Lampers

Old Geelong Sporting Club which plays in South Yarra and is coached by Nathan Brown. Junior clubs were Greythorn and then Blackburn which is one of the big clubs where lots of serious juniors gravitate.

I heard an interview with Ray Chamberlain the other day where he explained this rule. It should be play on as soon as a step is taken that isn’t forward or backwards on the line of the mark (i.e. a side step). So shaping to handpass isn’t play on if the feet don’t go to the side. The change this year is no 50 metre penalty for failing to stand if the man on the mark is momentarily fooled and moves a little due to the feigning actions of the player with the ball. I also noticed the umpires deciding there was advantage when the Melbourne players clearly didn’t want it due to being hemmed in on the boundary with no open forward options. In some other sports the umpire or referee can wait for a few seconds to see if there actually was an advantage, and if not then blow the whistle and pay the prior penalty.

There is nothing surer than Jackson getting booed by Melbourne supporters in his first Melbourne home game. Unless he literally doesn’t touch the ball… Hell, even poor old Oskar Baker copped a brief undeserved booing in round 1. I think it was a retaliatory boo for the Hunter booing, but if someone who Melbourne sacked was booed then someone who chose to walk out will absolutely be booed and booed hard.

It’s almost a “can’t lose” situation if Freo continue to be as poor as they have been to date. I agree Melbourne need quality over quantity at this stage, and they should have the assets to package up and get that very high draft pick. Throw into the mix Melbourne’s 2024 first rounder as another asset to trade. Gold Coast is the obvious trading partner if they finish bottom three. How many elite 18 year olds do they really need? They have plenty who were that on their list and it hasn’t worked for them yet so maybe they need to try something different. Hawthorn may also be tempted to accept quantity over quality. But if there is nobody willing to trade their top three pick, then Melbourne can get some quantity as a fall back. Like the Jefferson pick, they can also afford to take players who can be given 2-3 years’ development time instead of having the pressure of going for someone who needs to contribute from round 1 2024. Heaven forbid it happens, but if Pickett does leave then that would strengthen Melbourne’s trade and draft hand again. The money Melbourne wouldn’t pay Pickett could also be used to pay the salary of a more established player using some of those attractive draft picks in trade. Whatever happens, based on their past deeds I’m at least confident Lamb and Taylor will be able to make something advantageous to Melbourne of the situation. I’m sure they’re already working through all the likely scenarios and putting in the ground work with potential trading partners now.

Kind of related, how much input does a player just starting out like McVee have in what position he plays and how he is developed? Are players asked where they would like to play as an input to the decisions, or does the club say “You will be playing this role” and the player’s preferences aren’t taken into consideration? I appreciate that for a young player like McVee the answer to this question may be different to an established star player negotiating a contract extension.

I was there too. I’m pretty sure Howe took that hanger running with the flight on top of Embley in that game. The huge mark he took against Sydney was also in a 100 point loss. Back in the dark times regular hangers were just about the only thing to look forward to be it Robbo, Jurrah or Howe taking them in yet another belting.

Both Daicos brothers and the Brown brothers (and the Silvagni brothers too) started out at the same junior footy club, obviously not in the same teams given the age differences. Things can change with age, but from what I understand the Daicos boys always looked like they were going to make it and the Browns were not at a similar level of obvious talent.

In short, I think it was decided Baker didn’t have enough AFL traits (as opposed to VFL traits), and the others either do show those traits or there’s faith they will develop enough of those traits. Baker is 24 and I he’s probably pretty much peaked as a footballer. He’s fast, but aside from that I’m not sure what else would set him apart at AFL level. He mostly blasted the ball forward, not much finesse. The acquisition of Hunter put him one player further away from a senior game on the wing, but ironically meant the Bulldogs needed a wing. With Howes and likely Woewodin also competing for depth at wing (and Jordon who was preferred in 2022) that’s just too many wingers to keep. Laurie and McVee were not competing for the same spots as Baker. Laurie is clearly more highly skilled than Baker and is a forward. McVee also appears more highly skilled and more capable as an actual defender. Sure they got nowhere near as much ball as Baker in the VFL, but James Munro and Mitch White also get more of the ball in the VFL. Laurie and McVee are also 4 and 5 years younger, so more scope to develop and improve than Baker.

