Lucifers Hero

So many spots can still change we won't know until our GWS game next Sunday. (We won't need to wait till the last game as neither North nor Saints can make finals?).

Dees in the finals. Yeah! Crows did the right thing and knocked North out of the running. Essendon also out of the running. Yes...a very, very good weekend!

Finally! Finally! Finally! Demons are in the finals!! Emotional moment. Now, look forward to receiving mfc invitation Finals tickets?. Next week we can relax and enjoy the game - no need to rely on any other results. Only thing to work out is where our 1st final is held. Go Dees

You've moved the goal posts from our 26-29 year olds being 'way off' those of other teams, to their 25 to 30 ish players being around the mark or higher than ours. Anyway, I still think our 26-29 year olds: Gawn (AA), Hibberd (AA), Jetta (AA), Melksham and Tom McD are as good as nearly all other teams of the same age group named in your post and certainly better than most. But happy to agree to disagree.

Such as? Off the top of my head Richmond, GWS, WCE maybe; Geel and Syd 26-29 are ??? but their over 30 are still good. Leave it to you to prove your point about the 26-29 groups.

Not sure that you read my post and the quoted links. Our 25 to 29 age group is as good as any other teams' or better. And a champion team will beat a team of champions or with one or two potential match winners, regardless of their ages. I think I highlighted that it is about where players sit on the age scale and not the average age. The actual age profile of the overall list is important for the medium/longer term. But in the near term it is the age of the playing group ie the 30-32 from which the starting 22 are chosen. The post I quoted from the Contracts thread clearly shows that.

I don't think there is any doubt we are competitive against any side including WCE but can we be competitive for 4 quarters and can we win when we aren't allowed to play the game on our terms - see my post #290 above? We need to win a 'big match', if only to get the monkey off our back (and the small matter of getting us into the finals).

Sometimes, I think the age/experience profile is a bit misleading as people look at the overall list rather than the top 30 from which the starting 22 is usually selected. eg In the all important 25 to 30 age range we have a decent group of players with a fair amount of experience: Gawn Hibberd Jetta Garlett Tom Mcd Melksham Jones Frost Tyson That is about 40% of our starting 22 (or 20% of our playing list). And the first few are AA's and near AA's. True, we have a bunch of talented youngsters who are in the 22-24 age range who certainly have some growing to do and will get much better with experience. But I am usually a bit reluctant to play the youth/experience card to explain why we aren't competitive with the top 5-6 teams. If were not careful by the time the youngsters have enough experience the above list will be ageing and then people will focus on the lack of players at the top end. This post from the Contracts thread gives our age/experience profile for the list and the playing group. And in this article is a comparison of where we sit relative to other clubs https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-age-and-experience-ladder-for-2018-where-your-club-sits/news-story/ec1626ea2a37e51263bd10b9084fc31d I think our issue relative to recent premiers isn't our youth per se it is that our top end experience/age players are no longer very good ie Vince, Jones, Lewis and don't impact games or provide the youngsters some protection.

While for 2018 we rank highly on Hitouts and Clearances, imo the Clearance/Hitout ratio is a more meaningful measure. We haven't done well in our significant losses (which happen to be to teams now above us on the ladder): Total Team Clearances to Total Own Ruck Hitouts: That shows the 'smart' teams/coaches don't try to dominate the ruck contests and win the hitouts but instead rove to Max and neutralise our greatest asset. (The Coll ratio is closer because they had Grundy to neutralise Max). Added to that hey have not let us play on our terms. Their constant winning strategy/tactics have been: neutralise Max, control possessions and a spare man in defence. Simpson has been paying attention!. Yesterday he said: "The really, really good ruckmen, you're just trying to nullify," Also, note how WCE beat Richmond. They dominated uncontested possessions with short, precise kicks denying them contests. It is exactly what Hawthorn, Collingwood and Sydney did to us. So, winning all the stats we pride ourselves on: hitouts, tackles, contested possessions, i50's won't help tomorrow if we don't have a counter plan to the above. Simpson can see the template to beat us and has shown (in their game vs Rich) he has the tactics to stop us playing on our terms. I can't imagine our club isn't alert to all this! I just hope they have some strategies to stop West Coast using the above template to beat us.

Fritsch is our most accurate set shot goal scorer for the year. With Hibberd's return I would like to see Fritsch back in the forward line where he and Melksham should really improve our goal kicking conversion. And, I hope Kent has learnt the meaning of 'Team First' while away. He likes to run down the wing and pot shot the goals but forgets to look for team mates in better positions. And hope he improves his tackling rate. Without those improvements he will add no more value than keeping JKH.

