binman

No cherry ripe all the time. Cherry ripe on Grand Final day.

And I'd add that there are mistakes and there are mistakes. Giving a free away for say having too many rotations is a mistake. As in the roos example from earlier in the year, it might cost a team a game. Bur something I haven't seen much comment on is the potential scenario of Allir copping another head knock when he went back on. He was all at sea for the rest of that game, and there was a huge risk of another head knock because he wasn't switched on i would have thought. So the mistake might have resulted in serious injury, or perhaps even forced retirement for Allir, as had just occurred for max lynch.

I saw this reported yesterday - and watched the clips of his speech to his teammates Could not have been a more timely, and frankly tragic, reminder of what is at stake here in terms the duty of care Port owes its players and the discussion as to whether Port breached that duty of care. A young bloke, who grew up dreaming of Brownlow's and flags has had those dreams shattered. In 20 years time, when Max is in his mid forties, not even Hawks fans will remember him. Hopefully his brave decision to retire now means he wont be still suffering in some way from the impact of his concussion, but there ain't no guarantees that will be the case. On that front, the AFL, the footy community and footy fans face a looming philosophical inflection point. In Max's Lynch's case he wisely accepted the medical advice and has decided to retire. What happens when a player rejects that advice and decides they want to play on? Paddy McCartin for example. Some might argue that every individual has that right. But should the AFL and/or clubs take that choice out of their hands? Where does the responsibility to protect an individual's health lie? As an employer, the AFL and clubs have a responsibility for the health and well being of its employees and for ensuring a safe working environment. But no matter what the AFL does moving forward to minimise and mitigate the risks of concussion there will always be players getting concussed.

My avatar is a picture of me. As is the caricature. But i am not Garry Baker.

Agree on Harmes before Woey, but not JJ before woey

Agree on outs and the players to come in. Also agree on Tomo. Live I didn't think he had a great game, but when i looked at his numbers my assessment of his game certainly took a dive. Tomo only had 7 disposals - which for a lock down defender isn't too much of a concern in of itself. But he had five clangers (defined as an error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side) and of his 7 disposals, 4 were turnovers.

Teams have been exploiting it against the Pies. It's why, for such a good team - and very much unlike us - they so infrequently blow other teams away. And also why they have been behind at 3 quarter time in 17 of their last 32 games. My take is the vulnerability has not been exploited (or discussed much - until now) more often for three main, interrelated, reasons. The first is they have been winning - an incredible record in home and away games in the in the last season and a half. Winning papers over a lot of cracks - as many DL posters noted about the dees in the first half of 2022 . Second, their last quarter record has been phenomenal. But again that ability to come from behind papers over a lot of cracks. On that point, a factor in their last quarter record is their deserved psychological edge they have in such situations - they expect to run over teams, and the oppo (and fans and their fan boys in the commentary box) do too. But if that bubble is burst they will lose that edge. They couldn't run us down and they couldn't run the blues down. They ran Port down, but maybe the comp is now looking at Port and wondering if they are that good after all. And third, their style of play, and ability to run over teams in the last, is built on phenomenal fitness and running power relative to the opposition. We saw on Sunday the advantage such relative fitness has when we completely ran the tigers into the ground - they just could not go with us. On SEN, Sanderson has been talking about the Pies fitness advantage all season (and the Crows too for that matter) and has all but said it makes them unbeatable. I have heard him 2-3 times compare their relative fitness and running power advantage to ours in 2021 (which he rightly says is why we dominated the finals series that year). But what's weird about that analysis is the implication the Pies will maintain that relative advantage to the end of the season - particularly the implication we won't close the gap. As we are starting to see, it's a complete nonsense. I think they have more elite aerobic runners. And across the board they are so quick over the ground. It's def their point of difference. And drives a really exciting brand of footy that everyone loves. We have fewer such aerobic runners (Nibbler, Spargo, Hunter and langers) but more elite power athletes (Tracc, Oliver, Viney, Salem, Sparrow). I would argue we have a better balance of athlete types for finals, but leaving that discussion aside, there is no way (assuming we have got our program right and don't have injuries) that come finals, the Pies will have a fitness edge over us - and increasingly perhaps not such an edge over other teams either (and it remains to be see if the Pies have got their fitness program right). Take that advantage away and the Pies come back to the pack.

It's not the swarm that makes them vulnerable. We swarm too - it is at the heart of the method we adapted from the tigers (I dislike hardwick, but he deserves huge credit for changing how the game is played) - pressure and get numbers to the contest, win the ball and sweep forward in a rugby like line and have players run hard to get ahead of the ball to create options. The pies perhaps commit more numbers in that swarm, but what makes the pies vulnerable is the risks they take and their defensive system. They expose themselves to turnover because they flick it around trying to get the ball to the outside and when they get it outside take on high risk kicks - often into the corridor. Looks great when it works, but place the kicker under enough pressure and/or get numbers into the corridor and they turn it over, and often in very dangerous spots (and their handballs to feed it out can be turned over too). But it is the second vulnerability, very much interconnected with the first, that really hurts them. Their defensive lines pushes so high on transition, and in one flat line (ie no goal keeper) that when they turn the ball over they are at massive risks of goals out the back on the counter. That is all true of all teams using that swarm method, but our defensive sytem protects us on turnover. We have been experimenting with a similar approach to thstvof the pies in the last 3 games, which is a big reason why we have scored so much - but also why we have leaked so many goals. The dusty goal where he was left alone in the goal square was the perfect example. We rarely give up such goals. I'm sure we will revert back to something more like our normal defensive system come finals, including greater use of tempo (we saw a bit of borh in the second half against the tigers) - but the new normal will retain elements of the method we are experimenting with atm. We can play both styles. And a hybrid. Hard to see how pies can adjust theirs so late in the season given they havent experimented in games with alternative methods.

