Slartibartfast

I think you may find that the idea of 80 rotations per game is now off the table as the limit of 120 is for the next two season. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap- Making decisions on players based on what changes might happen in 2016 would seem unreasonable and silly to me. IMO it's a storm in a tea cup.

Like you I've been disappointed with Blease's kicking in games but I've seen him in lower grades and his kicking is terrific. Chris Connolly once said that it takes a few years for elite junior kickers to translate that into AFL because of the change of pace of the game. Also I think the suggestion was that Nicho is never going to be a defender for us and if he is to succeed he should be tried forward. Not with the prospect of him being highly successful but just to see how he goes.

I'd like to apologize to everyone for failing to explain myself although I'd imagine the majority go my point. But I'll have another go because Benny seems to be at a loss with noticeably reduced comprehension since Xmas. Too much pud Benny? I was arguing for reduced rotations to reduce defensive pressure and allow some of the things that made our game great - like high marking, long kicking and one on one contests. You may like the rolling maul that was this year GF. I didn't. I then used Ross Lyon, a highly successful coach, as an example who had used the current game set up (player fitness and number of rotations) to develop the defensive side of the game and reduce its attractiveness - to many at least. Now concentrate Benny. In the 4 GF that Lyon has coached his teams have failed to win and have kicked 34 goals. Both of those things are pretty clear facts. The trick of course is to see the nexus between the two facts - the number of goals and the number of games. It's mathematically correct to "to lump them all together and do stats on 4". It's not "shallow thinking". It would actually be a prep grade error to use 34 goals in "3 grand finals". Ironically there are two mistakes in my initial statement. Firstly it was 34 goals not 32 and secondly Lyon didn't lose all of them, he lost 3 and drew 1. But you missed it.

Where did you get 80 from and how do you know that is the intention. It's certainly not what I heard. And for heavens sake. Teams Lyon's coached have played in 4 grand finals - 4 games. They've scored 34 goals in those 4 games with a highest score of 10.8.68. 9.14 10.8 7.10 8.14 I'm not inflating it to make it look bad, I'm stating an actual fact. Want to make it three grand finals? Which score do you want to leave out?

There is a lot of hysteria around the limitation on rotations Last year the average rotation per club was around 135 per game. This year it will be 120 plus any you have at the breaks. That gives you around 130. So in effect there is a limit that is very similar to the average last year. The coaches annoy me with their continual complaints about the interchange limits. They say that with less the players are put at risk. The only person putting the players at risk is the coach who demands they adhere to a game plan that requires huge amounts of running. The whole idea of limiting interchange is to open the game up, generate more one on one contests, increase long kicking and hopefully the return of some more contested high marking. These are all the things that made our game great. If I was Mark Evans I'd just reduce the rotations to 80 or alternatively reduce the bench to 2 + 1 sub. I think you can obviously go to far with this sort of thing but when you consider the success Ross Lyon has had at both Freo and Saints with very defensive game plans and lots of contested footy (which requires the players to run and fill space and crowd the game) it's here to stay if nothing is done. Freo were pretty successful but just terrible to watch with the GF one of the worst I can remember. In his 4 GF's as coach he's lost all of them and his teams have kicked a total of 32 goals - just 8 a game. And he should really have won 2. But the point of the post is to point out that there is really little if any change to the interchange limit for this year.

GWS had two purposes IMO. The first was to ensure there was a game in Sydney every week. TV rights sustain the code and this was necessary. It's something we rely on. Secondly GWS doesn't have to be the dominant sport in Western Sydney, it just has to have a presence, just like the Storm. Over time it will find a level and attract people. Why do you think they built such a small stadium. Some of the implementation has been botched and the AFL would be furious with Sydney pinching Franklin but the big picture decision was right on target.

You're a bit touchy lately Ben. I was serious in about the info you put up on the Swans. It's an amazing performance and frustrating when you realize what we've done in a similar time frame. Anyway chip up old son, not all of us are taking the pizz when we respond to you!

He would have taken Rob Murphy with pick 5 from 1999 and his choice of best available in 2001 was James Kelly. But I take your point.

Wow, amazing.

Excellent post Scoop, as ever well thought out and presented. It's always interesting to look at historical perspectives to understand the present and looking at 2006/7 is a good example. I doubt many would take issue that the list was tired and that we had a big hole in our list regarding leaders and this caused us to fall and fall quickly. WJ has talked about the failure of recruiting in 2004, poor trading of Jolly and a failure to trade in players. But I think in retrospect this doesn't identify the two main reasons we found ourselves in the positions we did. IMO it starts in 1998/9 when we decided to investigate our TPP compliance of the mid '90 when we subsequently found it to have breached AFL rules. We told the AFL and received fines and draft penalties. I didn't support fessing up at the time but recall being in the minority. It's a little like Carlton now going to the AFL and saying "I know the investigation into tanking is over and I know you don't want to hear this, but we tanked and we're holding a presser to tell everyone at 2.00pm". The '90's salary cap rorting was a dead issue when we fessed up and the AFL didn't want to know. It staggers me we confessed. As a result we lost three early draft picks over 2 years and were fined. Those draft picks were in 1999 and 2000 and those players would have been in their middle 20's in 2008 when our rebuilding started. The second thing that happened was a bloke called Ian Johnson. A Board member from the "establishment" and very well connected. He went on television, during a big dinner and botched what I think he meant as a vote of confidence in the Chairman. It came across as a challenge to the leadership and all hell broke loose mid season and completely derailed what was a poor season anyway. This disruption flowed through to the footy department and our recruiting in the 2001 ND where we had three picks in the first 25 or so was nothing short of a disaster. As a result we had a hole in our list spanning 1999 to 2001. To make matters worse we lost Scott Thompson, our only 1st round pick from 1999 -2000 penalty period getting in effect Moloney in return. That group of players that was lost due to factors largely outside the control of the FD resulted in a large hole in our list which was devastating when we ran out of steam in 2007. I don't think the trading of Jolly was a significant loss to the club. IMO Jeff White did a fantastic job and when he left Jamar was a worthwhile replacement. Furthermore I don't think our position in 2007 explains where we are now. IMO the Saints around 2000. Footscray around 2003 and Hawthorn around 2005 were just as poor as we were in 2008. Within 8 years all those clubs, with solid rebuilding, played competitive finals footy. We are the exception. So there is no doubt we were poor in 2007 and poorer than perhaps we should have been but there is no nexus between that and where we find ourselves now. We are poorer now than we were in 2007 and we've had 7 years to rectify that situation. The only other club that's stuffed things as badly is perhaps Richmond. Let's hope we are now on our way.

