of blight on the Board members he is suing. In my opinion that is a dirty political smear campaign which has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution but everything to do with his naked ambition to get elected after he's been rejected twice.

I urge people to get out there and send in their Proxy's to vote Yes. And to be clear I've got no ambitions to get on the Board. I have had no contact with anyone on the Board or the Admin about this process other than sending in my suggestion. My only agenda is having the Club in a position to do it's best work. I believe a stable Board is essential for that and this bloke is actively working to do the opposite. I'm appalled he's got my private details and won't tell me who his group is or what he's doing to protect my details. This bloke and group need to be kept as far away from our Club as we can get him.  

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

There's nothing cleverly concealed, the point of their alternative ideas are simply to promote debate

It's putting an alternative idea forward. Just like an Opposition would put an alternative policy position to a Government in parliament (where the alternative policy is not going to be voted on - the minor parties take this to the extreme to highlight their agendas)

The Nominations obiection is clear, and obvious...

Out of interest are you one of the members of Deemocracy referred to in their email. 

29 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

If any members disapprove of the way Lawrence has handled this they can always email him to strongly put their views across.

I responded to his/their email yesterday asking in the spirit of transparency he/they have been fighting for could they please provide me with the names personal addresses and emails of each of them so that I could contact them to give them my opinion on their amendments. I have been ignored. They are happy to grab our personal details but not prepared to even disclose who any of them are or the same details they were happy to go to the Supreme Court to get of ours. Any of you that think Lawrence and his group are honestly fighting for transparency and open communication, this says all I need to know about their authenticity. Deemocracy NOT !!!!

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

2 hours ago, BDA said:

And despite my frustration at the lack of progress on the home base front the reality is I won’t create waves if we’re winning on field. 

I'm sure the Bord are more frustrated than the rest of us on the lack of a resolution of the facilities. I can't believe people are suggesting the Board should be sacked because of it. What do they think another Board is going to achieve if it is going to be in the MCG precinct. It's been explained how difficult it is compared to any other Club because we don't have the land and have to get public land off multiple public bodies. If it's ever going to be in this precinct we are never going to have a better team than the current President who ran the body we have to convince and a CEO who was successful in getting facilities up at Olympic Park. We aren't going to get anyone else with the contacts and experience than those two. I'm guessing the Coonwealth games has set it back a few years. So what? We sack the Board. The Board has its hands tied behind its back in communicating exactly what's going on because it is dealing with Govt etc and any comments could politically jeopardise the whole thing. It would be ludicrous to sack this Board because of this. 
I see Lawrence has mentioned this frustration with the Board in trying to drum up support for himself which  just reinforces to me why he shouldn't be anywhere near the Board. 

10 hours ago, Cyclops said:

As always yourr opinion is appreciated. I must correct myself though. Mr Lawrence achieved 47% and 30% of votes respectively in the last two elections.

Your opinion seems to stem greatly from the method that Mr Lawrence is using. It is the method used by the club that I consider needs scrutiny. The club was asked to send emails 3 weeks ago thus avoiding lists of members, snail mail and emails. The club refused. This was mentioned at the hearing 

I appreciate that we can debate this in a civilised way. 

A lot has been posted since your post and a lot of it is what I would have responded with so I won't repeat it. I will just say in summary the issue is are we going to support a duly elected Board or not. I think this Board and the one's before it have done an excellent job of getting us a Premiership and setting up the future of the Club. I believe the process they set up for the Constitutional amendments is fair and reasonable. I made a submission and it was ignored. I accept the process and am not going to waste tens of thousands of dollars of members contributions rejecting the process because I didn't get what I wanted. For what it's worth I strongly reject most of his amendments and am thankful they were rejected. 

The AFL is littered with people like Mr Lawrence who put their own ambitions and egos ahead of the best interests of the Club. I wouldn't want him anywhere near the Board. Frankly I'm furious someone like him has been able to get my name and address and possibly my email address so he can pursue his personal destabilising agenda. I'm also furious that he might succeed in setting a precedent so that any member that doesn't agree with the Board can ring the Club and threaten litigation in order to send spam every other week. I didn't sign up for that. I'm also very concerned about what steps he has taken to protect my personal information he has already got, given the current hacks that are going on. He's generated a lot of publicity around getting our private information which makes him a target.  If he gets hacked because he didn't take adequate steps to protect my information I hope he's going to compensate all of us. 

