rjay

This game will never work unless there are some serious changes made. If we are trying to sell the game then sell the essence of it and don't make up something entirely different. The games last night resembled training drills from 20+ years ago, not a game of footy. For one thing the ground is not long enough for the length of kicks, throttle back the ball somehow without it causing injury to the kicker (not sure how but...it can't be played as is on these size grounds), add more players on the ground (maybe 10 a side) and introduce the contest back into the game then maybe it could make it. ...also bring back ruck work, last touch doesn't work and tip off is a crock...

Calling it football gives it some undeserving credibility 'Wise'... I was going to say it was a form of kick to kick but that's not right either. Lunchtime kick to kick was much more competitive when I was at school and there was always a good hanger or two. ...no, it's kind of like a straight line circle work hybrid of keepings off.

Yep, it's kind of like basketball (end to end score) but with a lot less pressure. No real contests that make the game (AFL) what it is.

I will be surprised if Petracca actually plays...

As good a player as Ollie is I don't see him as a priority. If we have a weakness it is a bit of outside class & that's not him. Pity we didn't pick him up when we had the chance but that horse has long bolted.

We've had many over the last 50+ years 'de cali'... I think Norm was the real deal but there have been many false prophets since.

I was...

Way different situation. For a start we are paying market rate for someone of Levers ability, we payed overs for Tilbrook at a time when it wasn't a professional game. Lever has shown his ability at AFL level, Tillbrook hadn't played a VFL game when we signed him so he was an untried player at the level. Tillbrook came in as the messiah, Lever is coming in to help our team...he's not expected to carry it. Sleep easy 'Farmer'...

It will depend on how well Collingwood are going 'Gonzo', if they're up and about then we will get 80k easily. They are a fickle group though and drop off quickly when things are going bad.

Sorry 'Lucifer', you can't compare the 2 games. It's the nature of soccer is it's a low scoring game and that you are on the edge of your seat for the whole game because at any moment the score could come. The skills are sublime. You can't relate that to womens football. The nature of Australian football is it's a free flowing and scoring game but despite all their best efforts in the AWFL the scores are low because the skills at this stage are poor.

I sure hope not 'Chazz' and I very much doubt it will. It's all about flexibility these days and I expect we will use our strengths where we see fit. That will mean Tommy Mac in the ruck at times and Hogan running as a mid at others. Petracca, Hannan & Fritsch are all strong overhead and will cause problems for oppo defences with their mobility. Unlike you, I think we will line up with just Tommy as the 2nd ruck choice and play more runners. How often we do this who knows... Pedders has stiff competition, if he's to get a regular game he needs to be able to play Tommy's role or the role of a 3rd Tall/Medium. We may carry him as a rotation on the bench but I wouldn't back in that we always go that way. Our entire forward structure won't be as structured as you are proposing, flexibility will be key and I like it...I think Goody will as well going by the training reports.

It's not easy to relocate the goals though. If it's an AFL ground or training ground you wouldn't want holes dug in the surface.

Only commenting on your statement that most were blown away by the skills displayed 'hemingway'...unfortunately there are not enough skilled players at the moment. Surely only blind Freddy would be blown away by the skills. Can't knock the endeavour and enthusiasm though. I got what I realistically expected when the AFL decided on an 8 team competition. They're between a rock and a hard place...the competition has really encouraged the growth of female footy at grass roots which is great but in pushing it so hard so early they're also in danger of damaging the brand before the standard picks up. The product is not good enough. It's going to be really interesting to watch how this pans out over the next few years...I just can't see an 18 team womens competition working and there are some astute football people sitting back and observing. I haven't noticed Hawthorn rushing in to get a womens team for example.

I don't think so 'hemingway'... A lot were blown away by Melbourne v Dogs "exhibition" games but by spreading the talent over 8 teams the standard has dropped off dramatically and not just this season, last as well. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

It sounds counter intuitive but they need to play 18 a side on the ground. That will in effect make it a little bit smaller ie less distance to kick to the next link up player. In womens footy to me having less players in creating more congestion. They can't reach targets and a lot more ball is played on the ground with packs of players running on to the loose ball. If they could hit up more 30 metre targets then the game would flow better. Zones on a full size ground in a 16 a side game where most can't kick much over 30 metres is going to slow the game down more.

