See, it’s post like this that you make in this thread that I find it incredibly hard to take anything you say on this topic nothing other than overly emotional grandstanding .
On one had you bang on about how “simple” football is and use a rudimentary example of moving Hooker back/ Stringer forward to support your claim but then then totally fail to acknowledge (or maybe you aren’t aware?) of the cascading changes that need to occur right across the ground in order for the “simple” change of Hooker back, stringer forward to balance out. Aside from Hooker going back, so did McGrath. Now stringer went forward which means from the first few weeks forward, back and midfield group rotations we we down a whole midfielder rotation, Guelfi made up a bit of it but, I saw a big uptick in midfield time from at least 5 other guys. Which means rotations and roles in every part of the ground were different or compromised in some part.
Stringer spending 80% of his time forward was as much about covering Hooker as it was keeping Jake deep. Stewart also didn’t ruck this week because he was needed for hit up to replace hookers up the ground work.
What I’m saying is about 15 guys had adjustments to their roles and loads in order to accommodate for Hooker Back/ Stringer forward, and for the most part of the game it was balanced very well. I don’t know if it was Worsfold or the whole coaching group, but this was a job very well done from whoever managed all of it and got the message through to all concerned.
Footy is a simple game, but modern AFL is a hell of a lot more complex than your giving it credit for.