wisedog

Well I can’t help but feel our point is the same (aside from the metrics of how success should be defined.) I agree the new versus returning coach debate is shallow; which is why I find the expectation a returning coach will rescue a struggling club from the doldrums just as shallow. Particularly, as you write, there are so many intangible factors within a Club, which also need to addressed. And perhaps this is why the Jackson and Roos ticket was so successful.

I did mention Hardwick in my first post. Whether you view Lyon’s tenure at Freo as a success and Voss at Carlton is a matter of opinion. However, those records are certainly achievements. And yes, I understand new coaches are overwhelming appointed. The point I’m making is that returning coaches are often seen as the leaders who will replicate the success they have previously enjoyed - but that rarely seems to be the case.

Yes, and Malthouse at West Coast (and later Collingwood). But post-2000, I can only really think of Eade at the Bulldogs whose tenure would be regarded as a success.

I think it’s a valid thread. I’ve often thought how few examples of success there are from head coaches in their 2nd or 3rd tenures. Wallace, Eade at GC, Malthouse, Pagan, Voss, Lyon and Scott were all seen as a safe pair of hands but were largely unsuccessful. Jury is still out on Clarkson. On the other hand, you have Hardwick, who appears to have bucked the trend, and of course Roos, who laid some very solid cultural foundations at Melbourne. I struggle to think of many other examples of success recently. I don’t know why that is. Does the game change too quickly and coaches become set in their ways? Or are they expected to come in and cover a multitude of shortcomings within the entire organisation.

As for Laurie. I hope he’s kept and gets a clean slate under a new coach because he just seems a class above this level. I’m excited to see what Kolt and Kentfield can do with a full pre-season under their belts. Kentfield doesn’t quite seem to be involved enough at this stage, but still has a significant impact when he does get it.

Laurie and Culley were the standouts from what I saw. In fact, Culley’s improvement over the season has been really impressive and seemed to draw a lot of confidence from his time in the seniors. Kicked 3.1 tonight and gave another one off but seemed to move really intuitively as a forward. At 6ft 4, I wonder why he’s not discussed as more of a permanent key position prospect - he looked most effective for Melbourne deep in the forward line as well.

I just feel that much of the reason this latest episode has blown up as it has, is due to the consternation around a star player missing finals. If something like this was in place, Rankine would cop his 5 weeks, as he otherwise would have. Then if Adelaide play in a Premiership, and he plays 3-4 finals, he has to sit out 9-12 games in the next home and away season. That decision becomes Adelaide’s to make, and the AFL won’t have to grasp for reasons to reduce the penalty on the cusp of a finals series. (As I wrote in my earlier post, it would only be an option for players contracted for the following season.) Just an idea, and I do acknowledge the distinct possibility it’s not a particularly good one at that.

I was really just trying to make a distinction between an act of deliberate and targeted abuse and someone who is wildly ignorant of the damage of such language. But perhaps that point didn't need to be made. Footballers are not typically well educated; they mix with a very narrow section of society and are basically allowed to live out a protracted adolescence. It’s ironic their actions and words are of such greater consequence - but I understand you are much less aggrieved by the incident itself than the attempts to downplay it.

I’ve often wondered whether the AFL should introduce a policy where finals sanctions could be commuted to the home and away season. Perhaps usual suspensions would attract a X3 loading so the Crows would need to decide whether it was better to lose Rankine for 4 finals games or 12 home and away games. This could only apply to players who were contracted for the next season - and in extreme cases where suspensions were originally 7+ weeks, it also should not apply.

Growing up in 90’s and 00’s, this word, along with ‘gay’ as a pejorative were common. So much rap and hip hop music dropped these words so casually - and even shows like South Park. This is the world that young men like Rankine grew up in. Thankfully, it’s changing (although, speaking to my 14 year old nephew, not as much as I expected). Possibly, the AFL environment is too much like an extension of high school. This is not to excuse Rankine, as he should know better. The AFL, which is in a strong position to influence change - particularly in young men - is right to take a strong stance against this language. However, I do feel this offence is a rung below incidents where a player is specifically targeted because of their race or sexuality - I appreciate others here would not agree.

I do sometimes wonder how things would have been different had that Carlton defender, soon after delisted, didn’t claim the touch. At very least, our finals opponents would have been different.

