binman

Spot on. And the other factor is the age of the current best 22. Coming into the season the high performance program and planning would have been informed by an assumption that we Gus and Smith both available, and that we would get games from senior, seasoned players like Billings, Hunter, mcadam and to a lesser extent Ben Brown. That largely hasn't happened, forcing us to play way more kids than they would have planned to - a situation exacerbated by Lever and sako missing games and now tracc out for the season.

That's true, though I was only referencing the reason we might have tired, not making a comparison to the lions (who also flagged, as evidenced by some of their funky skill errors) But if i were i making a comparison id note they had their bye in round 12 , almost a full month ago so they are out the other side of bye related fatigue (ie from increased loads). And perhaps more critically, fielded a much more seasoned team in terms of age, experience and number of preseasons.

Great post. It points to two interconnected issues with cornes take, well three actually. One, fitness is probably the wrong word in the context of load management and the high performance program. At least in the context cornes is discussing our fade outs in the last six weeks. I'm not sure what the right term is. I mean they are all fit of course, it's more about fatigue levels. Or conversely, freshness. I'm going with dynamic, or optimal shape/readiness - unless someone has a better term. Two, cornes notes we have been the worst last quarter team in terms of scoring in the last six weeks. Suggests that is evidence we are not fit enough. Questions why we might not be, suggesting motivation and how we are rehabbing might be factors. But, here's the rub. The whole data set is we were also the best last quarter team for the first 10 weeks. So, by corne's logic, that means we were a very fit team in that period, perhaps the fittest. So, there is a logical inconsistency. I mean, what's he saying? We were fit, meaning we were motivated and worked super hard etc in the preseason, but six weeks later we're not? That our fitness could completey drop off a cliff in just six weeks? I mean, it doesn't make sense - in of itself. And the third issue is cornes' diagnosis of why he thinks we are not fit - which basically boils down blaming the players (though he does mention the youth of the team). Just asking questions. It's great they are discussing fitness as a factor, but it's a joke they don't discuss the high performance aspect. I mean cornes played AFL, and as I understand it is a high level distance runner. He knows what is going on. But it is still seemingly taboo to discuss load management. In this example, at least suggest it as a possible factor - particularly given there is four years of evidence of a clear pattern of an almost identical six week drop off in form and last quarter scores (after having dominated that same stat for the first 10 rounds or so) around the pre bye and bye period (by the by, it's no coincidence the crows had a a spike - we're more dynamic- this week). If it's not even discussed, then what are you left with? The players are soft and not working hard enough. Or the high performance program is nor working. Or both. It's stupid. And doesn't help people try and understand what's going on.

Thanks kasey

The last six weeks is the key here. We have struggled for that exact block of time in and around the bye since 2021. My explanation as to why is well documented. To that I'd add nearly half the team are kids. Two of the starting 22 against lions are in their first season of AFL season, meaning the kolt and Windsor as draftees, have not even completed a full AFL preseason. And we lost salo and bowey ahead of the game, one a senior seasoned AFL player, the other young but has 50 plus games and 3 AFL preseasons under his belt. AND we were coming off a six day break, and had to travel. Is it any wonder we flagged a bit in rhe last quarter?

Fair dinkum, that's just plain silly. Not that we would look to trade him. But that salo would be some sort of sought after 'trade bait', implying we would could put him up for a trade and get some sort of windfall in return. I mean, the first two posts in this thread both make good points. Points other clubs thinking of chasing him would well and truly agree with. As if another club would give up anything valuable, either a yrade or picks, for a player in the back half of his career with a history of a thyroid issue and various injuries. What did we got for jordon, a young player, albeit probably not in salo's class, with no injury issues who has been able to slot into the best 22 of the team on top of the ladder?

You could build a side around him.

Number two is total sprints

The telstra tracker is just about the best publicly available indicator I can find that gives a sense of where we are it in terms of running on top of the ground and our fitness level. Near the end of the first quarter I checked the numbers to test my sense that we looked in good shape. When we are, we almost dominate the top 5 in a number of categories Number one is for average speed in defence (which is defined as when the oppo have the ball). When we do, its a goody indicator our all team defence is on. These are the numbers near the end of quarter

Fair points. I think in the context of young players, its worth considering the impact of no salo or bowey. Bowey is young, but up to rhe critical 50 game mark. And salo is obviously a well seasoned player. Both were essentially replaced by inexperienced kids. In hindsight, I would have preferred laurie be the emergency as would have provided more flexibility and experience than pup, is physically stronger and has four AFL presasons under his belt to pups one. What would have happened if pup had to dome on in say the first quarter?

The handball chaining looks to be something they are really workomg hard to implement this season. Very noticeable, right back to the Tigers practice match. Still very much a work in progress, and super frustrating to watch when it comes unstuck (KICK IT!!!!), but if we get it right, like we did in the second quarter, it is a real point of difference with other teams. For it work optimally, we need to be running in waves. And fir that we need be close to optimal fitness.

If that free gets paid for tripping we are a good chance of winning the game as we would have had the opportunity to maintain possession for the last 90 seconds.

And how much is people's view of that incident coloured by the over the top reaction and accusation of staging by the commentator? They only showed a replay once and it didn't look like he staged or flopped to me.

But I do agree on the high press. A combination of setting the defence deep and then pressing up quite aggressively. Particularly in the first half. Forcing us to have to work back hard on turnover- something we struggled to do in the last quarter. That is another difference to the old goody game plan.

