binman

For clarity, I had my second az dose in Monday. Have had literally no symptoms. And no blood clots. I reckon anyone who has had two doses of vaccine should be able to go to the footy. And that is not a joke.

Sorry Kent, not specifically footy related, but as of Monday I'm double AZ dosed . Not a single symptom. Apart from my recent blood clots. Jokes. I had a runny nose

Once you get past Super's say top 25 - 30 then it is diminishing returns in terms of contribution to the demon cause. It's a reminder though of how much more movement between teams there was back in the 70s and eigthies. I hate to say it, given his talent, but i would Harley Bennell at the bottom of that list just about. And for me thee is one glaring omission, a player i have in my top 10, almost top 5. The 1982 Bluey winner, Steven Icke. Awesome for the dees. Such a competitor and never left anything out there. My favorite type of player. As primarily a center half back at the dees, in a period where Templeton was the protoype build for a CHF, played out of weight division every game. He kicked 13 goals in 1983 so must have played forward that year a bit (something i had forgotten - thanks demonwiki. I do remember him being a forward at the Roos) and polled 12 Brownlow votes. That year he also came third in the bluey behind Alan Johnson (one of all time fav dees) and Robbie.

That's all true, however IIRC correctly we doubled our play on rate in the second half, which had to be a conscious reset as playing on can be done even when the opposition is set ahead of the ball. We played into their hands in the first half by not playing on more often and holding it too often an for too long, meaning the game was played more on their terms. I can't recall the game, but there was another with an almost identical dynamic.

Agree to an extent, particularly in regard to the importance of winning contests (perhaps the key part of our game plan) and the opposition not using a sweeper role, or holding defenders deep (which few do really because it means you are down one player somewhere). But they can also create overlap by playing on quickly and either kicking long or having a player run past for a handball. And also by using more handballs to move the ball. The phrase the players most used in when talking about the first half of the Lions game was they played too safe. In the second half they played on much more quickly, had a real focus on players running past for a handball and had heaps more many handballs. They were much more aggressive and played much less 'safe'.

Wow. Just wow.

Perhaps. But i reckon in the pies and GWS games the issue was not the forward line, it was that our ball movement from the back half was was too slow and we were not creating any overlap. And we were also not creating any of that swarm pressure that generates so much of scoring when we are on. As i have noted before i reckon this was a function of fatigue, rather than abandoning the game as such, that's to say were no physically able to properly implement the game plan In the Lions game fatigue wasn't an issue. However we were 20 odd points down at half time, and in trouble, in large part due to the fact that we were not generating enough scoring opportunities. A heard a number of players say after that game that we had been too cautious and slow in the first half and Goody had encouraged to get them the ball moving more quickly. It was really noticeable that we did so - we played on more quickly and handballed more aggressively and often. And swamped the Lions. When we play like that, as we did against port for much of the game, opposition defenses often get all out of shape and we get goals out the back like two of traccs goals (or even friiter's long range goal - they had no one at all inside our 50 metre arc when he marked that ball leaving a completely open goal - and he actually had Spargo running toward goal he could have elected to give it to) The other thing i think is worth considering is the idea of what being more attacking. It seems counterintuitive, but perhaps kicking to he pocket IS the more attacking option as it gives us two bites at the shots at goal cherry. First bite is we either mark it in the pocket, it comes to ground and we crumb it or it goes over the boundary and we score form that stoppage. Second bite is the opposition desperately try to clear the zone and dump kick it under pressure and we intercept that kick and come back inside (often with a little 20 metre kick to an open player) for another scoring opportunity. With kicking it to the hotspot this second bite is less likely as it is harder to defend a dump kick from the corridor. Much easier to defend a dump kick from the pocket as as i noted they really only have one option which is down the line and so we can saturate the likely drop zone with players pushing up.

I remember hearing someone talk about this on the radio a few years ago (and again a few months back). Specifically they were talking about the crows (maybe Neil Craig) coming to the realization (because someone tracked him?) that even though Ricchiuto was getting the ball 30 plus times a game and was their best player, in 120 minutes of football he only had the ball in his hands for 2 mins. The comment was that this realization changed football because from that point the crows, and then the rest of the competition, had a much greater emphasis on what was happening for the other 118 minutes. And this shift ushered in the era of all team defensive running and spread that is a fundamental of today's game. And key position players, like forwards, staying in the one area all game for that matter. Which in turn has shifted the game away from one on one battles so many people seem to pine for.

Max has played forward enough this year to provide enough evidence of how Goody, Yze etc assesses those percentages. And on that evidence the answer is no, the percentages don't change enough in our favour to kick it to the hot spot, because they don't' do so even when max is there. Which make sense because even with max there statistically we do not take many contested marks inside 50. The percentages might even favor a kick to the pocket because with max there there is an increased chance that the ball will be at least brought to ground, which is what we want and are set up for. On that, if a defender spoils a marking attempt in the the pocket it would almost never be hit toward the corridor. The first option is hitting it towards the boundary, or if that is not possible at least no worse than directly in from to the pack. Again this is predicable and we can practice it. And when the ball hits the ground in that scenario, it is the defence that is under most pressure. Even the best defenders can panic a bit and try and hack kick it out, or give away a free to one of our smalls. The free and goal Spargo got against Port was the perfect example of the benefits of our system. I reckon one of the strengths of our back six (and helpers like Langdon and Gus) is that they don't often panic. They are quite comfortable working it to a player under less pressure with handballs to work their way out of the defensive 50 and avoid a dump kick. But when that is not possible they are also ok with the dump kick because they are confident of winning the next contest, or if they don't, getting back into shape quickly to protect the re entry kick

I don't mind them. But I'd rather the dees didn't play in them. Was weird not having a game over the weekend. I'm a footy fixturing equivalent of a NIMBY

The prequel. Part two of a trilogy. Or is is part one. I get these things confused

And even more after losses when the trolls come out from under their bridges

Who?

