binman

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not quite accurate. the ball that bounced off his shoulder was in fact deflected by boyd so wasn't on its original trajectory.

greene was entitled to contest the mark and leave the ground.

at the last split second it became obvious a collision was inevitable

so the question is was greene allowed to protect himself? he couldn't avoid the collision.

 

Yes, of course he is allowed to protect himself.

But I'd argue the real question is, is bracing for contact the only way he could protect himself?

And the answer to that question, is no, of course not. It's just the accepted way. 

That has to change because in choosing to brace and bump the person being hit is not protected. 

Again, i'd argue if that scenario happened in say a match sim at a GWS training, Greene would choose another action (for example putting his hands out to brace as is instinctive when say falling forward) because he would try and protect a teammate - which completely takes away the instinct, football act argument that is always trotted out in such incidents (that's to say if it so instinctive he would barrel his teammate and players would be getting knocked out cold at every training session). 

The reality is that in a game it is only an instinctive 'football act' to protect yourself at the total expense of an opponent because rattling the cage of an opponent (read knocking them into next week) is baked into footy culture. 

That culture can change without changing the nature of the sport. I have watched footy all my life and with the velocity players are hitting each other now it has never been more brutal. 

On 15/04/2024 at 17:53, gs77 said:

In that universe,  how funny would it be if the Govt mandated that they share Kardinia Park 50:50 with the Cats due to the significant taxpayer funds thst have gone into its development. 🤣

1 hour ago, M_9 said:

It's not about giving Max a chop out.
Rather it's the fact that our following two opponents (Cats and Blues) have genuine ruck combos - Stanley/Conway and Pittonet/TdK.

And I'll repeat myself - JvR is either a KPP learning his craft, or part time forward and back up ruckman. 
I have no problem with Roo taking the ruck contests in the forward line as BBB has done, and that may still happen.

JVR is not a part time forward as he is only takes aprox 10% of ruck contests. That's bugger all in the scheme of things.

Take the Lions game. Max took 96 ruck contests and Rooey only 10 (and no other player took any). 

Whilst i agree i'd prefer him to not have to take any, and just focus on his forward craft, two lessons from the Gawndy experiment were Maxy as part time forward doesn't work, as he is never going to become a natural forward, and he plays his best footy when he basically rucks solo.

On the latter point, Maxy can only do so much rucking becuase he is so incredibly fit. I take your point about the cats and blues both having decent ruck combos. But their number one rucks - Stanley and Pittonet - are levels below maxy. And Conway and De Koning are even more levels below.

Maxy taking 90% of ruck contest creates a real issue for oppo coaches - when do they give their number one ruck a chop out?

No other ruck is as fit and athletic as Maxy. Take Pittonet. Can he go with Maxy? I don't think so, at least not for 90% of ruck contests. So when does Voss rest him?

Lets say he can only take 80% of ruck contests. That would mean De Koning going up against Max in 10% of ruck contests, which gives us an edge.  

As an example of what i mean this is the Lions ruck numbers when we played them:

(Note: probably a bad example in the sense that we got smashed at stoppages, but there were other factors at play and Maxy's hitouts to advantage were bang on his season average). 

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Expecting a wet forecast based on BOM's outlook.

It might be ok:

Cloudy. High chance of showers, most likely in the morning and afternoon.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

presuming you mean jarman?

Weird auto check

Yes, jarman

I can't stand the pies, but to be honest it's more the media sycophantic saturation in the last two years that I really hate (though  I'm still disgusted with their fans booing Gus after being concussed)..

But really the only team I hate is the hawks. 

Leigh Matthews knocking Steven Smith out.

The prelim heart break.

Jarman refusing to come to the dees, and instead going to the hawks.

The grand final heart break.

The long run of losses.

The way they seemed to relish bullying and beating us.

Their smug MCC wannabes fans. 

Their stupid jumper. 

Jeff Kennett.

Jeff Kennett.

VFL Park.

Go roos.

50 minutes ago, Brownie said:

My god, can they just put a webcam in a pub somewhere and let some drunks argue. Same quality of analysis.

