Copuchas

Must admit to being particularly pleased that Carlton hung fat on the Gibbs trade and in so doing exposed the disingenuity of Gibbs and his manager in requesting a trade to Adelaide under the banner of "personal issues". Whilst I'm not in any position to doubt that there weren't personal issues involved, they obviously weren't of a sufficient nature that Gibbs was prepared to do the right thing by Carlton and request they get him back to South Australia (Port or Crows) in whatever manner best mitigated the loss of his services to Carlton. In robbing Carlton of any possibility of competitive tension in the trade discussions, Gibbs leaves himself open to being accused of looking to jump in to a premiership window, having concluded the Carlton rebuild has a ways to run yet (given the list age profile) and considering he's 28 at the start of next season. Quite where the sanctity of the remaining firm three year contractual commitment fitted in to these deliberations isn't immediately apparent! Hopefully serves as a warning for others contemplating abuse of the "personal / family issues" contract breaking mechanism.

Barrett cops at least his fair share of flack on DL but I thought his observation in today's Sliding Doors was a good one: you intend to rough up Melbourne players next season ... ... make sure you go your hardest. We reckon they might like it. Viney always has. And now he's got Lewis to back him up. And Hibberd. And Melksham. And Vince, Jones and Kent augment those named with Oliver set to break in to the ranks in 2017. Intimidation should be a thing of the past.

Who's he given a higher ranking to at this stage of the caper? Saints?

Not to mention the 12 months we lost on Melksham for what was generally regarded as an overs premium at the time it was concluded. Looks like turning in to a who blinks first exercise. Is there any possibility we have a quality alternative use in this year's trade period for 29 so that we can present Dodo head with a take it or leave it? Or are we determined to go to the draft with a 2nd round pick in hand?

It's been mentioned on here multiple times but if you type the story title in to a new google search, it will take you to the story. The one caveat is that this only seems to work when the story's been existence for a while (12 hours or so it seems), so my suggestion is to try tomorrow morning.

unless I'm imagining it, Clarrie grew a centimetre or two over the course of the season....it will be interesting to see what he's listed at for 2017. One aspect that hasn't been touched on is his kicking as his hands in close are such a thing of beauty. However my assessment is that his kicking skills aren't half bad for a kid his age - no fundamental technique flaws and clearly something that will be worked upon in the pre-season. As several others have noted, it's just all upside with Clarrie.

I'm just hoping that our Perth based Demonlanders have something suitable in mind for Karl Langdon for when Jesse signs on (as the balance of probabilities increasingly indicates will be the case). The vitriol peddled by that pompous clown ought not be allowed to go unchallenged.

KingSlayer, I think the driver is more the social media driven obsession with relevance / fame. You see it manifest itself across every facet of society....just an irrepressible need to be first at something, first with something....to the point where there is no compunction with fabricating a story line or misrepresenting "facts". I just shake my head.......

There was an article some time back about Linden's life with his son as a single father in a shared custody arrangement. I don't know what's transpired since but it's not necessarily a given that Lynden would be in a position to move to Brisbane. Watching the prelim final was a timely reminder for all about what an elite kick Dunn is. We don't have too many of them at the Dees and I for one would be keen to see him retained to perform a Michael Firrito type role for the next two or three years.

I don't think GNF was being insensitive or facetious. He omitted the word inadvertently ie the timing of the resolution of Jesse's personal situation is not dovetailed to the trade period, nor the AFL season nor his contract expiry and that potentially could cause a suboptimal outcome for the MFC notwithstanding the best intentions of Jesse (and even other parties in this saga). If you look at my post from several weeks ago you'll see the same assessment, albeit written in more subtle language as the matter of Jesse's father's illness was not being discussed in detail at that point.

A very sensible outcome. Better weather on Sunday too. KC, can you give us a feel for the round 3 clash against Willy where they thumped us by 44 points (I think that was the only time we played them for the season)?