3 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

so I'm well aware of how these things operate and how much work it takes to protect data. Ask Optus or Medibank how serious it can be and how taking absolutely no risks is your safest option; rather than taking liberties with data you may deem to be a 'beyond low' risk because 'hey, what's the worst that could happen, right?'

Personally I'm already appalled that our addresses are so easily accessible and surprised that, even in a member based organization, those details can so freely be provided.

Agree with these comments. The last two weeks have very clearly shown how vulnerable our data is and how hard it is to protect it. What steps has Mr Lawrence taken to protect the information he's already been given. Cyber security requires quite a level of expertise and investment. He's now very much in the public domain and open to being a target for hackers. I hope the Club has made sure he is able to protect my details that have already been released to him. I would have expected any contact coming to me through my private details that I give to the Club to come from the Club not some random disgruntled member. 

1 hour ago, Cyclops said:

Is an email address classed as an address? That is the question before the court....My opinion is that neither the judge, the club or Mr Lawrence want to create a precedent regarding the disclosure of email addresses and the club will send the literature.

Hardly fair when candidates cannot contact members but the President writes to  members with the purpose of standing behind some candidates. Like the Governor General endorsing a political party.  

Your small amount of votes gained by Mr Lawrence in the last two elections was indeed 27% in 2021 and I think around 22% in the last one.

Whatever you think the semantics are the Club was legally obliged not to guess but to spend tens of thousands defending it. Clearly as soon as emails go out a precedent has been created and that is what Mr Lawrence is creating by his action.  

As you know it's not true that candidates can't contact members. All candidates statements are sent out to members as part of the election process. I don't have a problem with the President promoting candidates they know have passed through a rigorous vetting process and offer skills that the Board assesses it needs rather than candidates that won't provide that. 

Not sure what your point is about Mr Lawrence's 22%, if that's what it was. He put his case and got flogged in the election. From memory I looked at his credentials and didn't think he offered anything that would have made me vote for him over the other candidates. He can still put his case at the meeting and try to stop the amendments going through but I hope and pray most of his amendments don't get up for the reasons previously stated. 

This OC is a prime example of why I love Demonland so much. A great unfettered Democratic forum to respectfully express opinions and with the passion of a group of people who care about their Club. 

A couple of my opinions for what it's worth.

1. As a lawyer with some limited experience with Privacy law I just make the comment that under the terms of the Privacy policy the Club would face significant fines and the potential for individuals to sue them if they released our email addresses to Lawrence. End of story. Once he issued his proceedings the Club had no choice but to waste tens of thousands of our membership dollars on defending it. 

No doubt  to avoid the cost of further litigation the Club will probably agree to send out his manifesto thus getting around the breach of Privacy law. Personally I'm not happy about this precedent at all. It means because of Lawrence any Tom Dick and Harry can start doing this as they please when they're not happy with processes put in place by the Board that have been elected by the members. I don't know about anyone else but I don't want to start getting streams of emails from disgruntled individual members on whatever topic they chose when they're not happy with Board decisions which is what this precedent would create if that is what happens. 

I am very confident about one thing and that is as long as there are institutions and there are Boards or Committees you can be guaranteed there are always going to be some people who are going to be disgruntled. I've seen some staggering behaviour at Junior footy club level little own the big league. You have elections so members can democratically elect the people they are putting their faith in to run the institution. Not everyone is going to agree with them. Lawrence is acting like our Trump. He stood for election and a tiny amount of the 56,000 members voted for him. He is clearly someone who has a bone to grind with this Board. He submitted his suggestions as did a lot of us and they either accepted them or didn't. He can't accept that and here we are. 

As for Lawrence's amendments.

I strongly disagree with most of them and agree with two of them which I don't think justify his actions.

New Constitution

I agree that it makes sense to have created a new Constitution from scratch instead of just amending the old one. I don't think practically this makes any difference. He has not raised any material concerns with the vast majority of the existing constitution other than the couple of changes he wants. 

