Training 2024 Preseason training reports and discussion

[BuntonRules]

That is the nature of sport. Don't forget that clubs use players and when they are deemed no longer useful, except in a relatively tiny amount of cases, they are shown the door. As long as he gave his all while he was here and put the team first, which I believe he did his best to, then I don't see the problem.
I suspect that for us Brandon Ryan may be more useful in the longer term anyway.

My post came without real thought. Bit harsh, TBH. Dalions sais it best

personally do not wish him any ill will, but at the same time I am happy that he moved on.

 

[Elixuh]

You just know Fagan will pick Gunston in our 22 next year regardless of form. SMH.

 

[Dalions]

You just know Fagan will pick Gunston in our 22 next year regardless of form. SMH.

First name on the white board

 

[irel]

You just know Fagan will pick Gunston in our 22 next year regardless of form. SMH.

Looking forward to Gunners asking to be traded back to the Lions in next trade period. Ready for next year.
Straight swap for Ryan.

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

Can we stop shitting on Gunston he was a servant of this club show some respect.

 

[Mighty Lions]

Can we stop shitting on Gunston he was a servant of this club show some respect.

I will if you will.
And stop calling Brisbane a shithole please.

 

[rye]

please tell me the men are back at training next week

 

[Grasshopper17]

please tell me the men are back at training next week

Looks like they are back today!

 

[Grasshopper17]

Looks like they are back today!

Could be an automated tweet tho... Am always a bit sceptical when they are made right on the hour or half hour.

 

[lionshine]

Looks like they are back today!

Saw the same photos with a few more on another post. ZZ looks in really good shape. Very lean but ripped not skinny. Only just turned 18, one of those prospects with a December birthday so could almost be considered an under ager this year. Huge upside with the year ahead in a full time professional environment. Will need the next two seasons as an 18 and 19 year old to focus solely on building his body up further and obviously developing his skills and overall game in the VFL. His athletic profile is ridiculous combined with his height. At 196cm he is KPP height but I can see him playing a versatile utility role all over the ground akin to a Mark Blicavs or Jared Brennan.

Super exciting to have ZZ on the list and to have a taller prospect on the same development timeline as Ashcroft, Wilmot, Fletcher ect.

 

[rye]

Could be an automated tweet tho... Am always a bit sceptical when they are made right on the hour or half hour.

dont think it would be from today unfortunately. dunkley was in new york for new years so doubt he would be back in time to do a gym session at the club by today, but is featured in the instagram upload nonetheless

 

[Mr Ripper]

Back next week.

 

[dlanod]

Bolded
I have no idea if this is correct. It could very well be but i have no idea where to find that information.
Do you have a link to show that this is what happened say in 2022/23.

It's not. I remember GWS beating Carlton with 16 players on the field. I'm pretty sure someone did something similar this year - winning a game despite finishing it a player down on the field due to five injuries.

 

[Nunez]

Back next week.

Thanks Fages.

 

[Section 5]

It's not. I remember GWS beating Carlton with 16 players on the field. I'm pretty sure someone did something similar this year - winning a game despite finishing it a player down on the field due to five injuries.

Being short on players does not mean you are more or less likely to win in my opinion.
It is something people may perceive to be true but that does not mean any facts bear it out.
Even if some results pointed to that being correct there are other factors at play for any given game.
A few being it could be 1st v 13th or 13th v 14th. You could lose 2 players early in the 1st quarter or middle of the 4th, etc etc.

I also noticed over the past 2 seasons (my perception) teams that lose a player reasonably early end up using less bench rotations.
You would think the opposite is more likely and they use 74 or gamble a little and use 75/75 and hope their count is correct.
I only watch FTA, so 4 games maximum in Brisbane each week for me.

I did do a manual exercise on average interchanges for each team for the year, before my query to p4p1.
Although these numbers did not have any direct bearing on my query to p4p1. I just thought i would have a look at them.
Should the AFL do away with the sub and keep I/C numbers the same as they should, these become a little more interesting.

Dogs the lowest with 66 interchange average per game.
Pies, Giants, Power, Swans, Bombers all 67.
Lions, Demons, Saints, Kangaroos, Eagles all 68.
Crows, Tigers, Suns, Hawks all 70.
Blues, Cats, Dockers all 71.

