binman

Yep - and as you say we had mutiple players who for one reason or another were either never at optimal fitness or were, but got injured.

Yep, the youth of the team was definitely a factor - as of course were injuries to senior players as they forced us to play young players that otherwise might not have played senior footy (eg kolt, brown, AMW). But even without the injuries to senior plsyers we had young guns who were best 22 locks like Windsor, JVR and Turner who started to hit the wall in the second half of the season.

Indeed. That is precisely why all team fitness is such a critical success determinant now. I've long been amazed how little the impact of injury is factored into how the game is analysed and discussed. It's nuts given it has always been the key determinant of success. So it should be no surprise that fitness levels barely register as a factor in how the media and fans assess a team's performances and likelihood of success. No surprise, but very frustrating given its significance. For example, any assessment of our capacity to implement the fast transition method last year is of no value if it doesn't consider our fitness level. A good example of the importance of all team fitness to successfully implementing the transition method is the pies' 2024 season. The pies won the flag in 2023 on the back of the transition method they started using in 2022. Yes, like us, they had lots of injury issues and missed key personnel. But they never looked fit enough in 2024 and simply couldn't effectively implement the method they were previously the benchmark for. A key reason the lions won the flag was their fitness. We saw first hand the impact of the fitness gap between us and them in our second meeting - we blitzed them in the first half, but ran out of gas in the second half. Conversely they had plenty left in the tank in the second half and completely ran over the top of us.

Thanks TU. I hope that puts the whole we are implementing a new game plan this season myth to bed once and for all. What goody says above is almost the same as what I wrote a few weeks ago - we implemented a transition game lastseason, struggled to get it right - particularly defensively - got opened up several times as a result and went back to our old model to stem the bleeding. Goody notes our injuries, but not what i think what was our biggest challenge implementing the transition model - our fitness in the second half of the year was miles off. That model is incredibly taxing and requires elite all team fitness and running power. To be fair to goody, we would have been pulverised if we hadn't reverted to our down the line style in the last third of the season. And would have copped it big time on here - even more than we did. 2024 was very similar to 2019 in terms of trying to implement a new method- the big difference being we didn't revert in 2019.

He look unbelievably fit doesn't he. He's in the mix with tmac and Howes for a defensive position i reckon.

He looks like he's bulked up in the upper body too.

Indeed.

And I reckon a factor would be how much the game is based on running now - every player has to cover 10+ kms per game in footy now - a fair bit of it at a good clip I'd be guessing 10 years ago only half the team would clock up those sort of distances. To cover that sort of territory they must also have to do heaps more running in preseason than say even five years ago.

Source?

This is what DeepSeek had to say about todays session: Journey to the West: The Demons Strike Back (Chinese: 西遊伏妖篇) is a 2017 Chinese fantasy adventure comedy film directed by Tsui Hark. A sequel to Stephen Chow's 2013 film Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons, it was produced and co-written by both Tsui and Chow. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would like to thank you for your query and agreeing to share all your data and confidential information on your smart phone and networked devices.

You're kidding right?

Perhaps they've had too many.

As a generalisation, clubs draft for talent and trade for needs. You only need to look at who we've traded in under goody for evidence of that I think Roost it far makes a good point about mids often being afl ready, and talls not, being factors in the focus on mids in the draft. Which points to another reason for not trading in Allan. There's always the risk of the sunk cost fallacy, but as rooster notes talls can take several years to be AFL standard. That represents a significant investment by clubs in the talls they draft in terms of time and resources- not to mention list spots. Take Jefferson- two full years on the list and yet to make his debut. Verral is likely another year of development before he'll get a senior game. Turner took time to make his debut, as a defender, then nearly another 12 months before his next game. Let's say they traded Allan in. JVR's position in the ones would be safe but Jefferson (assuming he debuts tgis year) and Turner's wouldn't. F And what about AJ and Verral? If those players don't play senior footy in 2026 or beyond, or we choose to trade them, we get Bo return on our considerable investment in them All that said, Jefferson might not make the grade and Turner might not go up a level. In that scenario, Allan becomes a viable option if available (ie trading out jeffo and/turner)

