B-Mac's "inside out" mantra - is it scewed?

[Mofra]

I'll admit to liking a lot of what B-Mac has to say... but I am starting to wonder whether the emphasis on building the on field team from "the inside-out" is correct or is it misplaced.
This is based predominately on two issues.

1. While it is ok to build a midfield or running group around the inside out, no team in recent history has won the premiership without having some of the best key forwards in the league, and area we have all lamented in recent times.

Hawks obviously had four last year (Buddy, Roughy, Hale & Gunston) and made Buddy & Roughy their draft focus (among some famous KPP misses) with midfielders coming later, and defenders traded in (Lake/Dew/Guerra).

Sydney: they are happy to trade heavily for top line forwards (a history of Lockett, Hall, Buddy & Tippett) with midfielders seeming to come later (JP Kennedy as a trade). Won the flag despite losing contested possessions/clearances on the day.

Collingwood had Dawes & Cloke with Reid able to play a swingman role... and their inside grunt was Ball, a trade.

Geelong famously have not had a pick higher than #5 for a very long time - and Hawkins (third in Norm Smith 2009, second in Coleman as well as AA & BF in 2012) is a very important part of that with the 191cm Stevie J giving more than just support.

While the club would no doubt love a top liner KPF, in recent years the recruitment seems to have has followed the "inside out" mantra.

2. Is winning contested ball overrated? We spent an entire year of development training it into our players - yet last year Geelong finished second on the ladder (H&A) despite appearing well down in contested ball & clearance numbers.

Sydney won a premiership despite losing to Hawthorn in these stat areas on the day.

With the interchange cap, working smarter (not harder) is likely to yield greater results, and contested football is a very taxing way to play.


Do we have some worries relating to our style of play/overall football mantra and is it possible that we are going to be left behind?

[bornadog]

I know this doesn't address your post fully, but 95% of games won are where the winning team won the contested ball. Those stats are from Champion data.

I am frustrated like hell that we are not fully developing a KPF. I am sorry, but Campbell and Cordy are not Key Forwards, and no matter what we do to make them a KPF, it aint gunna work. Jones looks like a KPF, and we need to persist because there is no one else. Williams, well we know how brittle he is, but to me he is a CHB, and we need guys down there to.

The next draft, we need some talls, and I mean talls in term of today, ie 200cm blokes, not 190.

Our recruiting in the last three drafts has not reflected any aspiration to get a KPP and its a worry.

[bulldogtragic]

BAD. To the last comment, I've been on the Hrovat bandwagon from the get go, but if O'Brien turns out quite well at Hawthorn history might look at us differently than the way we feel about ourselves today.

[Mofra]

I know this doesn't address your post fully, but 95% of games won are where the winning team won the contested ball. Those stats are from Champion data.
It's a fair stat - but will this continue? Geelong had a method of coralling players and giving the opposition the first rushed kick from a clearance noting a high % of scoring in the AFL comes from turnovers.

I wont be glib with a "100% of teams in Grand Finals who win have Key Position Forwards" comment because along with yourself every poster here wants us to find an A grade KPF - so for your second point, should we draft one or trade for a GWS cast-off (or both)?

If recent history is any guide just finding one isn't going to cut it and as useful as the Fyfe/Crameri sized players are, we need a gorilla. Jones is a 2nd forward at best and while I think he'll make it to 100-150 games he wont be a dominant forward.

[1eyedog]

Very insightful post Mofra. We very nearly made two Grand Finals without a tall in side, now we have Jones and Campbell to work with and Roberts in the wings and I think there is some confidence there. Also we thought we shored this up by recruiting Cordy, but this has not as yet proved to be the case. Brad Johnson was a key forward (with the exception of Hall) during much of our recent success and both Stringer and Crameri are much bigger-bodied than him.

