binman

I'm an iconoclast - rules are meant to be broken, especially my own

AMW and XL aren't competing for the same spot. We've lacked a quailty small lockdown defender since Jetts, though as pointed out to me Hibberd essentially played that role too - AMW will likely play that role, and I'm excited for what he'll bring. Noone really plays that role atm - we use our mids, HHFs, and whatever you call the role/position Langers plays to get back on defence and win contests and ground ball inside D50. I think XL is minding Bowser's spot, so not sure who AMW replaces. Ultimately, XL, as he did as a junior, will likely move from the HB into the midfield, possibly when Bowser comes back. Either way he's not coming out of the ones.

An excellent point. A bit was made of the fact that our average age was a tick over Freos. But the key difference is how many of high end talent are 24 or under and/or played less than 50 games.

My tolerance to main training was always very low - might explain the very undizzy heights i got to in my junior footy career.

Does anyone know how Disco broke his hand?

Maybe, but King has been crystal clear that's the game plan we are running with. Kentfield will help, Brodie too. I can't see Heath coming into the side anytime soon as we simply cant afford to be down a runner (though if they are going to pick him, this week wouldn't be th eworse time to do so given the Blues are dead slow). I suspect their plan was to use Kentfield as the second ruck, so the sooner he's in the better. I disagree Lindsay looks all at sea as defender, though it feels like I'm on my own on that front. Agree he's a ways off his optimal strength, he's a second year player after all, but I'm not surprised at all Kins is using him down back, and i think will continue to do so (I don't think he's competing with AMW for a spot, more XT - who IS miles off). He played a big chunk of his junior career, for Gippy power and representative sides, in the exact same role he played this season - half back flanker who pushes up the ground and is key to transition. That included one of his best representative games - an under 17s Future Stars game played on GF day where he was BOG playing as a running half back flanker. In his final year at Gippy power he predominantly played as a mid (though still went back at times), and that's where he might end up, but as highlighted by draft watchers he was an excellent defender as a junior. So its not as if he doesn't have experience in the role, and obviously King rates him as defender given that where he has selected him two weeks in a row. Watching live, and then again the replay, i thought he was excellent against the Saints - i was amazed he seemed to get no love on DL. He was our 5th highest rated player for the game and only Steele and Salo had more metres gained (and not by much). He was not nearly as good against the Dockers, but again i'm amazed at the opprobrium he's received on DL. Sure he was fumbly at times, particularly in the first quarter, and he lost a couple of key one on one contests, but he was far from the only defender to struggle - hardly surprising given the volume of D5O entries (25 in the first quarter - nuts!), the speed it was coming inside D50) and the lack of pressure on their last kick inside 50. I thought he played OK, but i rate him highly so i was conscious there might be some confirmation bias informing that assessment. So i was pleased to see his player rating supported my assessment - he scored 7.5 rating points, better than 12 of his teammates including other defenders like CJ (4.7 points), Howes (4.6 points) and Petts (-0.7 points). He was also comfortably the highest rated player of our young guns - Langford, Windsor, Kolt and Latrelle.

Gave that up years ago

Tru dat. If i broke my hand today, that would be that for gardening for the rest of 2026.

Depending on the severity of the break, i would have thought one week is pretty common. I might be imaginimg this, but i seem to remember a number of examples over the years of a player breaking their hand, getting a plate put in and then being good to go after only missing one or two games (it's probably helpful we have an 8 day break into the blues game and then 7 day's into the Suns game).

I hope you didn't hurt him.

This is where the chicken and egg comes in. Or to butcher another metaphor, confusing symptoms with causation. Why did the forwards not lead as often as they did against the saints? Because there was often no space in the forward line for out forwards to lead into. Why was there often no space in our forward line? Because Freo's defensive unit did a top job with their set up and zone defence, meaning we were often kicking into a congested forward line. Why was Freo able to do job job with their set up and zone defence? A big factor was our lack of run and overlap handball after winning a turnover. Doing so successfully means the ball moves quickly on transition, it drags defenders out of their D5O to press up on players receiving the handball, which creates the opportunity to tic tac over the opponents and creates space inside our 50 for our forwards to lead into and/or have genuine one one one contests. Which is precisely what Freo did to us in that first quarter (made easier by the same lack of run that hurt us on offence), which was why they had so much space inside their 50 and why they got so many genuine one one one contests. Why did we often bomb it long into a crowded forward line and often around the ground? Because King has made it clear we are a low disposal, territory team (ie we go forward at all costs, by both hand and foot) and the clear instruction is if there is not a clear short option on then kick for distance - as i have posted in other threads, and as already borne out by the data, we will be more a long bomb, territory focused team than we were under goody in 2025. On that topic, dees fans should get used to being a long bomb, territory team again because the coach has made it clear that's what we will be, and won't for example go laterall as often ad some teams or use short lead up kicks in the way say Lions (and now Pies too) do to move the ball forward with control and precision until they get spares ahead of the ball then go fast. Why was there often no clear short options we could spot up by hand and foot to set up wave running and overlap? Because we lacked run. Why did we lack run? Good question. Could be we struggled to come up after six day break, could be we struggled wit the heat (28 degrees and 85% humidity) after a game last week in the heat. Could be a number of players, as has been suggested in another thread, were impacted by the flu that has been running rampant in Melbourne in the last few weeks. Could be were were not mentally prepared and had too many passengers. Could be combination of these factors. Whatever the reason for our lack of run and spread, that was the key reason why we lost. That lack of run is the cause - the long kicking, the difficulty defending turnover, the number of open players they had around the ground (they had 72 more handball receives than us)and inside their 50 , our inefficiency going forward and their efficiency going forward etc etc were of course facors in the loss, but i would argue they are symptoms not cause.

