Does Geelong high scoring year last year reflect the lack of games at Kardinia Park?
Does Geelong high scoring year last year reflect the lack of games at Kardinia Park?
Does Geelong high scoring year last year reflect the lack of games at Kardinia Park?
Yep, Karen Cornes will be right on to this……Not sure, but if anyone doubts the ridiculous advantage that they get at Krap dinner park, take a look at an article on the AFL website that shows each team and the longest losing streaks at certain grounds. Nearly half of the AFL have their longest losing streaks there. Massive, massive advantage having a completely different shape to pretty much every ground.
I don't understand.One of the only times the C word is acceptable to describe a person
AFL rule changes: how the AFL got its numbers wrong in an attempt to justify proposed new lawsBarely even trialled any of the rules he dumped on the competition on the verge of the season. Clubs given little warning the raft of changes were coming.
Decisions leading data or data leading decisions?
Yeah it's about the 6-6-6 trial. At least there was a trial for the 2019 changes, however skimpy.check the date on the article
I spruik the RealFooty podcast (Caro, Niall, Gleeson) on here a bit but they have a really sh1t take on Hocking. They loved the Stand Rule and love everything he's done. They were all in on him on the stand rule. This week they even mentioned that scoring was down "but the game is much more open". I mean FFS guys.
Richmond was 96 for, 72 against in 2018 when the AFL decided we had to be "brought back to the pack".
This year the Bulldogs are 96 for, 67 against. What rules are needed to reel in the Dogs?
The only stat that matters is "Dustin Martin Moments". This was what they hung the recent rule changes on. "More Dustin Martin moments".Yeah maybe we need to peg them back a bit
Narratives. *smile* narratives.It becomes a narrative doesn’t it? The narrative was “scoring is up” but the media, very slowly, discovered it wasn’t. Now it’s “the game is more open”.
The only stat that matters is "Dustin Martin Moments". This was what they hung the recent rule changes on. "More Dustin Martin moments".
Have we seen more "Dustin Martin moments"?
Stupid *smile*!
Did you like how Scott used the same line when arguing for shorter quarters?The only stat that matters is "Dustin Martin Moments". This was what they hung the recent rule changes on. "More Dustin Martin moments".
Have we seen more "Dustin Martin moments"?
Stupid *smile*!
Yep for sure DS.Decent podcast that, but they simply will not challenge the AFL on their woeful rule changes which have not had the impact that the AFL themselves claimed they would.
Hey, if something doesn't work, surely you then analyse whether you need to change what you did and possibly reverse the ineffective changes? Unfortunately not common anywhere, let alone the AFL. Is change, is good seems to be the prevailing view in so many places (been restructured lately - was it positive??).
The media do seem to be all in on the idea that we need to keep fiddling with and changing the game. I don't get it. The AFL is successful, crowds were healthy and ratings high before COVID. Now is not the time to fiddle with fundamentals of the game like the fact it is a 360 degree game, quite unique in that sense, and all these restrictions on movement are at odds with some very fundamental aspects of our football code.
DS
He just said to deflect criticism. Last years GF was sheer torture for him.He wants Dustin Martin moments . . . just doesn't want Dustin Martin doing them, or at least not in a Richmond jumper.
DS
He does. He hopes to play him when he’s 35. Fits in with his recruiting. He will be the right age for them thenDid you like how Scott used the same line when arguing for shorter quarters?
"I want to see Dusty playing at 35."
Sure you do, just like you enjoyed the grand final result.
The only stat that matters is "Dustin Martin Moments". This was what they hung the recent rule changes on. "More Dustin Martin moments".
Have we seen more "Dustin Martin moments"?
Stupid *smile*!