I'm not at all worried about our forward line it's our lack of pace through the midfield that is of concern and you're spot in that we have recruited very one-paced mids over the past few years (Smith, Wallis, Libba, Stevens) in order to develop the backbone of our contested ball approach. We lack speed and players with quality disposal by foot. Sydney cut Hawthorn up in that Grand Final with their runners led by Jetta and this is also where we need to look. One poster's interesting comment about the Eagles being able to get around our contested ball approach has echoed through my head these past days and I am concerned about this because it is one area that we are supposed to be elite at, but the Eagles worked a way through it quite easily, and there are far better teams than the Eagles going around.

Clearly we can't put all our eggs into the clearance / contested ball basket, we need to be able to move the ball quickly when we win a contest and that is where Dahlhaus, Macrae, Hunter, Hrovat, [Murphy, Griffen] Tutt et al. need to stand up. We need these players to develop and learn how to carry the ball, obviously this will take time. I'm still very optimistic about our forward line and the options we can move through there but until we can move the ball from a contest onto the chest of our forwards quickly and efficiently we are going to be middle-range team.

[LostDoggy]

Yeah, we'd all like a gorilla power forward. Someone who kicks a bag every week and takes a few Colemans home over his career.

But!

Every other team wants one too. Trading for one only gets you a) a reject or b) someone at $1m+ a year who you have to prise away from the team they're at, who are obviously going to move mountains to keep them. And if they want to leave, there are 16 other teams with their hats out too. And when you get to draft day and there're two or three options and you have pick four, where do you go from there?

I'm happy with developing a team around the team, not the saviour in the goal square. If you pick one up down the line, fine, but when you don't, and many teams don't, if all your eggs were in that basket you're fried.

[Happy Days]

I can't wait for Freo to win the flag and kill this argument dead.

Our biggest problem in fact stems from our biggest strength, as in trying to win the first possession we're neglecting to put the necessary pressure on the second. Hence why we don't create enough turnovers (like the good sides do), and why we always get smashed on the spread.

Getting a great big dominant key forward would be great, but getting a bunch of guns across the board is better. I'm sure Geelong value Norm Smith medalists Bartel and Johnson more than Cam Mooney.

[boydogs]

I think you're confusing recruiting with development. We've been teaching the players to win the contested ball, but we haven't focused our recruiting on inside mids. Wallis & Liberatore were must haves under Father/Son concessions, the only questionable choice was another inside mid in Clay Smith the next year but that has been well justified. A lot of the players on the list and in the 22 were pre BMac anyway.

We've taken Stringer pick 5, Grant pick 5, Cordy pick 14, Jones pick 32 and traded pick 26 for Crameri, plus Tom Hill, Fletcher Roberts, Matthew Panos & Tom Campbell in search of a quality key forward. It would have been good for one to fall through from GWS last year, but I don't think we're neglecting KPF recruitment in favour of other areas.

2010
Veszpremi - Forward
Djerrkura - Outside Mid
Sherman - Outside Mid
Wallis - Inside Mid
Liberatore - Inside Mid
Schofield - Defender
Hill - Key Forward
Skinner - Forward
Panos - Key Forward

2011
Smith - Inside Mid
Talia - Key Defender
Pearce - Defender
Dickson - Forward
Roberts - Key Forward

2012
Lower - Inside Mid
Stevens - Inside Mid
Young - Key Defender
Stringer - Key Forward
Macrae - Outside Mid
Hrovat - Outside Mid
Hunter - Forward
Prudden - Inside Mid
Goodes - Defender

2013
Bontempelli - Outside Mid
Crameri - Key Forward
Fuller - Defender
Honeychurch - Inside Mid

[jeemak]

Good post gogriff.

I don't really worry about the foundation of a side's game plan so much. It's about how you complement it after the foundation is built that takes you over the line. For instance, if we build a solid foundation of hard working inside midfielders, then it's up to our recruiting team and development coaches to recruit around that and complement that as time goes by.

Each year a different styled team wins the flag for the most part. The most important for all of them is system matching the talent they have at their disposal.

I look at our mix right now, and think without much change - if Jones, Talia, Roberts and one of Campbell and Cordy come along we'll have a good balance of talls. Small to medium sized forwards aren't an issue either, with Dahl, Hunter, Stringer, Dickson, Crameri and Grant looking like being good players for us.

