binman

Would have preferred a letter from our 'new' CEO along the lines off: I understand the anger of fans and also challenge faced by our hard working and passionate President in addressing that anger. I don't want to leave Brad to deal with the angst of fans alone and I understand the importance of strong governance at this time. Accordingly, i have brought my start date forward and rather than commencing in September, which in hindsight was an error on my part, will now start my tenure tommorow.

I'll be there. I'll leave my bells at home but.

Cold. Wet. Train replacements there and back. So pleased I made the effort to go.

Any given Sunday.

Nek Minnit

This season has proved a disaster for the AFL - and even more so for the broadcasters. Five rounds still to go and there's only one team outside the 8 who realistically can make finals, the dogs (by the by has a team ever not made the finals with a percentage north of 125%?) Meaning we have five weeks with any number of rubbish games, including tonight. And tonight's game highlights another related worry for the AFL and broadcasters - the gap in performance levels of the top 9 teams and the bottom 9 teams. The dogs are 9th on 40 points, and the bombers are 14th on 20 points. In most seasons, at this stage of the season 9th would of course be favourites in the betting against the 14th team. I know the bombers have been decimated by injury but even so the fact they are 11.50 to win this match is absolutely nuts. The dogs are 1.04 to win. I'm pretty sure winx never even started that short.

Where I've landed pretty much. The key is daniher would take the oppos best, and likely biggest, defender, giving JVR a bit of a chop out.

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.

Last night was the classic case of the scenario where two things can both be right. We were woeful for much of the night. And the umpiring was appalling and had a material impact on the game.

Didn't know the result and just read this thread end to end. Very enjoyable reading - thanks to all. I needed something after last night.

I'm humidifying in Siem Reap. Will have a delicious bowl of Pho and meander over to the God awful Pub Road to watch it in a God awful pub looking every inch the Aussie bogan tourist in my dees jumper and red and blue multi purpose Cambodian scarf. Go Asuras

Top post. Agree on the forwards, though of course it would help if our inside 50 kicks were higher quality. JVR has picked a bad year to plateau and petts has been average.

None if the top teans use the corridor much anymore- nor even Collingwood who used it often in 2022 and 2023. It's too easily defenfended and the risk reward ratio is out of wack in terms of the impact of turning it over in the middle of the ground.

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.

Yep. Bottom line is we need to trade in at least one highly skilled half back flanker/mid who can reliably hit targets by foot. And we need to draft in such a player too To do both we need capital. And to get that we need to be prepared to bite the bullet and trade out at least one player who we can get a decent return from. Makes little sense to trade out any of our young guns like mcvee, jvr, Windsor etc. So we need to trade out at least one high value best 22 senior player. Realistically Tracc, Fritter and Rivers are arguably our only such players (I'm not including anyone we've recently resigned or maxy as there's no world in which we'd trade him) With his contract Tracc would be tricky to trade, and unless he wants out there's not really a scenario where we come out winners by trading him (that's to say even if we brought in another gun he's unlikely, on net, to have more impact than tracc). That leaves Rivers and Fritter. And for mine as much as there is a contradiction in trading out an elite kick to bring in another Fritter is the obvious one to trade. As you note DC he would fit perfectly into a club like the hawks, lions or even pies that have plenty of elite kicks in their midfield and back half. And he's still producing high quality footy. Taken together, he has good trade value.

Xerri cops his rightful punishment. Can't believe North Melbourne challenged it. And credit whete it's due - the tribunal slapped them down quick smart.

Actually, I think that's what we started, or thereabouts (ie 1.25 not 1.45).

We were 1.45 favourites.

Yep, total no brainer. And petts Is surely ultimately going back to replace Lever and May when they retire.

Hi Steve/Jimmy. Back on DL I see. You must love how we're travelling this year. Don't love the latest name, but each to their own.

Yeah, agree. Nowhere near as good as our 1964 team either. Sheesh.

Yep. And I suspect that's exactly what will happen assuming spargs is ready to go.

That's exactly what we need I reckon.

Mine too

I don't think it was intentional either but i think collectively the sport needs to get its act together in what is ok on the field. Reckless seems to be considered not such a big deal. Acccidental adjacent. Sure give him a few weeks, but it's not as if he meant it, yada yada yada. Mooney's response in commentary was that sort of vibe. He'll get weeks, but geez he's a bit unlucky. A football act. But reckless is a not accidental. And its not unlucky. It is defined as 'acting without regard for potential consequences or dangers, often characterized by carelessness and a lack of caution.' And that exactly describes Xerri's action. The ball was at Sparrow's feet when he was struck. Xerri got nowhere the ball. And in doing so he showed no regard to the potential consequences of swimg on a closed fist in the vicinity of an opponents head. And dees fans know full well how serious the consequences can be. Tragically so do Pies and Eagles fans who have seen players in their team also have to retire because of concussion in the last two years. We'll never eliminate the risk of concussion from footy, but if the AFL is serious about minimising the risk of an injury we know can cause LIFELONG damage then they need to get serious about penalising acts that show zero regard for potential consequences. Four weeks is a total joke for that hit. Change it to six minimum and players might think twice before swinging a clenched in a way that could conceivably result in a player being struck to the head.