titan_uranus

Burns out of the squad. Right call. Warner to replace if fit. If not, Pucovski if fit. If both unfit, Harris gets the spot. If both Warner and Pucovski are both fit, both play, Wade moves down to number 5 and Head gets dropped. Wade's not an opener but has done more than enough to hold his spot (subject to his own fitness - he wasn't running well in the field after his leg injury). There's an argument that even if only one of Warner and Pucovski are fit, Head still goes, with Harris coming in and Wade moving down.

Sucks for the Browns to have lost their WRs to COVID, but still, losing to the Jets with playoffs (and the division) on the line is classic Browns. They can still make it even if they lose to the Steelers next week but that requires the Colts to lose to Jacksonville, which surely won't happen, or a whack combination of the Titans losing to the Texans and then each of the Ravens, Colts and Dolphins winning.

Half a chance this will be an innings loss. Can't keep carrying Burns, Head and Green in the same top 6. Green may score well but even if he does, we're just far too lean in the top 6. Smith's horribly out of form and Labushagne can't convert any of his starts into 50s, let alone 100s. Must drop Burns for the next match. Never should have played the first Test. Funnily enough though, he's the only member of our failing top 6 to have made it to 50 this series so far. I know Head's got future captain ideals but he should go too. Throws his wicket away far too often. We can do better - whether that means shifting Wade down to 5 and bringing in two of Warner/Pucovski/Harris, or finding another middle order batsman to bat at 5. We have to strengthen the top 6. A few dropped catches cost us dearly (Labuschagne's drop of Gill at the end of Day 1 was as big as any IMO - they should have been 2/4 with Rahane out there facing Cummins and Starc at their best) but ultimately you can't win Tests if you can't make 200, and that's a fair chance of happening for the third consecutive (full) innings.

MFC predictions Ladder position at the end of the H&A season: 7th Position at the end of the season (e.g. stage of finals): 7th B&F top 5 (1 point for correct inclusion, 1 point for correct place): 1. Christian Petracca 2. Clayton Oliver 3. Max Gawn 4. Christian Salem 5. Steven May Leading goalkicker: Ben Brown Most marks: Steven May Best first year player: Bailey Laurie Most improved player: Sam Weideman All Australian 40-man squad selections (1 point each): Petracca, Gawn, Oliver, May All Australian final 22 selections (1 point each): Petracca, May Big Ben Brown will kick his biggest goal tally against: Essendon Biggest winning margin (exact guess is 5 points, within 1 point margin is 4 points etc): 68 Biggest MFC story of the year (5 points): Petracca wins the Brownlow Other MFC predictions (1 point each): TMac doesn't crack back into the best 22; Jackson shows strong form; we lose a game to a bottom 4 side; we beat Geelong in Geelong. AFL predictions Premier: Geelong Runner-up: Port Adelaide Wooden spoon: North Melbourne Biggest improver: Fremantle Biggest slider: Collingwood Brownlow medal: Christian Petracca Coleman medal: Charlie Dixon Rising star: Matt Rowell

According to this article, it's never happened before - all 11 teams to go 11-0 prior to this year's Steelers won their division.

Bears, Browns, Bills

Browns can easily take the division - if they beat the Jets and the Steelers lose this week vs the Colts, that final Week 17 game will be for the division. Wonder if a club's ever started 11-0 and failed to win the division.

2013. They have the longest finals drought outside of Gold Coast. On their website they've said they had an average free-to-air audience in 2020 of nearly 600,000. No idea what that figure is for us but will be the reason they get two Thursday nights to open the year. There is no fairness, though, in them only having 5 interstate trips and the remaining 17 games all in Melbourne.

In addition to these, some other quirks: We still haven't played Essendon twice in a season since 2005. We still haven't played Brisbane twice in a season since 2013. We still haven't played GWS at Giants Stadium since 2014. We haven't played West Coast at the MCG since 2014. Our MCG home game against Adelaide ends a run of only 1 of our last 10 games against them being at the MCG Next year's home game against Carlton is our first since 2017 and only our second since 2011 (we are currently on a streak of 1-10 H-A). Next year is the first non-COVID year we haven't played St Kilda twice since 2014.

Interstate trips: Hawthorn - 9 (but four are home games in Launceston) North - 9 (but four are home games in Hobart) (plus Geelong) Melbourne - 7 (but one is Alice Springs) (plus Geelong) St Kilda - 7 (including a home game in Cairns) (plus Geelong) Essendon - 6 (plus Geelong) Richmond - 6 Geelong - 6 Bulldogs - 6 (plus Geelong) Carlton - 5 Collingwood - 5 Compared to the original 2020 fixture (i.e. before COVID hit, the one released in October 2019), the only changes to this distribution are North having one extra game in Hobart, St Kilda and the Dogs having one extra interstate game, and Essendon getting sent down the highway.