Outside run and use is a concern, but Hrovat, Higgins, Cooney, Griffen and Macrae seem to be players who will have the polish in the open to use the ball well. Sure, we could use one or two absolute outside guns but there's not many consistent outside players in the league who perform week in week out, and midfielders need to be able to do more than just that anyway. Those mentioned above seem capable of that to me, and I think eventually Hunter and Dahl can get into the middle and provide some of that anyway.

I'm most concerned at this stage about key defensive posts and good sweepers and ball users who can command the footy as it comes towards them after beating their direct forward opponents. That's the gap in the future as far as I can see. JJ might make it, but Wood has putrid decision making and ball usage holding him back. I don't really see Howard being able to get the defensive side nailed sufficiently to be able to be reliable enough to himself to open up his kicking game.

Overall I think our development is going to be fairly balanced and I do think we'll add more to the contested foundation as the team matures. A lot of our potential success will hinge on how other clubs develop their lists, not necessarily on how yearly (or every second) trends will come and go.

[mjp]

I know this doesn't address your post fully, but 95% of games won are where the winning team won the contested ball. Those stats are from Champion data.

Yeah...but.

We finished second for contested ball and missed the 8. Carlton finished 3rd for contested ball and missed the 8. I had a friend tell me today the same stat you have quoted...and it kind of holds up. But when it comes to possessions neither contested NOR uncontested was a great predictor of finals sides last year...total possessions was though...but in this years 1 week sample side Melbourne are second for total possessions yet lost to the saints playing a miserable style if footy in a miserable game.

The reality is you need to be Competitive when it comes to contested ball...but wins/losses in the contested ball count only if the differential is more than 15. The differential in uncontested possession has a bit more 'fat' in it but uncontested numbers are a lot higher.

[MrMahatma]

We aren't the finished product in terms of development or list. We're a few years off that, but I think we'll win more than we lose over the next 2 years. That wouldn't prove or disprove the "mantra". It seems sound in theory though.

[Remi Moses]

I can't wait for Freo to win the flag and kill this argument dead.

Our biggest problem in fact stems from our biggest strength, as in trying to win the first possession we're neglecting to put the necessary pressure on the second. Hence why we don't create enough turnovers (like the good sides do), and why we always get smashed on the spread.

Getting a great big dominant key forward would be great, but getting a bunch of guns across the board is better. I'm sure Geelong value Norm Smith medalists Bartel and Johnson more than Cam Mooney.

Agree, and can be an issue with the big key forward kicking the ball to them ad-nauseum.

[Greystache]

The reality is you need to be Competitive when it comes to contested ball...but wins/losses in the contested ball count only if the differential is more than 15. The differential in uncontested possession has a bit more 'fat' in it but uncontested numbers are a lot higher.

It's a good point you make, borrowing from the finance world, unless there is a significant difference between two numbers then it's not material. There's no point saying the contested possession count was 158 vs 155, so we won the contested possessions but lost the game. For all intents and purposes you broke even. Unless the possession differential is material then you didn't "win" that area of the game. If a team is going to base success or failure on winning contested ball then you want to be winning the stat by >30

[Maddog37]

Two parts, get the ball, use the ball.

We have the first part down ok but suck at the second.

[Mofra]

I think you're confusing recruiting with development. We've been teaching the players to win the contested ball, but we haven't focused our recruiting on inside mids. Wallis & Liberatore were must haves under Father/Son concessions, the only questionable choice was another inside mid in Clay Smith the next year but that has been well justified. A lot of the players on the list and in the 22 were pre BMac anyway.
B-Mac is on record as saying he doesn't believe in inside or outside mids, so almost all of our recruitment is focussed on players who can either win thier own ball or will develop this ability (and I disagree with Bonty being labelled an outside mid given all the draft talk was of how good he was at feeding the ball out by hand in close). Hrovat was certainly winning his own ball at u18 level.

