Little Goffy

Aaron VaNdenBeRg - 3 contested posessions, 3 disposals, 2 handballs that missed their target, one kick for a goal. Statistics say he should always kick it. Jeff Garlett at -3 'fantasy points' as a write this. Which means nothing but also reminds me of fun times watching my brother going nuts over Garlett's depth-of-the-ocean quiet spells at Carlton. And we're back to two goals each. Everyone ready to rend your garments and gnash your teeth?

Ha ha, you reckon Watts was having a Jordan McMahon moment? More pertinently, clearly we could never have actually lost. Our best on the day included Lumumba and Garlett, both originally from clubs which definitely, definitely, never, ever, whatsoever, not even conceivably, couldn't have possibly, wouldn't even know how to, not in a thousand years... tanked. Oooh, I'm having fun times bringing up the bitter cud for another chew!

I'm thinking that it wont even need to be Lumumba or the MFC who go after Barrett, the AFL Player's Association should be going after this in a big way. What is left of privacy if player's can't even ask questions confidentially without it becoming a beat-up scandal?

So now, players who seek to clarify the AFL/ASADA rules will have their names leaked, and be publicly slandered in the first footy show of each season, when they start at a new club? That'll be good for improving the culture of informed responsibility... So, the question is: Was it Barrett working alone, digging through rubbish bins, or did he have help from someone who [acted illegally] to [breach the confidentiality at the heart of the AFLPA's agreement to the recreation drug testing]? Laws have actually been broken in this matter, and not by Lumumba.

Although, in the last ten years, 60%+ of finals wins have been from just 6 teams... and the lowest 6 teams barely share 10% of finals wins between them.

I love the comment in the article "Victorian clubs are responsible for half that debt", with the implication that there is a particular problem with Victorian debt. Nevermind that Victorian clubs are slightly more than half the clubs. That said, the disparity in club revenues is becoming a serious problem. I do wonder though, at what point the rich clubs will simply run out of things to legitimately spend money on? Start throwing it around like the Gulf Oil states? Coming soon, the Burj McGuire.

The best part is, he doesn't turn every discussion into a bitter snark about the past!

I think the OP might be getting a little ahead of himself, which is dangerous during a turnaround. You can get all kinds of tangled. But the very least we can say is that we have removed an awful lot of list-cloggers, learnt to defend, managed bad situations well, got some luck out of free agency, our club officials are widely respected, and have credible reasons to hope. We also look like we will be able to routinely field a full team of actual AFL-quality players this year, even if several are very raw. Fun times.

How about something more onomapotoeic, like... "Barchsit".

If anyone is really feeling like crying and cutting up their memberships about this game... http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/nab-challenge/2015/1/rich-v-port Looks like Port Adelaide are done for the year...

Story of the game - We had 400 disposals to less than 250. But about the same number of contested posessions, and clearances. 11 players with 8 or more marks, all of them along half-back or midfield. While the Bulldogs were in disarray and let us have time and space to work a precision-kicking game, it worked wonders. Once they got their tails up and started closing down our movement into half-forward, the rebounds really hurt us, and we clearly got complacent about fighting out the defensive side. Too many were caught running to where they hoped the ball would be. Very disappointing second half, for sure, but I really hope our players are coaches are a little bit more resilient than the Sookscapade Spectactular going on here!

Disappointing second half, for sure. A little bit hilarious. Sigh.

But 80% disposal efficiency. *shrug* Maybe he is getting it more often than you've noticed? I mean, he has had it more than anyone else on the ground. I wonder if it is part of MFCSS to only notice who a player is after they've committed a turnover?

I got some stats coming through before I could get the stream on the MFC website. Was thinking there must be an error, with all the ridiculously high disposal efficiency numbers. Especially after all the talk about the wind. Anyway, got to be pretty happy with that half, as much as the opposition wasn't particularly menacing. Seems like just about every player delivered according to the 'realistic, positive pre-season result' script in the first half. I'll be looking for a few special flashes in the second half to give the media something to use as a 'hook' for their articles, but other than that, carry on gentlemen.

Dom Tyson's last six games of 2014 were absolutely first rate. On par or beyond the likes of Cotchin, Murphy, Dal Santo or Sidebottom. He's a star, take it to the bank. Literally, if you're playing supercoach. His season average (hence price) was an excellent 94, but his final six rounds averaged 115. Salem is trickier to predict. He only played 55% game time in 2014 on account of routine sub vests. But he's definitely got something to share. Personally I'm expecting Viney to progress in the same kind of way that Jones did. Steady, disciplined addressing of specific deficiencies each season, until showing through as an all-round capable midfielder by his early-mid 20s. Not so much a breakout as an ever-growing dominance! Hogan, well, it is complex, because people's expectations and anticipation of young key forwards are so complex. Jack Darling was barely managing a goal a game when he was one of the most celebrated young forwards in the AFL, on account of his work ethic and amount of 'disruption' caused. Tom Boyd is getting a million dollars a year because... umm... he has a particularly square jaw and looks very manly? I think this season we will be 'satisfied that we're onto something good', rather than watching a Jeremy Cameron style storm rolling through. And for all that, I'm still most interested in seeing our list develop to the point of having a solid group of genuine AFL-quality players. Not necessarily stars, but week-in week-out reliable quality. A good environment for stars to shine in and kids to develop in.

