deanox

Well we got the minor premiership, and ironically will probably have an opportunity to know off the interstate final too! I think I read that we've play 87 finals at 9 venues, but only won at 4 of those venues. And of those 4 venues, the only one in current use is the MCG. So any finals wins this year will add to those numbers!

Prolonging Essendon's steel without winning a final is critical for the balance of the universe.

With you completely with this post, except for giving him the benefit of the doubt. He was over line when he went up for the ball, his immediate opponent had already dropped a couple of steps back because of how clearly OOtF it was (so no physical pressure and he wasn't trying to spoil anyone's mark) and he chose to double fist punch it as far as he could. I think it was pretty justified for a "time wasting" 50 m penalty, given the "professional foul" nature of the infringement.

I honestly don't know what was worse. Paying it against May as he fell over, or against Brayshaw trying to get it forward.

The umpiring was pretty average all night. I would have thought that the two top 4 battle games would have been auditions for the 6 umpires they thought were most likely for the prelim/GF?

Was screaming for this! How he managed to hit Max up like that, I'll never know.

Commentators seemed pretty happy it was there and scathing of the deliberate against Brayshaw.

Yeah good on Carey. But since when has swapping hands been called a throw in the AFL? Is it the action (ie "throwing it up"?). If so, the same thing should apply to Higgins 2018, and other instances of throwing it up then kicking it. He wasn't disposing it, and it's not like he threw it up meters in the air and recaught it to avoid another player, he did the minimum he could to transfer the ball between hands. Surely that is not the intent of the rule?

Under what rule did the umpire pay that a throw? (Around the goal post) Surely passing the ball hand to hand is not the same as throwing? Surely it's no different than Higgins 2018?

Pick 8 for Lever? What a steal. We had to pay pick 6 for May for was 5 or 6 years older. I still don't understand the fuss!

Yeah we paid 2 first round picks, but add them all in with the picks we got back (including Petty), I don't think the equivalent of a top 5 pick was overs for an exposed form, 21 year old who was almost guaranteed to play for 10 more years in your best 22.

Over the year I feel Jordon has the body of work I'd have prefered heading into finals. Perhaps they are resting him in lieu of the pre finals bye? I actually added more here (to save double up). https://demonland.com/forums/topic/50894-teams-rd-23-vs-geelong/?do=findComment&comment=2031643

For the season: Sparrow averaging 7.5 disposals @69% DE, 123m gained, 1.8 SIs and 2.6 tackles, Jordon averaging 16.9, disposal @ 72% DE, 215 m gained, 3.3 SIs and 4.5 tackles. I know that is averages not the last few weeks: Sparrow's last 3 has been his best of the season but I do think Jordan has been a pretty constant contributor. He has kept disposals pretty consistent but tackles dropped right off as you said: has his role changed?

Surprised he kept his spot ahead of Jordon, but wondering if it's to freshen Jordon up for finals?

I suspect that they have tried to manage this quite as best they can with loading contracts etc. Levers extension I think was reported as a reduction in salary, Petraccas was likely front loaded. Oliver's extension was 2 years only lining him up for his turn for monster contract when ready. The risk is if LJ has come on quicker than expected and we don't have the cap space early enough. But I'm guessing we expected him to be target of a go home raid by WCE looking to replace NicNat, so probably planned for it already.

It wasn't Oliver's best game but he was consistent. 28 disposals (14 contested), 5 clearances, 8 score involvements, 7 tackles. I'd have Fritsch and Salem clearly higher than him in ranking Melbourne players, but after that it is a bit of a raffle. The 2 goals Petracca kicked may get him the nod. Others like Langdon and Rivers are in the mix too, but you could see the justification for Oliver is he gets 1 or 2 votes from the coaches. Had he kicked the two goals he missed, he would have been up there no doubt. It's the one little knock on him, and if he sorts that, look out.

There were only 16 teams though, so you got return matches against 7 sides: more chances to win the clean sweep. No one has done it in the 18 team era.

I realised this morning that only 5 of our team on Saturday were 26 or older (Hibberd, Melk, Gawn, Brown, Salem). Yes, another 5 in our nominal best 22 are over 26 and didn't play (May, TMac, Tomlinson, Viney, Hunt) but we covered them pretty well. In the next 4 years, Gawn, Brown, TMac and May are the only "retirees" we really need to worry about replacing and with Petty and Jackson we've got a good start on two of those positions. I can see that key forward for 2023 onwards would be the thing keeping our list managers up at night.

Hey! Where'd you get that photo of me?

In the 18 the comp, no one has ever beaten all 17 other teams in the one season. Not sure how many have beaten 16.

I like Sparrow, seems like an honest battler with no major weaknesses, developing nicely. But I have no idea what his strengths are. He doesn't seem to have stand out attributes, rather be a generally good foot solider. Maybe that's what he'll be: a reliable contributor over the journey who never truly owns his position, but does enough to hold his spot on the list as he makes his way to 150 games?

Is his disposal poor or has his execution been poor? I've seen him slot a goal or two and done it well.

My thinking: Baker and Hore probably unlikely to get a nod for next year, with Jetta, Jones and VDB probable retirees. Means Weid, Hibberd, and Lockhart probably get extensions. Would leave Lockhart, Hibberd, and Melksham in the gun for 2022. Most of this squad can stay together until 2024 without any key retirement risks, which is great.

It's sad because I think Tassie deserves better, and I think that the AFL place commercial benefits for the top couple of people (players, administrators) above their role as custodians of the game, and above looking after all the other people who make it happen (support staff who work really hard and get paid rubbish and less than market rate, as well as fringe players and 2nd tier comps.

No, I expect you are right on saying that a Tassie team would get more members and more active support than GC, but that isn't what the big commercial battle is about. GC might lose money in its own operations, but it has the potential to create more money than Tassie as part of the bigger picture. For example, the gate takings are worth nothing compared to tv rights. Queensland is a bigger tv market than Tassie, so having a GC team is probably worth more in the tv rights deal. Having two local clubs live on tv on Queensland each week also saturates that market and creates a tv product worth selling. Because Tassie is already "football heartland" they already have maximum eyeballs on tv. Putting a team in Tassie doesn't widen their market exposure or create more revenue for the broadcasters. But GC might. I also don't think you can underestimate the value the AFL place on blocking out the A-League and NRL. There is a finite pool of broadcast right money to be spent across all codes. Blocking or at least matching expansion of those leagues is a critical strategic action. Allowing tose competitors to get a foothold and grow now may mean their long term revenue may grow, making them hard to fight in decades time. Pyrrric victory perhaps, but victory all the same.