7 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

The Tigers weren't the best team all year??

Geez, they were damn close...

That's what made round 23 so hard to take.

There was no real stand out team last year.

Giving them credit... Toiges had a wonderful 8 weeks or so including the final series. 4-5 weeks out they were on paper a real chance to finish 9-10 on the ladder.

9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

That's what made round 23 so hard to take.

There was no real stand out team last year.

Giving them credit... Toiges had a wonderful 8 weeks or so including the final series. 4-5 weeks out they were on paper a real chance to finish 9-10 on the ladder.

I give them massive credit - they lost three or four games by less than a goal

They could have finished on top of the ladder

5 hours ago, jumbo returns said:

I give them massive credit - they lost three or four games by less than a goal

They could have finished on top of the ladder

They also would have lost to us had we not been crucified by injuries.

Play your accounts right this year around/after M Cup Day there is quite a reasonable free money amount to outlay on early/sometimes better Footy betting odds that doesn't cost a cent. People who know will agree with me, but i'm not going to put it out......

31 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Play your accounts right this year around/after M Cup Day there is quite a reasonable free money amount to outlay on early/sometimes better Footy betting odds that doesn't cost a cent. People who know will agree with me, but i'm not going to put it out......

I’m not even drunk and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe the trick is I need to be drunk. Back soon. 

I think the betting agencies are betting (pun intended) on people jumping on board mid-range promising young lists in the wake the Dogs and Tigers unprecedented premiership success. It's 'on trend', and they think people will take those odds now.

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

I think the betting agencies are betting (pun intended) on people jumping on board mid-range promising young lists in the wake the Dogs and Tigers unprecedented premiership success. It's 'on trend', and they think people will take those odds now.

Betting agencies are always "on trend" thats their job.

It has been suggested - If you know how to exploit that the more you bet the more you win.

If you dont know how to exploit that your money is set to head into their pockets over the long run.  

On 1/30/2018 at 11:11 PM, Ethan Tremblay said:

Who was the last team to finish on top of the ladder at the end of the home and away season and go on to win the GF?

 

Sydney has had two recent minor premierships followed by 'coming second' in the grand final. Funnily enough, they've done that five other times in their history, too.

Port Adelaide took three tries before getting there in 2004.

Brisbane never finished minor premiers in their triple.

Overall, it looks like there's roughly a three-way split for final result for minor premiers; 1/3rd win the premiership, 1/3rd come runner up, and 1/3rd don't make the grand final.

With the power of statistics and imprecise grammar, I could thus 'accurately' say "winning the minor premiership means you are less likely to win the premiership than another team".

Even if Tigers won 5 flags in a row

They would still be Richmond and therefore never be the best team

Just a bunch of [censored] in Black and Yellow 

The club that produced Sheedy 

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

They also would have lost to us had we not been crucified by injuries.

I completely agree with you, but they kept on finding a way

They hunted in packs and found the formula to win a premiership in the modern era

2 hours ago, jumbo returns said:

I completely agree with you, but they kept on finding a way

They hunted in packs and found the formula to win a premiership in the modern era

The formula is well known its just a matter of finding the big dollars to execute it. Money sadly does not grow on trees at the MFC. 

I am a pessimist/realist. I'd like to bet on Melbourne missing out on the 8 ... and hopefully losing that bet.

I am an optimist/realist. I'd like to bet on Melbourne making the top 4 ... but don't have any money after last year's optimism. 

On 01/02/2018 at 8:09 PM, DaveyDee said:

The formula is well known its just a matter of finding the big dollars to execute it. Money sadly does not grow on trees at the MFC. 

The Dogs won in 2016 without being flush with cash!

28 minutes ago, D4Life said:

The Dogs won in 2016 without being flush with cash!

Dave (Dr. Who) shovels money ? at any project and it just works perfectly...

On 2/4/2018 at 10:59 AM, D4Life said:

The Dogs won in 2016 without being flush with cash!

Yeah Doggies do like to promote they bucked the trend, but think that suits their agenda.

Dogs have been pumping huge $$$$ into their FD since Gordon got elected in 2012 ( approx) and it was part of his platform to get elected. Plus lets not forget the huge $$$$ they pumped into Boyd to front load his contract - cough, cough. 