I like to see the good in people. It's why I still respond to you every now and again.

Travis Cloke and Kennedy didn't make elite. Don't hold your breath on Mitch. Who GAF anyway. I just want to win a few games.

I'm not defending him Ben. I'm discussing his attributes and making a comment. I know it's not your style. Where is the defence in "he's obviously on his last chance" and " I agree he doesn't use it which is a major issue". You've got a serious comprehension issue lately.

Until last year Bail found the footy quite regularly. He is an elite runner and is hard at the ball. I agree he doesn't use it which is a major issue. Last year he played as a defensive forward where the ball came down about 30 times a game. Hard to get kicks in that position. I agree he's certainly on his last chance but I reckon it's dangerous to judge any player on their form in the last year or two.

Still listed on their website as opposition analyist.

Now we'll see if we've got the cattle.

I haven't tried to defend Prendergast. How you can interpret "You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast" as a defence is just silly. His record stands for all to judge. He stuffed up too many early picks to ever have that job again IMO.

No thanks. Done and dusted as far as I'm concerned.

Jordie will be under pressure I think but so will so many of the mids. The AFL is littered with mids who's kicking has been questioned. Watson and Kennedy are two. McKenzie's role is as a tagger and he's very good at it. Griffen, Dangerfield and Ablett had very poor games by their standard against us last year when Jordie tagged them despite being in better teams. I also think McKenzie can play as a genuine inside mid using his hands more than his feet. From what I've heard all the mids will have various roles this year and I hope Jordie gets this one as I think that's where he's played some good footy. I think Roos will love McKenzie. He'll love that he has a mature body compared to Viney, Toumpas and others and he'll love the fact he's quite a big mid being 186cm, 24 years old, absolutely team focused and can play a role very well. Jordie will be under pressure and he may not hold his spot but if he doesn't that can only be very good news as he'll set a much higher benchmark than many give him credit for.

WJ raises a very good point regarding the relevance of 300m repeat running to football and thanks for an excellent reply Rob.I found the quoted part of your post very interesting. Why is it that footy clubs seem to place so much emphasis on 300m sprints and 3k time trials and not more on the shorter distances? How do our training regimes compare to soccer or basketball? Are those sports fitness regimes relevant to AFL? It was an excellent observation that while Blease was poor at the 300m stuff he then excelled at the shorter distance stuff which seems more akin to AFL footy.

I wish there was a "like" button. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Like. There are a number of examples of teams turning things around quickly and it usually coincides with a change of coach. PA last year are a classic example, Adelaide the year before under Sanderson. Confidence in sport and an enjoyment of doing what you're doing go a long way and I think we are prime candidates for massive improvements in those areas. I truly believe that Roos can have the same impact on this group as Lehmann did on the Aussi cricket team. My concern is clearly a functioning midfield and perhaps that area of our list can't be repaired in one season. It's fair to say we don't appear to have the raw ingredients that both Adelaide and PA had in that area and that may stifle our improvement . I know I'm on a hiding to nothing but I'm bullish about a significant improvement this year and one which will surprise many.

That's a very sad post Jack. You've dismissed Taggart, Tynan and Prendergast. You've been insulting about Gysberts and your comments about Moloney are distasteful. You've laced your post with silly comments like "Moloney wanted out before Neeld walked in the door" and "Scott showered him with love".In this exchange I was interested in your view on the state of Neeld's relationship with the players but your response is extraordinary in it's willingness to bag players in defence of your view, some kids just trying to make their way and others club champions. That is strange indeed given your love of the Club and support for it. I can only assume it's motivated by something other than your view of Neeld.

Yes, I agree with that but it doesn't address his relationship with the players, his ability to lead or build culture. I've also had discussions with players but I think it will depend on who you speak to and how well you know them. I base my views more on the fact Watts wouldn't have stayed under Neeld but stayed under Roos. Moloney's tweet was evidence of a terrible relationship with that player. His post match presser after his first game was awful and his pre match address against Essendon(?) last year was just dreadful and the players look detached. And of course there was the continual reference to "buy in" and his failure to achieve it. When you next speak to your player contacts ask about the psych testing that was done at the club for all players and coaches and ask where MN sat. It won't help your case.

Can you expand on this? What is your understanding of his player management skills, his ability to communicate, his ability to unite and inspire a playing group and his ability to build relationships? Your post above seems to say he had poor coaching methods and couldn't explain his game plan which ignores his relationship with the playing group which I think was his major downfall.