...but 'Gonzo' you can see this stuff. The stats only backup what an astute football observer already knows. I get annoyed with them when they reel out the click bait stuff to sell books at the start of the season. Luff comes out with some stupid saying "without data you are just a [censored] with an opinion" but "without a feel for the game you're f----, stats or no stats".. If you understand the game as I'm sure you do then they are a handy tool. They sell themselves on being more and it seems to be working for them.

Nothing wrong with stats 'Gonzo', what I have issue with is the analysis...a lot of it doesn't stand up. ...I'm talking about the predictive analysis. It's easy to use stats to make a point after the event but Champion have been off the mark with the last 2 premiers and their player analysis is really just disguised (not so well) click bait. does that make me a luddite?

Tiges & Dogs circumstances governed how they set up. We're a more rounded team so I expect that flexibility will be used to our benefit. We won't be following either so I don't think you have anything to worry about. With Fritsch & Hannan as 3rd tall options & the Petracca wildcard don't be surprised if we don't go with a dedicated 2nd ruck option. Tommy Mac or Pedders will take care of that, I think they may often be fighting for the same spot in the team. How Weideman comes up will also play a part in how we set up... Sometimes we will go 2-4 and sometimes we will rotate a resting ruck.

That's a different story...equalisation doesn't necessarily mean premiership and the equalisation measures, the draft, salary cap and FD spend cap are proving to have done their job if the 2017 season is anything to go by. In an 18 team competition it was more even than I can remember even the 12 team comps being. As for trading your way to a premiership, I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. It's certainly part of the mix but in the current AFL climate the core of all premiership teams has been built on the draft. You certainly trade to sort problem areas and I think we have done that well the last couple of years but when we win a flag it will be on the back of Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Hunt, Gawn, Hogan, Salem, Jetta and co with some smart trading to top us up. Take Reiwoldt, Martin, Cotchin and Rance all drafted players out of the Tiger team and what have you got? a wooden spooner. Take out Mitchell, Hodge, Roughy, Cyril, Lewis, Smith from the Hawks and you have a middle rung team who the likes of Lake and Burgoyne wouldn't see as a destination club. Trade certainly hasn't helped the Swans recently, so far their 2 big trades (Franklin, Tippett) have been a bust as far as Premiership success goes. The successful Cats teams under Bomber where built on the draft with Ottens being the only key player they brought into the club. No, you draft your core and fill needs with trade. This may all change down the track as we further attempt to emulate the land of Trump but currently this is how it works. Your view on the salary cap just doesn't hold up. Take away the cap and you have an EPL like environment and we would have no chance of surviving in that climate. The salary cap is the key to equalisation.

They are both very effective equalisation tools 'Davey', but like all tools they have have to be used correctly...

I reckon the Tiges went pretty much 1-5....Jack was often the only tall and they used a medium like Grieg as relief ruck. Wouldn't be surprised if we went 2-4 at times and maybe varied it a bit through the year depending on match ups and form...

'Lad', he's going to need at least that much main group training plus match practice. He will need match conditioning & you don't get that doing circle work & gym.

Unless he at least gets a run in the final Casey practice match (week before our first game) then he shouldn't play. No more of this straight back in stuff without any match practice.

I'm really looking forward to the next few seasons, this one can't come soon enough. We finally have a team to support that's in the game. It's been a long time coming, embrace it, don't fear it...

I think it's worse by hand 'poita', hand balling is for many about little league standard. It's an area of the game that is really hard to learn. A lot of the congestion is caused by poor use by hand. I think the first thing they could do to fix this is bring it back up to 18 players on the ground. It goes against what I've said before about the talent pool (add no more teams yet) but in this case it might help the game a bit. The players don't kick long enough and play doesn't link up, it doesn't help with the congestion (16 on the ground) in the womens game and is I think in part responsible for the low scores.