binman

Good points. And i'd add that it is elite level hypocrisy for the AFL media boys club to knock the culture of any club or organisation. A bigger bunch of misogynist, dipsomaniac, reprobates you couldn't find. Exhibit A: Morris being welcomed back into the boys club on SEN and now as head of channel nine's football team.

The Snake Baker model.

Good things Port weren't wearing their prison bar jumper or else Christiansen would have let it slide out of muscle memory.

I've read some things on DL over the years. This is one them.

What i meant about Pies, Blues and Tigers fans is that they push back against the media. But they don't accept failure? You're probably right, but ironically that reflexive desire for 'accountability' and not 'accepting failure' is the key reason all three clubs were in fact failures for so long. Fans of the Pies, tigers and Blues had plenty of practice at accepting failing. Feral fans not accepting 'failures' meant all three clubs repeatedly shot themselves in the foot in the form of upheaval at board level and sacking coaches. And ironically the path forward for all three clubs was not being led by the nose by their feral fans' desire for scapegoats and 'accountability'. Take the tigers. Their fans were going nuts at their repeated 'failure' to make the finals under Hardwick. There was talk of board coups and total upheaval. The board, learning from past mistakes, weathered the storm and stayed the course And won three flags to become the best team of the modern era. After a similar period of upheaval and chaos (and failure), the Pies stabilized under McGuire and Buckley. Yes, they ultimately replaced Buckley but he had a decade as senior coach, almost won them a flag and i'm guessing the first positive win loss record of any coach since perhaps Hafey. No way McCrae has his success without that foundation. And the blues? A basket case for decades. Burning through coaches and board members. A board coup always on the cards. Hell, halfway though last season the blues fans, who don't accept failure, were screaming for blood. A high profile board coup seemed inevitable. Voss was in the gun. But the board took the tiger's lead, stayed the course, ignored the baying fans who don't accept failure, and had their best season in 20 plus years. And the only thing that changed was the tune of the don't accept failure crew. The Cats have long been rightly lauded for their excellent administration and governance. I think that was one reason their fans never went full feral on the board to axe Scott. They were rewarded for not conflating not winning flags and 'failure' by winning another flag. Like the tigers, they stayed the course and were rewarded. What does accountability mean in the context of a team, coach, administration and board that won us our first flag in 57 years just two seasons ago, and followed it up with two top 4 finishes? Sure it was heartbreaking to go out in straight sets two years in a row. But only feral fans would really consider that a pretext for some accountability, which in footy speak is sacking the coach and/or board. Is that what we want? Even when we know that history is crystal clear that is the path to failure? On your final point doc, personally i don't agree that we have a stale game plan, or that we have cultural issues (or at least no more than other clubs - i think this is a classic media beat up), but that is another discussion. But i totally agree fans have every right to ask questions. What i find bit frustrating on Demomnland is how often discussion becomes binary and devolves into camps. There is a lack of nuance. It is equally frustrating to be pigeon holed as some pollyanna optimist who is unconditionally positive and refuses to acknowledge issues (to be clear, i'm not saying you are dong so here doc, or have form doing so). It is possible to both be critical of the club AND think we are heading in the right direction. Positing potential reasons for something occurring (eg our forward line injuries impacting our finals campaign) is not making excuses for this playing/coaching group. Being positive about our chances is not accepting failure. The same is true of criticism of the club. I have been very critical of the clubs kicking skills ever since i started posting on Demonland, and long argued that we should be targeting more players with elite kicking skills. And, for that reason was critical of the decision to take Salem not Josh Kelly, and equally critical of the decision to trade Watts. I think my criticism on the kicking skills front has borne out. In my opinion, injuries was the number one factor in us going out in straight sets last year, but clear number two was too few elite kicks. But i'm not banging on about being proved right or pointing out ad nauseum how much better we would be if we had Josh Kelly kicking inside 50. And i am long time critic of the clubs' external communications, which i think is a big factor in our poor relationship with the media and certainly in how various crisis events have been perceived externally. But again, i don't run the club down and bang on about it at every opportunity. Predicting failure is easy. Anyone doing so will be proven right way more often than those predicting success. But a back and forth between those two poles is exhausting. And to be clear, I'm as guilty of anyone as getting involved in those back and forth discussions that lead nowhere and clog up thread after thread. I'm down for nuanced discussion about strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats. But like reducing my consumption of footy media, i'm tapping out from binary, black and white discussions on Demonland this season.

