binman

Good post praha. A (genuine) question about the above quote. As a former business analyst if you were investing in a company that was is in a notoriously volatile market place, where linear improvement is the exception to the rule would you not caution potential investors to be circumspect about expectations and not panic if in one year things go backward, particularly if mitigating factors conspire against success? As PJ noted a number of times the AFL is exactly such a market. A shrewd operator, he made a point of cautioning fans against expecting linear improvement. I'm really pleased the club has not fallen into the trap of deviating off course or panicky public statements. The fact the club was brave enough to make changes to the coaching set up mid season tells me that they are not afraid of taking remedial action and is a clear message they are focused on continual improvement. This gives me a lot of confidence we are in good hands - and in my life time that has hardly ever been the case at the dees. The tigers are a terrific example of the importance of heeding PJ's advice. The panic merchants and wrist slashers were in the ascendancy and came hard at the Tiger's executive, board and hardwick. To their eternal credit they held their ground and didn't deviate of course. They put in place the supports and systems hardwick needed, helped him improve and invested in their their FD. Their reward was a premiership.

Fun thread.

Comprehension isn't jnr's strong suit.

Me too

Plough is the only media person who gets it. Lack of fitness and team synergy as result of a third of the list having curtailed pre seasons. Injuries during tbe seaon. Rgese issues compounded by not having ggood depth (which is insurpriding given where we have come from - tbe only clubs with good deprh are those thst have bee n a round tge 8 for decade, and gws). This is the key cause of our issues in a nutshell. Not the only cause. And there is certainly the risk of the issues covering other ones. But none the less they are the key issues. Not rocket science and as I say plough is the only media person who I have heard be consistent on this.

No.

And here i am knocking the clubs comms.....

Saty there is no way you can know this (unless of course you are his treating physician, in which case you might be reported for breaching privacy). Not even if Mitch told you himself. Surely you get that?

WB, i'm not suggesting you are suggesting it but i don't think Kev was suggesting there were any issues with the team being lighthearted.

Interesting stats. On your question (bolded) i don't think we are being more aggressive as such but we simply have too many of our better players either not playing or out of form (possibly a a result of injury and interrupted preparation). Plus we have had nowhere near the same dominance from the center meaning less clean inside 50 entries (and around the ground from stoppages) and more scrappy quick kicks. The other factor is that this this year footy has been more defensive than ever before as evidenced by the incredibly low average scores (well done AFL your intervention worked a treat), this is partly a function of slow ball movement, which is all the rage, which allows teams to get back behind the ball and set up zones and really congested defensive 50s and a general increased focus on defence and defensive systems. This all makes hitting targets inside 50 that much harder, putting a premium on elite kicks. On that last point there has been some discussion on DL about the notion that during the season teams are playing defensively for three quarter before launching in the last q (and for all the finals) as a a way of getting through the physical rind of the season. Apparently this model is very common in the NFL

That's exactly what I argued when I said it was crazy to think of trading watts. Our biggest weakness is our kicking and we get rid of our best kick (by some margin), one of only two elite kicks in the team. As I have said before I respect and understand the decision but I believe it was the wrong one and still do. I understand the cultural argument but you make that work somehow. Watts has in spades what we are missing - elite foot skills, good decision making and a proven ability to hit targets inside 50. And a proven ability to kick clutch goals. Can't see him playing on from 20 metres out, on a slight angle when we need a key goal.

All good points. It is really noticeable this year how well schooled other teams are on where gawn likes to tap it. And the good mids are really taking advantage of it. The lions being the best example. Teams are tagging Oliver and he simply does not seem to get a free for being held and impeded at centre bounces. Umpires seem to hate him, I suspect because he is lippy. Which is yet another reason to have professional umpires because that should not be a factor in making a decision. And viney is such a woeful kick teams are ok to let him free.

Appalling decisions. Made more ridiculous by the fact that if a bigger opponent was rucking against him there is zero chance either of those decisions would have been paid. Ruck man have been do that for 150 years. As Maxy said #itsruckcraftbigboy

Could not disagree more. I'd drop him for that decision alone. I was livid at the ground when he chose to play on. I could not believe he chose to do so. The clock was only on 26.30 i think (or at latest 27.30). Massive amount of time left. He was on the 'right' side for a lefty and only 25 meters out on slight angle. Simply had to go back and slot it. Time was not an issue, and he should have known that and even if it was worried about time he still should have gone back and just taken 15 seconds and slotted it. Huge error and one made i suspect because he missed an absolute soda ealrier in the game. Mentally weak decision and unforgivable in the circumstances.

Jetts was not ready. Some critical errors.

But you've made your position on omac crystal clear and made the above points hundreds of times. Nor a single poster on demonland would not know your view on omac. So why kerp sinking the boots in. Why keep bagging him. I could care less about Elegt's comments. You are spot on, he is a troll. But you aren't and i respect your opinion as I understand from your posting history. I can't understand how you can bag elegy and continue to bag omac so vociferously. It has a strange personal element.

Not trying to pick an argument DD but given your relentless criticism of omac you don't find this comment somewhat hypocritical?

Exactly. Pies also only have 4-5 of their best out. And as you day have good depth, we dont and so tbey can cover injuries better than us.

Added strength is the key i reckon. At the moment he can't match the big boys for strengthen and gets pushed off the ball far too easily. A couple more years and two more preseasons and he'll improve this big time

Yes but our back six looks good!

Mm let me think. Why would he do that? Might it have something to do with the fact that for most of the season we have had 2-3 of our first choice defenders out injured?

Surely now lever and jetts us back he goes to the hf or wing. I'm not surprised about the differential in DE forward and back. I reckon kicks from the back half are harder as they are often under much more pressure, both mental (I miss this they score) and real (high presses, manic inside 50 tackling and congestion). I'd love to see him and Salem delivering the ball inside 50 and taking some set shots.

Why? No forward has kicked a bag on him this year. Not even Jenkins, who if you believe dl destroyed him. Sure he had the better of him but only kicked 2 (and 4 the nex week on one of the best defenders in the AFL).

I can actually see Petty not coming up and Omac coming in and standing Shache (or perhaps Naughton deep). Lever to play the intercept role and May standing Naughton or Shache but licence to attack. Salem to play up the ground. Frost on Dickson. Not sure where that leaves Jones though. Even if Petty comes in not Omac, with Jones at HB we have 2 too many defenders so perhaps neither will play.

And it's not just to t ial numbers of injured players that is so remarkable. It is how many of our nominal best 22 we have out. For much of the season in any given game we have had close to half of our best 22 out. Even with jetts and lever back this week we still have a third out (melk, vdb, tmac, Joel Smith, kk, jeffy, hore are best 22 and stretch is on the bubble). I have said numerous times but it bears repeating. No club has had a run of best 22 players out with injury. Not even close. Nor did any club have anywhere near the number of post season surgeries. Not even close. These two issues are facts. Critics of our game plan and coaching might prove to be correct but it is simply not possible to make an accurate assessment of either with what has happened to us. Supposition yes. Definitive no. Look at how pies have gone when they lose their best forward. One player our and suddenly they can't convert inside 50.