 

[BuntonRules]

Saw the same photos with a few more on another post. ZZ looks in really good shape. Very lean but ripped not skinny. Only just turned 18, one of those prospects with a December birthday so could almost be considered an under ager this year. Huge upside with the year ahead in a full time professional environment. Will need the next two seasons as an 18 and 19 year old to focus solely on building his body up further and obviously developing his skills and overall game in the VFL. His athletic profile is ridiculous combined with his height. At 196cm he is KPP height but I can see him playing a versatile utility role all over the ground akin to a Mark Blicavs or Jared Brennan.

Super exciting to have ZZ on the list and to have a taller prospect on the same development timeline as Ashcroft, Wilmot, Fletcher ect.

His goal song HAS to be La Grange.

 

[Crimso]

Back next week.

Where you going?

 

[McIvor]

I never warmed to Jack and didn't think his selections were warranted but could see why he was brought in.

Whether his style didn't suit our game plan or players didn't trust him enough to kick to him or he was doing it right but had lost that yard of pace that meant that he not longer got the needed separations I don't know ... I do know that he would pull out something smart most games that impressed me and that he would usually not do something (eg chasing) that I would have preferred him to do that cost us ... it was because his negatives on field out weighed his positives on field (in my mind) that I didn't want him out there.

Did his presence help our forward line - I don't know. Did he pass on hard earned wisdom that will benefit our team going forward - I don't know. Did he really put his hand up to be dropped mid season as reported or was that PR - I don't know. Did he come north with good intentions and realise it was a bad fit and go back or come up on a purely mercenary (which is technically not evil btw) basis - I don't know.

I generally don't blame players for leaving us as otherwise I would have to hate on those who choose to come to us as well although with folks like Lynch (of Suns/Tigers ilk) it is harder

I am utterly ambivilent about the guy and wish him all the best but a decade from now if I was listing remembered Lion's players he won't be in the list and I will see a team sheet and go 'oh yeah that's right he did play for us that year didn't he'.

And I am sure that some of our OTT Gunners supporting posters will find something new to enjoy trolling with so that is the important thing

Regarding your second last paragraph; a bit like David Calthorpe’s one season for the club is how I’ll remember Jack’s year.

 

[p4p1]

Bolded.
Are you talking about the AFL won't bring it in ?

AFL won’t change it now it is in.

 

[p4p1]

Bolded
I have no idea if this is correct. It could very well be but i have no idea where to find that information.
Do you have a link to show that this is what happened say in 2022/23.

Jonathon Brown on either his podcast or on fox footy mentioned it as being one of major reasons. I have no reason to doubt what he is saying is true.

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

That is never going to happen. In the modern game losing rotations kills your chances at a win and increases the chances of a blowout. Statistically if you lose 2 players, lets say one to an injury and one to concussion protocols you are guaranteed to lose the game.
If anything reverting back to the 2 talls showed why we shouldn't be using 3 talls. McStay had and excellent tank and is a decent athlete so I don't think using him as a 3rd tall highlighted the tradeoff for using 3 talls. But we looked a better team with 2 talls, we were quicker and we seemed to create space for the two talls to run into more effectively. 2 vs 3 talls was not the only change we made that made a big impact in our team defence and our forward line, our smalls stayed down more often in marking contests, we didn't bomb it in and hope for the best as often etc. How much of our improvements around the ground were because we were able to run as a team better vs tactical changes, I don't know but it is worth considering.

You're not guaranteed to lose what the hell are you talking about.

 

[KissKiss]

I would imagine it would very heavily depend when you lose the players within the game. Losing 2 players to injury in the first quarter would be very different to losing two late in the last quarter

 

[Section 5]

AFL article on rule changes and possible rule changes.

The Maynard rule? Brayshaw hit sparks proposed MRO change

The AFL has written to clubs with a series of proposed rules amendments ahead of the 2024 season

www.afl.com.au

Going on the wording of the article it is unlikely 5 on the bench will happen.
However, the AFL has asked the clubs for their views and feedback.
I can almost guarantee the clubs (being the coaches) would much prefer 5 on the bench instead of 4 plus a sub.
I just don't see any coaches that would want to keep the sub. I think all 18 clubs (coaches) would vote for 5 I/C players.
If that is the case i can't see any reason to not bring it in now rather than wait for another time.
But we are talking about the AFL, and they will do as they like even if it goes against the vast majority of support.

