Macca

Just my opinion but I'm nearly convinced that Kozzie is a midfielder/forward rather than a forward/midfielder His first half was dynamic and for centre square stoppages especially, he's the man ... so is Oliver obviously, but Clarrie is currently unavailable

Not unimpressive but nevertheless, a bit meh. Would have been a shock if we'd actually lost We've got a hole at CHF that needs to be filled ... but if Grundy comes in and Brown goes out I'm still not filled with confidence But otherwise, our overall game was reasonable good but not excellent. To be honest, I don't know what to make of it when considering upcoming QF's and the like We've qualified for a decent finals spot as such (as the buffer protects us) but the issue remains with the forward line connection being a complex one with no easy answer We are certainly in the mix with our W/L ratio In the end, happy to get the win

There's a decent chance that the whole weekend could be washed out ... heavy rain is predicted for Saturday and light rain (all day) on Sunday Bring on the rain!! But if we get play on Sunday, we might be on and off the field a bit anyway Just need to hang on and the urn is ours

To be honest it looks like they've got our measure. We'll do well to hold on to the Ashes We don't know how to bowl or set fields to their bazball batting and when we bat, they seem to have good plans against our batting For instance, apparently Broad worked hard in the winter to develop a decent outswinger to bowl against Marnus & Smith. And even though he hasn't been picking up their wickets consistently, he has worried both players to a point where both players have never really looked set (apart from Smith's big 100) They've bowled a lot of short stuff to Head and that's worked. As for Davey, it's just been a matter of bowling around the top of off stump. He needs a big score in the 2nd innings (at least 60 or 70) But the defensive fields are just making it easy for their batsmen (especially the new batsmen) ... all they need to do is push the ball to point or flick it to the leg to get off strike. We've made it far too easy for them

In some ways we are in that Saints, Doggies & North bracket of teams Back 10 years ago I believe we played all the 8 interstate teams away ... might have been 2013. Could have been 7 times but the Pies for instance only ever travel interstate 4 times a year. And they never go down to Geelong And for a long time most of our home games were against interstate teams That's changed somewhat but we could well do with another blockbuster game/event A few years ago we tried the opening round vs Geelong but I reckon we should try again vs Essendon (round 1) Can't be Carlton but if it's Geelong again, we run the risk of getting them at Catpark again in a return fixture Effectively if we do that we come under the AFL's attention with 3 blockbusters in the first half of the season and they might then see us in a different light. Worth a try at least

The play-in game looks likely and as a pragmatist and realist, I've accepted that likely occurance in advance Even though I can't really see the point of it all apart from us punters watching a few warm-up games But if it comes in there will be a realisation (after a time) that the games are just precursers until the top 6 have sorted themselves out (IMV) However, given the rest that the 5th & 6th teams will get, they may have a better chance of advancing further if they advance to the S/F's where they'd meet the losers of the QF's So in summary, the winners out of a new system may well be the 5th & 6th teams But again, we'd need a big sample size to see what eventuates So if a team from 9th or 10th advances to the SF week, what chance have they got against a top 4 team that has had a bye and has just lost a QF? At the moment that could be a team like the Giants @ Collingwood (assuming we smash the Pies in a QF ... hee hee)

The evidence says otherwise as just in the last 9 years alone, 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams So what are the chances of the play-in winners when they are up against the 5th & 6th teams (that have been freshened up putting their feet up with their bye) Rest and recuperation are huge factors in our sport For instance, in a majority of our GF wins, we've had 2 full weekends off during the finals If we give the 5th & 6th teams a weekend off, their winning chances increases with (a) superior personnel and (b) a weekend off's R & R You might as well just make it a final 6 but for reasons outlined earlier, that won't be happening for a number of reasons. Not least of all the money that can be made from 4 precurser finals It should be remembered that for about 40 years, only a 3rd of the teams made the finals (4 from 12) Sometimes less is better So I'm not pro the play-in games but I wouldn't mind betting that they will happen sooner or later

So we agree As previously stated, the wildcard games would effectively help 5th & 6th and disadvantage 7th & 8th And right now, from an overall perspective, 5th & 6th are better performed teams than 7th & 8th and therefore better teams historically Aberration moments aren't the norm so disregard the Bulldogs GF victory. 20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers And that was the jist of my previous post If we went to 6 finalists only we'd not have any (or many) teams that aren't really worthy but for the reasons I outined in thr previous post, only having 6 finalists creates other issues So that is not going to happen (final 6) So in historical terms as a general standard, 5th & 6th are better than 7th or 8th same as 1st & 2nd are better than 3rd & 4th same as 3rd & 4th are better than 5th & 6th But not every time (obviously)