I think each team will back in their preferred setup, and then it will be a matter of who blinks first if things are getting out of control. As a few have pointed out it’s likely the Dogs will only have three talls in their forward line at any point in time with Lobb giving English a chop out in the ruck, and all of those talls needing bench time too - especially Darcy who doesn’t have great endurance. If teams are selected as expected it’s more likely to be an even 3 v 3 talls in the Dogs’ forward line and 3 v 2 with Melbourne having the additional tall in Melbourne’s forward line. They will need to have a Bailey Williams or Crozier giving up massive size to someone if they don’t go for Bruce, who played back against North, in their 22. If I was the Dogs I’d either have Bruce in the 22 or have him as the tactical sub. McDonald and the possibility of one of the rucks dropping back give the extra defensive options already in Melbourne’s likely team. If Fritsch doesn’t get up Melbourne could try to stretch the Bulldogs even more with JVR or Schache to also have as many as 4 tall forwards. I don’t think they would do that as the match sim and practice matches were opportunities to try that setup and they didn’t use it.

Sorry all, I didn’t realise the protocols.

Perhaps it’s just the player wore more than one jumper number for Melbourne. Jetta fits this but he startrted with 39, then wore 50 In one game, then back to 39. Similar for Jack Grimes who started with 16 and then changed up to 31.

Something to do with starting with a very high jumper number and then changing to a much lower one.

The goal umpire definitely signals a behind initially, so he didn’t miss that the ball hit the post. The ball also looked like it ended up behind the goal line after hitting the post, but maybe it was just on the goal line before coming back into the playing field. Then on the coverage you can just see Gawn come trotting up and presumably kick the goal, and then the field umpire gives the all clear for a goal. I reckon it’s a mistake to allow the advantage given any advantage should’ve resulted in a behind. I’m guessing the field umpire didn’t realise the ball had hit the post and instead thought it was still in the field of play after Chandler’s free kick. Ultimately the right outcome of a goal, but not the player who should’ve kicked it.

Watching the Dogs’ game today, they were running with all of Lobb, Ugle-Hagan, Naughton and Darcy in their forward line at times and at least three of them all the time. That will stretch May, Petty and Lever. Will there need to be another tallish defender brought in like D.Turner or J.Smith (if fit, but I believe he’s been training as a forward)? Tomlinson to come in despite his horrid form against St.Kilda? Hibberd to use his experience and strength to play taller? Will we see more of Gawn or Grundy dropping into the backline, maybe giving Brown a reprieve as a forward if Fritsch is also right to go?

Laurie doesn’t look like an athlete, but both he and Bowey were drafted for allegedly being the best decision makers/kicks in their draft - despite not being physically what you’d expect of an AFL player. I’ve seen glimpses of the decision making and neat kicking from Laurie at VFL level. I think he’s competing with guys like Spargo and Sparrow who have it over him for fitness. I think they will give Laurie time to improve his fitness but if he can’t get to the required level then he will be in trouble.

Agree 100%. I saw an interview with Brendan Lade who is an assistant at the Bulldogs and when asked about English he responded by talking about combatting Gawn and Grundy in round 1. Gawn and Grundy is not about each of them performing at the peak of their potential as an individual. Clearly they would have more impressive individual outputs as true #1 rucks. It’s about forcing other teams to do things in team selection and/or tactically that they’d prefer not to do. If on top of that when resting forward they force the biggest and strongest defender to man them up instead of going to Brown or TMac, then that’s another tactical bonus.

No matter how Freo fans want to spin things, losing Mundy (22 games), Lobb (21), Acres (20), Logue (20) and to a lesser extent Tucker (14) is quite disruptive. That’s almost a quarter of the team. It’s impossible to find like for like across all those players at Melbourne, but it would be similar to losing Brown (Lobb), Viney (Mundy), Langdon (Acres), Hunt (Logue although not a great like for like) and Harmes or Sparrow (Tucker, again not a great like for like) at the end of a year. Sure you can replace Hunt and Harmes/Sparrow using depth already on your list, but it starts to get harder and harder after that point without relying on several untried players. Jackson and O’Meara come in and offset the loss of AFL experience, and they would be hoping Fyfe can string games together (which is unlikely given his injury past and age) but that still leaves several inexperienced players that will need to step up to be contributors ON TOP of the inexperienced players who were getting games in 2022. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I reckon they need a lot to go right to repeat their 2022 finishing position, let alone to improve.

I didn’t ask him about the ankle, but he was moving without any noticeable discomfort and was able to deal with wrangling one of his kids, and pushing the pram.

Do you have a source on that? I can’t find it and would expect news of the AFL applying stricter requirements than state governments apply (and therefore choosing to increase the likelihood of COVID disruption on the league) would be pretty easy to locate. Spargo and Bedford supposedly live with Pickett, and if that’s true, how can they also not be in isolation if the close contact isolate requirement remains?