MFC wesbiste says general members tickets available from 4:15. So try to buy. Ticketek says not valid until 5pm All to get a single seat in the open. In a spot i don't want to sit.

Honour the work.

I like how my badge matches perfectly matches the time frame of my avatar photo of me in my halcyon days

How about a quality over quantity badge? Noting of course that i will never get that badge

On all of the above port provided the perfect example of the risks of the traditional model of kicking to the hot zone. Their game plan is built around kicking it to Dixon 20 metres out straight in front. Which works great against average teams because Dixon marks it more often and if he doesn't they win the front and center ground ball and kick goals. But against us he barely can take a mark and WE win the ground ball, in the corridor and bounce it out of their back half. How many crumbing goals did they get? I can only think of two - amon and rozeee - and neither were from crumbing Dixon, who i don't think took a mark

It does make sense. It is really important each player sticks to the team rules from the first whistle to the last. Discipline. Or else at some important juncture a player goes of script and we lose an important contest. And in your scenario who makes the call to kick to the hot zone? Presumably the kicker. How do his teamates know he is not going to follow team rules? The only way for it to work is for some sort of signal , and then practising it, which would waste their time. And they clearly don't want unpredictability. A tenet of the game plan is predictable ball movement. Like kicking it to the pocket. Repetition builds predictability, not random off script plays. Another tenet is percentage play. Kicking to the hotspot is low percentage. Sure we might score more often (with that specific kick), might being the operative word. We want to trap the ball inside our forward half and get repeat entries But very few pack marks get taken these days and so the likelihood is that the ball hits the deck. If it does and is won by the opposition they win it in the corridor it makes it super hard for us to defend the next kick as the field is open. And so conversely much easier for them to transition out of their back half as it is impossible to cover the whole ground with a zone But a contest in the pocket that is not marked might go over the boundary line. So we then reset. Tick. And if they win the ground ball their only safe option is a pressured kicked down the line. Where we have pressed up, mark/intercept and go back inside 50. Because we know that's where it is likely to go and CAN cover that space. If they decide they are sick of kicking it back to us down the line their other options - eg cross or try to hit a target in the corridor- are super risky and if turned over highly likely to concede a score. A great example was kossies first goal where we had pressed up, book tried to hit a man 20 odd metres away rather than kick down the line, missed it and after the ball was in dispute fritter tapped to kossie who goaled from just inside 50. On percentages we we will score more often, and concede less coast to coast goals by sticking to the plan. Not sexy, a little boring perhaps, but smart. And sticking to tbe plan at all times will help us win finals. .

Nup. Was in my year. In many of my same classes actually. I knew him pretty well.

I met Gary a few times. Well, met is probably not accurate. He was the year above me at Melbourne High back in the day. Old mate gaz waltzed around the school like he owned the joint and was more much more likely to push me down the stairs than say g'day.

Nothing is stopping you from counting kicks at the footy. Each club collects their own stats on specific indicators i think, albeit a a small number. They obviously get the full data set from Champion data and then i guess the skill is mining that data to customize it for their own KPIs etc. And there are some examples of journos and others creating their own analytics based on publicly available data - for example the excellent articles by Cody Atkinson (and someone else?) for ABC news. But even if you collected your own stats I'm not sure you would be able to publish them as there are licensing issues no doubt. However, even if you could publish them, there is no way you - or more pertinently a start up who set out to collect and publish (or sell) their own AFL data - could get comprehensive useful data in the first place. So therefore no way you could monetize it. I'm totally guessing here (someone will know specifics i'm sure), but i assume Champion data have access to the GPS numbers, are provided a box, or similar, with all the necessary infrastructure (power, internet access, monitors etc etc) and access to the grounds is facilitated (eg right passes to get into the grounds, parking spots, moving equipment about etc etc). Only Champion data gets all this from the AFL, effectively making it impossible for another organization to compete. There is another data tool which the AFL own and control - AFL Stats pro. I assume they use this to generate the data they provide on their website (and the club's websites too). It appears to be fully automated ie the data is pulled form the vision of the game directly. No doubt Champions data have access to this too.

I don't mean this in a patronising, or facetious way, but Robbie was ahead of his time in many ways. I grew up a passionate dees fan. The only fan of the dees, and the only fan of footy actually, in my family. Robbie was my hero. The only one I have ever had. And in the 70s and 80s, his grace and compassion and - what a perfect word for Robbie joeboy - his gentleness was decidedly uncommon for men. Particularly those playing football. Add in his fierce desire to play to his limits whatever the score and his leadership, a finer role model you could not find. I went to his memorial at the g and the love for the man was so incredibly palpable. When we win a flag, I'm sure my thoughts will turn to Robbie.

The afl allow them to monopolise the market. It is outrageous Open up the market and allow competition