deelusions from afar

I agree. Having said that, Geelong are one of the lowest ranked teams for clearance etc - it's all about the slingshot on the rebound. So if we have players in there that are prepared to win it if they can but their first priority is to ensure the other team doesn't get a clean centre clearance, then maybe it's less of a loss (he's obviously going to play a mix). What I did like is that Goody the last few weeks has shown an ability to shake things up a bit to get the right mix. Petracca forward is an obvious one. But also getting ANB in the middle (maybe no one else has the tank to go with Walsh?) and his use of Langdon was different also. Last week I noticed Fritsch was much higher up the ground for parts of the game. This was probably about dragging his player away from being third man up - but it also meant that Fritsch delivered some kicks into the forward line and that is a strength you miss when he is playing deep (not saying he shouldn't play deep but it's good to be a bit less predictable).

What a strange and disappointing night! My reflections: We learnt a lot about the team which will be useful going forward this year: Trac's ability going forward ANB playing in the centre square (I assume to nullify and run with Walsh?) Langdon playing more of an attacking role How damaging /dynamic we can be when we need to score. Carlton's ins (Kemp, MccGovern, Hollands and Martin) were all very good particularly early. Carlton jumped us, were harder at the ball and also got us for strategy (Pittonet running forward to make Gawn accountable, not allowing Lever to go third man up) but the most important thing was we were able to adjust this and fix it after the 1st quarter. Beyond quarter time, Carlton were only able to score from stoppage. Our ball movement is definitely getting better - the way we moved the ball around in the last enabled us to create opportunities we couldn't have in previous years. Crucial misses and some umpiring calls (May touching Curnow's kick, the dump tackle) and we would have somehow won. I'm hoping that it doesn't cost us at the end of the year - but also think you learn more from a loss than a win. I hope they go to work on minimising the impact of a Weitering type player. We get a bit more from Petty / van Rooyen / Turner and we win that game.

It's not my preference - more just putting forward ideas to disrupt Geelong. In reality it is more likely to be Neal-Bullen that follows Cameron as Petracca runs forward but he's likely to get exposed in marking contests (hence why I was suggesting Rivers)

Yeah I was wondering that too... he might do it. I just think that Tmac doesn't have the sort of agility and acceleration that Cameron does so could get caught out. But if it's mostly about fitness and marking contests then he's a good fit.

I'm wondering whether he could get the assignment of running with Cameron. It's obviously not his usual role, but he's probably one of the few in the team that has the ability to run with Cameron and have a chance of matching him in the air. I know we (like most teams) don't like to mess with "our system" but most player struggle when you put genuine work into them. I would think if Lever is third man up he is likely to help out in many aerial contests anyway. Alternatively you could roll the dice and put Petracca on him as I don't think either will be overly accountable.

I did find this poll interesting on the Crows Big Footy page (for general AFL chat). It closed about a month ago!

Wouldn't surprise me if Tholstrup is there to soak in the experience with no intention of playing him (as Casey have a bye). I remember them doing this as far back as 2017, taking young squad members who are on the fringe to be part of interstate trips - a good chance to bond with the seniors and also observe the preparation of the senior players in a way you wouldn't get with a match in Melbourne. From all reports, he's not far away! (and I could be wrong too and he plays tomorrow night!)

Haven't been able to watch the match yet and so came on here to see what I've missed. Obviously it would be nice to win everything all the time, but if they're experimenting with paying more aggressive etc (which is costing us goals) then now is the time to do it. Both teams had lots missing so I think we all get sucked into reading too much into preseason form. I do remember getting smashed in the 2021 preseason by the Bulldogs and thinking they were miles ahead of us with so much depth and talent especially in the midfield. We all know how important that preseason match was when it really mattered later that year!

Thanks WCW for clearing it up. Re the bolded bit - it does strike me as odd that if he did have an issue for Burgess as a few have said, why would he come to Melbourne who would likely have the closest fitness approach to Burgess (of any club outside of Adelaide) given the influence and success he had only a few years ago with us.

I know it's more likely to be just part of his program to get back to the main group... but I'm hoping these snippets reflect a focus on building his forward craft. Last year revealed we can survive without him in the midfield and I think (as others have commented) he has enormous upside to pinch hit forward. He's shown signs earlier in his career and has the odd game (often in Adelaide) where he kicks 3 or so. But if he was able to regularly hit the scoreboard (and probably tidy up his disposal consistency) then it would elevate him to the best in the comp (and probably make us the team to beat in the process).

I've thought the same for a number of years. However I think the problem is he isn't particularly quick so if he turns it over up the field (or a team mate does when he's run hard forward) then he becomes a liability. His kicking is ok but I don't think any opposition is going to fear him getting it in the corridor forward of centre like them might with May. If Gawn goes down, he might be a good backup ruckman that could wear down his opponent (most ruckman aren't quick off the mark) though I suspect Fullerton would get first go at this.

