binman

Mine too.

I don't know about that. They might want to bring in their own high-performance manager but i suspect at most clubs that person's salary is only behind the CEO and senior coach on the pay scale. So, let's say Bucks gets the gig and want to bring in his choice of high-performance manager. That person needs to be available - and the best are no doubt locked up. And assuming they can break their current contract, we need to be able to meet their salary demands.

That's a good point about the visuals - a big fuzzer MFC sign on the admin and indoor training building will be seen by 100s of thousands of commuters a year.

A good stat to use to compare a player's performance level year to year is Champion Data's player rating. Nibbla's career average is 9.53 rating points (for context 20 points is considered to be an elite AA level rating) Nibblas best rated season was his last with us - 2024 - with 11.38 points (and from memory third in the bluey). Next best was 2018 with 10.65, just ahead of this season's average of 10.20 and our premiership year (10.16). Coaches' votes are also an interesting measure to use i think as they give some sense of how influential the two coaches think a player has been in terms of influencing the outcome of games (generally the winning team has more players getting votes). The Coaches votes tell an interesting tale. In 2018, Nibbla's second highest rated season, he only got two coaches votes (3 in 2023 and 1 in 2021). Last season Nibbla got 15 coaches' votes. This season Nibbla got an impressive 26 coaches' votes. AFL Player Profile - Alex Neal-Bullen

Thanks FAT. Was actually just winding Red up - hence the emoji. The very close proximity to Caulfield station is huge i reckon. Even though the other side is not very far away from the station it's far enough for some who might be umming and ahhing about popping into training (or going to the dees store to buy some merch etc), perhaps on the way to or from work or school, to decide not to bother. Being able to get off the train (perhaps to change lines) and be in Dees HQ in 90 seconds means more people will visit on a whim. I'm on the Altona train line and the city bound trains are stopping all stations to Frankston meaning door to door i will be able to get to our training base by PT in an hour - quicker than would be the case if i was driving. Combined with a punt at one of the best pub tabs in Victoria (right on the track), or even a mid-week meet at Caulfield, and i am in sports heaven.

Sorry, red can you clarify - will the school's footy teams use our ovals to train and play on?

Yep, I'm certainly not writing him off. And I largely agree on your summary of his strengths. I'd add that if he can really get to work in the gym he has the sort of build to be a real power player. But he's the sort of player that if not a star doesn't make it at AFL level That's to say with his weaknesses (doesn't appear super athletic, doesn't get big disposal numbers, isn't super quick or an aerobic beast) he really needs to be an impact player with tricks and x factor to be best 22 at AFL level. He needs to kick the occasional bag, go on a 10 minute tear and dominate, turn a game around, kick a team lifter - a difference maker. Which is what I had hoped see in the final against Frankston. A good comparison to the sort of player I'm thinking of is Cam Raynor. Key Key will be him getting super fit - I get he had an interrupted preseason but he has just finished his second full season and he looks a ways off optimal shape. This preseason and early next season will tell a tale of where he is really at. Not buying any more shares, I'll just hold the ones i have for now (that said with my JVR, Spargo and Kolt shares my portfolio is a bot unbalanced - good thing I bought Max at the bottom, and loaded up on Langford and XL

I thought we had one in Jefferson?

Even with his lack of impact at AFL level, i have been really bullish on kolt. But whilst he got a bit of the ball last night I was really disappointed with both his game and attitude. With his build, size, relative lack of athletisism and low disposal numbers Kolt will need to have an x factor to thrive at AFL level. Elimination final at VFL level, the end of his second full season on an AFL list against a team with no AFL listed players. It was the perfect game for him to be the x factor, for him to impose himself on the game and make a winning impact Funnily enough I had that thought then 45 seconds later he missed that sitter after a beautiful bit of transition. Yes he kicked a good goal later, and yes he was involved. But he doesn't work hard enough, looks completely static and flat footed at stoppages and wastes energy with the faux tough guy stuff (which only works if like say a Toby Greene you backlit up with stellar performances). Culley and laurie had more x factor than kolt.

