Lucifers Hero

I might just mention that Mahoney put up a number of charts that were not about 2019 injuries/surgeries. They were on Lessons Learnt, Actions for 2020, Programs etc. I complement the club for identifying many other problem areas and not just excuse the year as injury and surgery issues (which undoubtedly had a significant impact). Good questions, Dr G. On data analytics. Pert said as part of the review they engaged a consultant data analytics group (sorry, didn't get the name) that benchmarked us on a range of measures. Putting on my Management Consultant hat, they would have identified where we are falling behind and driven a number of initiatives and changes. I like that there was some 'science' behind the changes made and not just 'gut feel'. Without the science we could have ended up with 'knee jerk' reactions rather than a clear direction and planned programs. I'd expect Pert will have the benchmarking redone at certain intervals to measure the impact of changes. Also, on Mahoney's 'Progams' chart was: "Data Focus across all departments. New role: Data Scientist". He talked to the need for meaningful information so this would be Younger's role. I think other resouces have been added in this area. A question was asked on player mental health thru this disappointing year. Mahoney acknowledged how difficult it was and his earlier 'Programs' chart showed: 'New Leadership and Wellness Programs'. iirc he said they believed these would give us a competitive advantage. Pert added that the wellness program would be club-wide as non-football staff had to deal with many difficult issues especially when we aren't performing well. There wasn't time for detail but I had the impression it was being treated seriously. If I have time I'll go back and listen to the presentations and fill in some gaps.

Knightmare's preferred players by top 10 pick holder's before the Melb trade for pick 10. GC - Rowell GC - Anderson Mel - Jackson GWS - Ash GWS --Green-- Syd - Flanders Ade - McAsey Fre - Stephens Mel - Young Car - Weightman Whether it is Young or Kemp someone will likely slide to pick 10 depending on who Freo take at 8. Funny about all the angst on us 'allowing' GWS to potentially get Green and a top 5 player. We have just being party to Freo getting two top 10 players and Henry. No angst?:

You are probably right. We take 3 draftees then have two spots left: Bennell? Brown? or keep one free to take a DFA, someone in the SPP or in next year's mid year draft.

And we probably won't use Freo's 2020 pick 55-72 But we still effectively downgraded 26 to 28 in the trade. Not wanting to make a big deal of it but some posters keep thinking 28 is a free hit. It isn't.

I know all that. Just saying, 28 is not a free hit as some have posted. And yes many things can still happen. The net deal for #8 deal is a bit meh...

Pick 28 is not a free hit! To get 8 we gave up 26 and 50 from 2019 and our 2020 first. We have now swapped it for 28, and Freo's 2020 fourth ie 55 to 72. We have actually downgraded 26 to 28 and 50 to next year and swapped next years first for this year's #10. Its an ok deal but not something to write home about.

Not sure that is the case. There have been a huge no of picks changed hands there is no way the AFL can police those during the 5 minutes between live trades. They can't have one rule this week and another during live trade. Can anyone find a reference to the rule that says we can't do that trade with Freo.

Hmmm...why bother including Adelaide? Freo and Dees can just do 8 for 10,22. Has to be more to it. Adelaide is holding a stack of 2020 picks 2 x first, 2 x second, 0 third and 2 time fourth - one or more could be in play.

diatribe = a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something, stream of abuse. Hardly a fair description of my post. You are quite right, you and others can say whatever they like but its also fair that people present information and facts that may not be in the public domain to clarify, which I think is what I did without emotion and certainly not with anger or criticism.