Great to see an apology to Michael Christian for criticising the MRO. Why do they feel the need to apologise for having a crack at them.

Loved Cornes logic. He's taken his eyes off the ball to look at his opponent, so he has to go and then in the same breath says, the rules have changed, so players need to take care not to injure their opponent.

How do you do that if you can't take your eyes off the ball?

Sounds like they'll need to give him a week because they should have suspended Maynard and shouldn't have suspended Wright (or at least not for 4 weeks)

AFL ties itself in more knots than a knitting circle.

Media opinion will drive the outcome as usual.

Maybe players should be made to shout "look out" before entering a contest 😜

What i find weird is the lack of conversation about what I thought would be the obvious point about an incident like greenes hit - the need for players to learn a new technique in such circumstances.

Because 90% of the footy media is ex footballers they see Greene's instinct to brace to protect himself as a normal football action. Because it always has been.

The clear implication is it is ok to protect yourself at the expense of the player about to be smashed in the head.

But until the last few years so was going head first into a contest. Now players are getting better at turning the body as they are about to run into each other to avoid head contact. In five years that action will be instinctive.

Players need to learn a new action in situations like Greene's hit. Do what they would do at training - put their hands out to minimise the risk of them getting hurt whilst still offering some protection for the opponent who can't protect themselves.

If they did, in five years time that would be the instinctive reaction - not risking knocking out a player cold because your safety is more important than theirs.

For gods sake, we have had four young men (McCartin, Adams, Gus and murphy)in the prime of their sporting life have to retire and fear CTE for the rest of their lived because of players prioritizing their own safety.

It's beyond time to ban the bump. It serves zero purpose. 

43 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Well, I’m not holding myself up as a great predictor of results - I’ve picked all losers this round so far. But Carlton took care of the previously undefeated GWS, despite injuries. Collingwood looked back to their best. Brisbane lost to Geelong on their home ground in conditions they should be more used to. And Brisbane has beaten us in our last two clashes. It just worries me. I hope your optimism proves justified, @binman. 

I don't think I'm being optimistic FD. I think I'm being realistic and objective. 

Its a cliche that it's a long season because its true.

The media love to pretend that every game is of critical importance and every result is some sort of bellweather for team's chances of winning a flag (or making top 4, or finals, or wooden spoon etc etc).

They're not.

If they were, then last week the only conclusion that could be reached is that the blues have no chance of winning a flag given they were beaten by a winless, and decidedly average, crows outfit. Or does only this weeks result count?

And what of the giants? Everybody's darlings and flag pick. They were cruising, 20 points up halfway through the third and caved, conceding a 7 goal turn around in a quarter and a half. No longer a contender?

The swans were similarly lauded after starting the season with terrific wins over the dees, pies and bombers. Such stunning ball movement. Such brilliant kicks. Gulden is a kicking God. Heeney a midfield genius. Then they get beaten by the tigers. Not a contender any more?

They also love to pretend each game is played in isolation, a game in a bubble unmoored from other considerations (schedule, byes, high performance programs, how teams match up with specific opponents, injuries, trialling new roles or strategies, conditions etc etc).

They're not.

Each individual game, particularly in the first half of the season, is a piece of a larger puzzle. A step towards the final prize.

Its about winning the battle, not the wars.

7 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Certainly feels like we're firmly in the 6-8 bracket doesn't it. 

No, not at all. 

4 minutes ago, Fanatique Demon said:

After watching those games yesterday, I think Melbourne is a step below Geelong, Carlton and Collingwood. 

Really?

You can't take much from the cats lions game given the conditions, and def not that they are ahead of us.

Carlton played well, but defensively were average, giving up nearly a hundred points.

They were slight favourites to win that game, unsurprising given it was in Melbourne. And so the win was hardly a shock.

To be honest, despite losing, the giants worry me more.

The pies got rolling, and good on them. But they also looked shakey defensively and they benefited from ports absolutely woeful defence (im shocked port didn't make changing their defensive system a condition to agree to resign hinkley - they will never win a flag with their current defensive method).