Twenty members for nomination

I can see both sides of this argument. I imagine the Board has selected 20 so someone wanting to nominate outside the Board's selection process has to make some effort and show that there is some measure of support other than two members, who as someone mentioned could be your dog and your two year old. 20 out of 66,000 doesn't seem outrageous. On the other hand I can see that for an individual without access to information on other members trying to find 20 might be onerous. I would have thought 10 would have been fairer. This could be raised at the Special Meeting and discussed there. I don't think this point  justifies what he has done. 

I strongly disagree with limiting Presidents to only one 3 year term. IMO they should have up to two terms and if that starts on the verge of their 9th year on the Board so be it. I think it's extremely important to have stability and 6 years is right for me for that purpose. As we saw last year if Presidents are problematic like Bartlett they can be voted out by the Board. If this Board didn't do that last year we would not have a Premiership or Coach. 

I don't agree with setting female quota's. I want the best people on the Board irrespective of gender or binary etc. I have no doubt that in due course the women's team is going to generate significant non male members and this will naturally lead to a greater representation of women on the Board as there will be much more women members and women's sporting and membership issues will become far more significant. I don't think it's necessary to set a quota for them. 

22 hours ago, Sydee said:

Correct - @DeelightfulPlay supporter of many long years - still have my footy records from the 70s 😀

One of my greatest regrets. I started going every week in Robbie's first year but didn't keep the footy records. Would have loved to have kept the record of the games I had gone to. Also my members card back then which got you into every home and away game. They used to click off the ones you'd been to on your card. Oh well. Unfortunately I remember a lot of them. We lost 22 in a row in my first two years. We had one win to break that run and went back to losing. 

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

I’m frankly surprised Carlton aren’t interested in him. He’s a better player than OMac in my opinion. 
Makes sense the Dogs are looking at him. Their defense is utter rubbish. 

O Mac has been delisted

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

He was OOC when he came as an FA so his contract with us was either 4 or 5 years. 

The Age Oct 2019 reported it is a 5 year contract for $500,000 per year. 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dees-nab-tomlinson-in-giant-trade-20191007-p52ygs.html

Fremantle football boss Peter Bell on Rory Lobb  "We informed him that due to his contracted status and the importance he for our structure that we wouldn't be able to facilitate a trade for Rory."

Youve seriously got to live Peter Bell don't you. He's going to spend maybe $900,000 and sell the house to get Jackson who plays Lobb's role but he's not going to let Lobbe go. So he'll have to of them plus Sean Darcy one of the best rick's in the comp. Either he's playing very silly trade week games or good luck Freo. 

7 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Why is it ok to insult Jake’s son?

And @A F

Seriously? This is a reference to what all the players were saying about him last year when they were in the bubble. They all loved him being there and he and the other kids made a big difference to helping dealing with being locked in the bubble.  They all talked fondly about how  full of life and mischievous he was. Not an insult in any way. The opposite. 

14 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I agree.. they've got good runs. 

Just feel we've changed tactic this year with the way we've list managed.

Re-signing Joel Smith to a 2 year deal was the start for me.. and now the Melksham news and 1st rounder for Grundy just all seems to be a bit all over the shop for my liking.

My theory on Melk getting another year is that pesky son of his who everyone loved so much in the lockdown bubble in WA must have been DNA tested and he's going to be a superstar and we need Melk to get 6 more games for him to be a father/son. Otherwise a bit surprising. But I'm sure I'm right. 

Smith can't keep getting injured forever can he?  Unless he's me. Fully fit he's a special depth player with his versatility and potentially a very special medi sub for that reason. 

Hibbo earnt another year on the back of one of his best years this year until finals. 

On Grundy haven't we all learnt not to listen to the fourth estate on this stuff. I'd put money on us not paying a first rounder for him. We're in the box seat. However, past experience has taught me rule no. 1 in trading. Absolutely no matter what do not trade players in or out to or from Collingwood no matter what. I don't need another example to prove this rule. 

33 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m absolutely on record that I don’t want Grundy, but I think there might be push back on the big money aspect of it.

