Little Goffy

Sometimes I just marvel at how they don't all end up with bits of them twisted off, snapped, and hanging from one last sinew. You'd think that all it would take is two players bound up in a wrestle, and another to bump them unintentionally and unexpectedly while going past, and by the time the ground gets involved it is hospital time. But there is some kind of deep human instinct for the 'instant release' at the critical moment. After all, almost all human wrestling and push-shove is between children who are quite close. Keep not breaking eachother, kids!

Well, I'll nibble at the bait. There's an interesting conundrum to our list at the moment, with the presence of so many players who can genuinely deserve a place on an AFL field, but who aren't ever going to be the premium types who secure a stable spot. It's a natural part of being a successful team, to have a certain portion of your players who, with all best wishes from the club, have to move on for better opportunities. Ideally, they then get overrated somewhere else and bring in a handy draft pick. But I think it is a bit premature, and maybe tasteless, to be deciding who will be 'pushed out' in that gap between regular playing and being delisted. There's an obvious cluster of young players who are competent but not first picked. It'll be interesting, and hopefully exciting, to see how it all plays out.

From an anthropologist's perspective, things like the 'brutal boot camp' training or Kokoda treks fill a specific purpose other than 'finding your limits' or any physical development. And obviously It is also not something specific to football or sport. You can go back as far as Machiavelli to find an early example of the reasoning (pardon my paraphrasing) - "Loyalty is driven more by what you owe them, than what they owe you". In his case, it was about tactically keeping yourself in at least some form debt to your allies, so they had an interest in your success to enable repayment. More modern terms might describe it as a manipulation of the 'sunk costs fallacy', where someone wont give up on an investment, a project, or a relationship because they can't face the idea that everything they've already done for it is just a waste. So the ritual could be anything that involves experiencing personal distress, really. Mental even more than physical - any distress that can only be justified by affirming that 'I can do this thing which is otherwise awful, only because being part of the group makes it ok' Our players are completing the same ritual process as was once achieved by bathing in the blood of a freshly sacrificed goat, cutting the ear of a Spartan child, circumcision/FGM, burning a village to the ground, executing POWs, and gang-rape. So, on that count, I would say things have progressed terrifically well. Even in football, it was only 20 years ago that 'massive [censored]-up and group s3x' was the bonding ritual of choice. So I'll take 'simulation of military stress conditions' as a clear winner at this point. As a side note. This sunk-costs ritual of commitment and bonding has the potential to mask genuine unacceptable behaviour (of the types mentioned above, for example), and also massively, horribly backfire once the basis for the bond is torn up. Simply look to Essendon - the things left unchallenged because of the 'bond' to club, and the impact on many players and now most dramatically James Hird himself, once that bond is gone and they find themselves isolated and having to reevaluate all the things they did

Looking at those and other Jayden Hunt highlights, and paying closer attention than just the excitement during a game, is very satisfying. Goes up to contest marks without fear, plays on boldly, has vision to make meaningful long kicks, runs not only fast but smart with changes in direction and shifts of body position anticipating the next move of those around him. So, what does he need to tidy up to become outright first-class? A bit more fitness to rack up a few more uncontested possessions and build a full four-quarter presence, and a little more strength to make the most of his marking instinct. That's about it really?

I'm in the unfortunate position of only really having followed seriously from start of 2000. Yep, by the end of my first 'proper' season I thought this footy fan thign was a pretty good ride. Also means I can't legitimately include the likes of Stynes, Viney Snr, even Febey would be unreasonable, given I didn't see almost his whole career. Although I do feel like I can include Farmer, because he had so much visibility and obviously continued to play AFL, though not with us. Aside from a lean period to choose from, the other problem is that we've had so many players who only delivered their best for relatively short periods, rather than over a whole career. Davey, Green, Moloney, Bruce, Johnstone, Frawley, Sylvia, Rivers, Woewodin, Whelan, Powell, Brown, and on. So, I've tried to look at the bright side and consider which of our current team would right now, not 'on potential', be in our best 22 since 2000. Jessie Hogan, as a tall forward behind only Neitz. When was the last time we had a consistent 40+ goals key forward apart from these two? Tom McDonald. The competition as tall defenders being Nicholson, Carroll, Holland? Neville Jetta as a shutdown small defender. Another one with not a lot of direct competition, though maybe more due to injuries (full respect to Whelan, and Bartram). Max Gawn over Jeff White. In the midfield obviously Jones, but then both Viney and Tyson actually earn a spot. This might shock some, but Tyson compares favourably against most of our midfielders of the last 15 seasons. Viney... well, it is easy to be distracted by what he may be about to become, and lose sight of the fact he is already one of our top 21st-century mids. No doubt other young players show promise, but it would be premature to have them in ahead of many of the recent quality players. But there's a real prospect that soon the bulk of our 21st-century best-22 might be playing together in one terrifying squad!

