binman

Fullarton playing very well.

Question: What's better than the blues getting beaten and going down 0-3? Answer: Backing their opponent to win.

Instead of [censored] can the new software add an appropriate euphemism instead. So for example [censored] could be [Tom Morris].

Have you lost weight Andy? You look good.

Not to mention being arguably our best field kick.

No, i wasn't comparing it to our matches this season. Just wondering if perhaps the Hawks high performance strategy was different to ours, knew we were in better nick at that point in time and didn't want to get into transition battle with us - which would be ironic given by the end of the season we had run out of puff and looked slow as wet week and the Hawks had morphed into arguably the quickest, best transition team in the comp (coincidence? - perhaps not) .

And it's worth remembering how that game played out. The Hawks were slammed for their method - which involved chipping it around their back half for large parts of the game. Mitchell said a key reason for the method was to minimise the advantage he though the dees had in terms of scoring power (and IIRC speed and transition?) Is it possible they weren't cherry ripe by choice as pet of their high-performance strategy, ie increase the chances of being cherry ripe come finals (which they were)?

Can't argue that history says that going 0-3 makes top 4 very unlikely. A 0-3 start would be a shocker for us, absolutely no doubt. But I'm firmly of the view that the game at the elite level (ie AFL) is in the middle of a fundamental change to how it's played. Almost every player now covers 12 plus kms a game - unthinkable even 10 years ago. As an example, two defenders in Tmac and Comben covered the equal second most kms in our last game, only 500 meters less than Sheezel. And the emphasis on fast transition and high-speed running means each teams needs to be stocked with elite runners with massive tanks (to enable the huge amount of two-way running transition footy demands) who can also reliably hit targets and play decent footy (ie the days of 'he's an athlete first, footballer second' are over). Of course, you still need the bulls who win the ball, and key position players to contest in the air, but the best teams have 10-12 elite runners. Logic suggests that the change to the style of play (from forward half footy to back half transition footy) and the athletic profile it demands that high performance and conditioning programs also have to fundamentally change. An analogy might be training an elite squad of runners that for a decade or more were 70% power athletes (eg 100 and 200 metre) and 30% fast endurance athletes (eg 400-800 metre runners) but now the equation has flipped to 70% endurance athletes and 30% power athletes. The high-performance programs at each club have to adjust to this new reality, one in which there is far less data available on best practice. Which is why i think the lessons of history in terms of early season form are less relevant now. The goal remains the same for the genuine final's contenders - be in peak, optimal condition come finals time. But again, logic suggest the path to achieve that goal has to change. At the risk of putting too much emphasis on last year, and acknowledging it represents small sample size, we all saw last season how demanding the game now is over the course of what is an incredibly long season given the physical demands of the sport (a brutal combination of contest and elite running). And most clubs were trying to implement the transition game, so we have some data on the impact of the change to how the game is played in terms of early season form and peaking come finals: The Swans were, for the first half of the season were almost universally regarded as the fastest, fittest and best transition team in the AFL - on top of the ladder at the halfway mark of the season, having won their first 10 games they were 1.80 to win the flag at that point Come finals they started to flag (pardon the pun), lost their relative advantage in terms of running power and ultimately looked slow and struggled to transition the ball in their humiliating shellacking by the Lions in the Grand Final The Cats won their first 7 games, looked fast and in great shape - finished top 4 but like the Swans dropped off come finals, ultimately losing their prelim The Lions, the premier, lost their first 3 games and looked slow and off the pace (their third loss was against the pies who had yet to win a game at that point) The Hawks lost their first five games by an average of 32 points, including 9 goal shellackings by us and the suns, before roaring home and looking in great shape at the back end of the season, winning a final before bowing out in the semis

You don't think there is an element of overreacting to one game in the whole 'our midfield bulls set up has ti change' palaver? I mean, yes we need more speed and outside run in the middle. Which is why they are using Langdon (by the by many people are arguing we should end that experiment) and koz as permanent mids. BUT: - maxy had his least impactful game for a long time. - tracc, our best midfield bull only spent 77% TOG and basically played deep forward for half a game - Chandler played on ball in the last and we got smashed out of the middle - in the previous match we almost beat a top 4 team in large part because of our ability to score from stoppages BECAUSE of our bulls - the roos absolutely obliterated us at centre bounces and stoppages with a midfield full of bulls!

Bollocks.

Agree with all of the above. The best metaphor for all the confected drama is the videos 360 have as a lead into a discussion on (insert whatever the big drama of the day supposedly is). They are both hilarious and incredibly grating with an editor who thinks they are Oscar's bound backed by the ridiculously over the top dramatic music and voice over. It's like some silly panto - look over there kidos, the big bad wolf is hiding behind the curtain!

Their buts? Interesting.

To be honest, i wondered the same thing. I doubt tracc has ever had a less impactful game. Didn't look right - ditto a number of other players.

Yep, I reckon you've nailed it - i knew their style seemed familiar - Steve the man jordon (aka whatevs) back. Thanks for the heads up.

That's not what I asked.

Who did you expect to he sub. Can play multiple positions: wing, half back, defensive forward - Woey makes perfect sense to be sub.

And lucky we don't have a media, or tge majority of fans, who have collective amnesia and a relentless desire to ignore recent history. So we won't have a scenario where they declare the hawks unbackable flag winners after they string a block of win together playing an exciting brand of transition footy that 'it's hard to see anyone beating'. Just like last season when they didn't fall into the trap of banging on about the swans being unbackable flag winner after winning their first 10 games.

Insert why don't we have both gif here.

The best game I've seen him play.

I didn't say they didn't transition ok in the last. And I know they aare a brilliant transition team. I said they dominated clearamces and therefore territory in the last q - which remains important, just not as important as it was. As our coach noted ot was a key reason why they won. By the by our only goal for the quarter came from a terrific transition from our back half. And I'm pretty sure AJ's late point was from a back half transition. He kicks that goal we win, with 2 transition goals.

It's not something I have much givenagree, but I can't agree. Friiiter and Wattsy actually both have quite a lot in commo. Both: - smooth movers - elite field kicks - elite and super reliable shots at goal - brilliant one on one in marking contests - have/had good hands - have/had high footy iq - have/had similar disposal average - criticised for not being sufficiently hard at it - have/had fans questioning their best 22 lock status But, apart from all of the above, an you say not liking grappling with defenders and playing at HB, id agree they have nothing in common.

Ironically, for all the talk of the Giants ability to transition from the back half and play fast footy, what won them the game was, as goody noted, their ability to win stoppages and territory in the last quarter (was the only quarter in which they did do, and the only quarter they scored more than us).