binman

'They play well I buy in'. The corrally is they play poorly you don't buy in. Sounds more like the classic fair weather theatre going fan than supporter to me.

Thanks wheelo. Strange pattern- almost 200 in the first (200 being considered elite, 180 AFL average) only 158 in the second- massive drop off Come out after half time firing -209 in the third would be one of our highest rated quarters all season i reckon. Back down to 162 in the last

What makes you think he isn't?

Have you got the pressure ratings for the Saints game @WheeloRatings ?

Yep. A mantra of burgess, one I heard the players repeat so often it was clear they believed it, was they were the fittest, strongest teames, could not be outworked and even if they thought they had hit the wall they could find something extra. I have a related theory. Key to burgess' philosophy, particularly that psych aspect of it, was his teams train harder than they play and train thru niggles. Griffith worked under Burgess and I believe has a very similar philosophy. I wonder if there's a shelf life to that approach. Senior players would have had that hard core approach drilled into them for the last six years. That's a long time to be under the kosch. Perhaps a new approach is needed.

With all due respect I think you've still misunderstood my point.

Absolutely, i didn't mean to imply otherwise (though i was actually referring to the High-Performance team not coaches, though they of course have a role in the fitness space too). I'm 100% not suggesting players are deliberately cutting corners or being uncooperative. What i am suggesting is that perhaps the entire playing list is not 100% dialled in that space and some might be thinking they are giving their all but in reality are not. That was certainly the feedback from some players when Burgess first arrived - they thought Misson had them dialled up but soon realised they still had levels they could get to. I'm to elite fitness to what the MFC is to good governance, but from what I've gleaned over the years the gap between optimal, super elite fitness and elite fitness can be very small and it's in those margins that all the difference is made. That's true for a single elite athlete so one assumes that multiplied across 44 athletes the effect can be significant.

Time is an abstract concept

I mean i'd probably sneak a look to see what all the fuss was about!

I agree with much of that Bing But id add that in my opinion there is little doubt we have not been sufficiently fit. BUT it doesn't necessarily follow that that's all on the high-performance program. A huge amount of responsibility has to fall on the shoulders of the players. To get to the comparative fitness advantage we had on the comp in 2021, the sort the Pies and Lions have had in the last 2 years requires all team 101% buy in and fierce desire to push beyond that. Perhaps it's also between the ears with a critical mass of players thinking they are pushing to their limits but in fact not doing so. An important impact of not being fit enough is how that intersects with the psychological aspect you are talking about. Put simply people under fatigue are less likely to make good decisions and more likely to make what appear to be complete brain fades.

My point writ large. Who's fault is that nothing changes. An analogy is constantly moaning about how hopeless government is when we live in a relatively well-functioning democracy. We get what we want.

Ironically that could be fund raising opportunity. I suspect an Only fans page with 44 fit young athletes self-flagellating would be pretty popular.

The negativity on DL fir the last 18 months has been relentless. But is peaking right now on the back of the disaster that unfolded in the last 30 mins of last week's game. I was there, sitting directly above the Dee Army, (whose support was awesome from go to whoa). So I got the full immersive angst experience. Don't get me wrong it was certainly something to behold. But at the risk of being howled down, whilst I understand ans share the anger and frustration fans feel, frankly I find many of the attacks on our club pathetic. What amazes me is that people attack the club like they are not part of it. Supporters of the dees, regardless of whether they are a paid up member or not, ARE the club. Boards, coaches, players, CEOs etc come and go. Supporters don't. Supporters support. We are the club. I love the dees, and have done since I started supporting them I'm 1972. I have seen my fair share of woeful performances, including full seasons when we struggled to win a game. Perhaps is just me, but I've never once felt the urge to mindlessly attack the club and spew vitriol towards it. Criticise sure, blind negativity and anger never. The one constant in the 50 plus years I've supported the dees is for almost all that time we have been a rabble off field. Successful organisations, whether in business, community or sport, have one thing in common - strong governance. Calls for the coaches sacking all you like, bag the the players until you are blue in the place, but we won't see sustained success until we sort our chronic, half century long governance problems. The great irony is, unlike how players and coaches perform or our trading decisions etc etc, supporters actually CAN do something about improving our governance. We are a member based organisation and we have power. In my book, if we choose not to use that power (and I don't mean by refusing to buy a membership or attend games - which of course doesn't help) angst should be directed at us not the usual scapegoats. Part of the problem not part of the solution. Peter Lawrence copped a bit of stick for activelly trying to do something about improving our governance. I for one look at PL's efforts to improve our governance last year thru a different lens now given we end yey another season in turmoil with the shadow President and new CEO on holidays in Europe and not returning to seasons end (even if we wanted to make major changes to the FD how can we). I'll put my hand up and admit that i have shown little interst in actually trying to ccontribute to efforts to improve our governance. I'll start thinking about how i can change that - for a start I'll go to our AGM for only the third time.

Not being facetious kev, but do you think that rather than contradicting Bing's point it actually reinforces it? I mean, it sounds like we significantly changed our recovery program, presumably to increase the likelihood we would coming out firing given our woeful starts goody referenced in the post blues presser. We do in fact come out firing and are all over the Saints. Before falling in a compete heap, and stopping to a walk in the last quarter. It's hardly a stretch to suggest that such a dramatic change to the recovery program potentially contributed to us being more fatigued in the last q than we have been in recent weeks, and otherwisemight have been (and if so fatigue would def contribute to some of the brain fades we saw).

Or alternatively be OK for three quarters of the show before falling in a complete heap for the last quarter.... ('tell me Andy, do you think we should take the opportunity to change our allegiance to the Tassie Devils - I mean Demons to Devils is not such a big idealogical or conceptual leap, and there's a certain synergy in swapping support from the oldest football club in the world to the newest')

Would have preferred a letter from our 'new' CEO along the lines off: I understand the anger of fans and also challenge faced by our hard working and passionate President in addressing that anger. I don't want to leave Brad to deal with the angst of fans alone and I understand the importance of strong governance at this time. Accordingly, i have brought my start date forward and rather than commencing in September, which in hindsight was an error on my part, will now start my tenure tommorow.

I'll be there. I'll leave my bells at home but.

Cold. Wet. Train replacements there and back. So pleased I made the effort to go.

Any given Sunday.

Nek Minnit

This season has proved a disaster for the AFL - and even more so for the broadcasters. Five rounds still to go and there's only one team outside the 8 who realistically can make finals, the dogs (by the by has a team ever not made the finals with a percentage north of 125%?) Meaning we have five weeks with any number of rubbish games, including tonight. And tonight's game highlights another related worry for the AFL and broadcasters - the gap in performance levels of the top 9 teams and the bottom 9 teams. The dogs are 9th on 40 points, and the bombers are 14th on 20 points. In most seasons, at this stage of the season 9th would of course be favourites in the betting against the 14th team. I know the bombers have been decimated by injury but even so the fact they are 11.50 to win this match is absolutely nuts. The dogs are 1.04 to win. I'm pretty sure winx never even started that short.

Where I've landed pretty much. The key is daniher would take the oppos best, and likely biggest, defender, giving JVR a bit of a chop out.

Compare and contrast with Xerri furiously pointing at the scoreboard and mouthing off when he dropped maxy off the ball and a completely reasonable free was paid.

Last night was the classic case of the scenario where two things can both be right. We were woeful for much of the night. And the umpiring was appalling and had a material impact on the game.

Didn't know the result and just read this thread end to end. Very enjoyable reading - thanks to all. I needed something after last night.