In large part because of the pies relentless pressure on the kicker.

What that match showed was how different finals footy is and how much more challenging implementing a transition method can be when the pressure and intensity is dialled up to 11. And it reinforced that pressure is still the most important factor in footy It fey from the get go that the pies were hell bent on ensuring the crows could get any overlap link up and were smashing them from pillar to post. Funnily enough, the pies looked like the dees in 2023 and 2023.

All good points, well made. As part of efforts to change the vibe, they also changed up training days. And, after being almost injury free before Xmas (with XL's PCL a notable exception, we had a horror run in January and February with injuries which put us behind the 8 ball. And atvthevend of the players have to bare some responsibility-even with all the tech and data only they know if they are truly giving 110% (and some probably think they are but in reality aren't)

There is a huge differences in the fitness levels of teams accross the AFL. I'd argue that behind injury, is the biggest determinate in success. And id also argue that the disparity in fitness levels across the competition is a key facror in the huge gap between the top 9 teams and the rest We are nor fit enough. Our unbelievably poor record in last quarters ths season, which i thinnk had got worse every year under Griffith (though I stand ti be corrected - calling @WheeloRatings), and in red time are just two bits of evidence supporting that opinion.

Totes agree. C'mon man.

Hyperbole much.

Yeah, lawyers are an honest lot.

A bit rich to criticise people for not understanding nuance, and presumably questioning their ability to engage in reasoned discourse, whilst also throwing out puerile, childish insults. Ironic on a couple of levels too. One, being so clearly triggered by Engorged Onion's well reasoned, nuanced rebuttal of your argument about Langford's age. Secondly, your choice of insult is hilariously ironic. Emotional airheads? I mean needing to default to insults is the very definition of allowing emotion to trump reason.

This x 1000. Sure, if he had his choice of clubs Buckley might not choose the dees. But he doesn't. And there is unlikely to be a better option in the near term - obviously the pies are out, the hawks and the crows are on the rise, the lions have Daly in the wings, Scott doesn't look like he is going anywhere at the cats. The blues and perhaps the dogs and freo might have a vacancy next year, but none are anymore attractive than the dees - and besides next year he might have to compete for any vacancy with Longmire, Simpson and perhaps even goody. And I just can't see Buckley wanting to coach a team in full rebuild mode, let alone one that is two full seasons from playing its first game and realistically won't win a flag for at least 7 or 8 seasons after they enter the competition (meaning, no flag until at least 2035, a decade from now).

Yep. Dees fans complain about the media, but many happily amplify the gossip dressed up as news tge AFL football media spews. And that gossip stems from a parasitic amplification of rumours that flow from the club. Sure lots of people have good Intel and connections, and often that intel is of interest and worth considering. But I reckon a key thing to keep in mind is no matter how good the intel and/or how reliable the source is any such intel is by definition hearsay and everyone has, consciously or unconsciously, their own agenda and perspective. For me these things combined mean my starting point when i hear intel is scepticism and questioning its validity. Sure it might prove to be true, or more likely part true (the best gossip always has a kernel of truth) or ir may not. Perhaps it was true at some point but no longer is. And that scepticism does not necessarily mean im questioning the bona fides of the person sharing the intel (i say not nessesarily because some people are just bull****ters) - it's just that I choose not to accept hearsay as fact and even if the intel, on its face is accurate assume there's almost certainly nuance and shades of grey. The implication that Richardson is part of the problem not part of the solution is a perfect example of intel that metastasises into accepted fact as it loops from rumour to media gossip and then back into the world as self reinforcing fact. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not - or perhaps there's nuance that even those within the club feeding the Intel are unaware of - for example maybe Pert was a woeful manager who didn't provide Richardson with the support, resources or professional development opportunities to thrive. The key thing is as Gator notes if you're not within the club on a daily basis any assessment of Richardson's performance is by definition based on incomplete information and is hearsay.

