binman

He's trolling demonland!!!!!

All good points. Brisbane would be a good option actually. In the premiership window and he would vale add to their forward line. And Fagan would have the experience and gravitas to manage melk

Sorry Ms Wilson, the panel have advised no further correspondence will be entered into. Two peanuts it is.

Media person Caroline Wilson Medium Print, Radio, Podcasts Comment Much argument amongst the judging panel her as to the rating - with anywhere between zero and three peanuts being pushed. Debate centered on the definition of axe to ground and how harmless she is. Also how much to bring old Caro grievances into the mix and whether there has been a continuous, unbroken chain of wrongness since her attacks on the dees in her coverage of the tanking saga (and arguably even further back). The fact I stopped watching Footy Classified 2 years ago makes assessment harder. That said has been relatively benign in her 3AW slots as it it pertains to being wrong about the dees. But Caro's old fashioned pre grand finals beat up by claiming on FC that the dees had instituted a curfew on its players earned her a nomination. Totally made up and an attempt at creating some unnecessary, albeit pretty harmless, fugazi. The clincher was two fold. One - despite the club never using the term curfew, in fact explicitly saying it wasn't a curfew, she backed up her beat up by claiming 'players' had said it was a curfew. Implied multiple players and that she had heard from them directly. Two - she gave Ross 'I'm withdrawing my interest in the Carlton coaching job, despite there being no interest' Lyon the platform to claim the dees are treating their players like children, not adults. On Ross 'the Boss, defence wins finals (editor note: but only of you can also score more than 30 points)' Lyon, he has been nominated for an award and i'm confident he will receive one. Update The judging panel has received multiple submissions criticising the decision to only award one peanut to 'Caro'. Several of these came after her appearance on Offsiders on the Sunday after the Grand Final where she once again raised the tanking saga. I mean why try to diminish our glorious victory? And once again she drew a false equivalence to the Essendrug saga. I mean c'mon, how could they be considered equally morally wrong or any way comparable (other than both being forms of cheating). For one thing, there is no suggestion the players were involved in the tanking saga. For another thing, no players health was put at risk. And lastly tanking was widespread in the AFL, so whilst wrong it was par for the course. Injecting your playing list thousands of times with performance enhancing drugs and breaking (smashing?) the WADA code was decidedly not widespread. So, after considering the evidence supplied in the submissions, and the fact Ms Wilson's post GF comments created a continuous, unbroken chain of wrongness with her attacks on the dees re the tanking saga, the panel has decided to change her score to two peanuts. The panel have also warned Ms Wilson that it is only the fact she has become relatively harmless that has prevented her being awarded three peanuts. Score

I think it is more about cover for viney. The inside defensive mid role has become a specialist role, with libba and viney being the template.

A terrific site.

Both are a couple of seasons away from being able to cope as full time inside mids, particularly Jordon who needs to build his strength a fair bit.

We are now a true destination club. Sure Dunstan would get more minutes at the Suns, and probably more coin, but he is zero chance of playing in flag there. Staying in Victoria AND having a chance of playing in premiership team would be a very attractive combination to many players i suspect. No doubt a factor in Weed signing on again.

You'd think that opposition coaches would be immune from from being influenced by outside noise, particularly given they more than anyone know how much rubbish the footy experts spout. Be that as it may, i'm sure goody was more than happy for that sort of shut down lever, shut down the dees misinformation guff to swirl about. Same goes for the shut down Maxy, negate the dees guff. The discussion on Lever was funny because it centred on the idea of either putting a defensive forward on him or isolating him one one one with a key forward. The experts were banging on about Schahe's role on Allir as if it was a masterstroke. And suggested he might play similar role on Lever. Allir still had 15 odd intercepts possessions. But with the ball coming inside 50 quickly with no pressure on the kick he was always gong to struggle to be the damaging AA rebounder he had been. And the experts pointed out the dog's efforts in round 19 to engineer a match up on Naughton. Lever still had 15 intercept possessions and Naughton only kicked 2. But more to the point, in the two previous finals - and the round 23 game against the cats - Lever still got his intercepts but played a more traditional one on one role. And he is so much better one on one than he was last year (i suspect he is stronger and more confident in his knees). So goody would have been more than happy for the dogs to waste energy trying to engineer a match up for Lever. Same goes for efforts to negate Maxy. I know maxy told Goody to leave Jackson on the ball in the third, but I have no doubt goody always planned to use Jackson more often in the ruck than he had previously. And doing so really muddled the Dogs tactically i think. Leaving aside the 3 quarter goal blitz, Jackson rucking allowed Maxy to drop back into the dog's half and made it super difficult for them to get a contested mark inside 50, or an uncontested mark for that matter. It also helped May defend Naughton (who King said would be the dog's most damaging player). And the experts told everyone to watch out for Daniels and flagged the need to shut him down. It was actually quite interesting from a tactical perspective how they managed Daniels. In the first half he had 26 possessions, and by in large they let him run free. I thought he did very little with those possessions and i only counted one effective inside 50 kick (English marked it - and the proceeded to kick it into Petty on the mark). Despite that Goody sent Sparrow to him (i think) in the second half and completely shut him down. Maybe that was always the plan (ie let him go in the first half, shut him down in the second) as not only did we take him out of the game , we ran off him as he tired and exposed him for lack of pace and run. Meanwhile, coming into the game, the experts didn't really highlight the danger Salem posed. He was our best player in the first quarter i think. Or at least our most damaging. And that is when we won the game. He was allowed to sit free forward of center and he had some crazy amount of inside 50s and score involvements. Why wasn't he tagged? All week the media were banging on about Beveridge being a tactical genius able to spin goaled from thin air. Throughout his coaching tenure Goody has never been given credit for his tactical acumen by the experts, and many dees fans i have to say. That script was followed in the two week lead up with barely word said about his tactical ability. But i reckon Goody smashed Beveridge tactically. Beveridge had no strategy to deal with Jackson in the ruck or Maxy dropping back. He let Salem run wild in the first quarter. May was clearly hampered yet he didn't try to make him run or stretch out - for example by playing Naughton higher. Yes it's how they defend, but surely he had to tell his defenders to stop setting up 5 metres in front of their opponent as we exposed that all day. And most of all they needed to be aggressive in the third quarter, for example try going thought corridor, throw caution to the wind, and get that lead out to 5 goals if possible. Goody, on the other hand, used Jackson brilliantly, isolated their defenders, didn't worry about the Lever match up (more than happy for Petty and rivers to be the attacking interceptors), had Salem playing super aggressively, shut down Daniels, negated Libba, shut down Naughton and shut down Mcrae (25 possessions for a player who averages 35 or something crazy). He also completely shut down two of the key players in the Port game in Smith and Hannan, rendering the latter basically a spectator. Despite all of that very few experts gave Goody any credit for winning the tactical battle. And i didn't hear a single expert criticise Beveridge for his performance, othe rthan questioning why he didn't do more to stop the goal blitz in the third. Which is ironic, becuase there is not much he could have done, if anything about those center square clearances - they were all on their players.

