DeeSpencer

Agree with all of that. But I have to assume no one wanted McDonald or Brayshaw on 700k a year. And we paid big overs for Tomlinson and even Langdon (yes Langdon cost too much IMO). I wouldn’t have signed Ben Brown and have instead chucked another 20k at McKernan as depth, then put that money in to a outside runner. Cut Mitch Brown for another cheap as chips runner too. Retired Jones and Jetta to free up cash for a mid tier option. In terms of improvement the best possible version of our backline has a lot of talent. The midfield can get twice as good if the lesser players support Gawn, Oliver and Tracc - whilst those 3 elite players combine individual brilliance with team play. I don’t know if Brown, Weid, Fritsch and role playing smalls are enough or will even work but for this year at least the biggest test is on Goodwin and Yze sorting the mids out.

Goodwin made a successful change of defensive system last year. Defending deeper and being more comfortable conceded inside 50’s. We have a new midfield coach, a clear sign the club are aware of issues. I would’ve made list changes - out Brayshaw and/or Viney, in flanker, Rivers/Salem on ball. But we never get the inside word on what deals were available or even know who makes those calls. It’s largely semantics but I don’t think Goodwin isn’t aware of problems, he just can’t fix them. It’s still his responsibility- the list and skills aren’t where they should be. It’s just there’s no easy fixes. Our best fixes last year were Melksham on ball for more kicking. Melksham was the answer! And pissing Oliver off so much by coaching him to do better, which by reports had him thinking of leaving.

May's 2020 might've just pipped Frawley's best season given he provided a lot of rebound (with the occasional odd decision). Nev Jetta 2014-2018 might be one of the best runs we've had of consistently good footy. Clearly the time is now for Lever to start producing quality footy. I'm excited to see what Salem, Rivers and Bowey can do as a trio if we can get them all in the same backline and working together. In 2018 we had Hibberd, Lewis and Salem all playing well together and whilst the talls and the system broke down at times it was a nice feeling to know that apart from a bit of Frostball more times than not we wouldn't butcher it from half back.

He's a great mark, but has to work on lots of the rest of his defending. The best thing for his development is sustained footy at one end I agree, but we can probably get by with Tomlinson short term and if the teams needs are for someone to do the job at CHF he has to be considered. It's hopefully only a month until Brown is back

Zero midfield rotations, nice. What do we do after the 7 minute mark of the first quarter?

3 goals in 4 games last year and that was with at least a decent preseason. 43 goals in 54 games too. Even if some of them were down back. He has a few weeks training and kicks goals against a Box Hill line up with 0 AFL players and he’s the answer? That doesn’t seem rational. And maybe he is the answer? But if the fitness staff think playing him too much too early might risk injury as well then where does that leave us and him? If the coaches want to make a bold move up forward and Tom McDonald isn’t the answer then play Petty.

Not sure what you mean by ‘subs don’t work’. Some teams got good use out of the sub rule. Gia was the super sub for the dogs I believe. For home games it’s pretty much just having your first emergency a little more warmed up and ready to play. It really disadvantages travelling sides but if Adam Simpson is calling for it that shows how keen they are to not be a man down. And given how regularly guys get injured it’s more 2-3 men down that really worries them. Good teams won’t use the same player too often and will factor in development. That’s what happens now with emergencies. I’m actually more concerned by the 23rd player than the sub. I’m in favour of less players (16 on field) than keeping on adding players.

If you really trying to get an advantage I think you could instruct one of your lesser players to stay down after a tackle to be subbed for fresh legs. Unlikely but it’s a factor to consider.

The impact of a man down depends on whether you think teams play with 18 and a bench or if you think they play with 22 who are constantly rotating through the bench. Coaches clearly think it’s the latter. They see 21 as a disadvantage, and 20 as a major disadvantage. It’s hard to argue against that but I think it’s fair to say if we manage concussions perfectly then they can be treated like any other injury. It all comes down to how concussions are managed.