Agree, but subject to timeslots. We don't know what our timeslots will be for Rounds 7-23, so we don't know if we're going to get, say, a stack of prime time or blockbuster games, family-friendly Sat/Sun arvo games, or the dreaded Sunday 1.10pm or twilight games.

So the double up games are against Geelong, Bulldogs, GWs, Hawthorn and Adelaide. Can't complain about that. 10 MCG home games including Geelong, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn and the Dogs (the other four are Fremantle, Sydney, GWS and Adelaide). Those six home games are a pretty good spread (no North or St Kilda) and we retain home game for ANZAC Eve and Queen's Birthday. On the flipside, one of only four clubs to not get a Thursday or Friday night game in the opening six rounds (the other three are Fremantle, Hawthorn and North Melbourne). We're clearly not attractive at the moment, but a solid start to the year will change that given the floating schedule. 12 MCG games altogether. Would like one or two more, but clearly we're not that attractive to be hosted by opposition sides. Away to Essendon - that means we're now on a 2-15 H-A streak against them. First game at the MCG vs Adelaide since 2016 and second since 2012. We haven't played Fremantle in Perth since 2015. Meanwhile we haven't avoided playing West Coast in Perth since 2015.

Well, I said we needed to be chasing sub-250. We've certainly achieved that. Incredibly good bowling. Sad to see Shami injured - not just as it may rob the series of another good player, but also because it ruins what was likely to be a massive record-setting innings. Still, I think I heard that's the first ever Test innings in which all 11 batsmen batted and none of them reached single fingers.

I can't see us winning this without bowling India out for 200-odd. Chasing 250+ on a wearing wicket with night-time swing and Ashwin's spin is going to be too hard for us I fear. The quicker we can move on from the Burns/Wade combo to any two of Warner, Pucovski and Harris (who should have played over Burns), the better.

Bills, Seahawks, Chiefs

For those who like playing this game, there's a photo of Laurie in today's training gallery where he looks to be wearing a jumper with a "1" as the first number? 16, maybe?

Packers, Titans, Saints

Tough week! Going to go Saints, Raiders, Colts.

Ah yes, another opportunity for the usual suspects to do the whole "actions speak louder than words" thing. There aren't any actions we can implement right now that aren't susceptible to criticism. Even with many of our players doing early pre-season fitness work, I'm sure plenty will argue that training means nothing until game day. What's funny about this article is that amongst the obvious fluff is an acceptance from Gawn that we look back on 2018 and consider that a fail. So for those who think the players think it's all going to happen because 2018 happened, this article actually helps you see that's not really what the players think. Yes, the rest is guff, and yes, we all want to see us perform in 2021. But given that's not currently an option, just let the articles roll around and accept them for what they are.

Dolphins, Browns, Seahawks

Happy for Lockhart. M Brown I guess is cheap insurance. Surprised re: Bedford and Chandler.

Just announced. Five Demons sign on for 2021 Bedford and Jordon stay senior, Lockhart promoted to senior list, Chandler and M Brown stay rookies.

I'm neither misrepresenting nor misunderstanding. The AFL wants players to stop running so that there are fewer players at each contest. I get it. I'm just not convinced that it will work. There remains the risk that reduced rotations will only serve to put a premium on runners, with coaches backing in fitter players over skilful ones, and the result being barely any different. There remains the risk that players who have been conditioned for years, if not decades, to run both ways, go full pelt, and leave nothing on the field, will continue to do so (no matter what their coaches say), and find themselves more fatigued than normal. None of it's a certainty, but it's a risk, and that's why I don't view Dangerfield's comments as a conspiracy theory/vendetta but rather just the voice of concern from the playing group.

I agree with the importance of fitness. I don't agree with your comment that "less rotations will see the better players excel in the latter stages of the game". Your comment would be more accurate if it said "less rotations will see the fitter players excel in the latter stages of the game". We have had many discussions on here about the club drafting players who are fit and athletic but not necessarily good football players. This could very well increase that trend: clubs will want players who can run out games, even if they can't kick. As to Dangerfield's comments, the issue the overarching playing group has is that they are being asked to produce high quality exciting football when the AFL has openly stated the goal of these rule changes is to make them fatigued. It's a genuine concern that isn't necessarily motivated by some sort of personal vendetta he has.

Does there always have to be a conspiracy theory? Maybe, instead, he's just doing his job as the president of the AFLPA and representing the majority of players who are concerned about the AFL wanting them to be fatigued/exhausted in matches and the potential for injuries to increase on the back of that.