bing181

I know that there has been talk of this being a shallow draft, but at least some of the draftees will eventually turn out to be gems. Here's hoping it's one of ours. Targeting best available mids would seem to be a fairly solid strategy.

Or maybe they do. Our backline of doom is a thing of the past, with our AA fullback told to look elsewhere, his lieutenant struggling to get on the field, plus we've lost one of their key sidekicks. We have no established key forwards except perhaps a 32 year old that was let walk by his previous club, and we've seen two of the best mids in the competition walk to other clubs If it's GC in round one, we'll start the year against arguably the 3 best mids in the business, including a Norm Smith medallist and the current Brownlow, and all we'll be able to offer up is an ageing Jack Viney, a cameo from Kozzie and a couple of our kids. I'm as optimistic and hopeful as the next person, but let's at least be realistic.

Or not. What's that saying about purses and sow's ears?

Perhaps, but we'll know the answer within 12 months. I don't mind that Goodwin backed in his players. The issue was that too many of the players didn't back themselves. Yet alone their teammates.

Ridiculous generalisation and not what people are saying. Of the 60K members you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number who have in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of an AFL club. And same again for those with high level board/governance experience, and all that that entails.

Hard to think of a lower bar.

By definition, an open election will throw up whoever it throws up - including people with either similar skills (undesirable) or just as likely, skills we don't need or even zero skills.

We're changing board members, we have a new president, a new CEO, a new head coach plus other FD personnel, we've got rid of two of our best players ... That's not a shake up?

It wasn't because of game style and better kicking that we lost 6 games by under 11 points. If you get that close it comes down to your ability to win games. All in the head and around onfield leadership and smarts.

Opening round against St Kilda. Get it out of the way so we can move forward.

Lyon effect? I'd sign up just to watch Nas play each week.

If posters want more footy people on the board, Warren Tredrea could have just become available.

Only to those with an axe to grind or who don't understand the process. It's standard practice and good governance for the board to identify and vet new board members with the appropriate skills.

Maybe right. But Jefferson and Johnson, not to mention Kentfield are only contracted till 2026. If those 3 end up as busts there won't be a lot of depth, also with Melksham probably finishing up. Presumably we have Mihocek to bridge across the next couple of years, but we really need one of these younger forwards to start establishing himself next season. Does Schubert help or hinder us in all that?

Perhaps, but the unexpected loss within 12 months of Gus and then ANB changed the profile of the list in terms of experience, and especially in terms of leadership. Even reports coming out of the Crows refer to the difference ANB has made in that regard.

On field AND off. Re Ugle Hagen, there were reports last off-season about Bont taking him under his wing, trying to get him to the gym etc. And captaincy these days is so much more than about how you play e.g. the St Kilda game again. Max was standing in the centre, why didn't he realise that we were a player short there and address the developing 6 6 6 issue before it became the infringement that eventually cost us the game? You think of the amount of directing of traffic that players like Hodge or Pendlebury do/did, where's someone like Max in all that?

Not a coincidence, and standard board practice given that their role is to provide leadership and continuity. Also important that they identify specific needs in terms of skills and experience, which they appear to be doing here. None of this prohibits others throwing their hats in the ring, and they're up front and transparent about it all.

All those close losses smack of a lack of on-field leadership. You only have to go back to the St Kilda debacle (sorry) ... Max was standing in the middle next to Nas, yet failed to pick up on what was about to happen. Max is a great leader-by-example, but he's not a great onfield coach or tactician. Once again, we're paying on-field for the loss of the likes of Guss and ANB, plus the absence this year of Lever.

I'd rather be boring and win a flag than be entertaining and watch teams cut us up every other week. Could be just me.

Clazz and Trac weren't traded because of what's happening on-field.

Which is one of the main reasons Goodwin was moved on. Not just in terms of his longer term future - could we realistically have renewed his contract next year if we were sitting mid-table or lower? - but in terms of membership and profile. A new coach buys you a couple of years optimism and grace. You only have to look at Demonland - posters will accept finishing 14th again under King ("development year" ...), but hard to imagine that many would have accepted it under Goodwin.

Gawn spoke to this in a recent interview. I'm paraphrasing (probably badly ...) but said that October now is what December used to be, and that this is the period when you do all the hard running. Club training, when it starts up again, has become more footy focused.

Not about not having the answers, it’s about not having the players. Ones who could kick for starters. It wasn’t the coaching that killed us, it was the turnovers.

This was also the Tim Lamb comment re the draft and what having higher picks gets you. Not so much better players, there are plenty of lower draft picks that go on to have great careers, but more that these higher picks are closer to AFL standard already in terms of athleticism and fitness.

And vice versa. King took the time to meet McVee. Trac ... a quick phone call. We never in a million years wanted to keep him.