It’s not about being a man down, it’s about acting in the abundance of caution for an injury you can’t see and can’t easily detect at the time. So I’m supportive of the rationale but I don’t think it’s the best solution. I think the best solution is independent doctors. Thats the best way to be cautious, take out any risk and take out any incentive for subbing someone on.

Cheers. Trent Mynott and Cal Porter the only former AFL players that I could see running around for Box Hill. Our AFL guys should be putting in strong performances (and it seems they are).

What can you say about the quality of the Box Hill line up? Is Breust playing, he missed their AAMI game for a wedding. Denver GB? The Hawks best 22 is actually half decent but I don't think they have a lot of exposed depth.

Jackson I guess is 11 although I'd imagine he's forward a fair bit in round 1, and I was thinking the midfield stuff for Kozzie was more about fitness and he's too important forward but really we need his burst in the middle too. I'd probably play Chandler as a forward and take out a mid if they are going to use Kozzie on ball just because we skills and pressure forward. That's really the balance - how to keep enough forward craft in your forward line whilst getting as many midfield rotations as possible.

The biggest changes I think will come at selection where teams last year really pushed towards 7 defenders, 8 mids, 7 forwards. I think most teams and especially a side like us without a lot of versatile players will keep the 7 defenders rotating through the backline in order to find a cohesive defensive unit. But the forwards/mids combination might shift even all the way to 10 mids and 5 forwards. For example in round 1 we might go with Jackson, Tommy Mc, Pickett, Spargo and Fritsch as the primary forwards, and then Gawn, Tracc, Oliver, Harmes, Langdon, Baker, Brayshaw, Jordon, ANB, Jones all rotating through the midfield. I'd imagine Tracc and Oliver will rest at full forward, possibly Harmes too. Whilst Jordon, ANB and Jones will get called in to the midfield to save bench rotations. It's why Melksham is such an important player for us really because at least in theory he can play forward, on ball and wing. And hopefully in time guys like Laurie (all 3 spots) and Rosman (forward/wing) might be too.

I don't think the goal kicker coming off has ever been a policy, there's just always been times where the guy who kicks the goal is due for his rotation and that will continue. Key forwards have taken less rotations as the years go on, but they are also kicking less goals. A spent half forward should come off, there's really no benefit leaving them on just because they kicked a goal. I'm also not sure how much more monitoring the clubs can get, they track each players individual gps data and are pretty hot on who has to come off. It's well overdue that some of that data gets published for fans but that's true of a lot of AFL data and so far we haven't seen the AFL show any initiative with that.

Why would we communicate that to Fremantle for no good reason. He's an important player that teams put time in to. I'd have him in the line up until a minute before the bounce

Geelong had years of a 10 deep injury list of the same blokes, they shipped them out to start looking better. They also recruit a bunch of senior players each year it seems which helps the injury stats. Richmond have gone through periods of lots of injuries too, what they do well is the rehab which is possibly more on the physios than the fitness guy anyway. They time their run. Viney could be bad management, but it could also be that we've finally caught an issue in time, put him in for the surgery and he might only miss a week or two. He certainly was far fitter last year than he has been in years. The Weid is the first time I've heard of a player having his issue. Big guys are susceptible to stress injuries but how do you balance getting them fit enough to play? If it's a freak issue rather than a run of stress injuries to one part of the body as we've seen in previous years with the naviculars then I'm less inclined to put that down to bad management. I wouldn't put Brown down to Burgo either. He hasn't been at Melbourne long enough to say if Burgo's program will keep his knee in the kind of condition to not keep having issues. IMO the draft pick we gave up for Brown was reflective of the fact his body isn't 100%. I remember reading comments that Burgo was optimistic of helping Brown and time will tell, but I think it needs more time to see what he can do. Salem and Melksham pinging hammies is more of a worry to me. Obviously you wont go all season without a few soft tissue injuries but the aim has to be to get in to the games without those problems.

