deelusions from afar

This is the one time we're allowed to think two weeks a time 😉

Given the week off - surely they structure games so that no player misses due to concussion protocols. It's pretty unfair otherwise. I don't want swans supporters to have an excuse

On the weekend, I thought I noticed a bit more flair from some players - particularly Rivers and Hunt. Looking to play on more and get additional metres before kicking. Whether this was just coincidental / circumstantial or a deliberate instruction remains to be seen.

It's definitely a stretch. But they are 5 years off playing finals. If he leaves he can come to a premiership team who are right in the window. He's 24 now so at North will spend the best years of his career in a team rebuilding. He could get paid more at North but if Jackson leaves we will have significant space in the cap ($750k+? per year) and what could be two first round draft picks. As he's contracted North would be highly unlikely to let him go but sometimes it happens.

I agree with this 100%. Playing the percentages is one thing... but its not playing the percentages when the opposition know you are going to do this and have setup for it. As @A F has said, maybe we're waiting to pull the trigger in the finals - I hope that's the case. But we were so close last week to losing which means we would most likely finish outside the top 4. Are we really prepared to risk the double chance (and possible week off if we win) just to get a couple of tactical wins in the finals? Seems a stretch

Agree 100%. Grundy is contracted so doesn't have to go. If he does go, he would most likely want to go to a contender. He was apparently impressed with our presentation. Which other contenders have the cap to bring in a ruckman on $700k? The only reason we could do it is due to Jackson leaving. Pies don't have leverage unless there's a bidding war. They want the salary space to go after the GWS players.

I think the Sparrow for Harmes is the most likely change. But why did they have Harmes play a full game in the wet to be a 5 day break if he was in contention? I think they would opt for Viney to play the defensive mid role if we need a tag or potentially Oliver if he's got a tag himself. If Harmes were to come in to tag Neale it further complicates our midfield rotations if Brayshaw is to continue in there. Would be surprised to see him pushed to a wing and Jordon squeezed out given he hasn't played wing all year. Think you're judging ANB too harshly - his pressure and running are critical to the team. He's not in the team to kick goals other than opportunist ones. And on Spargo, as much as I am a fan of Chandler, he is not quicker or bigger than Spargo and so is just as likely to be pushed aside. Spargo leads THE COMP for % of inside 50 kicks marked by a team mate. Given its our biggest weakness, he is important. Chandler has not shown this at AFL level (albeit with limited opportunities). But I agree Spargo has been found out numerous times when he goes to a wing.

So glad our selections are not in the hands of many of the posters on here! No player is perfect and every player has their limitations. It's about finding the right mix that compliment each other to get the best result for the team. e.g: Ben Brown - yes he sh!ts me - particularly when his opponents are quicker and more agile than him. But he is the most important structural player to our team. Who else can run like he does and force the ball to ground. Weid is not up to it. JVR is not ready. TMac is not ready. MB is not up to it. Plus he has kicked clutch goals in the final quarter the last two weeks. Charlie Spargo - he is under sized and not particularly quick. It seems like he is exposed when put on the wing which happened again on the weekend. But he is our best inside 50 kick by a mile - and that is our biggest weakness. We need the ball in his hands at half forward more often. Who can come in and do this better? ANB - he is not as clean as some players and his kicking can be off - but he runs as hard as anyone to allow us to play our game. If he goes out we get exposed on turnover and with not enough forward pressure.

I'm hoping this too. But it would have to be unlikely

Pittonet has a decent record against Gawn - but when we have Jackson as well it's a tough ask. Kinda surprised they don't pay De Konig. Haven't seen much of them but I remember him torching Sydney earlier this year with his contested marking. Is it a matter of with McKay and Curnow they can't really afford to rest immobile rucks forward? If that's the case, if Jackson leaves is De Konig a player we should be sounding out? Or did I just see his greatest game?

Miss harmes as well... but who goes out for him. Doesn't it make it harder now with Gus having midfield minutes?

Don't know if I agree. I think the cats (this year), pies and swans are all far more aggressive (and skilful) in how they move the ball than we are (this year or last year). Other than when winning a centre clearance or on turnover, we move the ball slowly and predictably - long to Gawn from the kickout to the non-Langdon side and get it as far up the field as we can until we bomb it to the pocket or it goes out of bounds. it is based around our contested mids winning more contests than they lose. The other teams are prepared to switch more and go up the fat side or even the corridor - I don't think we ever do this unless on turnover? The difference for us this year (to me) seems to be our ability to hold other teams' foot skills at bay for a full game. If they're prepared to take us on and not just go down the line, our pressure doesn't seem to be able to be high enough to stop this for 4 quarters.

I don't underrate Grundy - I just think ruckman are not as critical as you. Gawn and Grundy have been the best ruckmen in the comp over the last 5-10 years. How many premierships between them? And I actually think most of Gawn's value is through his contested marking ability in defence and around the ground rather than his tap work which while it is elite doesn't swing games. In an ideal world you could have Grundy and Gawn in the same team - but in that world surely you'd have some decent key forwards and more midfielders with great kicking skills already in the team. Nothing against Grundy but think the picks and cap space could be better spent elsewhere. I also think Freo are crazy to sell the farm for Jackson when they also need key forwards.