If we want to look at a team doing it the opposite way at the draft table, Hawks and Essendon give us an idea. Both seem to recruit heavily for talls, expecially considering when the Hawks had a 4-tall forwardline year before last they still took O'Brien at pick 27, and have traded for Lake & Gibson and took Shoenmakers with a first round pick (he played forward at u18 level). Essendon took a plethora of talls, they're now getting myers into the middle after he played as a tall backman during his development years.,

They are both building from the spine-in, and with the exception of Libba who is a freak (and a free kick anyway) mids who can win their own ball are much easier to find than first-22 players who can play a key position.

Yes we missed out on a GF berth with a small forwardline - but then we get into a chicken and egg argument about was our small forwardline an asset due to running ability and flexibility, or was it a liability as the "get-out" option of a high kick to the F50 was more difficult for us than for any other side in the competition at that time.

[Mofra]

I can't wait for Freo to win the flag and kill this argument dead.
Pav deserves a flag, I think he's brilliant.

Pav is still the heart and soul of that side (much like Sir Chris Grant was for us) and despite being ~192cm plays as a dominant key forward - he was the only forward that really fired a shot in last year's GF. I'm not sure he really illustrates the point that a GF can be won without a top-10 key forward in the side.

[LostDoggy]

I don't really have a problem with our recent recruiting policy other than Howard and Tutt. We had to take Libba and Wallis. Clay Smith seemed best available and looks ok. Stringer could be the next Pavlich (or not) and Macrae has the goods. Bonts is a huge mid and complements our smallish midfield so ok with that. Crameri gives a vital fwd focus and his impact is already being felt by Jones who in the past has been gifted games.

Its obvious but good sides that win premierships will have good players across the board. Simple as that. However, KPF's are the hardest to find.

Look at Melbourne - they rebuilt their midfield in one off season - Tyson, Cross, Vince, Michie plus their recruits. St Kilda also drafted 3 quality mids in one off season and traded for another.

But you won't see a club do that with KPFs

Apparently this year's draft is the year for KP players, so I am hoping we can either trade for or draft at least two quality KP players (perhaps a GWS off cut - Tomlinson? and a draftee). As others have pointed out, so many clubs will be after KPFs that its easier to list clubs that won't be - West Coast, Hawks, Bombers, Sydney, GWS, Melbourne seem ok - the rest will be queuing up with Carlton, St Kilda and Brisbane leading the charge)

Next year we focus on speed and ball use and another KP if about.

We may well need a ruckman with Minson aging and questions on Campbell and Cordy, but it seems you can pick up a decent ruck fairly easily.

[LostDoggy]

I don't really have a problem with our recent recruiting policy other than Howard and Tutt. We had to take Libba and Wallis. Clay Smith seemed best available and looks ok. Stringer could be the next Pavlich (or not) and Macrae has the goods. Bonts is a huge mid and complements our smallish midfield so ok with that. Crameri gives a vital fwd focus and his impact is already being felt by Jones who in the past has been gifted games.

Its obvious but good sides that win premierships will have good players across the board. Simple as that. However, KPF's are the hardest to find.

Look at Melbourne - they rebuilt their midfield in one off season - Tyson, Cross, Vince, Michie plus their recruits. St Kilda also drafted 3 quality mids in one off season and traded for another.

But you won't see a club do that with KPFs

Apparently this year's draft is the year for KP players, so I am hoping we can either trade for or draft at least two quality KP players (perhaps a GWS off cut - Tomlinson? and a draftee). As others have pointed out, so many clubs will be after KPFs that its easier to list clubs that won't be - West Coast, Hawks, Bombers, Sydney, GWS, Melbourne seem ok - the rest will be queuing up with Carlton, St Kilda and Brisbane leading the charge)

Next year we focus on speed and ball use and another KP if about.

We may well need a ruckman with Minson aging and questions on Campbell and Cordy, but it seems you can pick up a decent ruck fairly easily.



I think we will finish to high to draft any kpf this year.