For me, the only reason to look at that article was to have another chance to laugh at how horribly Mick Malthouse screwed up. Carlton, indisputably bottom ranked for forwards, and yet... Kennedy, Waite, Betts, Garlett, with Jacobs resting forward ruck and Troy Menzel on the bench.

On the bright side, coming into a season with finals expectations might sharpen the players' minds to the job of winning when we're expected to, rather than just coasting along since nobody really gets excited about beating bottom teams. If the mindset switches to racking up the wins and not caring who the opponent is or how impressed everyone will be when we beat them, that alone will be enough difference to put us in finals in 2017. It would've gotten us there in 2016, dammit!

Although, he might always have been able to realistically claim the 'lack of knowledge' defence.

I'm a long way into the 'team game' side of the debate. Important to have as many 'excellent' players as possible to give inspiration and some unpredictability, but the 'superstars' just don't become available at their real value. I'm a broken record on it, I know, so I wont try to bring out any grand detail. It's a debate with so many intangibles it'll maybe never be answered. I'll concede one thing for sure - it is definitely nice to draft and develop a star who then humbly commits to the club at reasonable cost.

Not a bad idea, except after a while people might think you're a Hawthorn supporter.

Hmm, here's a few things to work on for the $1.7m. Just floating ideas to get Gil started. 1. An extra $30m for the second-tier competitions would transform the depth of the game. Right now the AFL is just barely staving off a crisis from sheer lack of available talent, a problem which could actually wreck the top-level competition. Meanwhile, in NSW and QLD the essential grass roots are being left dry, and Tasmania didn't produce a draftee. One basic measure of the talent problem is the share of teams with seriously poor percentage. Under 75%, and 75-80%. Lately it has been normal to have three or four teams each year record those levels, even discounting GWS and Gold Coast. Last decade it would only be a couple a season, and mostly Carlton and Melbourne anyway. Before that it was even rarer, and a substantial majority of those results in the 90s were Fitzroy and the Bears. In truth, this is Demetriou's mess. He was the one who led the rush-job without groundwork to get into Western Sydney and Gold Coast. But McLachlan had a major hand in that too, and the problem of thinning of talent is his to deal with now. 2. There needs to be a transparent and consistent system for... well... kind of everything. Umpiring interpretations, match review panel, 'behavioural' penalties and investigations, fixturing for on-field fairness and commercial fairness, allocation of the TV rights distributions, structure of salary caps, non-salary 'benefits', football dept budgets. The culture of secrecy, influence and 'government by decree' is not doing the game any favours in any of these areas. 3. There needs to be a coherent, stable and values-based (rather than reaction-based) reshaping of the AFL's community leadership role, based on the idea that the AFL must be a safe place where everyone feels welcome. For example, I absolutely endorse all kinds of meaningful reaching out, mentorship and support for excluded groups, and public campaigns affirming that. But personally I think the 'special rounds' should be toned back a bit in favour of a strong consistent statement that 'every round is for everyone' and the only reason anyone should feel unwelcome at a game, from top level to Auskick, is if they are making other people feel unsafe or unwelcome. 4. The AFL marketing dept needs to be completely cleaned out. Is anyone else getting the AFL Fan Focus surveys? Last week I managed to sit through a 20 minute (seriously, 20 minutes, who is designing these?) survey about a proposed ad, which was truly awful. Quentin Tarantino goes past some guy on a laptop in a nondescript office who is looking at AFL stuff, and he asks a bunch of questions about how much all the extras in the crowd cost and did they use wires for the jumps and stunt doubles, so the office guy gives smug replies about how it is all real. It was Meat Loaf bad, and just makes it n+1 examples that they have lost all creativity and connection with their 'market', let alone their community.

Ha, yes, Carlton supporters still insist they have won the most premierships, at 16.4 - that's including 20% of North's premierships in the 90s.

I can't decide if their names sound like musical instruments or anatomy. Either way, definitely should recruit on that basis alone.

Agree in general but I doubt anyone would be hating Rockliff for his purity as a 'virgin dog'. Also 'ratf...er', which is confusing. Can a dog still count as virgin if it is f...ing rats? This is not an edifying moment for anyone involved. I do wonder how the $1.7m man will handle it?