I think you'll find the fixturing reflects a Western Bulldogs / Footscray priority as they are the only club with teams still contending in both competitions (and the WB are playing on Fri night and hence likely to play the following Fri night or Sat if they win through. A Sat fixturing for Footscray minimises the scheduling / recovery gap differential across their two teams). With the VFL GF set for Sun, Casey still gets a minimum 7 day break if they make it. If Melbourne were contending in the AFL finals series as well as Casey, I'm sure we'd want it managed in the same manner. We must resist the temptation on here of becoming too provincial and paranoid....

Redleg, that's well reasoned logic albeit with one caveat. There's been several oblique references on here to the nature of the family issue Jesse is contending with and Paul Roos made an even more subtle reference to it. It would seem apparent that resolution of that issue is likely a primary driver in Jesse's decision making. Unfortunately, the timing of the resolution is not a controllable variable and hence the possibility remains that we end up getting screwed, albeit inadvertently.

I see that both semi finals will be played at North Port oval. Is it the case then that the preliminary finals will both be played there too? I assume our preliminary final will be played on the Saturday (having finished on top)?

I haven't seen explosive pace like Dangerfield's, power yes...but several times Petracca was caught short for pace and in fact I was questioning through the season whether he was playing too heavy and would be asked to come back lighter for next pre-season. Don't misinterpret my comments, I'm a huge wrap for him but he hasn't demonstrated elite pace, which clearly is an attribute of Dangerfield's.

Hawks / Pies is not so insignificant either and a Pies win could see us play the first two weeks of finals on the MCG (Hawks in Elimination and Cats in a Semi)......

Ted, did you fail maths? !!! Percentage is points for divided by points against. Melbourne will have a higher percentage than North at the point where the net points for / points against of the two teams crosses over from the current 50 point deficit to a positive number. That can be comprised of Melbourne winning margins or North losing margins - it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter whether our absolute percentage goes up or down - it is about our percentage relative to Norths....which is driven by the points for / points against equation...

it's not about absolute percentage! It's about the net points for / points against difference between Melbourne and North. We started today with a 59 point deficit. It's now 50 points. We'll see what tomorrow brings...

if it's wet (likely to be to at least some extent), don't anticipate seeing the Weed. Casey have had a lot of wet weather football this year and that's been challenging for Sam as you'd expect. Pedo's bigger body will be the order of the day.

I think you'll find it's optionality in case we make the finals. Might not be as late in the season as we all think it is

Yes, it is important pyschologically that this is the case ie take percentage out of the equation and reduce it to outright wins by us and GWS. It also eliminates any possibility of GWS trying to fabricate an outcome where they win but by a margin that's too narrow to bridge a remaining percentage differential. Because as Dermott commented on the Fox coverage on Sat nite, there's seven other teams that wouldn't want a form side on a roll ie Melbourne in the finals.

No, we shouldn't be dealing in hope. Best that we take control of our own destiny and beat the Baggers by 10+ goals to bridge the current net 59 points for / points against deficit. Then any Swans victory margin will be an added percentage buffer and a one point victory by GWS in round 23 will suffice....

"certainly a pretty good second half of the year" Oh really? Don't confuse your ignorance / non-interest in the MFC until recently with the form line of Jack Viney you [censored].....

I've seen the 6% assessment in the article in the Hun that draws on this same analysis. I have to say that I don't understand. If you assess that we're a 70/30 chance of beating Carlton and Sydney are a 70/30 chance of beating North (which is reflective of the remarkably similar market odds for both games: 3.35 / 1.33 for NTH / SYD and 3.60 / 1.33 for CAR / MEL) and you assume these results eliminate the percentage differential (5 goal margins required so not unreasonable), the equation comes down to two matches. Haven't seen the odds for NTH / GWS but let's assume they're 50/50 (arguably generous to Norf?). For the Dees to be a 6% overall chance, that infers that we are rated a very low probability of rolling Geelong. This is where all these models which draw from historical data fall apart. The current Melbourne and GWS sides and form bear little or no resemblance to the data from which the chance percentage is being derived....

If you want a laugh, read this thread chronologically from the get-go!! https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/are-we-going-to-make-the-finals.1141090/