Thanks DZ. In was indeed referring to that hysteria - though i was really just taking the opportunity (albeit in an unrelated thread!) to do some more misquoting of Paul Kelly, one of our great chroniclers and poets - and mad football fan (Adelaide unfortunately). But on the hysteria front, since our loss to the blues i have had an almost complete football media black out. And i like it. Reading the threads on here about various media predictions drives me batty enough, so i'm going to tap out of watching or listening to the footy media this season. No SEN (apart from some catch up of Phil Davis and the bloke from Champion data on Tuesday nights). Maybe the two ABC footy shows on Sunday. Actually just the first one. No Fox 360 or their inane half time 'analysis' (i might not be able to break my last crack addiction). Maybe some of the usually excellent ABC news.com analytical articles (the authors' names escape me, Dean Bilton is one i think) but no Age or Hun articles. I'll listen to the ESPN footy podcast, which is usually (bit not always) pretty good. And read whelloratings excellent site, and maybe some other similar data driven websites. That will do me i think for footy media in 2024. By the by, speaking of the footy media, one of the issues I have it with it is all so 'feels' based. So few analysts actually analyse, and the opinion heads just have vibe based feels. So for example, on the discussion about our fortunes in 2024, as far as i have seen no-one has noted that we finished the 2023 season as the number one rated team by Champion Data (combines the ratings for attack - +2.7 and defence - +12.5). Sure, that is based on data and and data doesn't equal flags. And people seem to hate data. But it is relevant information to include in any analysis i would have thought. Readers or listeners can choose to ignore or factor it in as they see fit. As a punter i certainly look at the data and factor it into my thinking. And, in term of how i assess the 2024 season, the table is not miles off how i think it might play out, including the Giants being a big chance and the Crows also being a contender. The Crows are interesting. The key factor in their rating is they were the number one rated attacking team in the AFL (we were 8th) but only #10 for defence (we were #1). If the Crows sort their defence this season they are definitely contenders and from a punting perspective the 1.81 you can get for them to finish in the top 8 is good value, if that bet was in a bubble (futures bets are never good value). This is the top 8 rated teams: Melbourne +15.2 Brisbane +14.9 Collingwood +14.3 Giants +14.3 Adelaide +13.7 Sydney +9.4 Port Adelaide +9.2 Carlton +5.4

Good thing for him the round zero game against us is in Sydney - he won't have to fly.

To misquote Paul Kelly once more: 'The hysteria on the back pages is still blooming' @3183 Dee

Agree. Only against VFL players, but i was surprised how natural he looked as a mid. Low centre of gravity, nuggety, and good hands are positives for a mid. Tough too. But there's one thing I really like. Of course we will benefit from him kicking it inside 50 more as a mid than defender. But his ability to hit 15-20 metre targets under pressure would be even more important for us as a mid than defender. Less turnovers, and crucially a mark allows us to control the ball, and hold it up and reset if required. Even some players with good technique struggle with that kick. Clarry, tracc and viney - our starting midfield players - don't have that skill, and almost always handball, or dump kick, under pressure. Which most of time is fine, but can lead to some chaotic ball movement and turnovers.

But that's the problem manny. I doubt Powell-Pepper meant to hit Keane in the head. It was no doubt a an accident. But an accident that would not have occurred if the bump was a reportable offence.

Yeah, they might well do that. They certainly wont ban the bump any time soon. Still creates a grey zone of an AFL sanctioned action (the bump) being a causal factor in accidental head knocks when a player chooses to bump. I mean the alternative is 100% of the duty of care fall on the player electing to bump. Which won't fly in court. Leaving aside the legal stuff, i really don't think on bumping (except for those scenarios where a player braces for contact to protect themselves) would change the game that much. What would actually change? I know fans love a good hip and shoulder 'down the centre' that rattles the cages of players but its not as if the game would look much different without them - there's already relatively few anyway. The game is more ballistic and dangerous than in my supporting lifetime, so its not as if it suddenly wont be a tough, physicals game that test the courage of participants.