Vanders offers little in attack but gives his utmost to keep pressure on around the contest and to fold back and support the defense. It happened in 2018 and happened again in 2020 that as soon as he was switched on to a wing we started looking like a side with competent structures more often than not. The other options have barely managed to do role playing tasks coaches ask of wingers these days and apart from a couple of nice goals from Baker have done little in attack to make up for it. Who are the young players Goodwin has been holding back? Pickett played almost every game, Jackson got early footy, Rivers he kept out of a few games probably at the behest of the defensive coach and when someone like May says he's working on Rivers' positioning it's worth noting. Spargo's played, Fritsch's played. Petty's been injured. Jordon got injured before he could debut, Sparrow played before injury. Baker hadn't had a full preseason and clearly had a lot of work to do on his fitness. The idea that he should've been gifted games until now just isn't right. You can argue that if he's much fitter now that we should just stick with him but through 2 preseason games it's not looking promising. I'm certainly not suggesting Vanders be picked next week. If he is it's bad sign. But whoever does get picked has to do some of things he actually managed to do that helped the structure of the side. The coach hasn't stuck with him out of blind loyalty, he's just been the best of a lot of bad options.

I didn’t say he’s been good but compared with Tyson, Jones, Baker, half the 2019 list and so on he’s the only one who’s done the job.

I don't think they can go longer than 12 days, not so close to the season and with the evidence still up for debate. There's 2 steps I think they should make: 1. Independent doctors 2. A specific umpire stoppage for head injury assessments similar to the blood rule.

Nice theory if you constantly kick the ball down one side or there’s a consistent breeze. We overuse the members wing but it’s not something we want to do more of. I’d imagine a lot of those wingers have been because they’re the only fit runners we’ve had. The high half back role sets up in a similar role at stoppages, does less unrewarded running and gets more easy kicks and more value for them. It’s more important. We saw what happened to the teams ball use from stoppages and the backline without Salem against the Dogs.

Should we have traded him when he was an important player in the best 22 of a prelim team? I was happy to go the 3rd year rather than flicking him to the Swans for a nothing draft pick. That’s the alternative which we did for Kent and Hannan.

Spargo came in and played very well in year 1, he immediately showed he could get to the right spots and had clean hands. Then last year when he broke back in to the side his pressure, goal kicking and skills were all sharp. He plays the toughest spot on the ground in a team that's allergic to clean ball use. Sparrow had clean disposal when he played last year. There's a lot of work needed to turn his athletic traits in to consistent play but if he's clean when he gets it they can work out a role for him.

Hannan was at least a break even, if not a tick. You get 50 decent games out of a pick 46 and get a future 3rd back that's fine. Otherwise we didn't have top picks from 2016-2018, trading them away. And for some odd reason we just stopped having dips at the rookie list and with late picks since then too. That's an unforced error as far as I'm concerned. Those picks are lottery tickets that mostly lose but you have to be in it to win it. Fritsch is a tick. Then the actual strength of the drafting and development of the 16-18 group will be graded by the impact of Petty, Spargo, Sparrow and Jordon. That's 5 second round picks. Get 3 out of 5 consistent best 22 and you're doing well. The late picks don't inspire a lot but Chandler and Hore (barring injury) should contribute a bit here and there. I've seen enough to suggest all of the second rounders aren't too far off AFL level, there's no complete busts here. Spargo and Sparrow both played well last year in periods. Petty has shown skills at both ends. The training reviews and the game against Richmond from Jordon were solid. My guess is by the end of the year Spargo is established as a solid role player and at least one of the other 3 is in the side and looking promising with the other 2 doing well at VFL level. It's disappointing a couple of them aren't locked and loaded in the best side already, but there's still plenty of time. We've had a lot of high picks come in and play well early, and we haven't had a great VFL side that made life easier for young guys to look good at a lower level. Plus no VFL last year. I think we've forgotten that for a whole lot of good AFL players their early years were a steady grind.

No comment is still a comment. I wouldn’t have called his 2 years with us great but otherwise I think he was on the right path.