The kid probably lives in the Saints NGA zone. http://www.afl.com.au/news/game-development/nab-afl-rising-star-program/nga-clubacademies Our chance was if he was originally in our NT NGA zone.

Reports are WCE have offered $850k and North are offering $1.m+ Given club comments that we have the sal cap for 2 A graders we could offer somewhere in that range. An offer needs to be one that WCE won't be able to 'virtually' match (that would allow them to force a trade ala Dangerfield). The club narrative has been about a balance across player payments. So even tho we may have the sal cap we may not be prepared to upset that balance and risk existing players being offside or risk not being able to afford our players coming out of contract next year (s). Hopefully, we have someone else in the pipeline if we miss Gaff.

To maximise our chances to stay in the 8 we need these results: Rich to defeat Ess. Pies to defeat Port. Freo to defeat Cats Crows to defeat North That will knock Ess, North and Cats out as our competitors as they will be one game and big % behind us guaranteeing us a spot in the 8, regardless of whether we win another game! So time to barrack for the underdogs, folks!

Someone should tell Wallace that 'fugazi' has nothing to do with 'fake news'. Long bow drawn by him. I didn't like Wallace's tone and attitude - quite aggro and unnecessary. But, it was only a matter of time before someone in the media started pointing the finger at the coach rather than the players or the inanimate game plan. I guess Simon's honeymoon period is coming to an end and the media will turn up the heat on him if we don't perform. Its one thing for us loyal demon fans to vent about him and coaches on here. But it is another thing when some hack commentator does it. The media can turn nasty quite quickly so hopefully we pull a rabbit out of the hat in the next few weeks and win a game or two.

It means the twitter person 'Sgt Pepper.....' (aka the 'data scientist') doesn't know what he is talking about or is being a smart alec to impress his followers. That aside, 'Unleash Hells' point that we are a relatively inexperienced side with a bit of growing to do is valid.

This article caught my eye: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/cotchin-astbury-set-to-miss-bombers-clash-20180816-p4zxt1.html Cotchin, Astbury and Prestia rested. Butler and Lambert had ankle surgery and expected to be available for first final. The pre-finals bye hasn't stopped teams resting players (just as Adelaide did in rnd 23 last year). I guess that is the luxury of having top spot sewn up. Bombers will like their chances of a win vs Rich this week. If they win it will be a real show down with Port in their rnd 23 game. It is imperative we win a game and hopefully vs WCE this week.

Sorry to be pedantic but is that a table of the 'Average' or the 'Median'? They can paint quite a different picture as the Average is easily skewed. (I don't think it is statistically possible to have an average median, is it...?) I'm not suggesting we are not relatively young and have a lot of growing to do - would just like to understand what that table refers to. Cheers.

A guy called Brad Hardie reckons Gaff is a good chance to go to Ess: "Right now the Bombers might be the most intriguing of them. (North. Ess. Melb). My information is that Gaff met with them twice last week and John Worsfold is the bloke who gave him his start in the league." https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/west-coast-eagles/brad-hardie-andrew-gaff-in-crosshairs-for-wooshas-bombers-ng-b88927628z Does this Hardie guy have reasonable credibility? If we don't get Gaff I hope we have someone else in the pipeline as our loses show we desperately need someone who is a very good kick.

That hasn't been our strength against the 'smart' teams this year. For example, #hitouts and #clearances in isolation show we dominate (most of the time). But to measure the team's effectiveness from ruck contests the ratio of clearances/hitout gives a clearer picture. Against the teams that have convincingly beaten us this year (and happen to be the only ones above us on the ladder) this is what that measure shows: Total Team Clearances to Total Own Ruck Hitouts: A very consistent pattern emerges. It is saying the 'smart' teams don't worry about winning the hitouts but rove to Max better than us, so neutralise our greatest asset. The Coll ratio is closer because they had Grundy to neutralise Max nonetheless they still roved to Max better than us. The difficulty with raw stats is it is just data until it is used in a meaningful measure of effectiveness. Champion Data (and the media) rarely do that. So conclusions are often drawn on 'Total' this or 'Total' that which can be skewed by a handful of good games. So I would say we have taken our opportunities against the bottom half of the ladder where the stats in the op are most pronounced.

