Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread General MFC Discussion IV

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Oh this is totally going to happen, isn't it
Makes me shudder a bit. If we're going the nuffy route at least get me Cam Bruce.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bartel said much the same thing in his podcast with Eddie, and Ed kind of made the point about the training base that we should just get Waverley off Hawthorn, even as a temporary measure, while we try and get get Caufield done in the background as that is still years away.

It's a compelling argument. Would get the whole club under one roof immediately and be much closer to the CBD than Casey.
 
Bartel said much the same thing in his podcast with Eddie, and Ed kind of made the point about the training base that we should just get Waverley off Hawthorn, even as a temporary measure, while we try and get get Caufield done in the background as that is still years away.

It's a compelling argument. Would get the whole club under one roof immediately and be much closer to the CBD than Casey.
This is such a good idea I can guarantee no one at our club has thought about it
 
Bartel said much the same thing in his podcast with Eddie, and Ed kind of made the point about the training base that we should just get Waverley off Hawthorn, even as a temporary measure, while we try and get get Caufield done in the background as that is still years away.

It's a compelling argument. Would get the whole club under one roof immediately and be much closer to the CBD than Casey.
One of the poorest clubs in the comp simultaneously buying two new training bases hey? Not sure that's feesible, especially given we're reaching with Caulfield as it is. Wild that Eddie doesn't understand the financial limitations, who would have thought?

They just need to pick one, as Bartel said. Don't even care if it's Casey tbh, just pick one and get it done.
 
One of the poorest clubs in the comp simultaneously buying two new training bases hey? Not sure that's feesible, especially given we're reaching with Caulfield as it is. Wild that Eddie doesn't understand the financial limitations, who would have thought?

They just need to pick one, as Bartel said. Don't even care if it's Casey tbh, just pick one and get it done.
You wouldn't buy Waverley. You'd lease it the same way we lease AAMI park.
 
This is on the Bay, but are the stats in here legit?

According to the stats on the afl website we've had 95 shots on goal this year for a total of 34 goals, 44 behinds and 17 no scores.

34/95 x 100 is 35.7% so even worse than that chart.
 
This is on the Bay, but are the stats in here legit?


danster168 actually vindicated so hard with this lol
 
danster168 actually vindicated so hard with this lol
Yes and no. Way too simplistic to blame poor goal kicking and not training it

Screenshot_20250407_212947_Samsung Internet.jpg Screenshot_20250407_212920_Samsung Internet.jpg





It's got way more to do with the fact that we create absolutely no chances dead in front compared to a good side
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Yes and no. Way too simplistic to blame poor goal kicking and not training it

View attachment 2276235View attachment 2276234





It's got way more to do with the fact that we create absolutely no chances dead in front compared to a good side
Spot on.

Yes, our accuracy is bad in general. But we also take so many low quality shots that it's probably not surprising.

We're also awful at converting inside 50s into scoring shots at all.

We're the unholy trifecta of awful forward line statistics
 
Yes and no. Way too simplistic to blame poor goal kicking and not training it

View attachment 2276235View attachment 2276234





It's got way more to do with the fact that we create absolutely no chances dead in front compared to a good side
Further on this we average 7.5 marks inside 50 per game. Only four games but that's worse than Richmond last year who were ranked dead last in that stat and averaged 9.5 marks inside 50. Last year we averaged 11 marks inside 50 per game.

Our forward entries have somehow gotten significantly worse.
 
Collingwood probably letting themselves down the most on that chart.
Look at the bottom 6 sides except Collingwood and you can see there's no real plan to score, it's just random dots inside 50 for a shot which explains how we all play
 
Further on this we average 7.5 marks inside 50 per game. Only four games but that's worse than Richmond last year who were ranked dead last in that stat and averaged 9.5 marks inside 50. Last year we averaged 11 marks inside 50 per game.

Our forward entries have somehow gotten significantly worse.
Because our forward entries are literally the same, but now, because of #EvolvedGoody™we spend an eternity chipping it around prior to the inevitable bomb inside 50, giving the opposition even more time to set up for the kick everybody knows is coming.

It's baffling how bad of a tactical coach he is.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Because our forward entries are literally the same, but now, because of #EvolvedGoody™️ spend an eternity chipping it around prior to the inevitable bomb inside 50, giving the opposition even more time to set up for the kick everybody knows is coming.

It's baffling how bad of a tactical coach he is.
Even when we do get it in faster we don't do anything with it. We still ask the forwards to hover around the goal square and we just bomb it on their head rather than having them lead. We make it very easy to defend against.
 
You wouldn't buy Waverley. You'd lease it the same way we lease AAMI park.
Except it's not for lease, it's for sale. So your plan is either lease it for a few months before someone buys it or you hope the person that buys it is willing to lease it out for the exact same purpose it has previously been used for.

Neither is exactly good if the issue you're trying to fix is lack of a proper home base. No better than being at AAMI.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread General MFC Discussion IV

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top