2023 was absolutely brutal. From the moment of the ‘touched’ goal against Carlton (which most likely cost us top 2, it just felt like one kick in the guts after the next. Injuries to Petty and Melksham, then losing Brayshaw, and watching Collingwood go onto win a Premiership. Just excruciating. I still watched the game on Friday, hoping for some little bit of poetic justice… but no dice. I appreciate the post; it’s always hard to discuss these intangibles, and it’s harder to know how to act to improve them. How can they go from a side to who spectacularly reversed the momentum in the third quarter of a Grand Final, to being so incredibly fragile, they lose almost every game when our opponents are within two goals. The last occasion, I felt we really willed ourselves to a victory was against Brisbane in 2023, where Melksham was absolutely enormous. Two weeks later Petty kicked 6 goals, and for a fleeting moment, it felt like it was all falling into place again. But then it all bloody changed. Damn.

The difference in the 21 and 22 seasons are also interesting: had pretty much the same number of shots, yet in our Premiership year, he kicked 28.19. The next year, however, he kicked 19.31.

Want to hear something strange? In 2017, Petracca kicked 26.6 for the season. He was the most accurate kick (minimum 30 scoring shots) that season at 81.25%. That season accuracy is so high it ranks 13th since 1965.

I suppose we prepare ourselves for players leaving: we know once they’re over 31-32, each season could be their last. We also know, some will have no hesitation jumping ship if there’s a better offer from a rival Club. The coach, it would seem, is required to make a much more profound commitment, and remain at their post until the bitter end - and it is usually bitter. I was in favour of keeping Goodwin right until the Saints debacle, but hearing him talk about how close we are to success, well, he just about won me over again! I am sad to see him go and hope to be able to shake his hand and say thanks one day. Go Dees

Not sure if it has been posted (I saw it on Instagram) but Gawn’s interview on Triple M was quite revealing. He confirmed he was personally made aware of our first 6-6-6 warning in the 2nd Quarter Claimed responsibility for the 2nd violation, but said he had only a few seconds to determine where the players were and wasn’t able to Said the Club has “forgotten how to win”and cited his own kick across goal, which led to the spat with May, as an example The last point is something we have probably suspected but interesting it was admitted publicly. The issue of course is, if the captain isn’t able to show the team how to win, I’m not sure who is? Most of our senior players have failed in similar moments over the years: I recall Lever giving away free kicks in the finals, May dropping chest marks and getting stuck into teammates, Viney and Oliver blazing away, and of course most of our forwards missing important goals. I think one of the only cool heads on the list is Melksham. It’s a shame he’s not a few years younger, and very unfortunate he was missing in the final minutes.

Some of the skill errors and lack of awareness were astonishingly bad. In fact, for many players, that looked to be their floor in terms of performance. Rivers and JVR looked like a first-gamers at times. Oliver and Petracca are suffering from a lack of cohesion and rhythm. I like the idea of a player like Kynan Brown in there, who is fast and a fierce tackler, just to prevent such easy takeaways out of the centre. In fact, we don’t currently seem to have that little pest on our list who can lock down the opposition danger man. Was Harmes the last to do it effectively? This is really only to say, yes, Petracca and Oliver are down on form, but are we doing enough to mitigate the damage going the other way? The biggest positive for me is that we know there are four best-22 players to come into this side who are all dynamic and skilful: McVee, Pickett, Windsor and Lindsay (well, hopefully) will make a significant difference. If Tholstrup, Brown surpass expectations this year, and Langford continues to improve, we may not be in quite as bad shape as it seems. The presence of Langford, in particular, cushions us slightly against diminishing returns from Viney, Petracca and Oliver. As for next week, I feel JVR needs to return to Casey - if only to be heavily involved in the play and regain some form. Turner demanded selection yesterday.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m bitterly disappointed, and that performance reminded me somewhat of the first round of 2008 when we were annihilated by a resurgent Hawthorn. But I’m keeping in mind that we were actually in a winnable position at 3 quarter time. When North kicked the first couple of the last quarter, we definitely lowered our pressure (this is probably a great concern in itself), and we had probably underestimated the opponent going into the game. On the other hand, North, having been down for so many years, were finally in a position where they had their boot on the neck of another Victorian club - they weren’t going to let up. Sometimes, you’re caught off guard by the waves of momentum and emotion, and this was probably a hugely cathartic victory. So, last week was creditable, this week was diabolical. The rounds have been topsy turvy across the competition so far, we just need to wait and see our response against Gold Coast. OUT: Woewodin, Jefferson IN: Langford, Fullerton

