8 hours ago, AdamFarr said:

Well, it's Max Gawn really, isn't it?

Well only in the sense 1987 ended with a very raw Jim Stynes running through the mark in the excitement as the siren rang resulting in  15 metre penalty and putting Gary Bucchanara in rang from which he goaled and they won by 3 points. Thus allowing Hawthorn into the Grand Final. I remember it as if it was yesterday as I was there at Waverley. 

Stynes at that time was the villain, but of course went on to be one of the greatest of all time. The only parallel I can see with Maxy is that I think he will also develop into one of the greatest of all time. His start though is very different!

16 hours ago, SPC98 said:

We have had an easy draw so far and it looks tough for the back-end of the year.. We should win around 9-11 for the year, but it is great to see how we handle the back half of the year, particularly against the Hawks, Freo, WC and the likes, to see the growth and maturity in this group..

Next year will be where we really make major ground on the top 4-6 sides.. This year is still really about development of the game plan and implementing the right game day habits.  I suspect that at the end of the year, we will not make major list changes, so the core that is here now, will be driving the success next year, and this is the first time in years that this is the case.

Can I suggest if we are not competitive in the second half then we don't deserve to be in the finals. After all, the difficulty stems from our playing a number of the contenders in the top half. It is as it is. As Paul Roos says, on our day we can beat anyone. We just need to ensure we have many of those days, and less like St Kilda. 

Simple really. What I am saying I just think we are ready in spite of our youth. Our unprecedented injury rate and depth certainly helps, thus resulting in increased ability to rotate the young, and keep them fresh unlike the last couple of years when we played them into the ground, resulting in very ordinary second half of the season performances.

Edited May 13, 20169 yr by Dees2014

We should all be glad that the draw gets harder - last season and now this season we routinely struggle against teams lower rated than us. We've played well against every opponent this year except the ones we expected to beat!

Last season something like a quarter of all wins by the bottom six were wins over us. But we also won almost as many games against the top-12 as the rest of the bottom-6 combined.

Its whacky. But I'd rather that strange pattern than the record of Collingwood, who last year only beat the bottom end and nobody else, and now are being exposed this year.

The only game we absolutely should have lost -- as in, we were never really *there* to win -- was St Kilda. 

North and Essendon were both very winnable games.

We could have easily been 6-1 at this point, and I suspect a more experienced outfit would have been.

4-3 is very good imo. Of the four games we *should* have won -- Pies, Tigers, Bombers, Suns -- we have won three. That is a three-game improvement on recent years when we would have dropped all of them.

Technically speaking we haven't had the easiest draw, as when the draw was put together, 4 of the teams we have played finished above us on the ladder last year. 

41 minutes ago, praha said:

The only game we absolutely should have lost -- as in, we were never really *there* to win -- was St Kilda. 

North and Essendon were both very winnable games.

We could have easily been 6-1 at this point, and I suspect a more experienced outfit would have been.

4-3 is very good imo. Of the four games we *should* have won -- Pies, Tigers, Bombers, Suns -- we have won three. That is a three-game improvement on recent years when we would have dropped all of them.

That's all fair enough, but I've also heard the argument that had we not lost to Essendon, we wouldn't have had the impetus to respond the way we did the following week against North, which provided momentum for the season up until now.

It has merit. As bad a day as it was, the Essendon loss may have been the early kick up the backside required.

Not a single club below 9th has won a single game against any club from 9th up... except against us.

West Coast also hasn't beaten anyone in the top half, the Bulldogs have only one win against the top half, against Adelaide (currently 9th), and Adelaide in turn have just managed the one top-half win, against Sydney, out of five games!

 

On the other hand, we have a 1 from 2 record against the top half and a 3 from 5 record against the bottom half.

WHEN we win on sunday, we'll have a better record against good sides than against weak sides.

So really, who cares how hard our draw is! 

Y'know, I even think that unlike say Collingwood or Richmond, there's been some kind of coaching and culture plan going on where we are setting ourselves to match up against the best and to be finals-ready when the time comes.

 

2 hours ago, P-man said:

That's all fair enough, but I've also heard the argument that had we not lost to Essendon, we wouldn't have had the impetus to respond the way we did the following week against North, which provided momentum for the season up until now.