Yep. I've had similar experience. GP determined to put me on meds as depressed. It didn't matter how many times I pointed out that 'when things aren't ----, I'm happy'. It's a weird experience having someone trying to convince you that your temporary, circumstantial unhappiness is actually a deep-rooted mental illness that will trouble you for the rest of your life. I've had intimate partners and dear friends with depression, bipolar, and anxiety disorders and I know my luck to not have to manage any of those conditions. I still think Mitch Clark showed a serious lack of grace and respect, and his apparent selfishness wont have done any good for the many depression sufferers who don't have the kind of extraordinary support and options he has had.

If there's one thing I'm convinced of, its that we wont become a solid, high quality, consistent football team if we lump all our luck and talent into just a handful of top-priced players. Fun player to watch, I hope he stays at Adelaide, they've had enough trouble with departing players lured away by ridiculous offers. Plus, I like the thought of being able to watch a game where an opposition star turns on a brilliant and memorable performance but we still win, and I really think the Dangerfield/Walker/Adelaide combination can deliver that for years to come.

I understand he needed to at least notionally retire. I understand he needed to change environment for a fresh start. He got a lot of help from people who were also under the pump, and a lot of help from a club that actually really needed him. In his circumstances, he's probably the luckiest depression sufferer in Australia. All I wanted back was a bit of candour and transparency. And maybe a little acknowledgement of his good fortune, with a nod to the hundreds of thousands of people who have depression and don't have anything like the cash, supportive employers and colleagues, in-house psychologists and compatible career choices that he has had. It all sits uneasily with me. Depression isn't a free pass to selfishness.

Richmond 2013 Carlton 2009 Melbourne 2004 All thought they were on the way up, but in truth, they had all peaked already. Daniher was sacked in effect for trying to hold onto the dream too long, until all the old bodies creaked to a standstill. The opposite of Ratten who was sacked because the board didn't want to hear him admit the club couldn't reach the top with their current list. I wonder how things will go with Hardwick?

Tyson would shoot up the rankings just by delivering his 2014 form consistently. Would even go past Jones if his form towards the end of the year becomes his new standard.

I don't think I'd want to be trapped into making detailed predictions, but there are a lot of clubs which are looking a bit brittle, like a few key losses and a bit of a slump could turn into a whole dud season. Carlton - Brittle, brittle, brittle. Serious depth issues and their stars aren't quite stars. Richmond - Basically the same as Carlton (which I love saying because it would annoy them both so much) Essendon - Well, hmm. Bulldogs - Losing Liberatore is a big deal, coming on the back of a 'complex' pre-season. With their midfield thinned out, their key position shallowness becomes even more of a problem. Saints - Were being carried (to the extent they moved at all) by their veterans. Still being carried by their veterans. Fragile situation. Collingwood - I expect them to fade to sustained ordinary. Vulnerable due to arrogance and the pressure from perceptions of disharmony. Adelaide, Gold Coast, and Brisbane I think will stay solid or improve. Western Sydney is a mystery. Clearly the determinant of their success is not talent or anything tangible, they have all of that.

Dom Tyson must be a lock in as a 'cheap' premium, surely? Gets stats on every line, form was improving late last year and has had his first (touch wood) full preseason. Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw and Hogan must all be under consideration at those prices, and with a 'watch pre-season closely' note. Of the non-rookie players, I'd be watching Grimes and Gawn very closely, as we all know that either of them in form and fully fit is a totally different proposition to out of form and underprepared. Grimes in particular could be that rare thing; a reliable, decent-scoring defender. Viney's career so far has been one of workhorse, trooper, stalwart... but ultimately, 'kid taking too much on in a poor midfield'. If the midfield does genuinely improve, his price could go up $100k over the season, but he still fits into that twilight zone between being a premium and being a cash cow. Nice that there are some good dual-position players to consider from our own list.

First point to note: Players, through their agents, have a very good idea of what comparable players are earning and what they should reasonably expect to earn. Making salaries public wont affect that. And for the Geelong example, the thing to understand is that those players knew they were taking de facto paycuts, but they believed they were headed for something special and valued that more highly. Now they'll go down in football history as being one the most professional, most united and most successful groups of players ever to take to the field. As for the issue itself, I don't think a lot is to be gained through detailed public disclosure, but it might be appropriate to have a kind of 'band' system that gives a general idea of what layer of income players are in. Something very simple like 5 basic bands; 1 - $750k + For the truly alarmingly well paid. 2 - $500k+ The wider group of the game's elite players (as measured by salary of course) 3 - $350k+ Common salary band for mature players well established in the upper half of a club's best 22 4 - $200k+ Typical salary band for a player getting a reasonable number of games each season 5 - under $200k Draftees, rookies, project players etc. That would be more than enough detail to satisfy curiosity without giving away too much precise information about individual's finances.

I'm anxious about this. Does this mean that we have to wait until after we die to get anything?

This is a maddening moment. What I'm expecting is that we will be right in the mix for winning most games (cue the dreaded 'competitive' cliche), but in the end the wins will come only when something special happens, match-winning surges of momentum or game-defining individual efforts. Predict that at your peril. On the bright side, that also suggests that we shouldn't concern ourselves too much with who each opponent is; wins will come on days when our youthful variability surges in our favour, building on the Paul Roos tight and controlled game style that will keep us in games.