Yes, of course. I'm talking about outlawing the bump all together. The bump will ultimately be banned, if for no other reason than the legally ramifications of not dong so. Take that hit. If the bump was illegal (particularly in that scenario where tackling is an option and self protection is not a factor), like for instance the chicken wing tackle became after Judd was suspended for it, then sure SPP might have still chosen to bump to take out keane. But really that is pretty unlikely becuase he would have known he coukd get reported. And if the bump was illegal and he did bump him in the head he would get 7-8 week not 3 weeks (he might get 3 for a bump thta didn't hit him in the head). From an OH&S perspective, of being PROACTIVE not REACTIVE in terms of protecting players from unnecessary head trauma, a case could be made the AFL is legally exposed. Of course head knocks will always be a part of the game, accidents will always happen. But every person and their dog has identified the risks when a player chooses to bump not tackle, yet the employer (the AFL) has failed to implement the obvious risk mitigation strategy - ban the bump in such scenarios (ie player has option to tackle, but chooses to bump - because the rules allow him to do so). Every time a player is hit bumped to the head this season when tickling is an option, and gets head trauma (concussion) the AFL is legally exposed civilly (ie being sued by said player) Adn i would have thought also exposed to action by Workcover for not doing all it can to maximise the safety of working environment.

Ban the bump. Player knocked out cold because SPP elected to bump not tackle. Who's to say that head knock wont end Keane's career. As i noted in the gus thread it is inevitable the AFL will have to ban the bump. This is the exact reason why. It is a completely predicable event, so the AFL can't argue they have taken appropriate steps to protect the head of Keane. it is also a good example of what i was saying about why nann ng the bump won't change footy. What did SPP achieve by electing to bump not tackle? Even if he head not hit hit him in the end, ie a totally legal hit, how would his team have benefited? Maybe the ball jars loose and Port win the ground ball? He legally hurts an opponent impacting his performance? But a tackle could achieve the same results AND possibly also win a free for Port for holding the ball. And a tackle would also mean SPP, a key player for Port, not risking missing the critical 2-3 opening games of the season.

As long as i've followed the dees we have been an easy target for the media. And the fact that for most of that time we have been a basket case on and off the field has meant that we haven't been able to use that derision as fuel to respond on field and shove it up 'em (because if you ain't got the cattle it, righteous anger is not going to help over a season in terms of results). And that of course perpetuates the cycle. It's different now. We have the cattle, systems and experience of being a top team for multiple years to take advantage of the justified anger at the bollocks the media has served up and channel that into our footy.

He'll kick 12 against us! Take it to the bank.

Disgusted with how our preseason has gone? Disgusted? For pete's sake we've had one player get pinged last season (the news came out post season). And with clarry, the club has handled a tricky situation super well and he has gone off and worked his backside off to get into AFL level shape. The club has reintegrated him super well and a player many feared might take months to get back, IF AT ALL, is in the frame for round one selection. Huge tick to clarry and the club. Gus has had to retire through no fault of his own - or the clubs. And we've had a handful of bog standard injuries, none from mismanagement as far as I'm aware. All that after was generally accepted to be a successful trade and drafting period. And that disgusts you? Seriously, get a grip. And perhaps turn of SEN, get off twitter, put down the hun and stop slavishly buying into the media's hysteria theatre.

Too bloody right - well said Two things particularly annoy me about rubbish like claiming the dees will have failed if we don't get another flag from this group. One, it is widely accepted as fact (repeated ad nausea by the media, coaches and ex players) that it IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO WIN A FLAG. It is also accepted as fact that this is even more so the case with equalization than say 20 years ago (bombers say hi). Two, many of those same pundits (and lets be honest, some DL posters) think our list is over rated. Yet somehow us winning only one flag is some sort of failure? Please. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Where is the narrative about the Cats taking 11 years to win flag after 2011 despite being in the top 4 or 8 the entire time? And having the most ridiculous home ground advantage in the competition? And the discussion also provides the haters a convenient out of we do win the flag this year - well they should have snagged another with their list. People are quick to knock Pies, Blues and Tigers fans for being so one eyed and 'feral'. Well, i wish we had more fans willing to fly the flag and push back against the nonsense constantly directed at our club. We are an easy target in part because some of our fans be like: 'oh, yeah, you're right one flag would be a waste given how talented our list is, which by the way isn't actually that good, over rated in fact by rose coloured glasses nuffy set, and nowhere near as good as that of the pies - by the way don't you just love Macrae, at least he knows how to talk to the media, unlike straight sets Simon'

Damn those stand alone flags!