Does this mean Max will have to shave his beard? Can't expect just one opponent to take on both Max and his beard.

His presence on the field for us was so brief that to me he finishes having never really 'felt' like he'd become a Melbourne player. It is all disappointing but I can't find the urgency in showing any ill-will. He's an odd one at times, but if you want to complain about him, you have to declare yourself in favour of the 'robots' football culture and the end of 'characters'.

You really think Mclachlan is some kind of decisive difference to the TV rights deal? There's another 10 executives running around with that as well, trading off player access, cameras in the changing rooms, mid-game coach interviews, attendence-unfriendly timeslots, all kinds of things to push up the value for broadcast partners. - The introduction of the Women's League has been totally half-arsed, somehow both slow and rushed. Overplanned and ramshackle. - The Demons profits have little to do with McLachlan, much more to do with Jackson, and in the end all come down to the Demon supporters themselves, obviously. - The Bulldogs were the first 'non-favoured' team to win the premiership this century. Woop-dee-doo. This definitely shows that the AFL competition isn't heaving dangerously even on calm waters. - The Etihad acquisition is notable only for so being so obvious and so overdue. I refer to the benchmark of panda-onesie trumpet busker guy earlier - Ooh, they are thinking about reigning in some GWS advantages. I think you'll find the cyborg gene-spliced horse has bolted and will be breathing flame from its nostrils no matter how colourful the saddle blanket Gil puts on it. - A screwed up thing is not becoming more screwed up? Well, I'd pay a premium for that kind of service anyday. "This hotel room is filthy, why did you book it?" ... "Well, they promised it would not be any more filthy than last time I stayed." Pardon my sarcasm. This is an issue that people need to be cranky about, and with a bit of urgency. The AFL has been, is being, and short of significant governance change will continue to be very poorly run.

I understand the whole 'got to pay to get the best' argument. And I totally agree with the 'executive decisions make a difference on a scale with their incomes'. But here's the thing... in a genuine market, 'we' (The AFL community, which the AFL implicitly acts on behalf of, as a not-for-profit organisation incorporated for the purpose of promoting and regulating the game in Australia) should be paying a market rate for the labour, fairly based on how easily replaced the labour is. Given that there's no real case against replacing McLachlan with a kid who normally sells footy records or the trumpet-playing busker in a panda suit I saw once at Etihad, why are we paying $1.7m for this clutz?

If the set shot routine improves, and the emphasis on attack continues effectively, then 60+. If not, then he'll make just as much of a contribution moving further up the ground, as DemonAndrew says. I don't think goals will be the measure of success for Hogan in 2017, but it would still be nice to see him crack at least 50.

Surprise packets is a tricky one, because it wouldn't really be that big a surprise for a lot of our players to make big strides. I'm going to go for an optimistic call on Colin Garland, not to be suddenly extraordinary but just to find a regular place as an effective defender (I've never quite given up). Big improvers would have to be Brayshaw, Petracca, Oliver and Salem, just based on doing what we know they can do, but for whole games and with some glitches smoothed out. I also happen to really like Oscar McDonald, who clearly got more games and responsibility than he was quite ready for in 2016, but made a decent hand of it. With a little more experience, meat and confidence I think he will stand up as a really capable tall defender. So, if I'm right about those two, then the Demon's defense is looking terrific in 2017! I'm really confident that the Demons will make the 8 in 2017, likely high enough to earn a home final. Some miscellaneous achievements for 2017; Melbourne will be the most accurate team in front of goals. (Goal-behind ratio) Melbourne will lay the most tackles and Viney will lead the AFL for tackles per game. Hogan and Gawn will both be in the top-5 for contested marks. (per game) Tom McDonald will lead the AFL for 1-percenters. (per game) Jesse Hogan will kick the biggest haul of goals in a single game for the season. (my guess; 11) Melbourne will have no Rising Star nominations. (Even though Weidemann will have a solid development year) Casey will win the VFL premiership after a start-to-finish dominant season. I think there's a powerful combination of multiple AFL-capable players who may need to fight for position through the VFL (Kennedy, Kennedy-Harris, Wagner, Harmes, Neal-Bullen, Trengove, Spencer, even Melksham and Bugg) and what must be a great morale boost to have two Casey players rookie-listed by the Demons.