Well, May should hve been there to help. He's let us down. And in any case as May well knows, defenders don't stand much chance when the ball enters as often and as quickly as it dis in the first quarter - they had 25 inside 50s in the first quarter, that's bananas. If anyone should be criticised is the mids, wing and half forwards who didn't gut run to cover free Dockers players, which with the fumbles and turnovers were the key reason the back seven were so under the pump in the first quarter.

How did it happen?

There is absolutely zero chance melk comes into the ones anytime soon based on the footscray vfl game. I went ans watched him closely. His leadership, support and voice, fir all teamates (ie including the Casey players) was first class But, having not been to training, I was surprised at his condition. Doesn't look anywhere near as cut as he did last season ad looks to have bulked up in his legs and upper body- which is not making him any faster. And I'm not sure why he played the second half. His right knee was heavily strapped, and he was clearly hampered - he took a shot at goal (which happened to right in front of where I was sitting) from the left forward pocket but kicked with his left foot (and missed by a mile).

He was excellent on the weekend. Had a crazy amount of score involvements, pretty sure comfortably the most of any player. In terms of monitoring his form vis vis his value as a trade, did we make tge right call to trade him etc etc, i find the whole clarry discussion a bit strange to be honest. Bottom line is he almost certainly won't ever get back to his AA best - in large part because its very unlikely he'll get back his break away speed (he was not quick per se, but at his very best his acceleration from a standing start was explosive). But just as he was for us last year, he will be a very reliable, meat and potato inside ball winner with great hands. The Giants would have been under zero illusions about what they were going to get with claz, on field and off field. Because we are covering a big chunk of his salary, the Giants are paying for an above average AFL player, not an A grader - and that's way they've got. For a bunch of reasonns, we made the right call to trade him, even with having to cover part of his salary. Leaving aside any cultural issues we need players with leg speed. And he doesn't have it I sincerely hope he plays well for the Giants and enjoys the rest of career.

Out a ball use has been our biggest issue for at least 20 years i reckon

Spot on. Whether you think we are in full rebuild mode, mini rebuild or a reboot/reset phase matters little - we all agree it's one of those three (and really its just semantics away). And in all three scenarios history tell us young players performance level fluctuates and improvement is never linear. The Roos, chock full of young guns, are the perfect example of that - lauded last week for their stirring win over Port they came into the game as 1.50 favorites, which is pretty remarkable given where they finished last season and the fact the game was in Perth. Those odds looked spot on after the first quarter with the Roos kicking 7 goals and leading by 4 goals at quarter's end. They could only manage another 8 goals for the game and ended up losing to a team that had not won since round 10 2025. The Roos' young players, so good last week, fluffed their lines in a game that was the probably the shortest they had started to win for perhaps 7 or 8 seasons.

Way too early to make that call.

Thanks @WheeloRatings I'll let wheelo give the proper answer, but if I understand a previous post od his about about equity points, the answer to your question is different. The reason being is, if I understand it correctly, the probability of scoring from a given position (because of pressure, spot on the ground etc) is factored into the equity points allocated for each involvement (and in your example, each involvement in a successful scoring chain).

Thanks wheelo. Apologies for all the questions, reall5 appreciate your responses. Another curious question - am I right in thinking you chose ball use and ball winning because they are critical determinants in winning games and they are a better, more nuanced measure than disposal efficiency (which is a pretty useless measure) and contested possessions?

Ticketmaster - woeful. I've had a GUTFULL!

Start as you mean to go on.

True. But they've got as many cups as the dees in my lifetime.

Didn't have any, so can't comment But the venue and footy facilities are great - they've done a realy good job with the redevelopment. It's got a great feeling of being the doggies home grounds (they've got a tiny museum with their premiership cups and photos ans memorabilia of various eras which is worth checking out). Amd it feels really integrated into the surrounding community. Oh, and the surface us immaculate.

How good? Berry good.