binman

It might be ok: Cloudy. High chance of showers, most likely in the morning and afternoon.

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.

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.

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.

No, not at all.

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).

Hodge: 'Needed to be more smart there' Hodgey could be smarter.

Greene is gawn

50 minutes is a long time in football.

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

Edit completed: Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance.

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.

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.

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

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

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'.

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).

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.

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.

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

Agree. I think that is almost certainly the case for both Petts and Clarry (i did also think that perhaps they figure the best thing for clarry's mental health is playing). Which goes to my point i just made in another thread that they don't always give themselves the best chance of winning specific matches. For example, if they looked at the Lions game in isolation and the only goal was to win the match, then perhaps they play Laurie ahead of Oliver. But until we get to the business end of the year there are always other considerations, eg building the match fitness of critical players (eg picking Tmac and BBB for round one when both were clearly underdone) or maximizing the likelihood we are in optimal shape come finals.

They absolutely target specific games at the potential expense of others. All clubs do. They have to because its not possible to be at the same level of physical readiness every game. Of course teams never go into a game not wanting to win it, but that's not the same as ensuring they give themselves the best chance of winning every. Calculated risks. It's about winning the war not the battles. Take the lions game. If you accept fatigue was factor in the result, then logic suggests if the lions was a must win game they could have had super light week on the track to give players the chance to recover from 3 games in 13 days(and 4 games in 19 days) in order to be as fresh as possible. Which is what they did between the Port and Crows game - albeit that was only a 5 day break so they had little choice. That approach would have maximized our chances of beating the Lions but potentially also thrown the high performance program out of whack (a super complex regime that is planned down to the minute) decreasing our chances of winning future games and peaking at the right time. Perhaps they did do that. But if so, it was a massive fail. But lets say that rather than giving the players an easy week on the track they just completed their normal regime with standard loads, giving players no chance to recover from their demanding schedule and making it all but certain we would come into the Lions game in less than optimal shape. In doing so they would be prioritising future performance at the expense of our performance in the the Lions game.

All good points. But I disagree that we we would not voluntarily choose a path that would leave us less than fully fit to play the Lions at the G. As i noted we have done so, in my opinion, against the cats. And i also disagree that we can categorically say we did not do anything extra in advance of the lions game. I agree it is probably unlikely, but i think we might have. The other possibility is that we didn't do a heavier block of training, but rather our normal regime instead of an easier week designed to allow players to recover from 3 games in 13 days in order to be as fresh as possible for the lions game (at the possible expense of program as a whole). We had a full week to recover from the Adelaide trip. If it was just accumulative fatigue the game would have looked more like the crows where we started ok and ran out of gas late (much like the lions did). But we were completely flat from the get go.