All good, I didn't think you were sniping. Assumimg he plays to his previous level, Allan might make us better - might being the operative word. It's not really possible to be categoric about it, particularly 12 months our of any possible trade, as we don't know what the opportunity cost would be if invested in Allan. For example, if we traded in Allan perhaps it means Jefferson can't get senior minutes, or JVR who is currently our number one key forward doesn't play aa well with Allan in the team. Other opportunity cost questions I'd we traded in Allan include: - Who would we have to give up in any trade - who would we not be able to trade in (ie who might we miss out on?- perhaps another gun who better meets our needs, a Serong or Brayshaw for example) - what would the impact be on TPP and our ability to meet the contract demands of our young guns like (particularly relevant with tassie on the horizon) We saw an example of some of those opportunity costs (and others) when we traded in an A grader in Grundy. Whilst not a key position player, his example is relevant because the initial idea was Grundy and Maxy woukd share the ruck role. That didn't work, in part because it didn't fill a need. Our need was a key forward who could give maxy a chop out (the role they have AJ pencilled in for) not another number one ruck. There's also another interesting piece of the puzzle as it relates to key position players. One of the most notable things about last year's draft is how few genuine key position players were drafted in the first two rounds. The focus for most clubs was mid size runners with good skills. Several key forwards and defenders went way later than predicted, perhaps suggesting that such players are not as important for clubs the way the game is played at the moment (ie fast ball movement and focus on transition). Which is not say key position players are not important, just that when a club has a surfeit of such players they are less likely to chase new ones. Allan to the Lions makes sense because they don't have a surfeit of talls. But as evidence of the reduced focus on talls, even then they used their second pick (25 - they were always going to use their first pick on Ashcroft) to select a mid (Sam Marshall). And like the dees, only selected a tall with their last pick - Ty Gallop described in one post draft analysis as 'a project tall forward with time to grow'.

It's amazing how similar all three articles are. That's the future of text based media - aggregated news siphoned from other sites and AI generated articles.

Without inviting a back and forth, a pet hate of mine is my comments being deliberately misconstrued. I did not say I would not want Allan because we have Turner. I said with 'JVR and Turner we are ok for key forwards I reckon'. Big difference. Demonland has been been terrific of late, in large part because the sniping has massively reduced, there is less silly back and forth and fewer straw man arguments. This had meant much more respectful dialogue and more nuanced discussions, which personally I've really enjoyed. The tenor has been really positive. So in that spirit, allow me to explain why I think we dont need Allan. Whilst surplus to requirements was a throw away comment by me, even if available, in my opinion Allan should not be, and almost certainly wouldn’t be, a priority target. Don't get me wrong, Allan is a jet. I've really liked him since he first started playing. But, irrespective of our struggles up forward (the cause of which I think is mostly about delivery and not being quick enough on transition), we are well covered for key position forwards. I think JVR will prove to be as good, if not better than Allan. He is seriously underated I think, even by dees fans. His numbers stack up to the very best key forwards at the same stage in the modern era, including Allan. I think Turner has massive upside and predict he will have the classic break out year this season. We have two genuine swing men who can play as key forwards in Petty and Tmac (who was our leading goal scorer in 2018). And whilst he has yet to play a game the club clearly think Jefferson can make the grade as a key forward. And we drafted, albeit with a lowly draft pick, AJ - who they hope will make the grade as key forward who can give maxy a chop out. On top of that we have three medium talls who will all play up forward at times, and all play tall, in fritter (our leading goal scorer for the last 5 seasons), Tracc (our leading goal scorer in 2019) and Langford (191cms now, and will likely get taller still). I made all the same points prior to the draft, correctly predicting we would target a big mid with elite kicking skills and an outside mid/wing/hb with elite kicking skills (ideally a lefitie). If a key forward was a priority for the club they would have targeted one in the trade period, and failing that (there weren't really any available) use one of our first round draft picks to draft a key forward. But they didn't. Because whilst a gun key forward might have been on some fans wish lists, it was clearly not a priority for goody and the FD. Trading in Allan makes zero sense (unless say as a straight swap for JVR) as it doesn’t meet a need (not to mention the fact we would have to pay him top dollar, causing issues with our TPP). In my opinion, our priority in both next year's trade and draft periods will remain mid size runners who are elite ball users because that sort of player remains our key need.