Gawn’s one of 2 Melbourne players who really does make money away from footy with marketing, plus his business interests. If he’s as unselfish as we’re lead to believe he might only be on 600k . Maybe we put the screws to the Pies and get Grundy down to 550-600k too. 

Given any starting calibre player makes 400k+ and even an in demand back up like Meek could fetch 300k it might not be all that much salary wise. 

It could be that we’re fine with our ruck budget being expensive and that it doesn’t hinder our ability to land a key forward for 2024. 

Of course the other factor here is that Grundy has the total say on whether he goes or stays. If he says he'll only go to MFC and if Pies have to push him out to get whoever in they need then how much they pay of his salary and how low a pick they get back might be out of their hands if they want it to happen. Grundy can turn around and say ok no worries I don't want to leave anyway so I'm staying. 

2 hours ago, A F said:

That's about pressure at the ball carrier though. Get that right and trams start kicking it back to our interceptors. including potentially Max.

Spot on. There were a series of failures in the system this year that culminated in easy controlled i50's against us and away from Lever and May. For some reason I don't know we started to lose contests and clearances which is the starting point for our Game plan. (Our pressure rating dropped from 3 last year to 16 this year and 3rd for clearances in 1st 10 rounds and finish at 13th.) Once we lost these particularly in our forward half we seemed to have lost last year's brilliant defensive transition by the end of the season we were only better than North and the Eagles in stopping teams going from their defensive i50 to forward i50. That's a mind blowing drop off. Plus in losing those contests we were put under pressure which resulted in a lot more turnovers and statistically we ended up being right at the bottom for scores against from turnovers. Swans kicked 11 goals from turnovers. This loss of contest pressure was also evident in trapping the ball inside our own forward 50 so a lot of the transition started from there. I don't know why we lost our setup behind the ball especially in the second half of the season but my guess is we aren't set up for losing contests and that meant we didn't have time to setup behind the ball as other teams attacked ahead of us. 

Nathan Jones on SEN made a couple of interesting points. He mentioned how teams were easily scoring from our turnovers. Also mentioned that our inability to run enough to defend was not caused by lack of fitness but lack of efficiency. Someone else I heard also mentioned that you get a lot more tired chasing and not getting a result than you do running ahead of the ball and scoring. I guess the inefficiency includes how much we get it inside 50 but then fail to score so we have to expend a lot more energy to score than other teams. That might also apply to our inability to kick straight. For instance Trac went at 27% in Swans final and 39% v Lions. This can be partly explained by his injury but he hasn't been great all season and of course his kicking for goal has gone off a cliff. At one stage he was 19 goals 31 points and 17 out on the full. His percentage accuracy on goal was 28% which is the worst for the top 50 players. (These stats are coming from Robbo in the HS so take at your own peril)

I reckon nearly all of that is a matter of some fine tuning not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're not that far off. Have a proper break this off season unlike last season. Come back fit and refreshed. Fix the forward system of delivery and leads although I hope getting Grundy doesn't signal that Goodwin's bomb it in strategy is going to continue by freeing up Gawn to stay down there even more as a bomb it in target rather than a leading target. Also hope they change this strategy to match BB's strength which is marking on a lead rather than being forced to try to mark in packs which was never his strong point. 

I can't understand Weagles determination (if True) not to give up pick 2 for him. He's been in the system 3 years, proven himself under the ultimate pressure of a Grand Final. Won a Rising Star. Has 3 years of physical development and tutoring by the best ruckman in the comp. And he's only 20. Compared to what at pick in the draft. There's never a guarantee a pick 2 is going to prove to be worth the pick and then they have to be developed for 3 years or so before they will be a major contributor. Plus they desperately need to draft a ruckman to replace Nic Nat. I'd be grabbing the opportunity to get him with pick 2 with both hands. 

I won't be able to listen live tonight. But I am looking forward to listening to the whole pod tomorrow as I am a captive audience from Melbourne to, you guessed, where else for a Dees supporter, Buller. But I assure you I will be back in Melbourne in time for Friday's game. 