Reality is that 7th & 8th aren't needed as only a rare abberation moment will see either team even make a PF Top 6 works so much better with just a total of 5 finals However, the season proper would lose a lot of it's interest if only 6 teams made the finals and the supporters need to see their teams getting some finals experience and more importantly, the supporters need to be fed hope So bringing in the wildcard card games effectively helps 5th & 6th whilst at the same time not helping 7th & 8th ... but why do we care about 7th or 8th if those teams aren't a realistic chance anyway? In effect the wildcard weekend would act a precurser or warm-up for the finals that matter ... same as 5th vs 8th & 6th vs 7th right now are games that effectively get rid of 2 teams who aren't a real chance Revenue raisers, precursers and preliminary games that in effect, wet our appetites for the real stuff

What's your claim to fame Neil? Haha 😁 (you can't be the real Neil Crompton unless you have special powers) Anyway, we're all hacks here compared to any player who even gets on a list Ain't that the truth

Yeah Tyson tried his best and was quite a serviceable player Did a lot better than any of us hacks

Looking at 400 with that start and the long batting order ... but alas, we're only up to 9/317 which doesn't feel like it's enough considering we were 3/183 at one stage We won the first 2 sessions yesterday but England won the last session well to just shade the Aussies on the day (IMV)

Generally, I tend to ignore the grandstanders in the media but the stuff said about Grundy and what might happen to him has been hysterical and way over the top There hasn't been a voice of reason until Goodwin spoke ... and Goodwin probably didn't think he needed to explain the reasoning So a player loses his spot to give the team a better chance of winning (and improving) ... and improve even more when said player returns. A footy move We've created a situation where Gawn has returned to his best straight away and we try out the Brown/JVR duo knowing that Grundy will almost certainly replace one of Brown or JVR sooner or later (IMV) The red-herring will be a situation where both Brown & JVR both stand out and play very well over the next couple/few weeks What are the chances? Even if that happens, it's a great problem to have It's all about the team so Grundy has to sit out for a bit

I'm more surprised with the ex-players They know how clubs operate and they know that sometimes a good player misses out They also know that the good player will return sooner or later

A tankathon ... in plain sight!

So if we're working on 30 minute quarters (roughly) .... Neither plays in the forward line for the other 10 minutes? 5 minutes each on the bench per quarter with the other 15 minutes each quarter as the ruckman? That would make it about 83% game time for both players Unless we drop one ruckman back periodically ... that might be needed in a tight finish. One back, one forward Grundy might be back in the seniors quicker than we thought if we want to get to work on that plan. Or at least practice it What's holding it back is that neither player has impacted forward (yet) so Grundy goes back to the 2's to practice forward craft for a bit So if the above is true why the drama from the media and from the former players? We're just making a football move and it's nothing personal

HF Melksham Redleg Kozzie (we're in need of a CHF)

@grazman @dl4e So my planned raindance not needed then going by the forecast! Phew!! Davey lucky but I wish him well Actually, the last time I said that here was for Mitch Marsh ... duly went on to blast a ton

The whole team was 'crook' that day mono Although Jordie Mac did pick up 25 possessions!

So give us an idea about the deal that could be made, bub I'd keep both anyway because I reckon that the contracts keeps them with us and they might be able to get their bodies right and provide value Make the best of it

Who would want either of them? But both could provide value to us anyway Follow the money bub

Reality was different ... promises are never locked in as a player still has to perform I only ever saw Preuss as a back up regardless of what was said ... with Grundy, it's a completely different conversation

@dazzledavey36 Wasn't Preuss brought in as pure back-up? ... he only played 10 games over 2 seasons In the end, I recall that we got pick 31 from GWS for Preuss Later on we traded for Ben Brown with a pick around the same mark (we got pick 28 from North and North got picks 26 & 33 ... plus a swap of 4th rounders I call that some shrewd trading As for Grundy, he's not going anywhere as he'll eventually be the main ruckman with Gawn being retired (all things being equal) In other words, if Grundy is somehow traded out we're going to have to trade in or develop another ruckman anyway Why do all that when he's our player? All we have to do is hold to the contract

T-Mac & Brown are contracted for next season ... would they both be on at least $400k in their last year? If so, I can't see either player walking away from the money. What's their future income? With all the long term contracts in the AFL these days, we're going to see more and more players done before their contracts run out But clubs will factor that into their TPP's as a bit of a necessity ... a way out of it is to front-end contracts and that might be the case with Brown & T-Mac In overseas sports, it's a common occurance especially when the money is guaranteed (as it is in the AFL)