binman

Yeah, lawyers are an honest lot.

A bit rich to criticise people for not understanding nuance, and presumably questioning their ability to engage in reasoned discourse, whilst also throwing out puerile, childish insults. Ironic on a couple of levels too. One, being so clearly triggered by Engorged Onion's well reasoned, nuanced rebuttal of your argument about Langford's age. Secondly, your choice of insult is hilariously ironic. Emotional airheads? I mean needing to default to insults is the very definition of allowing emotion to trump reason.

This x 1000. Sure, if he had his choice of clubs Buckley might not choose the dees. But he doesn't. And there is unlikely to be a better option in the near term - obviously the pies are out, the hawks and the crows are on the rise, the lions have Daly in the wings, Scott doesn't look like he is going anywhere at the cats. The blues and perhaps the dogs and freo might have a vacancy next year, but none are anymore attractive than the dees - and besides next year he might have to compete for any vacancy with Longmire, Simpson and perhaps even goody. And I just can't see Buckley wanting to coach a team in full rebuild mode, let alone one that is two full seasons from playing its first game and realistically won't win a flag for at least 7 or 8 seasons after they enter the competition (meaning, no flag until at least 2035, a decade from now).

I think there are a number of reasons why we would we choose to play say Adams at Casey rather than selecting him in the seniors in the last couple of games. Number one is his development. There are legitimate arguments to say that playing a critical role in a team pushing for finals Is better for his development than playing in the ones and potentially getting pansted by say Gunston, Elliot or Mihocek the way Howes was on Gunston. The club applied the same logic to JVR by not selecting him in the last few games of 2022, even though we needed a forward. JVR subsequently said he thought ii was good for his development. A related point is AFL footy is well past needing to give a player a senior game late in the season, particularly one that (I think) is contracted for the following season, to get a look at them. Ditto for getting games into players for the sake of it I suspect they have a very good sense of Adam's strength, weaknesses and ceiling. And If, going forward, they legitimately see Adams as an important part of our defence then playing a couple of senior games is neither here no there. Another factor is Casey making finals is important. We had to win our last two games just to make finals and I'd argue Adams playing was a factor in us doing so. And finally, whilst I'm OK when finals are out of the question to put players in for surgeries etc, personally I think they should otherwise pick the very best team that can be put on the park to maximise the chances of winning. Every game is important. Winning is important. Selecting players who otherwise would normally not be selected sends the wmg message and doesn't support developing a winning culture.

Yep. Dees fans complain about the media, but many happily amplify the gossip dressed up as news tge AFL football media spews. And that gossip stems from a parasitic amplification of rumours that flow from the club. Sure lots of people have good Intel and connections, and often that intel is of interest and worth considering. But I reckon a key thing to keep in mind is no matter how good the intel and/or how reliable the source is any such intel is by definition hearsay and everyone has, consciously or unconsciously, their own agenda and perspective. For me these things combined mean my starting point when i hear intel is scepticism and questioning its validity. Sure it might prove to be true, or more likely part true (the best gossip always has a kernel of truth) or ir may not. Perhaps it was true at some point but no longer is. And that scepticism does not necessarily mean im questioning the bona fides of the person sharing the intel (i say not nessesarily because some people are just bull****ters) - it's just that I choose not to accept hearsay as fact and even if the intel, on its face is accurate assume there's almost certainly nuance and shades of grey. The implication that Richardson is part of the problem not part of the solution is a perfect example of intel that metastasises into accepted fact as it loops from rumour to media gossip and then back into the world as self reinforcing fact. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not - or perhaps there's nuance that even those within the club feeding the Intel are unaware of - for example maybe Pert was a woeful manager who didn't provide Richardson with the support, resources or professional development opportunities to thrive. The key thing is as Gator notes if you're not within the club on a daily basis any assessment of Richardson's performance is by definition based on incomplete information and is hearsay.

Fair point.

This is a good example of the point I was making in another thread about the usefulness of stats on terms of helping understand the game is dependent on the quality of the analysis and the importance of using mutiple data points not a single stat. You are right to note that there is a strong correlation between distance of kick outs and our drop-off in the last few years. I saw that in a later post you discuss the distinction between correlation and causation, which is an important distinction as too often the media and fans conflate the two. So for example, in this instance some might conclude the cause of our drop off in form has been kicking long to Maxy less often. When in reality that stat is an indicator, a symptom, of the change to our method from a territory team to a transition team. There are any number of stats that evidence that change, and that could be analysed in conjunction, for example with the change to our kick outs data, to drill down on the reasons for our poor win loss ratio in the last two seasons. Two such, interrelated, stats are the big numbers we are giving up on turnover and our points against. Taken together with the changes to our kick outs the stats are indicators of the change to our method. And they also point to the opportunities for improvement - turn the ball over less (eg by increasing the number of above average kicks, the method becoming instinctive, get fitter etc etc) and when we do turn it over defend turnover more effectively (eg bringing in key defenders with good acceleration, the sytem becoming instinctive, stable back 7 etc etc). Another way stats can be useful are to help evidence anecdotal observations, and understand what factors might be involved. For example, I've said heaps this season that Maxy's contested marking has gone to another level. I'm not actually sure if that is reflected in the data (ie Maxy's CM numbers have increased) but anecdotally that's my vibe. I've wondered if a factor has been the anecdotal evidence that we are kicking long to Maxy less often, including from kick outs. My theory is where previously Maxy was often competing for a mark in huge packs, which obviously decreases the chances of marking, when we kick to hom he is more often one on one now or when the oppo kicks to him.he is often pushing back in defence and competing in packs that aren't set and/or don't have many players involved. The kick out stats wheelo posted support my hypothesis (and yes, there is a risk of finding data that supports a hypothesis and/or reinforces a confirmation bias).