Our luck by our pick best available will be a 186cm hard at it mid with an excellent inside game that has great hands but with a sometimes suspect left foot.

[Happy Days]

Pav deserves a flag, I think he's brilliant.

Pav is still the heart and soul of that side (much like Sir Chris Grant was for us) and despite being ~192cm plays as a dominant key forward - he was the only forward that really fired a shot in last year's GF. I'm not sure he really illustrates the point that a GF can be won without a top-10 key forward in the side.

Exactly, because he isn't 195+cms tall, yet he is able to be the fulcrum of their forward line. He doesn't take huge pack marks or whatever it is that tall guys do that is so necessary to win, but is still a dominant forward. He's a key forward but still a mid-sized one, and a forward line of hard-leading, hard-chasing mid sizers like Pav and Mayne can be effective and win flags.

This fixation with height is dumb. Good players are good players period.

[Cyberdoggie]

Bomber Thompson is a believer in getting big bodies around the ball.

In our midfield against the eagles, other than Koby Stevens we didn't go in with
many big bodies or those that are physically aggressive.
Add to that guys like Darling, Cox and Natanui were laying crunching tackles on some
of younger guys and I think all this pressure took it's toll on the way we played.

We played Hot Potato football like we did a couple of years ago. Constantly flicking it
off as soon as we got it to someone else and putting them under the pump while others stand
and watch.

[LostDoggy]

I think we will finish to high to draft any kpf this year.

Our luck by our pick best available will be a 186cm hard at it mid with an excellent inside game that has great hands but with a sometimes suspect left foot.

LOL

We may finish to high for a top KPF but I heard that there is half a dozen or so. A lot of intangibles to happen yet. And its early days but I have us 14th which still should be ok. Will be very dirty if the Saints nail another KPF just when Reiwoldt nearly done.

If Melbourne's KPFs all come back they may be in the market to do what they did this year and trade a high pick for lower pick and a player. GWS may be in a similar boat.

[chef]

I think we will finish to high to draft any kpf this year.

Our luck by our pick best available will be a 186cm hard at it mid with an excellent inside game that has great hands but with a sometimes suspect left foot.

I think we'll be looking at a pick around 3-5, so there's going to be plenty of options for us to choose from.

[Maddog37]

Agreed. I think we will lose quite a few away games and a few tight ones against good teams at home.

[LostDoggy]

Looking at Hawthorn last night, they were without key players, Roughhead was out of sorts and they didn't play with any intensity for parts of the game. How could they still win when they lost most key stats except clearances. I put it down to 2 key areas - their precision kicking - its long, its accurate, and - having smalls who can bounce up / evade /run / create at elite level. Rioli and Suckling are 2 players we would die for because they cover territory so well.

[LostDoggy]

Looking at Hawthorn last night, they were without key players, Roughhead was out of sorts and they didn't play with any intensity for parts of the game. How could they still win when they lost most key stats except clearances. I put it down to 2 key areas - their precision kicking - its long, its accurate, and - having smalls who can bounce up / evade /run / create at elite level. Rioli and Suckling are 2 players we would die for because they cover territory so well.

Three key areas: they were playing Essendon.

[Scorlibo]

Hawks obviously had four last year (Buddy, Roughy, Hale & Gunston) and made Buddy & Roughy their draft focus (among some famous KPP misses) with midfielders coming later, and defenders traded in (Lake/Dew/Guerra).

Mitchell and Hodge came in 2001, Sewell in 2003 and Lewis in 2004 (w/ Buddy and Roughead). Those four have held together Hawthorn's midfield for years - their midfielders came first.


Sydney: they are happy to trade heavily for top line forwards (a history of Lockett, Hall, Buddy & Tippett) with midfielders seeming to come later (JP Kennedy as a trade). Won the flag despite losing contested possessions/clearances on the day.

Sydney traded for Buddy this year and Tippett the year before (ie. both AFTER winning the flag). They played Adam Goodes as the main target in their premiership in 2012.


Collingwood had Dawes & Cloke with Reid able to play a swingman role... and their inside grunt was Ball, a trade.