If you test positive you need to isolate for seven days in Victoria. Even if you are a close contact (effectively live in the same house), as of Friday last week, you don’t need to isolate if you are testing negative on RATs and adhere to some other requirements. https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/checklist-contacts#what-type-of-contact-are-you So that means Goodwin and the three players have all tested positive. Which means depending on severity of symptoms they may not be fit to play (or coach) in round 8 even if by the rules they are available. Prior to the change in rules last week it was not possible to tell simply from “Health & Safety Protocols” whether the player tested positive or had tested negative but was a household contact. For non-Victorian based players there may be other rules as to what constitutes a close contact and what restrictions are placed on them which I’m not across.

On Gus &Gawny podcast they named him as one of the longest kicks. Convo about who did the best torps, and Rosman called out for being able to drop punt torp distance.

Nathan Brown’s kids were at the same junior club as my kids a few years back. They were good and placed in club B&F, but they weren’t dominant like most juniors who make it to AFL are. So I wouldn’t hold your breath.

The percentages of junior female participation would be higher than 10% these days. At the junior footy club I’m involved with three of the 12 teams are female and there will be some females in younger mixed teams too. But your point is still valid. The number of AFLW age (18-35) players is small compared with AFL aged players, and although it’s growing at that <14 years of age range it’s still only ~20% of all players at a guess. So proportionately there will be four “gun” male players for every “gun” female even in a decade’s time, yet we are trying to fill 18 teams in both competitions. To have high quality games consistently AFLW should probably be a four team competition. But then hardly anyone would take interest if it was four made up teams, or four aligned to AFL club teams, so trying to leverage existing loyalties to the men’s teams is probably the lesser of two evils. Perhaps in hindsight they could have had one WA, one SA, two Vic, one QLD and one NSW team. I think that would’ve got a level of interest from the public, and been more realistic for the talent pool.

Just “Yes”.

I don’t post here that often, but thought I’d drop my analysis in from a BigFooty post. I’m generally a pessimist with MFCSS, however I’m strangely confident. If Melbourne and the Bulldogs bring their standard game, Melbourne will be too strong. This is why Melbourne are ~80% chance to win in my eyes: - Melbourne are the stronger contested team, having bettered the Bulldogs throughout the year and in the two contests between these teams during H&A. - The round 19 game was a draw on “expected scores” meaning non-standard accuracy on the night was a major factor. - Round 19, in the wet, was statistically Melbourne’s worst disposal efficiency game for the year, whereas Bulldgos went at their season norm which indicates a more significant opportunity for Melbourne to improve. Gawn, Petracca and Pickett all had their least efficient games for the year that night, which is highly unlikely to repeat. - Round 19 saw the Bulldogs kick almost half their score (37 points) from forward stoppages, which is many factors higher than their average score from this method and therefore highly unlikely to repeat. - Round 19 saw a statistically anamoulously high gap (41% margin) between each team’s normal aggregate “free kicks for” which is unlikely to repeat. - Josh Bruce scored almost a quarter of the Bulldogs’ goals in the previous four hours of game time between these teams. His replacement is Josh Schache who won’t demand the same respect defensively. - Stef Martin didn’t play in the two H&A games and is called out as a big difference maker, but I don’t think he can go with Gawn at all. Martin played 16 games across 2020 to 2021. Discounting one game where he got injured and subbed out, he could only better 77% time on ground twice so he doesn’t have the fitness to handle Gawn. Across that period if you make a Frankenstein’s monster of what would be Martin’s statistically best game (15 disposals, 30 hit outs, 4 tackles, 2 contested marks, 6 clearances, 1 goal) it’s probably still weaker than Gawn’s average game* across that period (19, 35, 3, 2.2, 4.5, 0.5). Add onto that Stef is a lovely guy, he doesn’t have it in him to be over the top physically brutal against Gawn as has been suggested. * adjust 2020 for equivalent 20 minute quarters The Bulldogs can win of course, but they will need to rely on the game being unusual and not following the norms established during 2021. It would require several of: - masterful tactical moves by Beveridge that Goodwin can’t counter, the most obvious one being the Bulldogs change how they bring the ball into their forward line which counters Melbourne’s backline. If the Bulldogs kick long at Naughton, while he will mark a few through the game, Melbourne’s backline will dominate as it’s too predictable. - multiple “out of the box” performances from Bulldogs’ players, and not just the top line players as there will be plans to counter the obviously dangerous players. - multiple “down” performances from Melbourne’s players, which if it happens would likely be related to Beveridge comprehensively out coaching Goodwin. - persistent unusual accuracy or inaccuracy when kicking for goal. - significant impact of in-game injuries.