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Thankfully we have great commentators. Darcy at 13 minutes to go in game, with Cats over 4 goals up, in rain, says ” if Lions are to win, they simply must get the next goal, you would think”. Yes most of us would think that. Lions had only kicked 4 goals for the game. Then at 9 minutes to go, he says “ the Lions need the next goal” and at that point they are nearly 5 goals down.

Maybe I am being a bit hard, as most of them are just ex footballers, not professional sport commentators.

Hodge:

'Needed to be more smart there'

Hodgey could be smarter.

Greene is gawn

10 minutes ago, Chook said:

The Blues are running rampant. So much for the premiership favourites GWS! Who should I mozz next?

50 minutes is a long time in football.

7 hours ago, rjay said:

It's pretty normal from my experience.

The difficult part is getting back to full pace.

I did my hammy when I was 14.

Still waiting to get back to full pace.

This article is the perfect example of my point about the impact of fatigue being ignored in analysis.

It's nuts that this article doesn’t even mention fatigue as a possible factor.

The swans' pressure has dropped off. That supposedly the key reason for their drop off. But stats are symptoms not cause.

Fatigue may not be a factor, but surely it's worth asking the question:

Bloods run cold: What's slowed the Swans down?  https://www.afl.com.au/news/1110621

9 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Huh :) that counters your entire treatise - I'd reword it -

Shocking performance, for which there is not but  an excuse but a reason.

Edit completed:

Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

I wasn't comparing the Weed to JVR. Just mentioning how people were hot for him at the time. You are correct JVR has way more fire than the Weed every showed.

I get that od.

But i read your post as weed's journey provides evidence that not all players who show potential fulfill it. 

Sure some were hot for weed. But the heat dissipated pretty quickly.

In his third season at the club JVR has only given fans more reasons to be confident he will be a star.

Get on board OD, the kids a jet.

11 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yep the Saints had 3 games in 11 days while we had 3 in 13.

For Melbourne supporters solely or mostly blaming our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane, then I think it’s more than fair that those same supporters absolutely excuse St Kilda’s performance last night.

Not taking a pot shot at you BBP, but your post highlights a real bug bear of mine. 

As even occasional dl posters would know, I'm of the view that the impact of fatigue (what ever its causes may be) on performance is routinely ignored.

And if it is ignored, any subsequent assessment or analysis is fundamentally flawed.

My bug bear is this perspective (not mine specifically, but in the general sense) is often misrepresented.

The suggestion or implication being that fatigue is used as an excuse and that other factors (eg coaching, tactics, flaws in method, strength of opponent etc etc) are ignored or given short shrift.

A related bug bear is the conflation of reasons for poor performance with excuses for poor performance. Saying fatigue was a factor in our loss to the lions is not making an excuse, it is suggesting a possible causal factor.

So, for example, there are a number of posters, me included, who have suggested fatgue was a factor in our performance against the lions.

But I have not read a single post that solely or mostly blamed our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane. 

Personally I'm of the view it was a significant factor, but of course far from the only factor.

 I'm probably an outlier, but I also think it was the most significant factor - because pretty much any other factor is exacerbated by fatigue.

For example, in the simplest terms we lost because the lions were much harder at it than us, as evidenced by being smashed for cps, pressure and tackles. No argument there.

But logically, tackling, applying elite pressure and winning contested possessions is a real challeng if across the board players are fatgued.

On the saints performance I 100% think fatigue was a significant factor in, and one of the reasons for, their performance.

I would argue if someone doesn’t, then, to be completely frank, they do not understand AFL football circa 2024.

But is fatigue an excuse for their performance? No.

And in fact, if you accept fatigue was a factor in both ours and the saints performance, there is another data point to consider.

Playing a team at their level, the saints were completely and utterly woeful. Beaten in every quarter, never in the game, they were ultimately smashed by 10 goals and despite being one of the most defensive teams in the AFL conceded a crazy 124 points. Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance.

Coming of our 5 day break, we were able to beat crows on their home deck despite completely hitting the wall in the last quarter. Impressive.

We then play the lions, and whilst we had a seven day break, we were clearly feeling the impact of 4 games in 19 days and were obviously fatigued.