In theory it works. But Grundy's barely got on the park this year and hasn't been at his best for a number of years. He's 28 now. How do we know he can get back there and play at the level consistently? What if we do all the things you propose but rather than get Grundy, get the best ruckman not getting regular senior footy (eg Lloyd Meek - I'm sure there would be others) and then have an extra pick (and salary) to go key forward shopping or at least to the draft. If just going to the draft means we have cap space then see if we can re-negotiate current contracts so we have more space for a warchest the following year. Grundy just doesn't add up to me

I would have thought the ruck situation is less of an issue if we get someone like Meek from Freo as part of the Jackson trade (if it were to go ahead). He would be behind Jackson and Darcy - arguably the two best rucks under 25 in the game. Sure if we can get Grundy cheaply (in salary and trade wise) but otherwise I'm not convinced he's the answer. Shouldn't we be throwing the kitchen sink at a gun key forward instead?

The thing for me is that surely this is not a difficult fix. We have seen enough examples - surely these scenarios can be practiced at training where rather than kicking long they go for a shorter central option. I haven't been to training in a while so have no idea if its a focus.

It absolutely was. In fact it was my intention from the beginning, but in my haste to get my thoughts to the page (screen) the most critical aspect of the post was lost (but not forgotten). Does that suffice? 😀

I started the thread but have no idea how to do this - maybe its for the moderators?

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but the bits of threads that I've been reading seems to show that many people don't get this. I was there on Friday night and watched in frustration in the second quarter (and really the whole game) as we kicked repeatedly to a magical spot in the forward pocket on the members side, close to the boundary. It rarely lead to marks, or crumbs to goals and was usually swept away by Collingwood's defence or got knocked out of bounds. The old dees supporter behind me kept saying "oh what a terrible kick" every time it went there as if it wasn't what the player intended to do. But this is our game plan! We have the best contested players in the game and a defence that can outsmart and outmark their opponents (if it doesn't come in too quick). Unless we are breaking away from centre clearance or whizzing it forward from a turnover, we go forward and kick there as it allows us (playing the percentages) to use our advantages. If we kick to the top of the goal square there is less likely to be a stoppage if we don't mark and good teams with fast ball movement will have both sides available (and the centre corridor) to quickly move the ball up the field with little pressure which puts enormous pressure on our defence. But obviously there's a trade off: When we do mark, they are tough shots. Equally when we do crumb it requires brilliance - either in handball chains or snaps like you saw from Petracca in the grand final. Clearly it works - particularly if with our (once) superior fitness, we can play our game far longer than the opposition. But after Friday night, I'm wondering: (a) are the best opposition teams we've faced - Collingwood / Geelong, Swans, even the dogs a few weeks back - able to get us because of their aggressive ball movement and determination not to get caught in our trap of playing on the side we want them to. I.e. Would these teams have troubled our team last year as they have practiced a strategy designed to beat ours? (b) would we play differently if we had key forwards we could be more confident in - say Naughton or Curnow? Part of me thinks not because we still do this when Gawn is down there and he looks as dangerous as anyone in a contested mark situation. (c) Is this really just about the pressure from our forwards / midfielders in closing down the outlets. I.e. do they just need to go a bit harder for a bit longer and then we win the game? (d) If we aren't able to defeat any of these teams in the finals, should we be tweaking this style over summer (not unlike Geelong last summer). As I've mentioned on here previously, although I understand the strategy, I also wish we took a few more risks. A player kicking to that pocket when they are kicking over the mark from 70m out is very predictable. Would love to see some handballs off to a runner who has the odd ping from 55m. Even at an estimated strike rate of 1/3 that is better than what kicking to that pocket every time is getting us. Thoughts?

I think this is great - if we play Collingwood in finals he will take responsibility for De Goey (unless Harmes does) and will get it done. Just like he did with Bont in the granny last year.

If Jackson goes we offer North what we get for him in picks and offer Larkey the same contract we would offer Jackson. Definitely a long shot but if Larkey stays he has to play through 3-5 years of rebuilding before they're at our level. Come to us and he'll play finals every year (we hope). Surely more chance of getting him than Noughton / King bros etc

Not the only great highlight that includes a scrubber kick from O Mac. Pretty sure he did the same in that game we beat Hawthorn in 2016 - think it was part of the play which Billy Stretch put us in front in the last quarter.

My initial reaction was no way... but it got me thinking. Last year we had two tall forwards but this only really clicked late in the season. If you subscribe to the loading theories, perhaps we can't afford to have the two tall forwards unless everyone is 100% fresh? Is that why it doesn't work so well during the season? If that is the case, then you may be right. Although my gut feel is that Goody is not happy with Weid's output and so has Melksham taking the other "tall" position. Once BBB is ready Weid will be out.

Hopefully not. For mine Jack and Lever are great leaders and players but do not inspire when they speak. It's just cliches and platitudes! Whenever Max finishes up, I'd rather have Petracca or Brayshaw as the captain. Viney and Lever can still play an important role as vice or in the leadership group.

Yeah I agree he's not going to be the next Schwarz. But if he continues at the rate of improvement he is going at since debuting then he could end up as a genuine superstar of the comp. I mentioned Goodes and Kouta because they could play anywhere and troubled teams due to their unique assets - too tall, agile, strong - for anyone to go with them. But I agree that I think he's unlikely to be able to do this solely as a ruckman. Obviously everyone has their own opinions but I think he's likely to be a better player than White or Martin - White might have him covered at Centre bounces but I think Jackson would have him covered once the ball hits the ground and with his ability to work in traffic. And while Stefan Martin has been an incredible player with unique abilities (strength and speed for a big man) I don't think he has the natural ability / game sense that Jackson has - certainly didn't at the age Jackson is now! But my main point was, all of this is hypothetical. It's still so much for Freo to pay when you don't know if he will reach those heights.