bing181

They can fix it - just not in one pre-season. Though it's almost entirely on the players IMV, from what we know/have heard the coaching staff are trying to implement a different approach, and have been since last season. Also IMV only real fix is a change to the list, prioritising players with smarts and good skills. Which we've been doing (Windsor, Lindsay etc), but see above, it's not a quick fix.

Touched on by Garry Lyon on AFL360 - that the players who get the ball the most are also the ones who have poor disposal.

Perhaps there's more to Goodwin's "backstory" comment than just Max? We know that a few players have been ill of late (e.g., Turner last weekend), perhaps there's a bit going on in. (Not excusing anyone either.)

Hopefully some of the Brayshaw money, so that could be half of the equation in enabling us to put a juicy long-term contract on the table. Keeping their club happy will be another story, though even at the moment we have R2 plus future 1st. Perhaps not enough, but if they're OOC or better, a free agent, we could be in an OK position.

Exactly!!! ... hopefully there's some work going on behind the scenes.

Why do you presume that that's not happening? But talking about it, instructing it, even training it is vastly different to executing it on game day under pressure - especially for players who are not particular smart or skilled with ball in hand (but may have other strengths). Goodwin has been clear in a number of interviews this year that we're trying to do things differently. Equally clear that it's a work in progress, that we're not always getting it right, that at times that we're "going back to bad habits" and playing in a way that "isn't a reflection of what we're trying to do", etc. etc. Worth watching AFL360, not just for Goodwin (though he doesn't give much away ...), but for the discussion of rebuilds and changing game styles with Simpson (especially) and Longmire. Simpson talks about it taking 3 years before you start to see results. Going to be a long season I suspect.

Not helped by the forced retirement of Angus B and departure of ANB. Melksham leaving will also leave a leadership hole, especially up forward which is where we need it most. Lever does enough on-field to justify his place, and will continue to provide leadership on/off field. Butters is the obvious target, Harley Reid the very very long shot. But I'd be looking at late/mid-career KPF's who have their heads screwed on and can help steer the ship up forward.

In 22 and 23 we *were* in the leading pack, finishing top 4 both seasons. Even last year, in round 12 we were sitting 4th and as late as round 19 we were in the 8. Bit of rewriting of history/hindsight bias going on ...

Perhaps. But Scott has at his disposal a team that's much more even across the ground than ours, with both experience and skill. Not saying changing a game style is easy, but some players/teams are going to be more capable of making the change than others. (Not to mention that Geelong picked up both Cameron and Stengle prior to the 22 season ...)

My bad (hard to tell from telly). Equally, 6 turnovers and only 1 contested possession isn't a great day out wherever he's playing. And even when he was played on-ball against GWS (I believe?), he only managed one stoppage clearance and no centre clearances. Seems a bit lost at the moment, though he's not Robinson Crusoe.

Agree with the gist of your post, but not sure of this. Oliver had more possessions than anyone on Sunday, that's not something you throw out because he's missing targets. One or two classy, skilful on-ballers alongside our inside bulls would make a world of difference. We have that in the likes of Windsor and Lindsay, but they're a couple of seasons away from being able to make a real difference on-ball. As for cap space, yes, it has clearly been an issue, but perhaps with natural attrition there'll be a bit more in the kitty come trade period. McDonald and Melksham (though on minimal coin?) are two obvious ones to leave, and hopefully there's still some Brayshaw money sloshing around. Equally, if there are any quality mids available and we want to be in the discussion we'll need serious money and not sure where that'll come from. I can't see any of our big-3 mids leaving, either because they don't want to or there won't be any takers - too expensive for starters, Oliver and Petracca are on massive contracts. Hard to see any short-term solutions.

And Pickett.

It's not a view, it's what multiple academic studies say. e.g. "The current study reported that mid-season coach turnover may result in short-term improvement in team results and physical match performance. However, this effect disappears after a period of approximately 5 games." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14996-z "We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00929.x "The estimation results indicate that the average cumulative effect of a change of coach on subsequent match results within the same season is uniformly negative for up to nine games after the change takes place, but close to zero from about 10 games onwards." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23736446_Modelling_employment_durations_of_NHL_head_coaches_Turnover_and_post-succession_performance etc. etc. Also ... regression to the mean.

Don't disagree with you per se, but these are the kinds of moves that they're making to try and update the game style. Langdon on ball to provide more run, Spargo into the side ASAP because he's about the most skilful at getting the ball to an I50 target. Similar re Pickett getting more time on-ball, Windsor to the back line for more speed off HB and Fritsch further up the ground for his disposal skills - he's a better field kick than any of the current mids. Pretty obvious that little of that worked on the weekend, and we're missing Pickett (amongst others ...), but I'm expecting them to hang tough with all of the above. Not sure there are any alternatives if we're going to move with the times.

The other mid who had a stinker was Rivers. Not sure that moving him on ball is working. For the rest, they had 13 players who rated above 3.0. We had 8. Very hard to win games of football like that.

Yes, but he's the only one - perhaps that's how we were able to seriously look at Houston. Also, Brayshaw's contract situation was only resolved during 2024, so it's only the last trade season that anything might have been possible. Not sure who from the players up for trade we should have been looking at? Ginnivan or Membrey?

In a nutshell.

Changing coaches without changing lists achieves little to nothing. In most cases, clubs continue on the same trajectory. Plenty of studies out there. Generates a feel-good factor, maybe sells a few more season tickets, but beyond that ...

The other difficulty is that to get players to come to your club you need $$$, i.e., salary cap space. We have a few players on very very good coin, and quite a few on good coin, and there's not much room to manoeuvre.

Which is where he was played at Casey - with limited success. Which is why they've been trying to reinvent him as a defender.

Also across the pre-season. But old habits die hard, especially under pressure.

Bassett was forwards coach at both Essendon and Port.

How's that working out for (e.g.) Adam Yze? Or even Clarkson - into his third season at North and only now starting to see results, yesterday's was only his 7th win across all that time, and they actually went backwards last year on 2023. Similar story with Brad Scott - he's an OK/competent coach, yet here we are into his 3rd season - but has anything really improved at Essendon across that time? You can only work with what you have - and there's a recognition of that even on Demonland. e.g., the criticisms of moving Fritsch away from goals. Fair enough. But in that criticism is an inherent recognition that players are suited to certain roles and unsuited to others - to the extent that there are roles they can fill and others they can't. There's only one way to go from the contested, high-pressure game style that won us a premiership to one built around fast and skilled ball movement: change the list.

Not for want of trying? One of the advantages of lingering around the bottom reaches of the ladder for a few years is you get to load up on kids with very good skills - who you then mould into the players you need. Good luck with turning the likes of Trac, Viney, Clarrie, even Rivers, Sparrow etc., into skilled exponents of the modern move the ball quickly/turnover game. You only have to look at the kind of kids we've drafted of late to see that the club recognises the issue and is at least trying to do something about it. Similar discussion around some of the positional moves, e.g. Ed Langdon onto the ball to give us more run, or Fritsch further up the ground to give us more skill delivering the ball forward, or Windsor to HB to give us more speed off half-back etc. etc. Not saying these moves are working either, but once again, not for want of trying.

You're assuming that that's what they're instructed to do. Was pretty clear from Goodwin's presser that that's not the case.