They also had a couple of blokes named Pendlebury and Swan who have forged possibly the best midfield combination of the last decade.

The reality is that very good teams have great players all over the ground. If you were to look at premiership teams over the last decade you'd find just as many elite midfielders as elite key forwards.


Yeah...but.

We finished second for contested ball and missed the 8. Carlton finished 3rd for contested ball and missed the 8. I had a friend tell me today the same stat you have quoted...and it kind of holds up. But when it comes to possessions neither contested NOR uncontested was a great predictor of finals sides last year...total possessions was though...but in this years 1 week sample side Melbourne are second for total possessions yet lost to the saints playing a miserable style if footy in a miserable game.

The reality is you need to be Competitive when it comes to contested ball...but wins/losses in the contested ball count only if the differential is more than 15. The differential in uncontested possession has a bit more 'fat' in it but uncontested numbers are a lot higher.

It's important not to confuse the total contested ball count over a season with individual instances of winning the contested ball. The misleading statistic is in fact the one you've provided with teams outside the eight winning the most total contested ball. Teams play different styles; no doubt the contested ball count is higher, for instance, when teams play who don't use the ball very well.

A 95% win rate when teams win the contested ball in individual games is telling. Us finishing well outside the eight despite our total contested ball count over the course of the season being high is not.

I agree with previous posts that we shouldn't assimilate contested ball with midfielders and uncontested ball with key forwards - completely different arguments!

Myself? I'm really happy with the focus on contested ball.

[mjp]

LOL

We may finish to high for a top KPF but I heard that there is half a dozen or so.

Half-a-dozen?

OK. Wright (injury prone, but maybe). McCartin (diabetic, but maybe). Goddard (though most think he is a defender). Durdin (but he ALSO seems to be a defender).

So...are there actually ANY??

[mjp]

It's important not to confuse the total contested ball count over a season with individual instances of winning the contested ball. The misleading statistic is in fact the one you've provided with teams outside the eight winning the most total contested ball. Teams play different styles; no doubt the contested ball count is higher, for instance, when teams play who don't use the ball very well.

A 95% win rate when teams win the contested ball in individual games is telling. Us finishing well outside the eight despite our total contested ball count over the course of the season being high is not.


So...are you trying to say that teams that finish on top of the contested ball count for the season somehow were not on top of the contested ball count in a lot of the games they played during the year? We finished second for contested footy last season - and won the stat week after week. We didn't win or lose last year based on our contested ball numbers...we won and lost (well, lost!) based on our ability to kick the ball to our forwards in goal scoring positions.

And if you are on top of the contested possession count for the year, it is pretty much a given that you are on top of the contested possession count in most games you played (with the reverse also being true.

[boydogs]

And if you are on top of the contested possession count for the year, it is pretty much a given that you are on top of the contested possession count in most games you played (with the reverse also being true.

I don't accept that as a given. Playing a contested style of game means both teams are likely to have high contested possession counts that week. You could lose the contested possession count every week but still have the most contested possessions of any team across the season, because contested possession counts were high in your games but you were always behind in the count.

[bulldogtragic]

Did we win the contested footy count today?

[Mantis]

Did we win the contested footy count today?

Lost by 2, 123-125.

[azabob]

Did we win the contested footy count today?

BT - you crack me up.

[bulldogtragic]

Lost by 2, 123-125.

Well that was the problem and why we lost. :)

[mjp]

I don't accept that as a given. Playing a contested style of game means both teams are likely to have high contested possession counts that week. You could lose the contested possession count every week but still have the most contested possessions of any team across the season, because contested possession counts were high in your games but you were always behind in the count.

Awesome. Because by this logic we might be the lowest scoring side in every game we play this year but the highest scoring, most exciting team in the competition for the year because we are always involved in such high scoring games.

Oh. Wait.

