binman

Still makes me angry how we treated junior. (Good lord, if I heard anyone booing him I wouldn't have been able to help saying something.) Feels like a different club now.

Ironic boos for sauce - coming after hunter got booed and only tge one time. I won't be booing Jackson. I don't boo players. And I don't feel any angst towards him anyway. But in the theatre of booing Jackson is fair game. Unlike sauce, fits the bill - high draft pick, big investment by the club, leaves after the club has helped him develop for big coin.

Got the trifecta. Dogs to cover their line. Dogs to win by more than 39. Freo in disarray.

Go doggies 🐕

And the other relevant contextual info is the club's media team offer up people to be interviewed - as opposed to being a guest on a conversation hour type podcast format. This is an important distinction, because the expectation from the club and player is that it won't take more than 15-20 mins, is not onerous and follows an interview style structure. Staff and players participate because they are obligated to do so as part of their responsibility to do media. If players report back that interviews took too much time or were a hassle (eg having to organise a PC to video conference from, organise a decent mic and camera etc etc) the club would simply stop offering people to DL to be interviewed. Sometimes Andy might (and does) request to interview a particular person, but has no choice in who the club ulitmately offers. It would be great to always speak to natural story tellers and conversationalists like Maxy, but Andy gets who he gets. And even if he does snag a great story teller, he still only has 15-20 mins. That is one Gary Pert answer. And almost always the club randomly contacts Andy out of the blue and offers someone to be interviewed, hence the sporadic frequency of the interviews and mix of guests. Often only a couple of days’ notice is given and Andy might be given only a few options for the interview time. I'm guessing very few players would agree to doing an hour or so conversational style pod like the one Tmac did in the preseason (which is terrific by the way - but I’ll bet my bottom dollar the club did not organise that, but rather the pod went straight to tom, who they may well know.) Andy can’t go direct to players, even those DL sponsors, and ask if they want to do a pod. Well, he can, but the player would say speak to the media team, who may get their noses out of joint and stop offering players and staff up for interviews full stop. Another issue is the club also sets the platform for how the interview is actually done - they give Andy a mobile phone number to call at an agreed time. So, no podcast equipment at their end, no proper mike set up and no video conferencing tech (meaning the interviewer and interviewee can’t see each other). It also means no control of the physical environment at the interviewees end. Compare that scenario to the set up for guests on the Gus and Gawny podcast - the guest is with them in a room that has been optimised for sound quality etc (by the by, from the handful of their pods I’ve watched, they don't really engage their guests in a conversation - but rather, just ask a series of often silly questions). An example of the environmental challenges is during the Brodie Grundy interview he was doing some sort of building or gardening work whilst talking on the phone. It was quite annoying as you could hear all this really distracting background noise. Similarly, Selwyn Griffiths was walking when being interviewed so there was heaps of distracting background noises (eg traffic). To those challenges add the time restriction and the fact that Andy has usually not met the person. Given all these factors, it is all but impossible to build the kind of rapport needed for a quality conversational style interview. By the by, to be clear, it is brilliant the club put people forward to be interviwed and those they have have all been really fantastic, including the judster. They have so little time between games and the stakes are high so the club and the players and staff should be applauded for giving up their time and bringing such a great attititude.

Keeping the list together is a massive challenge for a club like the dees atm that is set up for a sustained period of success. The tigers did brilliantly at keeping that dominant team together, and bringing lynch in was a winner, but they still lost deledio, then later Ellis, higgins and Chol (and maybe another player?) Bedford's pace would be super helpful with the way the game is playing. So would have preferred we kept him. But don't begrudge him at all. Deserves to play full games. Bloody unlucky to be injured. And i wouldn't want to lose any of say JJ, Laurie and Chandler. Particularly JJ. But the math says there are going to be AFL standard players not getting a game, or enough games, who will leave to get them. I think the club has been really smart to lock so many of our top ten players on long term deals. Tracc, Clarry, Gus, Salem and Max are all locked in for the next six years. Gives them some flexibility with how they structure and spread payments. And it cuts down on contract negotiations, that always distract to some degree. That flexibility has no doubt helped them sort the Rivers deal, and have the salary cap space to offer kozzie a good deal. If in addition to all the signings noted above (and players like may, lever, viney mcvee, friiter, nibbler spargo and sparrow who are all squared away), koz signs, and we get jvr locked in for a few years, we have the foundation of a crazy good list for the next 4-5 years.

Great interview Andrew. Sounds a top young fella

Wheelo, any chance you can add time in forward half and total team metres gained to your brilliant stats? @WheeloRatings

I'm mcveighing up my options

Or as dees fans like to call a top 20 draft pick - a Jackson

Great question. If he is a surfer, he will be keen to talk about surfing. Which might help him relax if he is nervous (which is likley given his age) Another q might be who is the best surfer at the club

Or would he prefer the judster? Or perhaps Justice (as in MCV - Magistrates Court of Victoria)?

Does he mind me calling him Juddy?

Be brave.