I've seen barely a handful of people on DL say we didn't have an interrupted pre-season. Quite the contrary. Many just take a more balanced view. The charts Mahoney put up on injuries were but a part of a much bigger picture. So one needs to be careful of overstating their impact. The changes made off-field are recognition by the club that it wasn't just injuries/surgeries. Recognition that there were problems in many parts of our football activities. The other slides show what the club has addressed. The ones that stood out to me were (in no particular order): Coaching structure. The structure is excellent (albeit I'm not convinced of all the people in the roles). It will do a great deal for strategies/tactics, clear, un-conflicted communication to players, their roles and for their development. In turn this will help with, among other things, ball movement and reduce the confusion and loss of confidence we saw later in the season. Improved player role understanding that comes from the first item and other initiatives will be significant for the success of the game plan. Mahoney referred to the way Richmond players know their role and play their role. I got the impression we need to do better teaching. Football data analysis and meaningful presentation to coaches for strategies and tactics. Well being program not just for players but club wide Greater investment into medical and fitness Change of emphasis on recruiting Revisit aspects of the game plan. These weren't just powerpoint 'words' to appease fans at the forum. The club has been very thorough in its club review and taken action on each and every one and has programs in place. All credit to them. Some people still think our 17th position was due to surgeries and injuries while making mere passing reference to 'other issues'. By its actions the club is saying that injuries/surgeries were significant but there were bigger issues at play as evidenced by the overhaul I've summarised above. In fact, Mahoney and Goodwin virtually said we dropped the ball. Making the prelim had people (club, players, coaches) thinking it was just a few steps to a GF and then perhaps a premiership. This caused the club to lose sight of the 'fundamentals' (their word). My description of that while it might be provocative, is 'hubris'. Goodwin mentioned that after round 22 they did a 'dump' (his word) with the players where they laid everything on the table. You can bet the players and coaches weren't blaming injuries/surgeries for being 17th. I think its time fans move on from believing injuries/surgeries were the problem in 2019. The other issues collectively were much much bigger otherwise the club wouldn't be changing so much of its operations.

Or they could go into deficit this year then lose those points in the 2020 draft and the affected pick(s) slide down the order. According to 'knightmare' who is generally well informed on the draft and its rules writes: "Deficit doesn't come out of first round picks". I was a bit surprised by that. It seems the benefits for Academy and F/S clubs never end! A system of draft points introduced to force them to pay value is being watered down to where they can increasingly use third and fourth round picks to get their players. imv it looks like the draft points system has failed in its original intent.

Thanks Nasher. I'll put my hand up and say I wasn't aware of his goal kicking prowess so no problems now with him in that role. With Lewis also as a kicking coach the club has clearly identified our kicking skills as a much needed area to invest in. Those two appointments should go a long way to improve significant problems that bring our game plan undone: 1) turnovers around the ground and i50; and 2) goal kicking accuracy

Last night at the Member's Forum both Mahoney and Tim Lamb said we hold picks 3 and 8 'at the moment'. Interpreting this I would say there is a 99% chance one pick (most probably pick 8 ) will be traded. List decisions are a team effort but I would say Tim will have a very big say (maybe more than Taylor) in who we pick. No clues were given last night on who our draftees might be. Edit: Forgot to mention, Lamb was asked whether we will pick 'best available' or 'needs based'. He said it would be a balancing act which was a surprise as usually clubs go 'best' in the top 10 and also most probably in the 10-20 range. That made me think Jackson is our candidate for #3 even tho he isn't rated that highly by draft watching media scribes (eg Twomey today has him at 11). Then wherever the next pick is it will be 'best'.

Agreed. Its interesting that we didn't replace the Jennings 'strategy' role. There was a bit of talk on DL and some in the media that Yze was in the running but it didn't happen. To me it is important as that person can stand back a little from day-to-day coaching. I guess Goodwin and Richardson will do it but they already have a big gig to get us back up the ladder with a relatively inexperienced team to manage. Its interesting that we have made our AFLW and our VFL senior coaches Development Coaches for the mens' AFL team. Nothing against Radford and Stinear but they are inexperienced in their new roles and at AFL level and have demanding jobs already, especially Radford who presumably has a full time job getting our VFL team a premiership. So those guys will be working part time at best. I like the new structure but I'm not convinced that we have strengthened our coaching panel, losing Macca, Jennings and Rawlings and only adding Richardson. I'm guessing we lost 40-50 years coaching experience and gained about 15-20. Tough gig for Goodwin who is still inexperienced himself.

Its worth mentioning that Burgess paid credit to Misson and his team. Last year's preseason issues/surgeries were primarily contact related and not soft tissue. The credit was well deserved despite many on here blaming Misson for so many things. Mahoney also mentioned that our head doctor will become Manager of Medical or something similar. Footnote: while accepting the injuries were contact related what it says to me is that in 2017/2018 our aggressive crash/bash game plan wasn't suited to the then immature bodies. That nearly all the contact injuries/surgeries were to players that have not been in the AFL long supports that view. All credit to the battled hardened Lewis who completed 98% of the pre-season.