I guess I will admit that the scenario you have painted is possible but it is incredibly unlikely. We won contested possessions in most games last year and finished second on the season. My point is that winning contested possessions has a marginal correlation with results UNLESS the win/loss ration is +/- 15. Winning uncontested possessions has an equally poor correlation with win/loss...

[LostDoggy]

Half-a-dozen?

OK. Wright (injury prone, but maybe). McCartin (diabetic, but maybe). Goddard (though most think he is a defender). Durdin (but he ALSO seems to be a defender).

So...are there actually ANY??


A couple of points.

Dale Weightman was a great and a diabetic, how is being a diabetic even remotely relevant to a player's potential and why even mention it?

IIRC You were big on Dayle Garlett, and was scathing of virtually every club's recruiting team for not picking him, guess we aren't all perfect all the time??

Having said that have you seen McCartin, Durdin, Wright, Tom Lamb, Jack Hayes and Goddard play? My understanding is only from what I read, but is that they could all be reasonable KPFs? Interested in your more detailed thoughts.

[jeemak]

Not sure MJP would talk down someone's ability on the basis of them being diabetic. Moreso, it would be on the back of knowing clubs don't like to take risks when they don't have to. But, I won't speak for him.

By and by, Weightman's time wasn't the same time we're dealing with now.

I'm not convinced Hawthorn's handling of Garlett was right. While I don't think his handling would have been much better at any other club, having thought about this person I'm wondering whether a fully loaded AFL program would have been the best way to handle him. Could a modified three day a week over the first year helped him adjust to AFL requirements over time? Who knows.

[boydogs]

Dale Weightman was a great and a diabetic, how is being a diabetic even remotely relevant to a player's potential and why even mention it?

It's really difficult to train and compete at a high level when your energy levels are so erratic. Can go both ways though, someone who can pull it off is a special character. Thought that might have been Sam Reid for a while there

[boydogs]

Awesome. Because by this logic we might be the lowest scoring side in every game we play this year but the highest scoring, most exciting team in the competition for the year because we are always involved in such high scoring games.

Oh. Wait.

I guess I will admit that the scenario you have painted is possible but it is incredibly unlikely. We won contested possessions in most games last year and finished second on the season. My point is that winning contested possessions has a marginal correlation with results UNLESS the win/loss ration is +/- 15. Winning uncontested possessions has an equally poor correlation with win/loss...

We need some more numbers to add to the debate. Where were we ranked last year in terms of:

- Our AFL ranking for the average total number of contested possessions between both teams in our games
- Number of games where we won the contested possession count and won, won it and lost, lost it and won, lost it and lost
- Number of games where we won the contested possession count by 15+ and won, won by 15+ and lost, lost by 15+ and won, lost by 15+ and lost

There is also a difference between correlation and causation. We might have won more day games than night games last year, is that more likely to mean we are day specialists or just be a coincidence? If there is a strong correlation between dominating contested possession and winning, what is it that we are doing differently in the games where we win the contested possession count? Maybe it was the players we had in the team that week, the quality of the opposition or the number of days break between games that lead to us winning the contested possession count and the match, as opposed to a change of game plan or intensity.

Simply establishing whether winning the contested possession count is strongly correlated with winning games isn't enough to validate or invalidate a game plan or recruiting approach.

[LostDoggy]

Not sure MJP would talk down someone's ability on the basis of them being diabetic. Moreso, it would be on the back of knowing clubs don't like to take risks when they don't have to. But, I won't speak for him.

By and by, Weightman's time wasn't the same time we're dealing with now.

I'm not convinced Hawthorn's handling of Garlett was right. While I don't think his handling would have been much better at any other club, having thought about this person I'm wondering whether a fully loaded AFL program would have been the best way to handle him. Could a modified three day a week over the first year helped him adjust to AFL requirements over time? Who knows.


Yes you're right the treatment and management of diabetes has dramatically improved since Weightman's time making it less of an issue than in Weightman's time. Naathan Bassett is a more recent player with the condition. Really I just don't see the issue with diabetes. By the way Sam Reid's main problem was that his condition was undiagnosed and when diagnosed it takes a while to establish control as the pancreas putters out (and that he kept breaking his body and that he couldn't kick).