Wonder if there's any chance for us to get 15 or 17 from NM and pick 3 rather than pick 2 and 23. My thinking being we seem keener on Duursma who most think will be pick 3 rather than 2 (walters aside). Then at 15 or 17 we seem more likely to get a slider of someone spoken about in the mix for our pick 11

What's the advantage for Brown or MFC in him nominating and us accepting?

This is not potting anyone that's made the Fyfe references - but isn't he a bit small for this kind of comparison (unless he's still growing)? I know its only a few centimetres and players can play shorter or taller than their height... but he's currently 3cm shorter than Fyfe. For context he's 1cm shorter than Rivers and 1cm taller than Petracca.

You're probably right - but if you were involved in the recruiting or management of WCE you would not want your social media manager doing this now as it just boxes them into a corner.

It's quite funny - Gary wants Harley sooo bad! Goin into bat for the dees but trying to not to b=make it too obvious!

Intrigued to know if we packaged up 6 or 11 with 42 and F1 to get a bit higher, and somehow managed to trade for Reid, do we have picks after 42 eg for Brown? Or do we go with less on the list next year? Or can we have extras train over the summer and pick them up in the pre-season draft (does that still happen?)

Interesting to see how all parties manage expectations from here. On the West Coast Bigfooty board (I know) they are underwhelmed by the offers. The seem to think they will get 2 and 3 from North and give something back. As delusional as it is - if they're fans genuinely think that then the generous offers that are already there are not going to cut it for their fans. The hawks offer for them is the closest (but has the risk of the hawks climbing the ladder next year).

I thought this was something that Carlton were happy to have out there (given they had his brother they knew all about him) which enabled them to get him (and McKay) in the one draft!

I'm warming to the sound of this guy. Tall (200cm) which might be helpful with the height of many key forwards, athletic, good contested mark / one-on-one and a reliable kick. What's he like in terms of speed and endurance?

I may have egg on my face at the end of the day but I can't see how the MFC would trade Petty this trade period. He's arguably our most important player next year if he's able to reproduce the kind of form he was in prior to getting injured. The trade scenario is creative but I think that's overvaluing Himmelberg - GWS paid so much to get pick 1 (Cadman) last year, can't see them giving up on him after 1 year. Seems a lot for Adelaide to be paying for Petty (from our perspective he's worth all of that - but that's because he can play positions in our team that we have no one else as backup)

I reckon we're up to our eyeballs in this (pick 1) - the likes of Cal Twomey generally predict the first round so he wouldn't be saying we're a chance if we're not. Having said that, if you were West Coast, why wouldn't you wait until draft night for the best offer?

Yes - was chatting with an Adelaide supporting mate over the weekend. He said McAdam is definitely a best 22 player for them but said he didn't play a lot of games due to injury and suspension. Yes he's 28 (and I'm not saying I don't think our offer is reasonable) - but he's a bit better than some on here are giving him credit for.

If Petty played at another club and entered the national draft at his age with his level of experience, we would take him with our first pick - he's a young physically mature key position forward AND back that has proven ability to play at a high level in the AFL. There are likely KPP in the draft that could have better careers than him - but they are less bankable than he is at this point in time and they are not ready to hold down a key position post like he is. The idea of getting pick 10 for him is ludicrous.

Apologies if others think this belongs in one of the various trade / drafting threads - merge with them if you think that's where this belongs - just didn't want to put their a derail those threads. With the discussion regard trading up for Reid v 2-3 kids v targeting an established player it has made me ponder this question. Is it your stars that get you over the line in September? Or is it the so called bottom 6 - i.e. if they are stronger than your opponent, that will come to the fore in finals. You regularly hear the argument for both by different people at different stages. Obviously it's unlikely to be a straight forward answer - arguably our top 6 in recent years (for the first time in my lifetime) are as good as any other team's top 6... but none of them are key forwards and most currently start in the centre square. Equally some players might be seen by most as being a bottom 6 player in a team - but internally they may be rated much higher because their unheralded work and sacrifices enables the stars to be at their best. As much as he frustrates me at times, arguably ANB is such a player for us. It's hard to know what the right price to place on a player such as Reid. It's rare for the number pick to go on to be the best player in their draft - but on average they tend to have longest careers which indicates they're more bankable than anyone else. I look at the other contenders and they all have a 18-20yo gun midfielder that we don't have - Pies (Daicos), Lions (Ashcroft), Port (JHF). Reid seems to be able to do it all and has the swagger that the best players have - so part of me wants us to give up what it takes (eg 3 first rounders +) to get him. On the other hand, even if there is no more trading, we are currently in position to get one of Sanders / Curtin / O'Sullivan - who arguably could bring more of a point of difference to our midfield/team - and potentially a player like Windsor who would add the outside run and carry that we so desire. We would then still have our picks for next year too. How is it possible to rate Reid so highly that we would prefer him over 3 likely best 22 players for the next 5-10years (and some could become top 5 players). But it's also possible that Sanders wants to head home to Tassie in future or he becomes serviceable rather than a star and similar could be said for Curtin. Interested in others thoughts