The only major discrepancy worth noting is the hitouts. Despite that, Schache seemed to be suggested as a ruck/forward option far more regularly than Weideman. As I wrote in my initial post, it would have been interesting to see him in the ruck/forward role after Jackson. This would have obviously been a significant downgrade on ruck talent but I think it may have been beneficial to Weideman to have been forced into the contest. I think that’s the only grounds for him being considered. I agree there’s no point him being considered as a KPF alone. But with Tomlinson, KFW, and Schache off the list I think there is a small case to be made for Weideman. Whether Weideman would even want to be on a rookie contract is another issue.

I’m not suggesting we should, and I think it’s virtually no chance of happening. I’m only saying based on Gawn’s previous comments, the only role he could plausibly fill would be as a ruck/fwd. The Club clearly doesn’t see Fullerton as being able to play this role, Tom Campbell is a ‘break glass’ option, Verrel is still too raw, and most of us would like to see JVR played solely as a key forward. On those grounds, if he was a rookie listed player, the only risk of him returning would be impeding the development of younger players at Casey, but I also think he could be a serviceable key back if necessary.

I remember Gawn saying Weideman’s best position was as a ruck/fwd. It did kind of seem like a bit of a backhanded compliment - as though he would never be good enough as a key forward alone. Still, Gawn must have been at least somewhat impressed by his ruck potential. In hindsight, we really wouldn’t have been any worse off had we instead given Weideman the opportunity to play that role instead of recruiting Grundy, but he probably wouldn’t have offered much more than Van Rooyen has and certainly less forward. I wouldn’t be against his recruitment, but on the condition he didn’t impede Jefferson’s development in the forward line.

This is all pure speculation but given how hard he is driving for this outcome, despite his almost impossible situation, I imagine the Petracca family are 100% in support of what he is doing. I feel all it would take would be one person he respected or admired to say, "Are you sure you're doing the right thing, Christian?" and he would relent. But any moral argument to honour his contract would be countered by something along the lines of, "They almost killed you, Christian!" I'm sure the Club has reached out to the family, but if the Petraccas are still too aggrieved, then perhaps someone outside the Club like Garry Lyon could be convinced to play a peacemaker role. (Again, pure speculation - I'm not trying to blame the family. Don't yell at me, admins.)

There was a free kick paid in the final quarter of Carlton and Port Adelaide where a Carlton defender leapt up to spoil and collided with the Port player at the 50 metre arc. Unlike Maynard, when that the defender realised he would collide with the Port player, he then actually puts out his hands to push off him. He was still penalised which seemed like the wrong decision because there didn't appear to be any head high contact. I know we all need to move on from this but one of this things that angered me so much about the Collingwood tribunal defence was the discussion around 'reaction times' and it being somehow impossible for Maynard to have taken any protective measures to reduce the possibility of injury - they even had some kind of neurologist to support the claim. Anyone who has played any kind of fast-moving sport knows that it was complete nonsense. Anyway, I haven't found the clip anywhere but if you can be bothered it's 1:39.20 mark here. https://www.afl.com.au/video/1180655/match-replay-carlton-v-port-adelaide?videoId=1180655&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1722040200001

That's very fair. Goodwin is not an autocrat and certainly appears open to advice and counsel from other parties. So yes, we should absolutely look at the support around him.

The mid-season break has come at the best possible time. It at least gives us an opportunity to arrest whatever rot has set in here. We will then hopefully work back into some kind of form against a lowly opponent. We are truly at the crossroads here and I look forward to seeing who steps up to respond. The concern for me is that this faltering gameplan demonstrates that Goodwin is simply a poor strategist. He is not a dynamic thinker and doesn't appear able to adapt to changing trends or recognise our vulnerabilities - he seems to prefer a 'set and forget' model of success. We've seen large, clumsy, broad strokes to arrest our downfall; such as the recruitment of Grundy, or this latest gameplan, but then then there is the recruitment of middling, ageing performers whose presence give us no indication of how the list will be revitalised or how we will be playing differently. They appear to have been recruited simply as depth. Goodwin deserves enormous credit and gratitude for the list, culture, and strategy which led to 2021. But at this point in time, I have grave doubts over his ability to resurrect the 'era'. We'll see.