bing181

They will. Buckley.

Great to see Clarrie in the top 10, he's not as far off as people think.

To be honest, not sure why people are surprised with any of this. Though once again, it shows the gulf between what professional AFL coaches see and what Jo Bloggs supporter sees.

No.

“The mail is he’s preparing a team ... as you would, you present to the board and go, if I’m your man, I’m gonna bring X, Y and Z,” Gullan explained. “One of the names mentioned has been Marcus Wagner, who he worked with at Collingwood, but interestingly he was at Melbourne until recently in the AFLW program (as the GM of footy) - but left in June I think it was.” Wagner worked closely with Buckley when the pair were at the Magpies.

"A competition source with knowledge of the situation, who wanted to remain anonymous, said Skipworth removed himself from the process as he wanted to continue his development in certain areas under Magpies coach Craig McRae, to whom he is a senior assistant. He is also focusing on his fourth finals campaign at the Magpies as they prepare for the preliminary final next week." (The Age). OK, but then why did he agree to be part of the process in the first place? He could have just declined, as others have done.

Hmm. It's too early for the only ex senior coaches who might have been candidates, then a couple of the leading assistants seem to feel that they have a better chance staying where they are (e.g. Danny Daly). Apart from that, most of the assistants-who-could-be-coaches are in the process or have been eliminated from it.

I do wonder what's going on behind the scenes here with Pert. Presumably Buckley has picked his brains, and Pert would know all there is to know about the club, list, board etc. etc. If Buckley is in it, you'd think that Pert has had some kind of role in that decision? But then outside of Buckley, would Pert have been in contact with other candidates as well, and if so ... ???

Perhaps he's heard something ... but who knows. Surely if Buckley wants it it's his, from what I've read Skipworth seemed to be the most highly rated of the other contenders. You also wonder how many of the current assistant candidates are using this as a dry run, knowing that they have little chance.

Coaches don't manage the list any more than they manage the draft.

Other list decisions, surely, can't imagine coach/no coach has much to do with it. Depends on who we manage to bring in, but we still need depth and cover.

"MELBOURNE has made five changes to its AFL list, informing Tom Fullarton, Kynan Brown, Oliver Sestan, Will Verrall and Marty Hore they will not be offered a contract for the 2026 season. " Surely more will follow, but not sure why they weren't already announced?

We have a list management department to ... manage the list. As always, the coach has input (as do others) but he isn't the last word, nor the first. It's not the coach who decides who comes and goes, though I realise that this another of those Demonland myths. In any case, a lot of these list management/delisting decisions would have been made some time ago, even as far back as last season. The players themselves would know who they are.

Tom Campbell has signed for another year.

This is why we can't have nice things. (Insert head in hand emoji).

Me too. But we've also targeted plenty of other key forwards: Schache, Fullarton, Johnson, Kentfield, even Turner. As we know, with the benefit of hindsight, not all those brought anything - but sooner or later, something has to stick. Add those to Petty, JVR, Jeffo ... there has to be at least one who'll step up to the 40 - 50 goals a season plate.

Actual facts tell us that we have gone after proven key forwards (e.g. Lynch), but haven't been able to get any across.

There's no official date, they decide when they decide. But they have said Prelim final week, so if they stick to that it gives us another 10 - 12 days. For mine, given that they're only starting full interviews this week it seems a bit rushed - but I doubt they want it to run into GF week either.

We have a list manager. And all that goes with it.

The only thing that's surprising about this is that we hear it so rarely, especially as it's not just specific to Scott/The Cats. A while back on one of the footy shows, one of the experienced coaches they had on made a similar comment, that it's the assistants who spend the time with the players, not the head coach.

Apart from Buckley, they've only been assistant coaches at AFL level.

Once again, the stats would be available internally at the club — and losing last quarters could come down to any number of factors. Several players, including Max, have denied in interviews that it’s about fitness. On the other hand, a narrative that’s grown louder late in the season is that the players have “forgotten how to win.” In other words: the challenge might be fitness between the ears. The idea that the players need to harden up (or words to that effect) is one that has grown since the sacking of Goodwin, that the players have been wagging the dog/need to toughen up. Equally, I do concede of course that in the latter part of the year our younger players have tended to drop off as the games have progressed, which is definitely down to fitness though little to do with training or preparation per se. It takes time to build an AFL-ready tank. Just that drop off would have a negative impact on outcomes.

Also a huge difference in age profile/experience, number of pre-seasons etc. Perhaps I should rephrase the original: I'd be surprised if there's much difference in fitness programs across the AFL.

If fitness is indeed declining as you claim there would be a club-wide awareness of it as there's so much data and it's easy to confirm. Our fitness per se is not declining, and given the way sports science works and the way information is widely available, I'd be surprised if there's much difference in fitness across the AFL. What players feel about their fitness, or what they believe about other clubs' fitness, are different stories. Like everything in the AFL, fitness is a lot to do with what's going on between the ears.

Main ones for me: Positives: emergence and continuing development of younger players (Bowey, Turner) emergence of a new game style. Didn't always work and we still have to learn to win, but by the end of the season we were mostly competitive most of the time and a big improvement on 2024. new admin/governance in place going forward Negatives: More than a few, but the main for me would be off-field instability and the vacuum in leadership - which if truth be known has been an issue since 2021. Still don't have the key position forward(s) that we need. Have to cross our fingers that at least one of JVR, Kentfield, Johnson, Jefferson or Petty step up big time because it's been our biggest Archilles' Heel since the flag. Still haven't really overcome the loss of Angus Brayshaw and what he meant to the group/club.