..of stains?

What's David King got against @george_on_the_outer?

No need to do that today. We don't have to think or learn anymore- that's what we have AI for.

As good a place as any: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/some-good-home-truths-the-pre-season-trip-that-could-turn-things-around-for-melbourne-20250128-p5l7nx.html

Nah, surplus to requirements. With JVR and Turner we are ok for key forwards I reckon.

Let's say you are correct and by playing hard ball we are forced receive unders. We will receive that in 2027 as if we keep koz to his contract he has to play in 2025 and 2026. We have the whip hand. If he wsa tin the final year of his contrat this year it would be a differn scario. But he's not. If koz wants to get to another club in 2026 that club will have to come to the table with some decent capital. The threat of not getting much in return at the end of the 2026 season is a pretty empty one given all that can play out in two years (i'll bet Lachie Neale is happy he stuck fat with the the lions).

Yep, i reckon its a lock Windsor will play as a running half back that has license to run and carry from our defensive half. Perfect for the role - leg speed, good decision maker and whilst his kicking wasn't quite as good as i hoped (and perhaps i'm being a bit unfair) he is still an above average kick. Will be super important to how we transition the ball i think. And as i noted in another thread, his leg speed will be critical in terms of defending turnovers because like Mcvee he has the wheels to get back, whereas May, Lever, Tmac and Petty don't. Max Holmes is good comparison. I reckon another is how Goody used Hunt in 2018 - ie a run and carry half back flanker. Hunt's issue in that role was his kicking was poor and we often gave it back, exposing us on turnover (in part because if Hunt turned it over he often did so when well up the field meaning we were often one down in defence). I cant see Mcvee playing anything but occasional midfield minutes. I suspect he, and Bowey (and possibly Salem) will be tasked with taking on the high risk kicks from the back half that open up opponents and are key to the transition game (think Kitty Coleman, Nick Daicos etc). My query defensively is who will take the role defending oppo small forwards. It's been an issue for us since Jetts had his brilliant 2018 season. I have hopes AMW will become that player, but there might not be a spot for him - in which case Bowey, Mcvee and even Salo will have to share the role.

That's a totally disingenuous response to Sydee's completey reasonable post. Sydee asked, to provide some balance, what our win/loss ratio over the past 5 to 7 years was, not a single season, as your post above implies. You'll get no argument from me we have been woeful for much of the last 34 years and for much of that time a basket case off field (leading to being one onfield). You point to our woeful win loss record in the 'AFL era' (1990 to now -34 seasons) as evidence to support your argument that we're have to be close to the AFL's biggest basket case and have been a joke. And I agree, our win loss ratio is the last 34 years is certainly strong evidence of your point. But to answer Sydees totally logical question, lets use the 8 season goody has been senior coach as the time frame. In the goody era, we have played 182 games and won 104, lost 78 and drawn one, for a won loss ratio of 56.9% (50% in finals). Eight years is a pretty good sample size (almost 25% of the 'AFL era'). I suspect only the cats, and perhaps the swans, lions and port would have a better win loss ratio in the last 8 years. If we accept the argument our woeful win loss ratio in the last 34 years (second worst in that period) is evidence of the club being a basket case and a joke over that period, then by the very same logic having one of the best win loss ratios (I'm guessing top 4) in the last 8 years (that's to say recent history) is evidence of a very successful, very well run club (ie very much not a joke) in that period. It's logically inconsistent to argue otherwise. And a flag certainly supports the argument we are one of the most successful clubs in the last 8 years.

Got some talent that's for sure.