DeeSpencer

Look at the floor plan and description on the Saints website. It’s a gym, lap pool, hydro pool and a few token consulting rooms that will probably be used by the clubs doctor and psychologist. Theyll bring some school groups through to tell them about mental health but it’s overwhelmingly a football facility. That’s not to discredit Spud in any way, he’s worth of a facility on football ability alone plus his mental health advocacy. But the Saints have built a footy facility then found a community angle for it

Disagree. He had an awful season due to personal issues and being out of shape. Bounced back and played really well for the Pies. We should’ve stuck with him, Oscar wasn’t ready and has shown to never be ready. Hardly a huge issue because Dunn ended up perennially injured and we needed a May type anyway but we discarded Dunn too early.

The saints have found a great angle naming their pool and gym after Spud and pretending it’s about mental health. What’s our angle? Jim Stynes centre for sun smart education? The Ox’s gamblers help. Norm Smith Institute for curses. Ronald D B building and it changes it colours multiple times?

He’s not a small forward tho. He plays the high half forward role where running is a premium, probably only equaled by the wingers. His job is to close down space and burst in to space, like an accordion. It’s more running than on ballers. He doesn’t have the smarts to play wing and he’s bad in close - lacks any power or step to get through traffic - which is why he’s not an on baller.

He played 1 good game against an Essendon team that had given up the ghost weeks ago. Maybe 2 ok games if you include the giants. That’s not afl footy. I’m interested in players who perform in games that matter and 30 year olds way down the depth chart aren’t it

The problems with interchange is teams will recruit ANB's and develop kick to kick game plans. It takes more running to attack than defend. The problem with zones is coaches will still want teams to flood back and flood forward, who gets the penalty for being out of place? I'm pro trials of 16 a side but that's still a gamble. There's 2 changes I truly believe will work: 1. PAY HOLDING THE MAN Just pay it. Pay it. Then pay it some more. Then pay it again. And after about 4 weeks the players approach to a loose ball will be completely different. The ball winner will have time and space to gather, evade and dispose. 2. Revert holding the ball to something like the 80's and 90's interpretation. Prior opportunity has to be a factor, but guess what, if you've got less holding the man you've got more players running free in space to begin with. Then once they are tackled it's a ball up or it's holding the ball - right away, immediately. No more attempts to dispose the ball or waiting to see if it spills out. A player tackled at all effectively is caught and done.

10 replies and all of them positive. You're all nuts. He was picked twice and dropped twice before he was picked a 3rd time and the season finished before he had time to be dropped again. He's soft. He doesn't do the number 1 non negotiable for any key forward which is to bring the ball to ground. He doesn't defend either. He will lead up and take nothing marks on the wing but that's not a key forwards job and it means he's not where we need a big man which is competing for long kicks. Ben Brown, Weid, Jackson and even Petty should all be ahead of him. Which means he's 5th in line, a position we could easily cover with Tom McDonald if things get that desperate, which is very unlikely. We'll get to the end of the season and he'll retire after maybe 2-5 meaningless games if we have a terrible run with injury and everyone will wonder why we don't have the right depth of outside runners or skilled flanker types. And this is why. We're just burning through list spots on nothing footballers rather than churning the list looking for that diamond in the rough.

She was certainly a [censored], but convenient and topical. The best thing for women's footy and for the AFL is long term sustainability at community level. The more girls who keep turning up to play the better the standard the AFLW will become. The short term boost of a renovated Punt road will do a lot less for the game than new rooms, hot showers and well maintained ovals at the local level. But you're right, it's easier to look at the nice new facilities as you drive down Punt road and see the investment returns.

When he was interviewed lately I think it was Pert (or GB) who mentioned our plans have a Docklands sized oval. That would be a major mistake. We have to barge out some extra room - be it from the facility, the roads/trees or the soccer/rugby fields - to create an MCG sized oval. Investing in anything less would be an awful compromise.

Very topical with The Crown, didn't Thatcher say "We know that there is no such thing as public money – there is only taxpayers’ money”? Millions and millions of dollars on facilities with the only clear need being female change rooms and maybe some public safety measures to allow crowds back in. You could build the Taj Mahal of female change rooms for 500k yet alone 15M. The men and women don't train or play at the same time anyway so I wonder how necessary the change rooms even are but if it makes it more professional then it's a good idea. VFL crowds haven't had any issues at Punt Road for a few years now either but maybe a few more toilets and somewhere warm to sit would be good too. But there's no way the spending matches the return when that same money could go on funding tafe, transport, local sporting clubs, hospitals etc. $15M for a few thousand in the crowd, that takes a long time to make back. Clubs aren't growing jobs either, they all just slashed their footy departments by 30%. Maybe it's not one or the other. The Vic Government seem determined to spend big on housing and transport as is, which is great. But I'd be looking at giving 1500 local footy teams across the state 10k each to bounce back next year before I gave 15M to Richmond.

The Age confirms we’ll be keeping Mitch Brown. Utterly stupid decision. A 5th string key forward who doesn’t compete in the air or pressure on the ground. Another wasted list spot. How are we ever going to improve if we don’t turn over the list? We’ve got to start taking some chances on youth and untested players. Even if the odds they succeed are low at least we’ve tried some options.

