titan_uranus

Not only is this wrong (Pickett and Fritsch were drafted, May and Lever traded in, and that's been me thinking about it for 5 seconds), it's also not a good argument. How many "game changers" does Collingwood have? Or Brisbane? How many does a side need?

Gee I stank this year. Eagles, Cowboys, Bucs

Bills, Packers, Jaguars

Chiefs, 49ers, Eagles

What does this story say?

Lions, Texans, Jaguars

Chiefs, Dolphins, Lions

Dolphins, Chiefs, Ravens

Given we have the same number of interstate games in 2024 as we did in 2023, it’s reasonable to suggest we traded the GMHBA game for the extra MCG away game we get this year. Indeed, we have all the same interstate trips except that instead of North in Tasmania, we have Fremantle in Perth (although we draw the short straw and have to swap the neutral Gather Round game to playing Adelaide).

I just deleted it because I missed one. They get 6, which remains the minimum along with Carlton and Collingwood. At least the latter two made prelims this year. How Essendon continues to get the best ride on interstate games is beyond me.

Interstate games (remembering that for everyone except us and Essendon, one of these games is a Gather Round game on neutral territory): Essendon - 6 Carlton - 6 Collingwood - 6 Hawthorn - 6 (plus four in Launceston, plus Geelong) North - 6 (plus four in Hobart, plus Geelong) Bulldogs - 6 (plus Geelong) Geelong - 7 Richmond - 7 (plus Geelong) St Kilda - 7 (plus Geelong) Melbourne - 7 (plus Alice Springs)

Things we shouldn't be surprised about: Collingwood get 7 of their last 8 games at the MCG, with the only other game being Sydney in Sydney. St Kilda get 8 of their last 9 games at Marvel, including their last 6 straight. That is a [censored] disgrace. In a professional sport played home and away, no side should be play that many games straight at their home ground. They get an "away" game at Marvel against Richmond, again. Gillon's left, why do they keep getting KOTD? Essendon get 10 of their last 11 games in Melbourne, all of which are straight - in other words, they don't travel anywhere, at all, from Round 12 (on 2 June) to Round 24 (at some point at the end of August, nearly three months later). Again, in a professional home and away league, that's bonkers.

How many big MCG home games are we supposed to get? We get Collingwood and Essendon but not Richmond or Carlton. We get Geelong but not Hawthorn. We get all of North, St Kilda and the Dogs, and we get Brisbane (biggest or second-biggest drawing interstate side) and Port (who should be decent). What I am a bit disappointed in is that of the four Thursday night games only the Brisbane one is a home game. Hopefully we're doing OK by the time the floating part of the fixture is released so that we can try to get the Essendon, Port and Collingwood home games in prime time slots.

My initial thoughts: No trip to Geelong is always a win. Even better, Richmond and Hawthorn are (completely fairly) going down there instead. We have an average slate of MCG home games - we get Collingwood, Essendon and Geelong but don't get Carlton, Richmond or Hawthorn. West Coast at the G breaks a 10 year duck. But of course means we get the overwhelmingly likely better WA team as a road trip. 8 interstate games is the same as this year, as is the one Marvel game. The difference is we trade the Geelong trip for an additional MCG game. That's a win. Zero Friday nights for us so far. Four Thursday nights means we don't miss out on prime time football but I detest Thursday night games when we are playing so that is, to me, a major loss. Our double-up games look very hard on 2023 form - Collingwood, Brisbane and Port Adelaide are the entire top 4 outside of us, which is ridiculous. But it's always folly to rate the double ups on this year's form, when every year we see a strong club flop and a weak club rise. It does not surprise me at all to see us get the equal-worst allocation of five-day breaks. You'd hope that means we don't get any in the last 9 rounds. You'd also hope that the sides to currently not have any five-day breaks all get at least one to make it somewhat even. I reckon back-to-back games in Adelaide is a good thing. One less set of flights, ability to adjust/acclimatise. Hopefully we can make that work. Indeed, the Adelaide fortnight is the only time during the year we spend more than one week away from the G. That is a major upgrade on, say, 2022, in which we had a 5-week period of playing away from the G. Our travel feels well spread, and we have four of our last five games in Melbourne, which is good. The Wednesday ANZAC Eve game looks to have been spaced out really well for us - 7-day break from Gather Round, 13 days to ANZAC Eve, 10 days to the next game - the bye works perfectly for us there Proper bye after KB is also welcome

Am I the only one yet to get off the mark? Cowboys, Seahawks, Vikings

This is a take I don’t agree with. What if we avoid trips to Brisbane and GWS? They were the two strongest interstate sides this year. We have to play interstate games so we can’t just get West Coast 5 times.

Yep this sucks. I want to go but a Thurs night makes it so much harder for Melbourne fans. I accept the same argument applies for all four games but therein lies the rub of Thursday night games - they fail the game’s most important stakeholder, the fans.

I hate Thursday nights. If we’re playing it’s tough enough to watch it on TV, let alone get there if it’s in Melbourne. I’m sure ratings were solid, there’s nothing else to watch, but the question IMO is whether fans like it when their own club plays on a Thursday.

The article says that our NT game has been locked in until 2026, so that’s a further three years of it.

Let’s wait and see what it all looks like. Could be good if it counts as one of our away games. Plus it’s a more “normal” match up than getting a Vic side. But more likely is in addition to the rest of our fixture and will mean an extra away game compared to most of our rivals.

This is so out of touch with reality. The CBA requires players to be available. Sponsorship requires players and coaches to be available. Media rights require players to be available. We are always going to have players commenting in the media. Your suggestions here are never going to happen, nor should they.

Fair enough. Initially it sounded worse than it actually is I guess. Although I reckon some players will feel aggrieved by not being part of a club environment or getting the chance to play and try to secure a new contract.

Colts, Titans, Falcons

I was one who didn’t know this. Can players be delisted with anything more than one year left on their contract? I’m interested as to how/why the AFLPA at some point allowed this.