Having watched T Mac on the weekend come back in and be pretty effective straight away although a bit underdone does anyone think he might be a sneaky chance to get into the team by the GF assuming we're there. Personally I think it's really unfortunate they have a bye this week which I think probably rules him out as he won't get enough game time to sneak in if injuries opened a spot up. If BB goes down you'd have to consider it though wouldn't you. 

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

These are the games we live for as supporters. 2nd v 3rd. Prime time home game. Against an arch enemy.

Let's pack the G in red and blue. If you don't you'll be sorry you missed it I guarantee.

You're right . I'm sorry already I'm going to miss it. I did make it to Perth. So have to be thankful for minor mercies. But nothing will be better than watching those feral animals being put to the sword. Hope they are ahead for the first 6 minutes so they think they're going to win and then we put the pedal to the metal and obliterate them. Not that anyone needs to worry about denting their percentage which is the lowest top 3 percentage anyone can remember.  

On 7/23/2022 at 5:10 PM, A F said:

It's a pity it doesn't sound like a repeat of the 2015 draft that had Weitering, Curnow, the McKays and Hipwood.

And Weideman and I know you're talking key position but a certain Clayton Oliver, Schache. A lot of quality players in that draft all the way through. 

4 hours ago, rpfc said:

Trying to be constructive here for the guys on the pod; but a few thoughts.

I simply have trouble listening to this curse/loading stuff for over a third of the year as the pivot of all our ills.

And the way it is delivered is almost gaslighting which I think is what Andy is reacting to - it simply isn’t the solution to all our issues. Every team of note does it and it may play a part in form issues across the league amongst OTHER things that can be discussed without the constant retort being about loading being the reason for whatever issue is seen.

I enjoy listening to the thoughts on the pod to challenge my own and I find the pod more enjoyable than the Deebrief where you can go 20 mins with only hyena-like laughter, in jokes, nicknames of players, and pure nonsense.

So well done, but … pls…pls

Agree.  Clearances is one aspect of the game that shouldn't be as affected by loading as they start from a stop in play. As others have said all top teams are probably loading anyway. Up to round 16 we are a fair way behind last year's performance and they clearly need work to get back to where we were.

Type                         Ranking 2022   2021 

Centre Clearances      13th                 7th

Stoppage clearances    7th                5th

Overall clearances        10th               4th

We are behind our main competitors on clearances Lions 4th, Cats 5th and Dockers 6th. 

We are also 11th for Hitout wins percentage behind main competitors Cats, Lions, Dockers. Against the Cats we won hitouts 49 to 36 but still lost clearances by a whopping -18, 36 to 54. They doubled us in centre clearances 16 to 8 and stoppages 38 to 28. It goes a long way to explaining the loss irrespective of loading. 

Here's a stark stat from OTC. Trac and Clarry have delivered the ball i50 46 times in the past 5 weeks for a total of 2 marks. Trac 28 times for 2, Clarry 18 for "0"!! I don't have any stats to compare these to but it can't be good. 

All our forwards are also down on last year. Ben Brown has won 7 of 45 contests, I read somewhere that he's won 1 of 21 one on ones. He's played the same amount of games as the whole of last year 13, but isn't terribly off on goals 21 to 25 last year. According to OTC Jackson is the number one marking forward in the Comp yet he's only kicked 8 goals for the year. Kossie has kicked 20 at 1.3, last year was 40 in 25 games at av 1.6, Spargo 6 at 0.4, last year 18 at av 0.7, Fritsch 34 at 2.1, last year 59 at 2.5. 

  This all seems mostly fixable. I don't know how you fix out of form players before it's too late but they seem to lay it on and off for clearances. It was a worry they didn't fix it against the Cats but far from panic stations just yet. 

3 minutes ago, binman said:

One answer to that question,  as it relates to the dees is, that our kpi is the number of entries, not goals per entry.

We are all about getting it inside 50, if we don't score  trap it inside 50 and if the opposition do get it out, setting up a wall so it bounces straight back in  (often of course into a relatively small area that might have as many as 30-36 players crowded into it).

Chaos ball.

By definition, this method  will result in a lower goal to inside 50 ratio, then say the lions who are less about territory, and more about maximising the goal to inside 50 ratio.