Like the saints, we also played a team at our level, one that was up and about and as evidenced by their numbers, not fatigued.

Despite that we kept one of the best offences to 82 points and only lost by 22 points.

Sure, we played poorly, but analysed through that lens, suddenly the performance does not look so bad.

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

 

I feel like I've been to every one of those 764 floggings.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

You may well be right Binman, it is just my personal opinion. I just don't see the potential that the majority see. I see a player who will be serviceable but not a very good KPF. I will be very happy to be wrong in a couple of years time. I do remember the club and supporters being all gung ho about the Weid and we know how that ended. 

Fair enough OD.

But I think any comparisons to weed are a stretch.

I saw weeds first practice match. It was against the pies at Olympic park and i happened to be standing next to his grandfather.

Weed looked the goods that day. Strong leads and clean hands. Good stock and Hollywood looks.

Weed was a top 10 draft pick, so hopes ane expectations were justifiably high. 

But without bagging weed it became apparent pretty quickly that he lacked perhaps the most important attribute of any AFL footballer - competivness and desire for the contest.

Sure players can develop their intensity but really they either have it or they don't.

One of the clearest indicators is whether second and third efforts are 100% instinctive.

From the get go weed always seemed to have a millisecond delay in getting after the ball after the initial contest. That might fly at the junior level, but it doesn't cut it at AFL level.

The complete opposite is true of JVR. The thing that jumped out at me straight away when I first saw Roey play live was his intensity, competitiveness and will for the contest. 

That want for the contest and the ball is the reason why I'm so confident jvr is going to be a star.

A kid now, he will be an absolute beast when he is in his mid twenties

18 hours ago, biggestred said:

All of these rules can be summarised into "money is king"

Exactly.

Money is king is the AFLs core value.

As life long football fan i have no sense that the AFL consider or prioritise the views of the key stakeholders - us.

The only time they do is as if those views relate to their money is king mantra, that's to say will we stop spening money on the 'product'.

On 16/04/2024 at 17:25, old dee said:

I hope you are right DS. It is early days I don't see it at present.  

Seriously?

JVR, who only tuned 21 two days ago, is so obviously a gun i'm astounded any footy fan could not see it. Obviously the club do.

And its not just potential.

His first season provides evidence of his ability and a clear sense of his ceiling.

His first year of senior footy matches or exceeds that of every gun forward for the last 30 years, in including the current crop (King brothers, Oscar Allen, JUH, Amiss, Logan McDonald).

2 hours ago, FearTheBeard said:

Nope, Q51 was sold out Monday night, Q52 was all gone by 11pm last night. I have an addiction problem and I check this every couple hours.

They do ramp up in the week of the game. For context, you bought row V in Q53 last night and they are now up to row FF.

GA tickets are still $27, but reserving a level 4 seat is not GA.

Ive dropped the ball in getting good seats.

My plan is to get a GA and go up the top of the Ponsford and stand (behind the wheelchair area). Its a good spot.

2 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

 

2 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

you can’t plan for the whole team to be 95% in 3 weeks and 100% the week after that because it doesn’t work like that. 

 

They can and they do and it does work like that (if they get it right).

But I've been in this movie before and my experience has been that i have a low success rate of changing people's mind on this topic. 

So let's agree to disagree and move on.

26 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

We had the MCG game on our terms last year for most of the first quarter and part of the last. 

Regardless, the “magic spell” isn’t some sort of secret formula that only Brisbane have. It’s just talent - they’re a good side and are capable of matching/beating us in the middle. Any side who can do that can beat us.

They haven’t “worked us out” anymore than anyone else has. They’re just better than most other sides. 

Spot on.

They were flag favorites before the season started. 

Poor start to the season, but they'll be there or there about when the whips are cracking.

The other factor is that some sides, for a range of reasons, match up well against specific sides.

Brisbane match up well against us:

- their midfield is not miles of ours 

- we haven't had the leg speed to exploit their lack of leg speed

- their talls can negate maxy in those critical down the line marking contests

- and we struggle to cover their four excellent medium forwards