deanox

On the assumption that Scott has (and does) show this type of bias, it is very disappointing. Think whatever you want of how he presents publically, he is one of the most influential people on modern AFL through his tactical approach to coaching at AFL level. It tarnishes what should be a great reputation.

Me too but the AFL have been very focused on the short term, with the exception of investment into GWS and GCS (although even that is short term with respect to tv rights and games in the local market in each state). Lots of decisions are focused on less than 12 months, and they regularly abandon or flip flop on things quickly if they don't have immediate return.

I think the AFL will use this to play a lot of rolling rounds. Games all week so it never feels like we have distinct rounds but instead football all week around. So yes there will be byes, but it won't be 14 days, it'll be 9 or 10 days.

@Bring-Back-Powell against us Carlton will be playing their 5th game in 27 days, we'll be playing out 4th in 29 days.

I'll try again. Of course other clubs wanted to play Collingwood as their home game. But when Collingwood put their wishlist in, a home game against Melbourne wasn't on it. If Collingwood had a wishlist for themselves, it was 10 other things, not this one. Because they got more value out of getting a guaranteed away game at the MCG (our wish for them) plus their own wish, than they would've gotten out of having QB as one of their home games. We shouldn't be thankful. That's genuinely boot licking. In return, Collingwood basically got no interstate travel, max games at the G, plus the best prime time exposure to grow their brand, for over a decade. This is why they are so big now.

Eddie looked after other clubs when it gained Collingwood more. "Giving" us Queens Bday ensured that Collingwood got another prime time, MCG game as an away game every year, getting them extra MCG games. He also got to publically talk about all the things he did for other clubs, making them out as good deeds or sacrifices. Meanwhile they got everything they wanted in terms of draw exposure etc. Don't think he did it for anyone other than Collingwood. Good negotiators find win win solutions not compromise or win lose situations. Meaning he got more than he would have otherwise.

This is definitely the article that had me asking the question about our run vs Carlton's, heading into our 9 May clash.

Thinking about the long and short breaks, I noted that when we play Carlton it will be a short (5 day) break but the game against Carlton will be Our 3rd in 16 days and 4th in 29 days (11/4, 24/4, 4/5, 9/5) While for Carlton it will be their 3rd in 13 days, 4th in 20 days and 5th in 27 days. (13/4, 20/4, 27/4, 3/5, 9/5) What does the pod think is likely to be more important, the single short break or the cumulative effect?

If it counts for anything, I think cumulative breaks are an issue as much as a single short break. And going the game against Carlton will be out 3rd in 16 days and 4th in 29 days. (11/4, 24/4, 4/5, 9/5) While for Carlton it will be their 3rd in 13 days, 4th in 20 days and 5th in 27 days. (13/4, 20/4, 27/4, 3/5, 9/5)

Exactly. And what's the value of the dive? They get suspended for next week? It just doesn't happen.

I mean we've already seen that just anyone can make a worksafe complaint and they investigate it...

Agree with this @daisycutter. As far as I'm concerned, off the ball, out of play hits like this are assault. They can't be excused as two players being aggressive towards each other and one getting a bit harder than intended, or even the "trying to push off to get separation" argument. It's just hitting a bloke who isn't looking. As cheap as any act in the AFL and should be stamped out as unacceptable.

I was just joking around. It's an interesting exercise, I'/ think it is meant to be "what our best 22 is, based on past history and the first quarter of the season" but it could equally be interpreted as "our best 22 in 2024 so far". If Bowey is there, we could also be making a case for Melksham and Brown if fit.

Why not? He played 70% of one game. Bowey's been named and he only played 48% of one game!

Capable, AFL standard, key position players don't get dropped to the VFL when the ly are coming back from injury and are yet to find form unless there are seriously better options firing at VFL level. There aren't. He'll stay at AFL level until he finds form and fitness.

It's still raining in Clayton and I've just heard it's snowing on Mt Buller!

Possibly. Although that would be worse with BBB than Disco. We could see Disco as sub still, leaving a winger (Windsor), a mid (Laurie), a forward (Sparrow) and a defender (Woey) on the bench.

Have we ever been as excited to see a player who was a mid season rookie draft selection and has played 3 games in 3 years, as we are excited to see Disco? From what I've seen he looks the goods and I'm excited for him to play! I just reflect on how anti messiah he is.

That's still more key forwards than we had last year @Demonland!

Yeah bringing him back through the VFL this week, if he plays ok I'd expect to see him in for Geelong or Carlton at the latest if he has the fitness levels required. I am expecting McAdam to play the defensive forward role on interceptors like Harris Andrews, which frees Petty and Fritsch to attack. So even though McAdam will probably replace a Tholstrup or Billings, it's a different role.

I assumed one of the draw cards of staying at Melbourne was playing with his brother

I don't want to put the mozz on us, but I feel like this kind of advanced discussion around a specific site are usually reserved for "this is going ahead, it's now just about the fine details" rather than "we are floating the idea to decide if possible or not".

Genuine nuffy level comment. It's a lack of nuance in the English language that it has only them and us (as opposed to other languages that have multiple words to describe groups that may or may not include the speaker, the reader, etc). But if you really want to get technical and claim supporters aren't "part" of the club: as a company limited by guarantee, any paid up member is legitimately a member of the club, with voting rights and other rights under the constitution and therefore can quite correctly refer to themselves as part of the Melbourne Football Club. So "we" is entirely appropriate in most instances around here.

At this point we are 2-1 against current top 8 teams and 2-1 against the current bottom 8 teams. Given the loss against a current bottom 8 team was against one of last year's grand finalists and we were coming off a short break, and we've played interstate 3/6 matches, I think it's a reasonable start for the year. A long way to go, but difficult to infer too much given the length of the season. We certainly didn't want to be peaking in the first 6 rounds.

@bing181 that's basically what we put on the table out looks like. I'm not sure we could have offered much more. I reckon it needed to be 2 and 3 to get it done. "Meanwhile the Demons, who have aggressively traded up in the order, put forward picks 6, 11, 42 and their future first-rounder in exchange for Pick 1." https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-draft-2023-west-coast-eagles-trading-away-pick-1-offers-rejected-north-melbourne-three-firstround-picks-melbourne-four-pick-offer-latest-news-harley-reid/news-story/67c96c9c712cb44dc87b3db0c1e06e28