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

I guess I shouldn't say the hawks are in good shape injury wise and Rampe and McInerney are doubtful for round 24

The Kangaroos expect Goater to be cleared to play in Sunday's clash with the Demons, despite being subbed off last week. Bonar, Hall and Perez could all return at some level, but will also need to undergo fitness tests. The club is still awaiting more information before clearing Coleman-Jones after a second concussion of the season. Shiels and Wardlaw are still at least a week away. Charlie Lazzaro (back) and Tom Powell (knee) made their comebacks through the VFL last weekend.

On the injury front, the blues are pretty hard hit. In terms of our game against them, best 22 blues plsyers who are def out are Cerra, McKay and Kennedy. And Walsh is listed as one to two weeks, so in doubt. Big outs - particularly if Walsh doesn't get up as their midfield is their key strength and their game is based around winning stoppages. No Cerra and Walsh, and hopefully clarry coming back in, gives us a big edge in the middle.

It was actually quite swirly at the g

And it was a tough, close game too - which won't help their cause.

I totally get the don't disrespect the oppo argument as think it is a very valid one. And I would probably not advocate managing plsyers earlier in the season. But playing the roos is a unique opportunity in the sense that for all the any club can win one the day, that does not really apply in this scenario because they are historically bad and the gap between where we at right now and them is huge. We have finals in 5 weeks. Hard to see us cruising, and so f ir helps us in any way in our tilt for a flag then the I think the potential benefits out weigh the risks. We didn't have this opportunity last year. The cats did.

Fair points. I guess that comes down to communication and expectation management.

Personally, i'm in the managing players camp. As Demon Dynasty notes, any best 22 player managed won't be doing any resting. Like Smith doing laps after the Tigers game, they will still have to the ks they would have otherwise done in the match. But the advantage is they don't have to be on and off a plane, or stay overnight in a hotel. And the risk of injury is much, much lower (ie no risk of impact injury). And perhaps even more importantly they don't have to worry about post match recovery (eg from bumps, bruises and soreness) interfering with their prep and program heading into the challenging - and likely super critical (re chances of top 20 - Blues game. They also get a chance to freshen up mentally - which might benefit some players. Get the load without the risk. There is another important element too i reckon - its give the club the opportunity to reward players at Casey for good form and/or give some young player some exposure at AFL level. And given any player coming in will have a specific role in the system, they get chance to practice that role at AFL level, (which might useful in the even we cop some some injuries ahead of finals) and that mitigates some of the downside of new players coming in And potentially a couple of fresh, motivated players who want to impress might actually help us put the Roos to the sword.

Much like life.

Sure, but i think his role has to be factored into any such analysis. Not all turnovers are created equal. Apples and oranges and all that. Nibbler is an endurance player who runs 16-17 kms per game, much of which is at high speed. So he would be gassed much more of the time than power, burst athlete like tracc - which logically has to have an impact on his turnover numbers I don't know what their turover ratio numbers are, but at the dees the only players who run his sort of distances and higjh speed, repeat sprints are Hunter, Langers and to lesser extent Spargo. At other clubs, Toby Bedford would have similar profile (the giants recruited him to play Nibbler's high half forward role). Those players would be better comparisons.

No i got that. I meant which post did you add the possessions data to. And, der, now i realize what you meant - you added to your initial post! Ta. Very relevant

One is worse than the other. And it seems posters often conflate them.

Where old (ie where did you add the possessions data)? Funnily enough, i was just thinking about that. For example, Melksham only had 9 disposals - and 33% were turnovers (the rest, bar two, were goals!). And Tomo had 7 disposals - and more than 50% (4) were turnovers.

Ta. So 4 of nibbler's turnovers did not result 'in a negative result for his side'. And from that list Langdon also had 8 turnovers, Viney 7 and Pickett 5. It's also worth noting that four dees players - Langdon, Gawn, Tomlinson and Melksham - had more clangers (ie turnovers that result 'in a negative result for his side') than Nibbler. Don't recall reading much criticism for their errors this week. Hell, the silky skilled Shai Bolton had more clangers AND turnovers than Nibbler. https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=10918#t2

Source? Where do you get 8 turnovers from? I'm not saying you are incorrect, but he had four clangers for the game, not 8. This is the Champion data definition of a clanger: Clanger: An error made by a player resulting in a negative result for his side. Disposal clangers are any kick or handball that directly turns the ball over to the opposition. Frees and 50-metre penalties against, No Pressure Errors, Dropped Marks and Debits are all included in clangers.

Agree. To be honest, i won't be shocked if Port fall in bit of a heap. A bit depends on their physical conditioning and capacity to get their run back - i have this vibe they have emphasized winning home and away games over being cherry ripe come finals. If the Cats beat them this week, they will have lost four in a row. In that scenario, they will be under massive pressure to beat the Giants next week. Yes that game is at AO, but if the Giants beat the swans this week, which they are favorite to do, they will be shooting for 10 wins on the trot against Port (and 11 of their last 12 games). They are in red hot form. What genuine contender loses 5 on end at this point in the season? They then have to travel to Perth to play Freo, before, as you say finishing the season against the Tigers. Won't happen, but imagine how nuts Port fans would go if they lost their last 7 games of the home and away season! Worth remembering they still haven't resigned Hinkley.