binman

It's all about leg speed and run od

Spot on I honestly could not care a jot about tracc. He's not a dee anymore, and good luck to him that he's playing well for the suns. C'est la dee.

Doesn't surprise me for three reasons. One he looks super fit. Two, he's genuinely quick Three, he has a great leap and is surprisingly good aerially. Meaning when we bomb it into the forward line he can bring it ground. All big ticks in terms of how King wants us to play. Oh, and four - once added to our list King picked him after just the one VFL game.

Why do you think King did so before his injury then?

That's not really true - yes Riv trained as mid in the previous two seasons, but he was given sufficient midfield minutes to determine if he's suited to the role. And IMO the conclusion is he isn't - particularly the way footy is being played in 2026. The optimal centre square set up now is: one true inside mid, who often has some defensive responsibilities (not tagging per se, but defensive accountability) - Steele (with Sparrow providing the chop out) has as that spot sewn up atm two mids with genuine acceleration, who can get out the front of the stoppage and hit a target inside 50 - Koz is the exemplar of that role, and has one of those spots locked up and Windsor the other (has the speed, would love for him to improve his kicking) Riv does not have the acceleration or kicking skills to play the latter role - and i can't see him replacing Steele or Sparrow in the inside mid role, particularly with Viney (hopefully) back at some point. That leaves half back, or perhaps the tall winger role that Culley and Langford are playing. I'm a Riv fan, but it might well be that trading him (perhaps for some high draft picks to provide some tassie insurance) at seasons end is the prudent call.

I think so

Really? I'd be more than a bit concerned visiting a urologist who was stiff

Stiff is not a great name for a psychologist either given it's hard open up to someone who's a bit stiff.

Arbitrary? Champion data's key stakeholders, and primary source of revenue, are the AFL clubs. All of the data, stats and categories (eg speed of ball movement, pressure, player ratings etc etc) has been developed in response to what data AFL clubs have said they need to understand the game and increase their chance of winning a premiership. Much of the data is available in real time during matches (watch fagans post match presser for evidence of that, and the stock AFL clubs put in Champion data stats) That's almost literally the opposite of arbitrary.

PSA All rational DL posters GW included, understand that Sparrow might still choose to leave at year's end.

Really? Alternatively, Goody deserves much credit for gifting Kolt games he didnt deserve to fast track Kolt's development and getting critical AFL experience into him, and by doing so putting the club and Kolt's interst ahead of his own.

How good was that slight jink to the left suggesting he was going corridor, and instead squaring up and kicked to a free player (can't recall who) inside 50

Yep. If Kolt had fumbled that we'd almost certainly have given up a goal, and likely have lost the game.

What was really good about that ground ball get was he seemed to pause a little bit and take his time to make 100% sure he picked up the ball. Impressive composure, not to mention smart, from a young player cconsidering the game was in.the balance

We'll def answer that next week layzie

I thought something similar when i heard two different commentators mention how exciting we are to watch atm and that we are making the Sunday 3:15 slot our own. The Sunday games we've played thus far have been box office - and that has to be great for the club and sponsors. With the Sat night game no longer on free to air (an unbelievably stupid decision by the AFL i reckon given that for many footy fans who are not fanatics and/or can't afford kayo - or simply don't want it - watching a game of footy on a Saturday night part of their weekly routine) the late Sunday arvo game is a more valuable free to air slot than in previous years. And this year neutrals, including many kids, will often watch us play an exciting brand of footy.

Did it hit the ground - i wasn't sure

I almost had a conniption fit with that kick. It was sort of weird - instead of just running straight at the goals and kicking straight he angled the opposite direction and kicked it across his body. It must have come pretty close to hitting the post. Fitter also caused me some heartburn when he played on in the goal square and kicked it on the outside of his boot.

I didn't mind Healy's criticisms of Langford. I do mind his commentary - whether it's one of our games or two other teams playing. He's woeful - and like so many of the ex-footballers doing so called 'expert commentary' seemingly dead lazy in terms of doing their own research and keeping up with where the games is at. And i don't say this lightly or flippantly, but like many ex-footballers calling footy i often find myself wondering if CTE is an issue as his calls are full of muddled phrasing and basic errors.

I thought he was pretty good actually. 23 disposals (18 kicks, 5 handballs), 8 marks, 10 intercept and third most fantasy points (though admittedly that's a rubbish measure) is a pretty good game for a key defender. As noted in the match report: 'Tom McDonald stood tall in defence and across the ground, using his experience to intercept strongly and provide a steady presence behind the ball. He collected 23 disposals, 10 intercept possessions and eight marks'

Agree, if Demonland is any guide dees fans would never claim the umpiring was totally against them. But seriously, we did ok with the umpires. The two critical decisions were the 50 to Fritter and of course the block to Harvey. IMO both were 100% there, and good on the umps for paying them. But those types of decisions are routinely not paid, particularly late in games (which is SOO frustrating -i mean if it's there pay it for god's sake). And whilst it was there, Harvey milked the block, which often leads the umps to not pay the free.

Playing so well as a wing - and that's his role for the foreseeable future. And by foreseeable future i mean at least this season and next. As i've noted before, King is using Langford in the exact same role he used Dempsey at the Cats - a winger who is key to transition, kicks goals, and on offence pushes deep forward, often all the way to the goal square (where like Dempsey, Langford is scoring goals from) creating a match up problem inside 50. With 70% of scoring now coming from turnover, having gun inside mids to win clearances is simply not as important as it was 4-5 season ago when scores from stoppages generated the majority of scoring. Consequently, teams usually only use one inside mid at centre square clearances and atm that's Steele and Sparrow waxing, with Viney in the mix when back in the side. There's simply no spot for Langford as an inside mid atm, and as i say not for the foreseeable future. Which is not to say he won't get involved in stoppages around the ground - he is already - just that he won't be a starting centre bounce mid. Mids now need breakaway acceleration and speed, which is why Koz has become one of the very best mids in the AFL and why Windsor is one of our starting mids and is running at aprox 80% CBAs. Langford has an ok cruising speed, but acceleration will never be his go - and it's not like he has elite hands and kicking skills that very best mids have. Clearly the tall winger that supports transition and pushes deep forward role is a critical part of King's game plan and as such he needs a player who can execute it to a high level - which is precisely what Langford is doing (with his game on the weekend being the exemplar - the 9th highest rated player for the whole round). Here's my tip - at some point in the next few weeks it's going to dawn on the media how effective Langford is in the wing role. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul to move him from that spot and into the middle where we have a surfeit of players who can play an inside mid role.

Many thanks - am i right to assume we lost all of those games?

Thanks for adding clangers @WheeloRatings . And i love the quarter by quarter breakdown Interesting we had 8 less clangers than them given their kicking skills. Notable too that the 48 clangers we had is well under the AFL average of 57.9 clangers per game. Given we had fewer clangers than them, it's really curious they scored 80 points on turnover. That's crazy high number any way - 80% of their total score from turnovers - that's nuts. From memory Freo smashed us on turnover last year, but outside of that i can't recall the last time we gave up as many as 80 points on turnover - and never anywhere near that close in win (normally, giving up 80 points on turnover would be recipe for a smashing). That seems a really anomalous number - i wonder if King's tactics played a part and if yes what tactic?

You weren't far off!