Round 11, 2011. Brad Green kicked 4. Jordan Gysberts had 30 disposals. Moloney, Trengove and Jordie McKenzie also outstanding. Heh, for a laugh, looking at the numbers, there were other 'Demons' who were among the best on the day - Melksham and Hibbered! For the magic GAWN MOMENT in the video Demon Jack posted, start from at 2:05:00, but stop before 2:06:00.

Interesting to see that the Women's team foundation memberships have just about sold out. 500x$250=$125,000 So that's the salaries of a little under under half the players covered for the first season. Guess we'll have to wait and see how many regular memberships comes through for the women's team, how much merchandise, attendences, and of course the all-important sponsors. But if the aim is about $500k/season, you'd have to be feeling pretty confident.

I'm surprised that Viney is rated so low, presumably it is a matter of sustaining form over a period. Plus, there's no great evidence to suggest he creates especially damaging clearances or launches many scoring chances. His disposal efficiency is still low and there isn't a trade-off in his favour from having a big positive impact. Jones I would've thought would be higher, too. But again he is just not that damaging most of the time. Champion Data will likely fall madly in love with Angus Brayshaw once he gets some more fitness and racks up some more disposals. The rate at which his possessions become score-assists, effective inside 50s, score launches and the like is terrific. You'd argue that Petracca has the same kind of danger to his game. At the moment our midfield has a few established top accumulators (Jones 28disp/5clr, Viney 26/6, Tyson 25,4) and a few young 'weapons' in Brayshaw and Petracca, with much fewer disposals to spin to gold. Plus the mystery beast Oliver. As for Collingwood and Richmond's high ratings, and the Freo-Bulldogs comparison made prior to the season - The power of Collingwood's midfield is demonstrated by the fact they were mostly competitive in 2016 despite have absolute gobshite forward and defense groups. Richmond is practically defined by their tradition of having a great top end and then depth resembling the detritus of Big Day Out concerts. Right now they've got Cotchin, Prestia and Martin included in their main midfield group. All 3 are more potent than any 1 we've got at the moment, if you can leave the Cotchin-bashing aside for a second. Going back to Fremantle and their anticipated rating for 2016. Neale, Hill, Mundy, Pearce and Barlow were pretty good in 2015, I hear. The they recruited Harley Bennell, and champion data could only go on his stats from play. And that Fyfe kid goes alright. I don't think there'd be many claiming their forward-line depth and sparkling defenders were the factors that took them close to glory, either. Bulldogs are a slightly different deal. I'd argue two factors had them middle of the range of midfields at the end of 2015. First, many players were exciting, obviously terrific talents, but still not quite putting it all together, with each having different gaps in the combination of "control it, get it, use it, do it again". Exactly how we might look at Petracca, Oliver and Brayshaw in 2017. The other factor is that a lot of the Bulldog's 2016 potency was built on flankers contributing really effectively in their roles as well as when they ran through or rotated through the midfield, which means their performance might not be considered part of the compared 'midfield' squad in 2016, let alone in 2015. The Bulldogs transformation from exciting to supreme was all about 'completing' the full package for already excellent players and having great depth which gave great tactical initiative. Think of it like Jesse Hogan. If he comes out in 2017 and has an ideal set shot routine and never shows poor body language, all we'll remember from 2016 if that he was already great and kicked 40+ goals. The halo around him will outshine any memories of his youthful imperfections. So... Champion Data are probably right, within their terms of reference. Collingwood and Richmond do have great top-end midfields, (but the floorboards have rotted through everywhere else). Fremantle did have an amazing midfield... during the 2016 pre-season. The Bulldog's midfield could only be called 'exciting but incomplete' based on their 2014-15 performance. And, based on exposed form over the last couple of years, Melbourne's midfielders are nothing much to shout about. Other things being equal, they weren't generally going to win you a game. But that time should come.

I get shy around exclamation marks, but I'm willing to believe the sentiment is fair. I would argue that the key difference is that players now actually believe that if they make the extra effort, there will be results and reward for effort. Not that long ago, the only reasons a player would try hard at the Demons would have been personal pride or desire to get a good deal at a new club. No reason to think that your efforts would make any real difference to the team's performance, ladder position, reputation, anything. So if 'buy-in' comes from, or even means basically the same thing as 'belief that there is value to making an effort and others will also do their share', then I'll agree wholeheartedly that it looks like there's been a big change at our club. Of course, a bit of swagger, the arrogance to think you can solve it all with your superhero powers, provides a temporary bridge for certain individuals. Hopefully by the time reality hits those (glorious and entertaining) players, confidence in the team and shared burden will fill the void.

Heritier is welcome to retire, and he can give the final contract year worth of money to Daniel Bell.