I didn't say our game plan doesn't work. To the contrary it works very well against lesser sides and those not smart enough to exploit our weaknesses. Our very good statistics have been achieved against those sides. My post was intended to show how when we are convincingly beaten (Hawks, Tigers, Pies, Swans) there is a very consistent pattern which our game plan has not been able to counter (and which raw statistics don't really show). The Swans did what the Hawks did so I'm not sure what we learnt/changed in those 3 months. I feel we need more than a few 'fixes' and 'tweaks' (in the post I first responded to). We need a plan for when teams don't let us play on our terms, ie Hawks, Tigers, Pies, Swans. So I think our game plan works very well when we are allowed to use it... BTW, I didn't include Port and Geelong in my analysis because they did let us play on our own terms, so our game plan wasn't really challenged. And they were excluded because I don't seem them as a 'top side'. TBH, I don't think it is fair to take one measure in isolation and argue a case on one stat. I would prefer my first post was read as a whole 'story' or overall strategy the better sides use consistently against us. Anyway, we will find out what we have learnt on Sunday. WCE convincingly beat Richmond by kicking/marking instead of hand balling and had a huge uncontested possession differential. They controlled the game by denying Richmond the ball and denied them contests which is what they thrive on. ie What Hawks and Sydney did to us. We also thrive on the contest so will see how WCE play us. I'm happy to speculate that they will not let us play our game plan on our terms. Will watch with interest what we change from last week to counter WCE.

Last year the sal cap went up by $2+m per annum. North didn't use it all. New cap is $12.6m @95% they can save $630k per annum and stockpile. So $630k becomes $1.26m then $1.71m. So they could easily have a 'war chest' of around $1.0 - 1.5m just from stockpiling. Not sure how many years it can be stockpiled - it used to be 3 years but don't know now.

I was simply trying to get behind some of the narrative from our club reps, commentators and DL posters. I wasn't having a go at you - your post provided that vehicle. It wasn't very obvious in my post but I was trying to use 'measures' ie that relate to an outcome which together tell a story, rather than raw statistics which at face value can look good but not say a lot, especially when used in isolation. It took me quite a while to wade thru AFL match day reports to develop the 'measures'. And, as you have a young family there is no need to spend too much time on a response - I accept that you are a constant glass half full person. I don't mind if you don't reply - we will probably only get bogged down in the minutiae or semantics, then agree to disagree or I just let you have the last word ... ?

Which stats suggest we can more than compete with the 'top sides'? More i50 - the ball often bounces out again. It is often just ping-pong. i50 to score conversion is a better measure. We have been outdone on conversion rate in most losses. More scoring shots - doesn't look so good when 'rushed behinds' are removed because their defence set up better than our forwards or the defence pressure on 'snaps' is so high. Goal/Behind ratio. Can't be bothered redoing the scores but our poor goal/behind ratio isn't just set shot composure, it is also op defense structures/tactics and our forward structures/tactics. They harass, we fumble. High contested possessions - terrific, except when the outplay us with the less taxing uncontested precision kicks/handballs and kill us because we can't get there to create a contest. It is the controlled 'uncontested possessions' that hurt us when we lose. Hawthorn, Sydney and to some extent Collingwood used this to perfection. Note: it is also how WCE beat Rich this year. Hit outs/Clearances - excellent at hitouts, except look at the losses vs Hawks, Sydney, Richmond - they forgo the hit outs and rove Max brilliantly to win the clearances so were able to neutralise our main weapon. (Coll have Grundy who neutralised Max's impact). League high score for this year - Cumulative percentage of 74% against the top 9 teams. Tackling? We have been out tackled in nearly every game against the 'top sides' As that analysis shows, the top side's tactics to beat us have been very very similar: Neutralise Max, control possessions, out tackle us, crowd our forward line, open up their own plus a few other tricks (especially from Collingwood). It is a pattern to which we have not found answers. I've had a look at the games we lost to 'top sides' (and Geelong) this year and the measures I have noted above we have consistently been beaten on. And, just to rub salt into the wound the only club to not beat a 'top side' is Carlton. There are two clubs who have beaten only one 'top side' are Collinwood and St kilda and in both cases it was us. If you truly think a 'fix' here and a 'tweak' there are going to solve our problems against the way the top sides beat us then you are either not paying attention or not giving their team and their coaches enough credit. So please less of the 'faith' and the platitudes and provide some stats that suggest we can more than compete against the top sides (your words).

Having read the Hannebery thread I wondered the same thing. Since the early May article in the op we have signed Tom and Jetta who would have deserved a really decent contract. I suspect Gus' terrific form and other club interest may have required more from the salary cap to sign him up. Can easily see those three contracts whittling away the salary cap more than might have been expected. Hopefully, Oscar's contract isn't one of those held over.

BUMP Three months ago it looked like Oscar would sign before too long. When Tom signed a month later I again thought Oscar's signature wasn't far behind. In absence of other info, I'm still fully confident he will sign but it would be nice to get him signed up. Does anyone have an update? Edit: Could a mod please add a ? to the title.