Perhaps if people want to educate themselves on diabetes and elite sport they could read the AIS' info on it:

http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/special_diets/diabetes_and_sports_nutrition

I'm not commenting on Hawks handling of Garlett, I was commenting on the fact that the decision to pick him up was poor and that MJP isn't always right and noted that he had passionately advocated for clubs to pick him up, which seemed a poor call at the time and the poor outcome was foreseen by nearly every AFL club.

[bornadog]

I'm not commenting on Hawks handling of Garlett, I was commenting on the fact that the decision to pick him up was poor and that MJP isn't always right and noted that he had passionately advocated for clubs to pick him up, which seemed a poor call at the time and the poor outcome was foreseen by nearly every AFL club.

Not sure what you are trying to prove here? I took MJP's comments on Garlett based on his talent. Why you are bringing that up in this thread is strange to say the least - completely off topic.

[Ozza]

Not sure what you are trying to prove here? I took MJP's comments on Garlett based on his talent. Why you are bringing that up in this thread is strange to say the least - completely off topic.

I think RWB has made some reasonable points overall in his post about key forwards, diabtetes and the Gartlett example. Enjoying the discussion and looking forward to MJP's views/response to be honest. Let em play BAD!

[jeemak]

Yes you're right the treatment and management of diabetes has dramatically improved since Weightman's time making it less of an issue than in Weightman's time. Naathan Bassett is a more recent player with the condition. Really I just don't see the issue with diabetes. By the way Sam Reid's main problem was that his condition was undiagnosed and when diagnosed it takes a while to establish control as the pancreas putters out (and that he kept breaking his body and that he couldn't kick).

Perhaps if people want to educate themselves on diabetes and elite sport they could read the AIS' info on it:

http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/special_diets/diabetes_and_sports_nutrition

I'm not commenting on Hawks handling of Garlett, I was commenting on the fact that the decision to pick him up was poor and that MJP isn't always right and noted that he had passionately advocated for clubs to pick him up, which seemed a poor call at the time and the poor outcome was foreseen by nearly every AFL club.

Sorry if you thought I was inferring athletes with diabetes can't compete. Certainly not the case.

Don't know what your issue with MJP is. He has strong opinions for sure, and in some cases they carry more weight than others, but essentially that's all they are.

[bornadog]

5 Rounds in and we are near bottom in contested footy. Big factor is Libba is being tagged and he is not winning the contested footy.

What has gone wrong?

[LostDoggy]

5 Rounds in and we are near bottom in contested footy. Big factor is Libba is being tagged and he is not winning the contested footy.

What has gone wrong?

Our ball movement has improved but our contested ball has gone backwards.
I think the focus in the pre season was on spread and ball use, and we've suffered in our contested department. Hopefully we can pick it back up again.

The last 7 weeks of last season we were doing both well.

[jeemak]

We're sitting at 2-3 and a good chance to go 3-3 after this week.

I think the contested ball count isn't going to be our issue for the short term as we're not flooding the contests like we did in 2012-2013 meaning those numbers will come down. The thing I noticed on Sunday was our inability to balance spread offensively versus the opposition's spread. We let Carlton get into better positions than we were to take the next possession out.

Just another frustration we'll have to deal with until our players get it right IMO. While we can all see it from the sidelines, it's not an easy thing for players to adjust to in terms of change in mindset. Getting higher numbers at the ball is an easy thing to teach, the next step is much harder.

[boydogs]

5 Rounds in and we are near bottom in contested footy. Big factor is Libba is being tagged and he is not winning the contested footy.

What has gone wrong?

Contested possession averages per game

2013: Libba 14.5, Griffen 13.1, Boyd 12.1, Cross 8.9, Dahlhaus 8.6, Cooney 8.5, Minson 8.4, all in top 83 in AFL
2014: Boyd 12.6, Libba 10.4, Dahlhaus 10.2, Griffen 9.0, no-one else above 8.0 (top 100)