I just got home from the game. Terrific, old school footy vibe. I said exactly the same thing to mates ie - they should only only play AFLW games in Vic the grounds you noted.

https://youtu.be/TV_loOV4YdQ?si=zUuhGzkmFFHqg70w

Look, I'm going to put you in ignore to join my handpicked collection of gold standard morons. Before I do, and at the risk of breaking my rule not to feed trolls, I'll just point out how hilarious this quoted post is and what a self own it is in terms of highlighting how truly stupid you must be. Do you even know what the word censorship means? Let me put it in a way that you might understand. If I choose not watch Sky news am I: A) Censoring Sky News B) A crazy brainwashed lefty victim of cancel culture C) Stepping all over your first amendment rights D) Exercising my right to ignore morons and moronic views I find offensive, not to mention moronic By the by, don't worry about replying, I have put you on ignore. But, by the way i do you hope you get censored and the mods ban you. And also, just a personal FYI - I think they should change the name of the AFL competition ti the AFLM. Any whoo, good chatting - I'm off to see my team beat the pies.

That's exactly what i'm talking about when i say stats are indicators not causation. The are not predictive - they are a representation of what has happened not will happen. Teams can't 'defy a model'. Sure you can, if you want to, use certain data sets to inform your thinking about what might happen but they are not definitive. Take the so called premiership window. It isn't predicting a winner of the flag, it is simply a statistical representation of historical fact - teams who rank in the top six for points for and points against, have won 18 of the last 20 AFL premierships (another historical fact - no team in the last 20 years has won a flag with a defence ranked seventh or lower). That of course that doesn't mean its impossible for team that's not in the so called premiership window to win a flag - and the data reflects that fact (2 teams not in the 'premiership window' won a flag - one of which being us i think). It just means the historical data suggests it is very unlikely a team will win flag is not in the premiership window (and almost impossible if they are not in the top 7 for defence). And its therefore reasonable to assume that will hold true this year too.

The problem isn't the stats, the problem is many people's inability to analyse and properly understand them. Part of that is thinking they are causation when they are the opposite - they are indicators.

Their defence IS that bad. And has been their Achilles heel during Beveridge's tenure. We won a flag because they couldn't ahut our offence down No team wins a flag conceding the 8th most points (which by the way given they finished 9th is hardly anything to write home about). Given their forward line riches, the fact they have the best player in the AFL in bont, one of the very best mids in libba, one if the best rucks, plenty of players with the skillset today's football demand (ie pace and good kicking skills) and a game style thst eas in some ways ahead of its time (ie qyick hands, get it go the outside and transition quickly from the back half) it's amazing they have not got more scrutiny for their lack of success. And the key reason for that lack of success is their rubbish defence. And its also a key reason why their record against top 8 teams is so poor - the best teams open them up and expose their rubbish defence. To be honest, the same was true of us this season.

That is an excellent sign.

100% agree. But that makes my point. Why can't they defend? Partly it's because of their system. But the biggest factor is they don't have elite defenders. And why don't they have elite defenders? Because they have spent their draft capital on forwards. And that has meant forwards take up too much of their salary cap, impacting their ability to trade in elite defenders. Ironically their best defender this season has been Lobb who.was traded in as a forward. Compare and contrast to the dees decision to trade out Watts (yes that was for cultural reasons but nonetheless he was a forward, andcl was replaced by a much cheaper option in Fritter) and Hogan (yes he wanted out but we also didn't put up a fight) and prioritise trading in elite defenders in Lever and May, a strategy that won us a flag

One of the interesting thing about the Dog's list is it highlights key forwards are no longer anywhere near as important in terms of driving success as they used to be. They just aren't that influential. And similarly it highlights the risk of loading up on key forwards in the draft.

Oh. I have have barely watched or listened to any footy media this season, probably the least ever.

Huh?

Well, Bevo would certainly be a 'different' voice.

One factor that drags down Maxy's ratings a little bit this season is his horrible goal kicking. Every involvement in a player has in a game is rated in terms of whether it has a positive or negative impact (-6 to +6 I think). Maxy kicked something like 3 goals 13 or some such, and many of his misses were complete sodas. Each of those misses are of course involvements, and for each Maxy would have lost ratings points. And he only kicked 3 goals so no points there. Those misses are negligible in the scheme of things in terms of maxy rating. But in terms of a comparison to Xerri's rating, if Xerri had way fewer misses and/or kicked more goals than Maxy that's a swing right there. The other swing factor might be pressure. I think im right in saying players get points for applying pressure and I supect xerri has a higher pressure rating, for example by tackling more.

You making it is age appropriate. Me making it is further proof most men never really grow up.

A master debater? Sorry, I forgot you are the teenager.

You might even say posting on here is putting him in harm's way

If even he knows what Tik Tok and an EDM is then he is hired.