I don't know. Just in terms of accuracy above 50% accuracy from set shots historically seems to be the benchmark. But i'm guessing data like effective % and kicks to goal per game is more of an individual KPI than a teams-based use of analytics. As an example of the latter, on Fox, when a player is having a set shot they show that players record over their career from the (approximate) spot they are kicking from. I assume this is Champion Data data. So, taking out conditions, they know the probability of every player kicking a set shot from any spot in the forward line (assuming they have had shots previously). The clubs would also have access to data on the probability of every player kicking a shot on the run from multiple points on the ground. In addition, they no doubt have data on what happens in both scenarios when the shot on goal is missed (which can occur in both scenarios, though obviously less often from set shots). Taking all this data together they can arrive at the probability of having a net positive score (ie taking into account the chances of the offensive team scoring AND giving up a goal on transition) in both scenarios - ie pass or take the shot. For example, Fritter has won a ground ball in the pocket 30 metres out and has a free player in the corridor, but one that is likely to be covered through the opposition structure youngblood describes above. Using analytics, the club can say with a reasonable degree of certainty (because they have the data) what the probability of a positive net score is if Fritter takes the shot and if he instead elects to pass. If that analysis shows that over the journey Fritter taking the shot is the best option (ie is more likely to result in a positive net score) then it would make sense for him to take the shot. That equation will be different for say, Nibbler or Langdon. For them, the percentage play might be going for a pass or simply centering it the way Langdon so often does.

Top post. On those long kicks, you're right that is key part of our game plan. And is also a major reason why Goody likes a three tall plus a resting ruck up forward. I have little doubt that is a function of analytics based on the probability of both us scoring AND conceding a score on transition. But as you suggest, if we don't mark it, we simply have to bring it to ground. In hindsight, i think it was mistake not bring Schache in as the third tall when BB was an out. Our structure looked out of wack up forward - and down back too it must be said. It was really evident how much we rely on Gawn to be a tall up forward AND down back. I thought Scott did an excellent job exploiting Maxy's absence (and arguably also Grundy's defensive weakness) and stretching our tall defenders - who all struggled, with the possible exception of Petty (though not till the second half) in one on ones - by getting their talls inside 50 and isolating our tall defenders.

On 360 a couple of weeks back, David King highlighted the emergence of analytics in AFL and how important they have become for coaches in terms of informing game plans, strategies etc. I suspect Goody is well and truly on the analytics train. And related to that, i suspect some players have been instructed that unless there is an open player and an easy pass option to go for goal when it is on (ie not crazy shots from the boundary). Why? It's all about percentages. Logic suggests that the probability of scoring is higher in certain circumstances when the player shoots for goal rather than passing to teammate. And i assume this is reflected in the data. Often hitting a target can be almost as difficult as kicking the goal and as you suggest, passing creates an additional opportunity for a turnover. A turnover means we lose control of the ball. A point does too, however we can set up our wall more effectively after a point And even if the pass does hit a target, that player still has to go back and kick the goal. Which even directly in front 30 metres out might only be say a 70% chance of being converted into a goal (less depending on who is kicking). So, it is likely analytics show that in certain circumstances (eg right player, right spot on te ground, no completely free teammate) a goal is more likely if a shot is taken rather than passing - and perhaps also less likley to concede a goal on transition. This sort of analytics has been used in NFL, MBL and the NBA for decades. In the NBA it completely changed the sport because analytics showed that whilst three-point shots are statistically harder to hit than 2-point jump shots (and of course lay ups), putting a huge number of 3-point shots up leads to higher scoring. So now, pretty much every NBA team shoot massive numbers of 3-point shots, numbers that were unheard of 20 years ago. Not only has this led to an explosion in scoring, it has also fundamentally changed the game at the elite level both in terms of how it is played (so much faster and up and down the court running - sounds bit familiar in relation to the shift in the AFL) and what sort of athlete is optimal. Gone (well not completely gone) are the lumbering giants battling in the paint who would never take a three-point shot. Now most players are required to play multiple positions, have to be super-fast and athletic and of course be able to hit a jump shot and three pointers.

That's coz dees fans have class and don't respond to the screeching, beseeching hype person. That and the last 15 mins before the game is for checking the picnic hamper.

That's an excellent hypothesis- you are probably correct. That said I recall many dees losses in the 70s in super muddy conditions.

Agree. One of the biggest myths in footy is wet weather is an equaliser. Teams with good skills, like we have shown this season, are advantaged in the wet over teams with poor skills because generally good skill is a function of good technique and good technique stands up better in wet condtions (and when windy too for that matter, not to mention pressure). I'd add we are a contested ball team, which is another advantage we bring into this match as wet weather usually means lots of ground balls. All that said, we could luck out and miss any heavy rain. radar look ok and the heavy rain and thunderstorms are not forecast to hit until the evening

It's not about the total number of clearances, or the differential. It is about the differential in scoring from clearances. That's to say there are clearances and there are clearances. Our focus is on quality clearances and scoring from stoppages. We set up aggressively to maximise scoring potential and are often outnumbered at stoppages. This means that we will always give up our fair share of clearances. When the oppo do win the clearance, our focus is putting them under enough pressure to force a turnover, or at the least a crappy forward entry. A good example of a stat (like hit outs once was before it became clear it is a relatively meaningless stat) that does not have the relavance it might have say 2-3 seasons ago.

This post has a strange, wistful beauty about it.

Boomers and their obsession with syntax, grammar, accuracy and factual information!

I thought of that gag and soon as i hit submit. Thought it might be a touch lame to go back and edit my post with an intentional typo!