binman

I wouldn't say disappointed, but I agree he's got some areas to work on. There's no doubt he lacks a little speed off the mark, which has become so critical in the last 3 years. Yes, his footy iq helps, and yes he can improve his speed with training, but he'll never be super quick. His overhead marking hasn't been as impressive as I expected from the vision I saw from his junior footy, though I suspect that's partly a function of not being able to monster opponents in the same way. That might change as he gets stronger. My other knock on him is, seemingly like most lefties, he can't kick on his right. Melksham, koz and even fritter regularly demonstrate the value of bring able to kick well with both feet. Langford seems a driven young man and I suspect he is type of player who can improve areaa weaknesses thri work and effort. @Gator what do you see as his areas for improvement?

63rd rated player in his first year of AFL footy - wow. The scary thing is how much more upside he has compared to other ready made midfield guns like Rowell, Wines, Daicos and Harley Reid. By that I mean those players of course got stronger and fitter after their first season. But not a hell of a lot bigger. Langford almost has the build of a key position player, and will fill out quite a bit over the next 2-3 years and like most bigs take a while to get to optimal fitness. As a comparison, Bont, who I've read Harvey based his game on as a junior, is 2 or 3 cms taller but was the same height when drafted as Harvey was drafted. Give Harvey two more full AFL preseasons and he will be taller and significantly stronger and fitter than he is now. And we shouldn't sleep on Lindsay as I suspect he'll be every bit as good the bison. If, as seems to the case, Buckley is really keen on the coaching job, I can only imagine a big part of the attraction is the opportunity to build a team around two generational talents.

Did his head in.

I'm not good with the trade stuff, but I'd be surprised if we can't get at least a second rounder. But let's say you're right and the best we can get is a third rounder. In that scenario, assuming we can trade him and don't have to pay part of his salary, it doesn't matter that we extended his contract.

I'm not good with the trade stuff, but I'd be surprised if we can't get at least a second rounder. But let's say you're right and the best we can get is a third rounder. In that scenario, assuming we can trade him and don't have to pay part of his salary, it doesn't matter that we extended his contract.

It's weird though - perhaps I'm misremerbering but it feels like his field kicking has gone backwards this season, in large because of those strangle little dinky kicks that look too cute by half that he does at least one or twice a game now. Perhaps it's just that he's playing way more time on the ball but those kicks seem like a new thing. There's no reason why he shouldn't be an excellent field kick - he has a good technique and evidenced by his goal kicking accuracy.

Indeed. For example, Tmac staying provides key defensive coverage if we trade out May. And if we do trade May out having Melksham as forward option means we are better placed to move Petty back to replace May

No Bowser in the squad - that's ridiculous.

It does give us leverage in any trade negotiations.

Petty can take his place.

Personally if we can get a decent return a trade to the dogs could be a win win. They need a KPD to take the oppo's key forward (Lobb is a decent zone off intercepor but rubbish one on one) and have enough fast defenders to offset May's major weakness - his lack of pace. And we need some players with above average foot skills and good pace, and need some draft capital to get a decent one via the draft (i doubt they'll give up such a player as that's robbing Peter to pay Paul). Going forward I have more confidence in Tmac as a key defender (is May going why we re-signed tmac?) but we can't play him and may in the same side - both are too slow. And we have a ready made replacement for May - Petty. I think it's clear pett's best position is key defender and he'll slot right into May's position if May leaves (potentiallyat TMac's expense but he'll know Casey is a possibility whereas I can't see May being cool with playing twos).

Yep, that's where it can be of some use, particularly KE. That said, even then it has limitations - eg statistically what's the meaningful difference between say an 80% or 81% fie say a half back flanker. Bur like most stats they are often not that useful in isolation, which is how they are often used. For example comparing a half back flanker whose role is to initiate transition triangulating say KE, score involvements and clangers would give a good sense of their skill set and a foundation for comparison to other like players.

Of course they do. And we all instinctively know it as in out day to day lives few of us make better decisions when tired and/or fatigued. We make more mistakes at work, we lose concentration when driving, we make sub optimal decisions, we take longer to work out stuff etc etc etc.

Like raw hitout totals, only useful as a guide, and then not a particulary useful one. The issue with DE and Kicking Efficiency is they don't differentiate between positions, for example a half back flanker has way more easy sideways chips than an inside mid, whose possessions are alwayss ndet pressure. Similary if one team us putting on a lot more pressure, lower DE might be a function of that pressure. Or not. Better measures to get a sense of realise kicking and hanballing skills are turnovers, scores from turnover, goal kicking accuracy and clangers.

This is the way.

Interesting wheelo - ta. On pressure, Clarry had one of his lowest ratings fir the season I suspect, accruing only 27 points against a season average of 49.7.

As ive noted before, personally I would have stuck fat with goody if the choice were mine. But, iassuming they have a new coach (*buckley*) 90% locked in, i also see the logic of some of the arguments for going another direction, in particular a reset and the benefit of a new voice. For me the last quarter highlighted the latter point. One of the challenges of implementing a new method is that method becoming instinctive. We played good transition footy for big chunks of the match, but under pressure in the last quarter many of our senior players reverted to elements of our previous method, in particular going for territory and kicking it long to a contest, which would have ok if we were winning them bur we weren't. Conversely, the pies leant into their transtion method. A reset and a new voice might help players, particularly senior players break that tendency to revert to the down the line, territory-based method when under pressure. A reset also creates the opportunity for the team, and individual players to change the mindset from what appears to be a fear of losing. The last quarter also exposed issues we have had all season - poor fitness, poor decision making, poor skills, panicking (the latter 4 impacted by the first) and outside of koz not having a gun who impacts the scoreboard when a clutch goal is needed and/or burst of sustained excellence that creates goals like Ed Richards against us (though, gee Langford wasnt far away from doing so - remarkably, given it was our final game of a long season, was our highest rated player). On our performance, as entertaining as it was in parts, i rgought it was pretty average - we were very lucky the pies were not accurate in the first quarter. I actually thought our performance was better last week against the Hawks, including in the first quarter. Both team's pressure was woeful all game and the pies defence, which was pushing up ridiculously high, and all team defence was pathetic. If, as looks likely, the pies finish top 4 they will be one of the weakest top 4 teams in recent memory. They'll almost certainly play the crows in Adelaide week one and get hammered and I reckon any team they then meet will be a better team (with the possible exception of freo if by some miracle they, one, make finals and two make the second week of finals)

I just saw that clarry only had 2 turnovers, so his involvements in the game must simply not have been that impactful, for example he only had 2 clearances.

Yep, same story all year. And I'll bet Oliver, given his rating, had his fair share of turnovers (the ratings measure scoreboard impact). Might explain River's rating too given he looked to have a great game.

Yep 100% agree. Which is why the trenchant criticism goody frequently received for selection criticism often reflected an ignorance about how AFL teams operate (which was the subtext of my comment).

Maybe, just maybe, our new coach thinks our effort was OK and was pleased we fought the game out and didn't get blown away, kicking 7 of the last 8 goals against a team that was in red hot form and has a real shot at winning the flag. By the by I love how posters are now criticising the 'club' for performance and selection decisions not the coach.

Hear hear.

#Goodwin myths

I'd do it in a heartbeat. Jackson heir apparent to Maxy White heir apparent to Jackson. That's our ruck position sorted for the next decade and a half.

#Goodwin myths