But, I accept the Doggies have a long way to go to be considered big spenders over many decades.  

The Bulldogs did pay Boyd big bucks, but was part of their salary cap, so they can’t spend more than the max cap. Unless your allowed a special marketing allowance like GC & GWS.

But  the Dogs don’t have anywhere near the money of the following:

Crows

Eagles

Freo

Pies

Bombers

Tigers

Hawks

And probably a few more!

more money means better facilities, not selling home games, more money for FD, medical etc. But at least the salary cap gives most teams a chance! Nothing like the soccer leagues in Europe, where no salary caps, make it totally unfair!

 

What odds Jesse Hogan for the Coleman. I had $50 on him at 30 to one last year and we know what a year he had. My mother always used to call me a mug punter.

1 hour ago, Basher said:

What odds Jesse Hogan for the Coleman. I had $50 on him at 30 to one last year and we know what a year he had. My mother always used to call me a mug punter.

I think he’ll be playing up the ground more this season so I’d save your money Basher. Put it on Tom McDonald instead ($67). 

Edited February 5, 20187 yr by Ethan Tremblay

1 hour ago, Basher said:

What odds Jesse Hogan for the Coleman. I had $50 on him at 30 to one last year and we know what a year he had. My mother always used to call me a mug punter.

He's only paying $9 to win it. Fourth line of betting behind Kennedy, Franklin and Daniher. 

We would all like to see him kick bags every week but as ET stated probably not a good bet as all the talk is Jesse playing further up the ground. 

9 hours ago, Demon77 said:

He's only paying $9 to win it. Fourth line of betting behind Kennedy, Franklin and Daniher. 

We would all like to see him kick bags every week but as ET stated probably not a good bet as all the talk is Jesse playing further up the ground. 

I hope so. He's a natural CHF. Has the strength for pack marking and the agility to hunt ground balls. When he runs his defender around he's far more damaging. The space within which he will work as a CHF is ideal for his game style. Parked in the goal square is much harder for him because there's less room to move and consequently easier for the opposition to nullify him. 

21 hours ago, D4Life said:

The Bulldogs did pay Boyd big bucks, but was part of their salary cap, so they can’t spend more than the max cap. Unless your allowed a special marketing allowance like GC & GWS.

But  the Dogs don’t have anywhere near the money of the following:

Crows

Eagles

Freo

Pies

Bombers

Tigers

Hawks

And probably a few more!

more money means better facilities, not selling home games, more money for FD, medical etc. But at least the salary cap gives most teams a chance! Nothing like the soccer leagues in Europe, where no salary caps, make it totally unfair!

 

I have no problems with a salary cap assuming all clubs are forced to spend a minimum of 100%. Its only an equalisation tool when all clubs do that. But, the difficult comes when you miss out on playing finals, paying the players 100% of cap will get the cheap seats rattling.

For the record - clubs should pay AFL funded bonuses if the team makes the final.    

Edited February 6, 20187 yr by DaveyDee

$1.75 to finish top 8? Those are short odds.

We all know what that means!

Dees for the spoon.

2 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

I have no problems with a salary cap assuming all clubs are forced to spend a minimum of 100%. Its only an equalisation tool when all clubs do that. But, the difficult comes when you miss out on playing finals, paying the players 100% of cap will get the cheap seats rattling.

For the record - clubs should pay AFL funded bonuses if the team makes the final.    

I like that idea.

Players used to get more match payments for finals IIRC but I assume that has gone out the window.

The negative is that if the amount was substantial players could gravitate to the club more likely to win. 

For our NFL friends are bonuses paid for super bowl wins etc?

2 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

I have no problems with a salary cap assuming all clubs are forced to spend a minimum of 100%. Its only an equalisation tool when all clubs do that. But, the difficult comes when you miss out on playing finals, paying the players 100% of cap will get the cheap seats rattling.

For the record - clubs should pay AFL funded bonuses if the team makes the final.    

Yeah because Melbourne's 2013 list deserved to get the same amount as Hawthorn's 2013 list. Forcing clubs to pay a minimum of the cap only works if clubs are actually able to attract decent players.