Hopefully in the media department. Two birds with one stone. by the by it did occur to me yesterday that perhaps there is a reason the dees comms team seems to be staffed by kids on work experience, ie to leave space and funding for Gus to come in and play a key role. In all seriousness he would be a brilliant fit. Already doing club comms, smart as a whip, has an interest in media and who wouldn't want to hear Gus interview his ex teammates?

Good point about not being locked into 3-4 year players (i picked that range becuase it would take that long for hose qualities to be fully evident). But if they did make the number 10 a symbol of a hear and soul player imagine the power and honor of awarding it to an older player at the bluey? For example, i see Nibbla as a heart and soul player, who like Gus bleeds red and blue. Imagine ahead of his last season he was given the number 10 (perhaps by Gus) at the bluey to honor his contribution. I suspect in the their heart of hearts very few oppo and actually despised Selwood, or say Hodge for that matter. Who wouldn't want such heart and soul players running around for their club?

Too bloody right. I get the anger at Maynard, but personally i only have so much emotional capital and i want to spend mine on my love for Gus and the dees and being positive about our 2024 season. Feeding the trolls just encourages a cycle of angst, and without getting all hippy, bad vibes and negative energy. It just becomes a self fulfilling, unvirtuous cycle of negativity. Demonland has had enough bad vibes and negative energy this preseason. I don't think we need more.

Perhaps the club could consider awarding, in perpetuity, the number 10 jumper to say third or fourth year players that display Gus' qualities of selflessness, leadership, ability to connect people, sense of humor and team first philosophy. Needn't be the best player - often isn't. When i was young fella playing footy and cricket, such a player might win the best club man award, which back in th day was often seen as bit of good bloke award given to plodders. But every team, whether that be in sport, or work, needs such 'glue' people. And I think now we have a much better sense of the importance of people with these qualities in any team environment.

Personally I'm not going to waste any energy on Maynard. My focus is on the AFL handling of this. They have basically acknowledged the rules were inadequate in terms of protecting a player in the position Gus found himself in by changing them as soon as they could. For me that is explicit evidence of Gus' implied criticism of the AFL being reactive not proactive. And evidence of the AFL, stewards of the game not just the financial bottom line, of failing in their duty to protect players. Why? Because the risks involved of a player leaving the ground and jumping towards an opponent were clear prior to the Gus hit. It's why koz copped 2 weeks for his bump on Bailey Smith despite not hurting him. Yes, that was a bump but so what? The logic remains the same - leave the ground and the risks, and potential level of head trauma, increases. The Gus hit wasn't a novel event that couldn't be predicted- for example like Judd's chicken wing tackle was. Hell, Maynard's accepted defence, promoted by most of the footy media and ex players, was it was a 'football act'. Can't be an event the AFL couldn't reasonably be expected to have had the rules in place to prevent AND be a football act. A less significant example of this complete lack of ability to get ahead of the curve and proactively prevent predictable issues, at least in terms of protecting the health of its employees, is the joke that the score review system is. It is predictable a player will receive significant head trauma from a bump. I would argue if that happens it's on the AFL. The AFL can be proactive when they want to. One player having their leg broken led the AFL to introduce the slide rule. That rule change didn't change football. But somehow the bump is sacrosanct, which is deeply ironic. They have been inching towards banning it. Rip the band aid off before another young player has to leave the game because of head trauma so bad they have to remain in a darkened room and can't shake migraines. That would green light all the levels below the AFL, including junior footy to ban the bump. I can only imagine how many unnecessary hits to the head there are at local club level and how many thousands of people have some form of head trauma from such hits.

Knocking? Quick hip and shoulder and he'd be inside your house in a flash!