I don't actually think we did BPA - go back to our old model. At least not fully Agree we were much more contest focused, more stoppages focused, went long down the line a bit more, and played that manic tigers template footy (all hallmarks of the traditional goody model). But, as evidenced by the stats (eg our time in forward half, inside 50 and intecept mark numbers - stat's we always dominated when our old method was humming) the method was a hybrid with the transition game we are implementing. That's how we scored in the second quarter- transition footy combined with manic intensity. For what it's worth, that's the model I see us playing come finals, with perhaps more emphasis on winning time in forward half and inside 50s.

That variability is the key reason why I don't bet on footy as much during the bye phase of the season. One example- lions scored 152 points last week at Adelaide oval against port. Are port really that bad? Are the lions really that good At home, in perfect conditions against a team further down the ladder than port (one, even most of its fans gave no hope too and started 5.35. Port were favourites to beat the lions) the lions could only manage just under half tthat. And almost got rolled. One thing that variability at this time of year does create is opportunity. Because unlike horse racing (my other sporting passion) most footy punters don't factor in the training program as a variable. No one expects a Melbourne cup winner to win first up at 1400, no matter how much better than they are than their opponents. In my assessment we were great value last night at the 30 point line because they are not a five goal better team than us and believe we planned our program to be closer to our optimal fitness for this game (im not being smart after the fact - I made that exact point on the podcast. And it would be hard to argue I wasn't proved correct given how the game played out). Similarly, port being givem a +3.5 line against the saints is overs because lots of punters are basing their assessment on port being smashed by the lions last week.

I know you do. And that's great - i wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was merely pointing out critising the club on demonland, even if that criticism is justifiable, is not being 'part of the solution' in so far as it has zero impact on how the club performs.

Based on goody's presser he won't be changing the forward line set up.

I think it is totally reasonable to question the high performance program. Fitness is clearly an issue for us. I wish a reporter would ask that exact question But what I would say is that it is really hard to make a reasoned assessment of the high performance program because there is so much we don't know and so little analysis by the media about clubs high performance programs in general. So for example, we can see we are not yet fit enough to run out games. But what is not clear is the impact of internal, behind the scene factors (that we as fans uusually know nothing about - eg motivation of players, niggles they might be carrying etc) or the impact of factors that we do know about, for example: - goody has emphasised trying to engineer playing our best footy in the back half of the season: has this philosophy informed our high performance program's planning (logic would suggest yes)? - we are playing a modified method, less reliant on winning the contest: how has that impacted a program that had previously emphasised power? -our schedule had been nuts, and we have had two byes: how has that impacted planning? - we lost two of our fittest, best 22 senior players in gus and Smithy in the off season. And you could add a third in melk, and a 4th in Ben bBrown (and salo and lleverhave both missed 4 games too): that's huge in terms of the teams overall fitness, not least because they have had basically had to be replaced by young players; but how big an impact has that had? - mutiple players had interrupted preseasons: we know that always had an impact oon overall teams ffitness how much of an impact had had it on us? - we have carried two players in petts and Clarry who have been a long way from optimal fitness (with the goal of being fit as possible in the second half of the year - positive signs last night on that front): it must have an impact on our capacity to run out games as a whole, but how much? - we had 10 players in the team last night, nearly half, who have played less than 50 games. And we had three players in their first season of AFL football: we know endurance and strength develop from a base and each preseason players start at a new level of fitness, ie its accumulative: what is the impact of having so many players in the side comming off only one, two or three preseasons? Or even dealing with the rigours of half a season of AFL football and needing to back up week in, week out? - how much does the program have to be adjusted when so many young players are in the 23? So many variables. Sure work rate is party mental, but the reality is if players are leg tired no amount of will power will help them cover the ground at pace, which is what is required of all players to make any method work. I'm hopeful that we will be much better at running out games and much closer to optimal fitness as a whole group, pretty much from this point on. I think we saw the start of that improvement last week and even more so last night. I mean how could anyone watch the second quarter, how we were running in waves, creating overlap and transitioning wnd to end, amd compare it to say the freo game where looked like we had lead in our boots, and think our fitness isn't on an upward trajectory?

Add salo and bowey to that team and it looks a lot stronger. I can't see amw or kolt getting dropped. Perhaps woey and pup come out and amw is the sub.

I meant set ourselves physically in terms of the high performance program and load management, ie being as fresh as possible for this game.

Agree on all of the above. On the may non mark, what is so galling is they pay a mark like the one to the big one near the end of the first q, which was marginal on terms of him controlling the ball. And may controls it for longer- and doesn't get paid. The inconsistentcy is infuriating. Same goes for riv running too far. There wasn't really another that wasn't paid in tgis match but games plsyers get away with running further mutiple times.

This is my explanation. Last week we didn't score a point in the last quarter because we completey ran out of gas because we trained hard in our bye period and set ourselves for this game. Last night we also ran out of gas, though nowhere near as much. The six day break and travel was no doubt a factor. Last week maxy said an issue in the roos scoring we were trying to score too much rather than control the tempo. That's to say we let the game open up And so this we tried to control the tempo in the last mote effectively. And did a good job of doing so for much of the last quarter. The critical problem was missing four very gettable goals in the last quarter - petty, clarry, langers and fritter. Kick one of them and we likey win (or perhaps draw in fritters case).

Picket what does that actually mean? I mean, it's your right to post what you want about the club. Vent all you like. Ditto for others too of course. But are you seriously suggesting a fan knocking the club on a footy forum will actually help us improve - ie is part of the solution? The only realistic way fans can be part of any 'solution' that leads to on field improvement is SUPPORTING the club. Turn up to games, if you can (I was shocked to read someone on here saying they would refuse go to games as some sort of protest- that is literally the opposite of support). Buy a membership, if you van Don't buy into, and reinforce, the nonsense the media peddle about the dees (we all can do that). Hell, even push back against such nonsense. That's what we can do to help.