I hope if that comes to pass she gets a somewhat more threatening nickname first.

No they weren't

I got it thinking it was the pre game record. Got home and realised it was 100% dees. Brilliant

I want to do thanks and love emoji. Landed on heart. So a million thanks

Really looking forward to the AFLW season

Spud Dullard

You're rosacea is even wore than mine andy!

Mmm - i didn't see that. Might need to give her a second peanut!

Spot on. He is no chance of getting selected in the seniors unless he addresses these issues. And it is very hard to see him doing so given he had both an incredible incentive AND the opportunity to do so this season. Which is fine in of itself in terms of being depth at Casey. Except for the fact that he is a senior player who should be showing the sort of leadership Jones, Jetts and Mitch brown did playing at Casey. And he is no doubt on pretty good coin. I think a move and reset would be good outcome for a both parties. I was thinking the Suns would be a good option. But on reflection they probably have enough highly skilled players with question bale intensity. I wonder if the Saints might be a good option. I know they have a number of older players but they need some silk and finishers up forward and he would be un upgrade on Kent and Higgins. And the Saints might work for Melk as they are a Melbourne based team and will be pushing for finals.

Media person Caroline Wilson Medium Print, Radio, Podcasts Comment Much argument amongst the judging panel her as to the rating - with anywhere between zero and three peanuts being pushed. Debate centered on the definition of axe to ground and how harmless she is. Also how much to bring old Caro grievances into the mix and whether there has been a continuous, unbroken chain of wrongness since her attacks on the dees in her coverage of the tanking saga (and arguably even further back). The fact I stopped watching Footy Classified 2 years ago makes assessment harder. That said has been relatively benign in her 3aw slots as it it pertains to being wrong about the dees. But Caro's old fashioned pre grand finals beat up by claiming on FC that the dees had instituted a curfew on its players earned her a nomination. Totally made up and an attempt at creating some unnecessary, albeit pretty harmless, fugazi. The clincher was two fold. One - despite the club never using the term curfew, in fact explicitly saying it wasn't a curfew, she backed up her beat up by claiming 'players' had said it was a curfew. Implied multiple players and that she had heard from them directly. Two - she gave Ross 'I'm withdrawing my interest in the Carlton coaching job, despite there being no interest' Lyon the platform to claim the dees are treating their players like children, not adults. On Ross 'the Boss, defence wins finals (editor note: but only of you can also score more than 30 points)' Lyon, he has been nominated for an award and i'm confident he will receive one. Score

You always have to start at the beginning. This will be a very therapeutic process for me. This thread will sustain me for some time.

Media person Adam White Medium Radio, breakfast show on RSN Comment Every Monday during the season, White has had the benefit of listening to the excellent analysis of Bartel and Ramanaskus, who have consistently highlighted the dees strengths and likelihood of winning the flag. Despite this, and the mounting evidence, has consistently questioned our bona fides. Unable to shake his confirmation bias, he tipped the lions to beat us. Much to the disbelief of Bartel and Ramanaskus he tipped the Cats to win the prelim. And then, after bartel had made the case the dees would win the GF, cherry picked a brief comment Bartel made about the pressure of playing in a GF to say 'mmm, that has crystalized my thoughts that the dogs will handle the pressure better given their experience in 2016 and i think they' win'. Score

To be fair, there are of course quite a number of people working in the footy media that provide some really excellent analysis and thought provoking insights - most are trained journos but not all. Some of my favorites include Greg Baum, Caroline Wilson, Daisy, Montagna, Bartel, Peiek, Nicholson, Delidio, Arnell, Middlemass, Lawson, Atkinson and Gleeson, who wrote this excellent article recently that highlights our bravery as club, inlcuidn how we went about our internal review: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/four-points-demons-awesome-display-the-moment-that-turned-the-tide-a-reward-for-bravery-20210926-p58uvi.html

Lets agree to disagree. A club with a soft culture would have taken the easy road. Rather then having the CEO do the review, they would have got an external, high profile consultant to do the review. They would have sacked the coach. And instead of looking to improve their governance, they would have ignored problems with their board. Unlike the dees, who, after going 4 zip had the courage to, one, realise they needed to make changes at board level and two make those changes. And they would have completely destabilized the club and put it back 10 years. Just like McClure's joke of a club.