Fair point.

This is a good example of the point I was making in another thread about the usefulness of stats on terms of helping understand the game is dependent on the quality of the analysis and the importance of using mutiple data points not a single stat. You are right to note that there is a strong correlation between distance of kick outs and our drop-off in the last few years. I saw that in a later post you discuss the distinction between correlation and causation, which is an important distinction as too often the media and fans conflate the two. So for example, in this instance some might conclude the cause of our drop off in form has been kicking long to Maxy less often. When in reality that stat is an indicator, a symptom, of the change to our method from a territory team to a transition team. There are any number of stats that evidence that change, and that could be analysed in conjunction, for example with the change to our kick outs data, to drill down on the reasons for our poor win loss ratio in the last two seasons. Two such, interrelated, stats are the big numbers we are giving up on turnover and our points against. Taken together with the changes to our kick outs the stats are indicators of the change to our method. And they also point to the opportunities for improvement - turn the ball over less (eg by increasing the number of above average kicks, the method becoming instinctive, get fitter etc etc) and when we do turn it over defend turnover more effectively (eg bringing in key defenders with good acceleration, the sytem becoming instinctive, stable back 7 etc etc). Another way stats can be useful are to help evidence anecdotal observations, and understand what factors might be involved. For example, I've said heaps this season that Maxy's contested marking has gone to another level. I'm not actually sure if that is reflected in the data (ie Maxy's CM numbers have increased) but anecdotally that's my vibe. I've wondered if a factor has been the anecdotal evidence that we are kicking long to Maxy less often, including from kick outs. My theory is where previously Maxy was often competing for a mark in huge packs, which obviously decreases the chances of marking, when we kick to hom he is more often one on one now or when the oppo kicks to him.he is often pushing back in defence and competing in packs that aren't set and/or don't have many players involved. The kick out stats wheelo posted support my hypothesis (and yes, there is a risk of finding data that supports a hypothesis and/or reinforces a confirmation bias).

I just got home from the game. Terrific, old school footy vibe. I said exactly the same thing to mates ie - they should only only play AFLW games in Vic the grounds you noted.

Look, I'm going to put you in ignore to join my handpicked collection of gold standard morons. Before I do, and at the risk of breaking my rule not to feed trolls, I'll just point out how hilarious this quoted post is and what a self own it is in terms of highlighting how truly stupid you must be. Do you even know what the word censorship means? Let me put it in a way that you might understand. If I choose not watch Sky news am I: A) Censoring Sky News B) A crazy brainwashed lefty victim of cancel culture C) Stepping all over your first amendment rights D) Exercising my right to ignore morons and moronic views I find offensive, not to mention moronic By the by, don't worry about replying, I have put you on ignore. But, by the way i do you hope you get censored and the mods ban you. And also, just a personal FYI - I think they should change the name of the AFL competition ti the AFLM. Any whoo, good chatting - I'm off to see my team beat the pies.

That's exactly what i'm talking about when i say stats are indicators not causation. The are not predictive - they are a representation of what has happened not will happen. Teams can't 'defy a model'. Sure you can, if you want to, use certain data sets to inform your thinking about what might happen but they are not definitive. Take the so called premiership window. It isn't predicting a winner of the flag, it is simply a statistical representation of historical fact - teams who rank in the top six for points for and points against, have won 18 of the last 20 AFL premierships (another historical fact - no team in the last 20 years has won a flag with a defence ranked seventh or lower). That of course that doesn't mean its impossible for team that's not in the so called premiership window to win a flag - and the data reflects that fact (2 teams not in the 'premiership window' won a flag - one of which being us i think). It just means the historical data suggests it is very unlikely a team will win flag is not in the premiership window (and almost impossible if they are not in the top 7 for defence). And its therefore reasonable to assume that will hold true this year too.