Coaches want as many options as possible during the course on the game. Coaches would probably prefer 6 on the bench.
Remember you still only have 75 interchanges. The 18 club averages for 2023 was 68.6.
So, it should not matter much if you have 5, 6, 7, 8 on the bench. Some fringe players would just get less TOG.
For arguments sake you are not going to give Neale less TOG and say Dev more TOG because you have more players on the bench.

Although it may be only an outside chance for change this year i still think it is a possibility.
........................
from article

The League is also seeking feedback from clubs on the substitute and the announcement of team selection, with clubs having until January 19 to formally give their views.

The AFL isn't anticipating changing the substitute rules, with the League comfortable with the current system of four players on the interchange bench and a substitute to be activated at any time but has "welcomed feedback" from clubs on their thoughts.

Some clubs have been strong on changing the rule to simply have five players on the interchange bench instead of having to substitute out a player to activate the substitute. A final decision will come in the weeks before round one but, unless dramatic change gathers strong support from clubs, it is viewed as more unlikely than likely.

 

[Grasshopper17]

AFL article on rule changes and possible rule changes.

The Maynard rule? Brayshaw hit sparks proposed MRO change

The AFL has written to clubs with a series of proposed rules amendments ahead of the 2024 season

www.afl.com.au

Going on the wording of the article it is unlikely 5 on the bench will happen.
However, the AFL has asked the clubs for their views and feedback.
I can almost guarantee the clubs (being the coaches) would much prefer 5 on the bench instead of 4 plus a sub.
I just don't see any coaches that would want to keep the sub. I think all 18 clubs (coaches) would vote for 5 I/C players.
If that is the case i can't see any reason to not bring it in now rather than wait for another time.
But we are talking about the AFL, and they will do as they like even if it goes against the vast majority of support.

Coaches want as many options as possible during the course on the game. Coaches would probably prefer 6 on the bench.
Remember you still only have 75 interchanges. The 18 club averages for 2023 was 68.6.
So, it should not matter much if you have 5, 6, 7, 8 on the bench. Some fringe players would just get less TOG.
For arguments sake you are not going to give Neale less TOG and say Dev more TOG because you have more players on the bench.

Although it may be only an outside chance for change this year i still think it is a possibility.
........................
from article

The League is also seeking feedback from clubs on the substitute and the announcement of team selection, with clubs having until January 19 to formally give their views.

The AFL isn't anticipating changing the substitute rules, with the League comfortable with the current system of four players on the interchange bench and a substitute to be activated at any time but has "welcomed feedback" from clubs on their thoughts.

Some clubs have been strong on changing the rule to simply have five players on the interchange bench instead of having to substitute out a player to activate the substitute. A final decision will come in the weeks before round one but, unless dramatic change gathers strong support from clubs, it is viewed as more unlikely than likely.

Sometimes I really think people like making things more complicated than need be simply to justify the existence of their job.

The interchange conundrum is really very simple.

6 on the bench. One for each line of the ground, in theory. It's going to happen eventually anyway so stop pussyfooting around and get it done.

Then, unlimited interchange. BUT you can only do it after a goal. Or there's a blood rule or serious injury of course.

 

[Mighty Lions]

Sometimes I really think people like making things more complicated than need be simply to justify the existence of their job.

The interchange conundrum is really very simple.

6 on the bench. One for each line of the ground, in theory. It's going to happen eventually anyway so stop pussyfooting around and get it done.

Then, unlimited interchange. BUT you can only do it after a goal. Or there's a blood rule or serious injury of course.

6 on the bench is dumb & detracts from the game's attraction in my opinion....why not make it 10 on the bench then? or 15?

Part of the games strength's is playing under duress pressure. When a player gets worn out, there should be game strategies in helping him & the team get through his fatigue at that time rather than simply put him on the bench for a spell while he recovers.
In the case where he is simply getting beaten, its too easy now to put him on the bench rather than find another way. 6 on the bench will just make that an easier decision to make.