Fat Tony

We don't really play a full forward and centre half forward. We play 2x tall forwards, 1x forward ruck, Fritsch and 3 speed forwards. One of the tall forwards often plays a defensive role to keep the oppositions best intercept marker away from the play. And we actually want Fritsch to be the deepest forward because of his accuracy. We are going to plan our forward structure and entries around Aliir, who is a key for them. Brown has also excellent endurance and often covers the most distance in a game.

Jordon. It might be Melksham or Smith to give us cover as sub if we lose a tall during the game.

Brown only had 8 touches last week. And TMac didn’t play.

The decision on who comes in for Petty will have a lot to do with how we plan for Aliir. I think I would go for Brown to stretch their defence and play Van Rooyen on Aliir.

Smith has played two VFL games and just had a bye when he would have been put through a match load of running.

Both should be ok according to Jon Ralph on Fox.

We’ve still got scores to settle here. No mercy!

The number of successful appeals in the MRO process is outrageous given the cards stacked against the suspended player. It just shows what a kangaroo court the whole process is.

He looks a more natural defender to me. I’m not sure he is big enough or fast enough to play forward at AFL level. But it’s not the worst idea in future seasons.

The point is valid but a lot of the issues we have had with those players have been when we have been missing out best key defenders.

Goodwin felt that King was the more dangerous forward and that the obvious matchup for him was May.

GCS had King, Casboult and Chol all over 200cm. It was a tough matchup but I’m not sure Goodwin was entirely to blame. Particularly given we are clearly committed to giving the Petty experiment a full run before making a decision.

I think a lot of fans would have been a bit underwhelmed with Daniel Turner’s game on the weekend. There were times in the game when he was clearly undersized and outmuscled against Levi Casboult, albeit Casboult didn’t have that much impact on the game and only had 9 possessions. That said, I think there is evidence that Turner will be a long-term AFL player. He is a level above in the VFL and he has the right attributes. He is reasonably quick, a neat kick, makes good decisions, has courage and can take marks at the highest point. Currently he lacks a bit of strength and we have not seen if he can play on smaller, nippier AFL players. While Turner is clearly not in our best defence at this stage, I think we need to make sure he gets at least 4 or 5 games this year to see if he can improve and adapt to the pace of the game and be in our best side come September.

Smith has kicked 3 goals & 2 goals in the last two weeks. He completely drifted in and out of both games but he also had patches where he absolutely dominated both times. (The period versus GCS he fluffed his chances.) Listening to Goodwin's press conference, Smith is going to get a trial in the next 10 weeks and Brown is plan B(BB). Howes body and intensity is not AFL ready. I am a big fan, but I think he is a 2024 project. There is not much chance he plays forward at AFL level because he has not played there at VFL level. If he plays this season it will be in a high half back role.

Smith has looked absolutely electric in patches in the VFL the last two weeks. He kicked well against Box Hill but he did not finish well against Gold Coast. There is not many players with his athletic profile in the competition.

Goodwin said Hibberd would come back and Petty would stay as a forward. He also said that he sees Joel Smith playing in a very dynamic way as a forward in the VFL. Reading between the lines, I think Smith will come in if Van Rooyen fails to get off and Hibberd will come in for Daniel Turner. Spargo is also likely to come back in with one of Spargo, ANB, Chandler or Jordan as sub.

I hate Adrian Anderson for initiating the tanking investigation but he’s making a good case.

Great podcast. @binman On recent podcasts you have said you are keen to see Petty played back but you have also been bemoaning our ability to defend the ground ball in defence. I think you are wanting your cake and eat it too here! A part of the decision to play a smaller backline is to give us more run and better coverage for the ground ball. (It is also because Ben Brown is a witches hat on the ground balls and TMac is out of form/unfit, so Petty gives us a more competitive option as a second/third tall.) With Hibberd, Salem and Petty not in our current back 7 against GCS, I think you need to specify who you think should come out of the backline. I assume Daniel Turner is one player who goes out, albeit I think he will be a good AFL player and really needs a block of games to get up to AFL speed. But who goes out for Salem, Hibberd or Petty? Is it Bowey, who is our best ball user but struggles at times one on one? Rivers, who is career best form? McVee, who has come on fantastically well this year? Or Brayshaw, who is playing higher but could go into the midfield? IMO our issues with the ground ball could be exacerbated with another tall in defence.

Yes they can PF because the AFL is bankrolling the team.

He was saying the onus was on the existing clubs to make sure the environment was one where players wanted to stay. I don't think he understood that it would result in Tassie taking players off the bottom clubs, creating other problems for the competition.

Dangerfield was advocating for 1 contracted player from each club being able to break contract and head to Devil land.

James Sicily on the target list 🤣

We should not ever relax and be complacent after missing the finals in 2017 because of a couple of goals worth of percentage.

I don't see how another game makes more profit. It probably costs $40-50m for an AFL side. 10 games means more overlapping games and splits the audience. Surely we would be better to see if North, St Kilda, GCS and GWS can survive before expanding further.