george_on_the_outer

Fairly good assessment there WSW. It was probably a good move by Ratten to bring in a lot of experience, since the Aints were so bad, and had little talent available. It keeps the fans happy and gives them hope, and keeps him in a job....in the short term! But as you say, Crouch, Jones, Hannebury and Hill are all past their best, and probably the same for Ryder. Plus these players are costing a bucketload. Then when you have Howard, Higgins and Wood in the side, 1/3 of their match day side is "blow ins". Big contrast to what Melbourne did by bringing in only a few older outsiders like Lewis, Cross, Vince, to be able to provide stability while the younger talent develops. Then you bring in one or two ready made players with 5 years plus careers in them, but over a couple of years, and to fill specific roles. May, Lever, Hibberd, Melksham. At the moment those younger Saints players can't get in the side, or St.Kilda don't have the draft picks left to be able to access and develop talent long term. Now they face another cliff as these older players drop off even further. When that happens, I'm with @dazzledavey36...Ratten won't last, and the cycle will be repeated at St.Kilda.

Kozzie heavy strapping, and limping. Laurie running with forwards. BBB not doing much at all, not running in drills.

Thing is he kept doing it in subsequent ruck contests....and the umpires did nothing.

It has happened in a number of games this week: Umpires calling incorrect disposal, when the player has had NO prior opportunity and the ball is merely dislodged. 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled. 18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. It was certainly the case in our game.

An update from the Club today. It seems that have taken on board what many concerned members have been telling them. In the middle of the season is not the time, and the Consitution needs to reflect modern thinking, and is at least consistent with what other AFL clubs have as theirs.

We had all best hope North keep losing, if LJ wants to go back to WA. Freo don't have the picks, and probably won't provide players of any value to trade. Eagles offer a bucketload to LJ to come to them, and can pick him up in the pre-season draft, if they finish last. He gets what he wants. They get what they want. We get nothing.

It looks like they are installing the practice cricket pitches a bit early?

I'm glad you got your question answered @Deeoldfart, but plenty of people didn't get their answered. Why?..Because WE decided that many questions were of a similar nature. Minimal female Representation? WE decided that it wasn't necessary, and WE would hate to deny a suitably qualified candidate. What there aren't suitably qualified female candidates in 66,000 members? How about THE MEMBERS deciding if they want this or not? WE decided not to separate the clauses. WE decided it would be all or nothing. How about THE MEMBERS deciding what they like or don't? It isn't all that hard to achieve. ( Tick the box you approve of). After all they manage to fill out a Senate ticket with dozens of candidates. You can put in further questions.....( except the Board is meeting this week to approve OUR proposals, 21 days later there is a vote). So in essence no further input will be possible.

How about KISS principles? 1.No sub at all. 2.or 23rd Man, who can be used any time. Coaches would have 10 on the bench if they could. Games used to be played with only an 18th and 19th man.

From the Herald Sun today: Check out the Deemocracy site for more: www.deemocracy.com

Rapt.......an abbreviation of rapture, as in " I'm rapt!" Wrapped.....enclosed within., as in "wrapped up a parcel". Rapped....knocking, as in " rapped on the on door"

Once again for those who may not have got the email..... This is consultation? It is the only opportunity that the 66,000 members will have to voice their thoughts. You get less than 48 hours to register ( democracy in action?):

Spot on. ALL his comments are simply a verbal repeat of the replay after the event, something that anyone with eyes can see. e.g ...." and there is Smith who moves left to kick on his right and score the goal..." No insight as to how or why Smith got the ball, just vision commentary.

Forget any final 9, the damage is done to the main fixture with 19 teams. Just look at the mess that the VFL fixture is with 21 teams.

We don't know what is being proposed yet. It all seems a bit rushed considering changes were mooted at least 12 months ago. And considering it hasn't been updated for 15 years, this is a good time to get it right and bring it into the 21st century.

For those that may not have got the email:

The AFL imposed soft cap has meant line coaches are doing much more than they were originally hired for. Greg was hired as a ruck coach and he still does that, as well as forwards. Yze does game day tactics and mid-field. No club can hire multiple coaches to perform coaching in individual areas, like they were able before COVID.

....or his manager says you need to explore options at other clubs, because there appears to be little future at the MFC

Yes, that is exactly the case. In our game against Geelong both sides had 70+ turnovers. Disposal efficiency both below 70%. The coaching staff for every club employ these statistics realising that footballers are just not that good at hitting targets. So you go for the option that provides you with better than 70% chance i.e. kicking to a pack when no-one is likely to mark it. That creates stoppage. If you back your team to win stoppages, this is the best outcome. Even if you don't, the ball is 70m away from the goal. This is all about defence not attack. Attack occurs after you have cleared the zone where the opposition are likely to score. It is boring to watch. Everyone prefers to watch their team cutting it up through the corridor....it just doesn't happen all that often. Once again look at the Moneyball scene with all the scouts. It worked for the Oakland A's. They did something which produced definite positive outcomes......."he gets on base". In AFL " it stops the opposition scoring easily"

If you want to see how tough players are today and what their bodies endure, there was a sickening collision between Conway and Deakyn Smith at the 17 minute mark of the final quarter. This was the definition of the "hospital handpass", but to be fair to Jimmy Munro, Conway came off the nearby bench: https://www.afl.com.au/video/795568/vfl-match-replay-r16-geelong-v-casey?videoId=795568&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1657281686001

This strategy is all about percentages. See Moneyball again.... While it is frustrating to watch, the coaches and statisticians have worked out that the ball 60m away from the goal, close to the boundary will probably produce a stoppage or boundary throw in more times than not. i.e. the opposition don't score from this position. We then expect our stoppage skills will win the ball...more times than not. It is rare that a mark is achieved, and this is just a bonus if it happens. Other teams may use short kicks initially, but they are looking for the same thing further up the ground. Short kicks are not 100% guaranteed. When they fail ( not often) it results in opposition scores, usually the 6 point variety. Up the middle puts the ball in a dangerous position to counter, particularly if punched straight forward into the 50m area, which oppositions are trained to do if this is employed. Same reason players are directed to kick to pockets in the forward line. It is about percentages and stopping the opposition gaining access to the corridor. More often results in boundary throw in and the stoppage argument comes to the fore again.

Have been disappointed with his progression. He is in a similar boat to a lot of players presently at Casey. Nothing to show during Covid times, and now coming into contract end period. Importantly for Rosman, same as Oskar Baker, is who does they replace ( short of injury) No room in the backline and JJ and Langdon have the wings sewn up for years to come it seems. They have to show a reason that makes them superior to those already playing seniors. AND Hunt and Rivers are presently playing alongside them, with far superior qualities. Same for Laurie...who does he replace in the middle? Sadly, I have seen nothing from McVee and D. Smith which would keep them at the club, especially since they are OOC.

65,472

Yes, I overlooked Rhi, probably because she won't be able to play this year. But I agree, she will be a very useful pickup as we depend upon Lauren Pearce staying on the ground. We will keep the fingers crossed she can for this coming season, but with Lauren now 29 and Rhi 34, we will need a young ruck in the next year to develop. No point in this draft, being compromised so much by the addition of 4 teams.

Mirrored in this scene from MoneyBall.......1.30 - 1.50