Mainly the way the questioned was delivered: agresssive tone, derogatory language, repetition of these by rewording them and the completely implausible accusation that the club keep Oscar so they can keep Tom. The guy made a fool of himself and as he went on there were gasps, boos and the odd clap. I thought the panel handled it very well with Bartlett asking the audience to show respect to a person as they have a right to ask their questions and by Goodwin who briefly but convincingly stated his faith in Oscar. I've seen similar comments made on here but I can't remember who it was. I don't think it was the perennial Oscar non-fans; STMJ nor Pickett Fence. I've never seen them talk of Oscar in the terms the fellow did last night.

Coaching Structure. Reporting to Richardson (Director of Coaching): Forwards: Plapp as Coach and Rooke as forward development Stoppage/Midfield: Matthews as Coach and Stenear as midfield/stoppage development Backs: Chaplin as coach with Radford as backs development. I like that structure in that it focus the development resources to each specific area. Not so sure I like the lack of experience in our line coaches in Chaplin and Plapp. Time will tell. Reporting to Egan (Head of Development): Ruck/Goal kicking coach: Stafford Specialist Coach: Lewis Not sure about a ruckman teaching forwards how to kick goals but there it is.

The interesting and puzzling thing about our new facilities were that a working group has been formed funded by the State Government, the AFL and the Club. Working group to do feasibility studies of options in the MCC precint. It was good to hear the State Goverment is in the game as they will be our biggest hurdle. Puzzling because I thought we had already done feasibility studies on options before PJ left and the Jolimont station development was the front runner at the time. Puzzling that we are starting over. No time frame given on when the working group reports findings to the Board. I felt new facilities are a long way off.

A diatribe of how useless he is and why is he still on the list and should have let him go and kept Frosty. Goodwin's response was all class. He has utmost belief that Oscar will play the role we want. Don't know who it was but it was embarrassing.

The Age is reporting Adelaide about to trade pick 4 to GWS crows-set-to-trade-pick-no-4-to-gws for 6 and GWS 2020 first. Pretty good deal for Adelaide as the player they want at 4 will most probably be there at 6. GWS holding pick 4 puts the pressure on us as they are known to want Jackson and probably need him more than another albeit elite midfielder, in Green. If we bid Green at 3 it is uncertain if GWS will match and they could just take Jackson at 4. If we don't take Jackson at 3 there is little chance he will get past Freo at 7 so we miss out. If we don't bid Green GWS will get him cheaply. I think we need to pick the player we really want rather than second guess what GWS will do. If they get Green cheaply so be it.

Pick Trade Prospects is about the jostling for top 10 picks and a lot of clubs wanting to trade out their 2020 first-round picks but now there are few takers. My take from the article (paraphrasing and added my comments): Giants are snookered if Adelaide won't trade #4; will have to use 6 for Green, as Sydney won't let him slip past their 5. ? Adelaide are linked to Fischer McAsey, as is Port, Geelong, Hawks and GCS. If Adelaide trade pick 4 or don't take him Hawks are best placed but they Geelong, and GCS are trying to trade into the top 10. (Interestingly, McAsey hasn't had much attention on DL.) Hawks are also interested in Dylan Stephens and Brodie Kemp and want to trade into the top 10 but are hampered by AFL rules that don't allow a club to trade out future picks if they trade out their first future, so like GWS they don't have enough currency to prise out a top 10 pick. hawthorn-facing-draft-snag-as-it-looks-to-trade-future-firstround-pick Melbourne (#8) and Carlton (#9) are mentioned as potential pick trades with GCS. (Haha, after the Jack Martin shenanigans by Carlton I can't see GCS (ie Cochrane) allowing it). Suggestions that the 2020 draft isn't as classy (and compromised with Academy and F/S players). Pick trades end on Friday. Then live-pick trade starts with the draft next week We did very well to get our 2020 first-round pick trade done early and landed #8. There may be few takers now with various clubs wanting out of 2020. With so many clubs desperate to get into the top10 our pick 8 has just gone up in value!!

I was wondering the same thing, especially when Melksham said they 'will leave nothing in the tank coming into round 1' and thought 'gee, I hope there is something in the tank for finals'! I'm guessing the intensity so far is to give them a reality check on what didn't happen last year, drum into them the work it takes and because so many players were behind fitness wise last year. Burgess is a real pro and he may tone it down as it gets into the latter parts of the preseason. Then ensure the team peaks at the right time ie September.

Music to my ears. Thank you ?

Clue please. Injury related or attitude/off-field related?

Unlike me who didn't read the email and forgot the event some 760 members didn't and have registered to attend. Some may not turn up but it is a pretty decent level of interest - hopefully it won't be a vent-fest and there is time for info on plans going forward.