Crisp set of highlights here. Played alongside Port’s academy kid so they’ll be aware of him. North Launy is Jay Lockhart’s club too right (and Chris Fagan’s)? So every chance we’ve been tracking him https://www.ntnews.com.au/sport/afl/sanfl-highlights-rhyan-mansell/video/f63d628f06e1c84572c05824012869d4

Can ruck and play key back. I’d have him if we didn’t have Tom McDonald still on the list.

I'll email the club asking for a membership refund if they waste list spots on Mitch Brown and Oscar McDonald. I'd keep the young guys for a proper look at them under VFL conditions. Whether they go on the rookie list or even off the list entirely then back on as supplemental players once we retire KK might depend on draft picks and whether we find delisted players worth an immediate shot.

Really tough call but I'd probably just go Gowers over Wood because he has this local footy legend style about him I find endearing. Wood looks like he can run, jump, mark, kick and he showed a lot of promise up until Sydney offered him a big deal and from about that moment on he's lost the ability to do anything.

Goodes might be the best comparison. Never a true key forward. Too valuable to end up in the ruck long term - although LJ has a bit more height and leap. He broke out as a ruck then turned in to a superstar mid who could go forward. LJ probably ends up as a ruck but what's the best path to get him there? It's part of the reason I'm becoming more and more interested with the idea of giving LJ stints on the wing to get him involved in the game and around the ball more often. If we want to play 2 key forwards it will be hard to get him in the play. The wing could be the best solution.

Hopefully they expand restricted free agency down to 6 years, maybe even 5 and eventually 4. Then guys who have done 7, 8 or even 9 like Cameron become unrestricted. Yes it means we'll have a fight on our hands for guys like Petracca and possibly Clarry but we'll also be able to sign some experience and target the guys we do need and make a play at getting them for nothing. Having to trade for Ben Brown who's done 7 years service and isn't even wanted by his own club, it's a stupid and outdated system.

So are you offering him a 2 year deal on good enough money to relocate his family? Because I doubt he's coming for 1 year on minimum chips.

He was 22 and had played just on 50 games, then we didn't get to see him anywhere near back to form until he was 27. 170 marks, 60 goals in a season, there's a chance he could've gone to the Carey level of 200 marks, 80+ goals, just dominating the comp. But even if he didn't and '94 was his best it's such a shame we never got to see more of it.

Unless he sees his life in Melbourne after footy I wouldn't have Lewis Jetta for what is probably just 1 year. Mason Wood might be the worst footballer in the AFL. If another club picks him up they should fold.

The AFLPA probably deserve a good bashing every now and then but it's nice to see stuff like this where they are putting in the work to get things right. Billy was an incredibly hard worker and probably thought Physio was something he'd love as an athlete, I think it's great that he's reassessed his options and found something different. I reckon he'll make a great chippy.

Of course there's always been good and bad games, I'm arguing that it used to be a spectrum each round from the best to worst. Now you can go a whole much with about 4 good games and probably 1 or 2 of those were only good due to being close. Hawthorn and Richmond in the last decade have played the kind of footy that would be brilliant in any era. The best coaches have managed to produce great things. But the vast majority of coaches barely been able to recreate the defensive systems of top sides and with inferior players. The rules changes that we've have are only tinkering so far. But at some stage the tinkering has to be upped to do something more substantial.

I certainly wouldn't do 16 a side without more trials but I do see it as the logical solution. I'd be fine with at least 1 forward and 1 defender inside 50 for each stoppage no matter where it is on the ground. Goal umpire has nothing to do most of the time. It wouldn't have a huge impact but it's a start and assess from there. You could move to 1 pair in the square, 1 inside 50 too. That would certainly spread players out. I don't think we need to ban gang tackling, we just need the rules to go back to how they were in the old days that prevented gang tackling. 1. Holding - you just can't do it. No little grabs of the hips or anything. So many times the player about to pick up the ball has a man already grabbing him which then leads to ineffective or no disposal. Clayton Oliver is a great example. The guy gets sat on before he's picked up the ball so often and his disposals often have no value. Give him half a second more time and he'll do something with it. 2. Holding the ball - Once you've had prior if you're caught your caught. Straight away. No chance to dish out a shoddy half handball. Every time I watch old games I'm shocked at how harsh they are on holding the ball. You pick it up and as long as you've had a step if you get tackled that's it. The change they made this year was penalizing guys for not trying hard enough to break through tackles, that's completely wrong to me. Once you're tackled if the ball isn't spilt immediately it should be an automatic ball up or holding the ball. No more waiting an eternity for a player to force their arms free. We've changed the game to evolve tackling in to a key skill. Tackling techniques, techniques to hand ball the ball. And it's not footy. We've found rules to legislate the scrum in to a better and fairer scrum when the focus should be to stop the scrum immediately.

1. 16 a side. Congestion is the problem. Remove some of it. 2. Pay the current rules, in particular pay holding the man. There’s way too much of it and it kills ball players and encourages defensive footy. Slower and second to the ball players have never been more looked after

It is broken though. There’s not enough goals. There’s not enough running and bouncing. There’s not enough one on one inside 50 contests. The best games are still great but the average game now is completely forgettable.