It has merit. As bad a day as it was, the Essendon loss may have been the early kick up the backside required.

Of course, but nothing inspires victory more than victory itself  I think it's pretty clear that after that loss it was a big shift and change in mentality internally.

On 12 May 2016 at 1:58 PM, ManDee said:

Surely North have the easiest draw, they have only played sides beneath them on the ladder. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

What was it you wanted to prove? Find the stat that suits.

Absolutely. North has played nobody of note, especially out of their home ground comfort zone. They beat us by 5 in Tassie, Crows at Etihad, Gold Coast at Gold Coast by 38 and Dogs at Etihad who had 84 turnovers. 

Whoopdie-do

Does this difficulty rating even consider where the games are played because NM and WB have had plenty of 'away' games at their home stadium.

I applied this rolling logic in a simple win-loss fashion through the Ladder Predictor - teams beat those on the ladder below them progressively for the remainder of the season and the Dees make the 8 on 13 wins ahead of Adelaide on 11. Simple. 

Read an article that the impact of the women's league may mean they move the match.

Essendon v Hawthorn may have to host the women's game as a curtain raiser

oh and the fact that this fixture would be the same day that Melbourne play StKilda later in the day at Etihad is non relevant 

41 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Read an article that the impact of the women's league may mean they move the match.

Essendon v Hawthorn may have to host the women's game as a curtain raiser

oh and the fact that this fixture would be the same day that Melbourne play StKilda later in the day at Etihad is non relevant 

The match being discussed as a curtain raiser at the G is the AFLW Grand Final. 

Even tho the GF game/presentation time partially overlap our game it shouldn't affect our crowd at Etihad (unless our women's team make the GF).  And our game is a StK home game and not on FTA TV so we don't miss out there. 

But I hear and agree with your message that MFC interests rarely rate in AFL decisions.   

(A side benefit of the AFLW GF at the G is it will make it harder for Ess to do a 'hero worship', song and dance march to the G and pre game brouhaha as it is also Roughy's first game back (the real hero).  The AFLW GF and Roughy's return will hog all the media in advance leaving the return of the convicted EFC players to a petty side show. (I suspect Ess will be lobbying hard to not have the GF as a curtain raiser at the G!)

But I digress - if a Vic team play an i/state team in the GF it could well be a curtain raiser at Etihad (our game).  If two i/state teams it could be Princes Park.  So, it is a 'wait and see' who makes the GF before the venue is decided.  It would be great (albeit unlikely) if our women's team play an i/state team in the GF and it is a curtain raiser for our StK game at Etihad!

 

The interest that the AFLW has already produced is sure to be at its peak for GF

The new followers to the game will be attracted to double header and unlikely to attend Melbourne V St Kilda

The new followers include those that have been engaged by the two clubs who introduced Womansleague

The two clubs playing the feature match Essendon and Hawthorn will benefit with increased gate etc

 

MFC should do everything it can to have the double header at Etihad.

Having it before a game where neither club has a womens team saves the AFL alot of problems. Say they had said they wanted it before the Melbourne game and it ends up a Bulldogs vs Carlton Grand final. They would be furious that the gate bonuses essentialy goes to a different womans league team. And if they decided to have it before one of their respective games they would also have cause to argue which of them should get it. Taking off your biased melbourne hat for a second and it is pretty clear why they have done it. 
It is the fairest solution aside from the painfully obvious: Having it the week before round 1. Having it during round one takes all the effort they put into promoting the league and shoves it back into the shadows under the mens. Just seems so stupid to me.

22 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Having it before a game where neither club has a womens team saves the AFL alot of problems. Say they had said they wanted it before the Melbourne game and it ends up a Bulldogs vs Carlton Grand final. They would be furious that the gate bonuses essentialy goes to a different womans league team. And if they decided to have it before one of their respective games they would also have cause to argue which of them should get it. Taking off your biased melbourne hat for a second and it is pretty clear why they have done it. 
It is the fairest solution aside from the painfully obvious: Having it the week before round 1. Having it during round one takes all the effort they put into promoting the league and shoves it back into the shadows under the mens. Just seems so stupid to me.

Good points overlooked perhaps due to my bias.

Agree that it would be better out of the shadow of any men's game  but as a new product can leverage off the existing and grow both markets