Spot on. And I'd add going from the 2nd slowest in getting the ball forward in the first 12 weeks of 2025 to 4th in the last six weeks is not indicative of a 'complete change' of style. For one thing, a six week period is a relatively small sample size to use as evidence of a 'complete change' of game style (they may well end up near the bottom of that table this season too - and from memory they also started to get it forward quicker near the end of last home season and in the finals, so perhaps they are deliberately following a similar pattern). Secondly that is one stat, and ball movement is just one element of a team's game plan (eg how a team defends is arguably a more significant element of a teams game plan) - in isolation a change to that stat is not evidence of a complete change in style. A tweak perhaps but certainly not a radical change. The pies have made a similarly dramatic change in reagard to their method of transitioning the ball as also evidenced by an isolated stat (albeit one that doesn't aggregate several data points Luke speed of ball movement) one hoyne has also discussed. The pies have gone from one of the quickest to play on from a mark or free to the slowest. Big change, but it's just one element of their method - and no one is suggesting they have changed their game plan. Tweaked it yes, changed it no. From memory they were also the fastest ball movement team and are now in the bottom third (I might be wrong on that). Again noone is arguing tha5 is evidence they have completelychanged their game plan. And as you note Pennant, tweaks are way easier to implement than wholesale changes to a team's game plan and method the dees have undertaken. In any case, it's worth noting that goody deserves kudos for the fact that the dees have in fact implemented a new game over the last two seasons, in particular this season (we started the process in the first half of last year and as goody has said, unfortunately reverted in the second half of the 2024 season to try and eke out some wins to make finals). There are any number of metrics that evidence our radical change in game plan - eg scores from defensive half, speed of ball movement (equal first in the AFL), how quickly we are playing on after a mark or free (top 3 in the AFL) etc. The fact that we haven't been winning this year doesn’t negate the fact we have implemented a new method. I would argue the key reason we have not won more games is not that we have failed to implement the new method but that we don't have enough players with the requisite skill set to implement it optimally. The most obvious indicator of that is our crazy scores from turnovers numbers (I'm guessing bottom three). But our high turnover numbers can also be seen as evidence of working to implement a new transition based game plan - ie we are trying to take the game on just turning it over too often (ie we could reduce turnovers by reverting to our old, down the line, forward half game plan and/or playing g slow and/or not taking on the sort of high risk kicks the transition method demands). A lot is made of mcrae being able to implement a similarly radical change in game plan in terms of movimg away from Buckley's defence first method but he had a major advantage over Goody. Mcrae's game plan requires players suited to that style, namely a solid core of players who can consistently hit high risk kicks and not too many turnover merchants. In terms of the former, unlike goody, he had a lot of senior players with above average to elite foot skills (eg Pendulbury, Sidebottom, Mcreee, Quaynor, Josh Daicos, Elliot, Hoskin Elliot) and had the good fortune of his tenure coinciding with the debut of the most consistently damaging kick in the AFL in Nick Daicos.
Compare and contrast with Xerri furiously pointing at the scoreboard and mouthing off when he dropped maxy off the ball and a completely reasonable free was paid.