On that measure, the lions are number one in the AFL. Super efficient. It is a method that works really well against most teams. But not us, or freo for that matter, because against us they simply don't get enough inside 50s.

The last three times they have played us they have been pretty efficient in terms of goals to inside 50 ratio. But they haven’t got within a bulls roar of us because they have not gone inside 50 enough, and the dees, whilst not as efficient, have smashed them in inside 50 differential. 

Without wanting to sound smart, the goal is to kick more goals than the opposition and our method has proven to be brutally effective, as demonstrated by our crazy good win loss ratio since round one 2021.

I just think the whole debate around the forward line's effectiveness, a debate thst also raged most of last season, feels like a solution searching for a problem - as evidenced by or win loss ratio and percentage this year.

I get where you're coming from in all of this except your last comment. Even Goody acknowledges it has to get better. I don't agree with the philosophy that we're winning so ignore that the forward line isn't working as well as it should. I hope they are continuing to work on it and bring it up to the level of the mids and backs. That will make us virtually unbeatable. 

It has been a bug bear of mine for many years, however I have to confess that watching the Lions game was the very first time I've ever really thought that there the madness of our, as you call it, kaos i50 method might actually have a point. In that game we only had 3 set shots on goal but the Lions were chasing us all night because the kaos made us absolutely unpredictable, including to ourselves I might suggest. The result was they just couldn't defend against us. I could see for the first time that in a really tight GF against an elite backline our kaos could possibly stand up more than a forward line depending on clean leads and passes which if chopped down leave you exposed. 

The other thing I have to acknowledge is that despite being well down the ladder on a lot of these scoring structures we are 6th for points scored. Unfortunately 4 of the teams above us are in the 8 including Cats, Lions Tigers and Swans. Freo are behind by 112pts. It's worth noting that the Cats have already played Nth twice for 60pt and 112pt wins so their pts tally is skewered somewhat. 

22 hours ago, binman said:

Well you'd expect to see that supposed gap between the two forward lines reflected in the scoring shot/inside 50 ratio.

Yeah, nah.

The AFL average for that measure is 43.4%

Carlton, with the forward line to die for apparently, is 9th in the AFL, scoring 43.5% of the time when entering their 50.

The dees, with the supposedly dysfunctional forward line, is 8th in the AFL at 43.6%

If you use the shots at goal measure instead, the gap between us and the blues is even greater.

The blues have a shot at goal 46.8% of times they enter their 50 (below the afl average of 47.3 and 12th on that table). 

The dees have a shot at goal 47.7% of times they enter their 50 (10th and above the AFL average).

The blues goals to inside 50 is below the AFL average (23), but better than ours, albeit not by a huge margin (22.8 to 21.9) - and the gap is probably explained by our method (ie so many kicks to the pocket).

The dees might have 99 problems (96 of which are related to Bartlett) - but the forward line ain't one.

I think the cats have been smart how they use Cameron to avoid the issue Carlton and the Dogs (and arguably also the lions) face. And Hawkins has slimmed down and gets up the ground more than he did.

It's no coincidence they top the inside 50 scoring ratio table, scoring 46% of the time they go inside 50.

Stats from this excellent site: https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_stats_team.html

 

Thanks for the link to wheeloratings. Great site. 

I guess stats are only as useful as their interpretation. I take your point about the perception around Carlton's key forwards but personally I wouldn't be choosing Carlton as a benchmark, I'm more interested in the more likely challengers Cats, Lions and Freo.

I don't understand why the focus isn't on goals scored per i50 rather than scores which includes points. You win games by scoring goals not points.  On goals per i50 we sit 14th, only better than GC, Port, Ess & NM.  Lions are 1st, Cats 7th, Blues 9th, Dockers 10th. 

On your point about us having a better forward structure because we have a range of goal scorers. So far this season the Blues are 18th with 21 but we are only 17th with 22. Freo are 3rd with 28, Cats and Lions equal 5th with 27. And we've had a turnover in forwards already this season which adds to the number of scorers. 

It's pretty obvious to me that in comparison to our mids and backs our forwards are not at the same level and clearly need work. Goody has said that himself in relation to the forwards and the connection from the midfield.