titan_uranus

The things you've identified are massive logistical barriers. If West Coast and Fremantle end up in the same group of 6 as, say, Brisbane and GC, you get those sides criss-crossing the country repeatedly over the last 5 weeks in the run to finals. Or, alternatively, you could get six Victorian clubs in the same group who then get to sit in Victoria for the last 5 weeks of the year. It throws up different forms of inequality. It simply does not solve the problem. Agreed. The AFL loves copying the NFL but funnily enough won't go near the NFL's "less is more" concept. We can't increase to 34, so if we won't reduce to 17 then the only option, IMO, is to have the 5 double-up games allocated so that, over a 2 or 3 or 4 year period you even out as much as is possible (17 isn't a good number for maths, though). There has to be greater transparency. There has to be a policy whereby every club plays every other club at least once home and away in a defined period (every 2 or 3 years, for example). We can't have Melbourne being away to Essendon literally every year, or Hawthorn not going to Brisbane for 10 years. The current model allows for flexibility with double-up games against rivals but the 5 double up games have to be allocated as fairly as possible over time.

How does the severity of Hibberd's injury affect our chances of winning this week? He's not playing either way.

His kicking hasn't been as good this year but his two-way running, his bursts from the backline, his man-on-man strength and his zoning are impossible to replace with one player. I suspect we'll play Smith or Wagner in his role but whether it's one of them, or Harmes, or Fritsch, it's a major downgrade and right at the wrong time of the year. Absolutely medicine/science-free rubbish, @praha. Do you have any medical or scientific knowledge to link Lever's ACL injury to playing in 22-degree warmth the week prior? Or Viney's sore toe to playing humidity? Or a quad pulled 1.5 weeks afterwards, in which time Hibberd had played another complete game? Where Goodwin refers to "look at our grounds", he could quite easily (and IMO much more likely) be referring to the firmness of the turf we train on. I reckon you've completely lost it with this one.

When the only reason people want you to be picked is because you have "mongrel", you're clearly not that much chop. IMO Bugg's weaknesses (terrible skills, no confidence when we're attacking) outweigh his strengths (strong two-way running, good defensive pressure, the aforementioned "mongrel"). Of course, if he is able to improve his skills and become a better player when we're attacking, those strengths he's already displayed become even more valuable (and we know the FD loves two-way running and defensive pressure). So whilst I'm not prepared to say he's got no hope at all, right now he's not best 22, nor do I think he's that close to it. How can you possibly say this given AVB hasn't played for two years? Are you rating his 2016 form compared to his 2015 form? How is that relevant to what AVB might be capable of now? Your negativity seriously knows no bounds.

Who'd have thought one of the game's biggest on-field fl0gs would be a [censored] off the field too.

They lost Gray just before half time when they were already losing. Not sure how much difference they would have made, to be honest. Meanwhile West Coast lost Naitanui in the second quarter and beat Collingwood by six goals. Fremantle are so bad that Port Adelaide ought to have found a way to get it done.

If we finish in the top 8 then we're good enough by definition. But a quick look at the ladder and some mathematics indicates we're not going to finish 8th or higher unless we win at least two, and likely three, of Geelong, Adelaide, WC, Sydney and GWS.

Nothing special, but I thought he got better as the game went on. Defensively he was good, tackling and chasing/pressuring. Offensively, though, not as much. Didn't appear very confident with the ball, didn't seem to get involved in the play too much. I'd be happy to give him another game next week, see if he can build on this, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Hawthorn and Geelong losing is obviously helpful, but GWS winning is a reminder that there are still plenty of sides ready to take our spot if we slip up. If we can beat Geelong next week, that will go a long, long way to securing our finals spot. Silly comment. We've had an easy run so far, only 4 games against the current top 8. And wrong, too. Sydney still has to play North, Essendon, Collingwood, us, GWS and Hawthorn. GWS has to play Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Sydney and us. Port has to play GWS, Adelaide, West Coast, Collingwood and Essendon. Plenty of sides have tough runs home, even if Geelong and Hawthorn don't (meanwhile Geelong lost to the Dogs two weeks ago and Hawthorn just lost to Brisbane).

The more upsets we can get out of the rubbish sides, the better. St Kilda and Brisbane holding some form for the rest of the season helps us. Fremantle knocking over Port, Hawthorn or Collingwood (all of whom they play at home) could help too. But we have to take care of our own destiny. We have to get to 13-9, which means we absolutely have to beat the Dogs and GC and then win two of the "harder" five.

If we finish in the top 8, then by definition we deserve to play finals, if that's what you're getting at. Any opportunity to play finals after 12 years of missing them is an opportunity worth having, whether or not we win that final. My view, though, is that we'll need to get to 13 wins to make the finals. In order to do that, we need to beat the Bulldogs and GC, and then win two out of the other five (Geelong in Geelong, Adelaide in Adelaide, Sydney, West Coast in Perth, GWS). So, if we've made it, we will have won at least two of those five games. But if we make it with 12 wins, then fine, we will have deserved to play finals even if we lose four of the those harder five games.

If we lose to all of Geelong, Sydney, West Coast and GWS then we will finish on 12 wins (assuming we beat the Dogs, Adelaide and GC). We'd be more likely to miss the finals than make them but "make up the numbers" in that scenario. I think to make finals we need to get to 13 wins, and to do that we have to win one of the four games you've identified.

How is that our best case scenario? If we make it from here (and I'm with you that it's looking unlikely), we're almost certainly going to have to beat Geelong in Geelong, Adelaide in Adelaide, West Coast in Perth or Sydney. Get a win (or two) out of those in our run home and our form would have to be alright.

No doubt about that. The stats are doing a good job of showing the pros and cons of the style Goodwin has us playing - when we are on, we score heavily and the ball hardly goes into our opponent's forward 50. But when we're off, teams use the space we deliberately leave out the back to their advantage and find it too easy to score when they do get it inside their 50. When we think about how to improve our defence overall, the debate has to be much broader than simply looking at the back six.

Presumably our inside 50 count against is much lower than 2017 too, @Skuit?

We should 100% be getting out of Darwin, even if it means a home game at Etihad. The Etihad home game thing will disappear eventually, either when the current contractual requirement for a minimum number of games there ends, or when the interstate clubs pressure the AFL into getting more games at the G given the GF deal that's been done.

The Dogs’ win is great for us, but ultimately it all comes down to our own performances. If we don’t win all of the next three we are in big trouble.

Good on him, hope he tears Carlton apart.

Every time anyone (myself included) does a ladder predictor exercise, the thing that is commonly missing is the occasional upset win where a rubbish side knocks over a top 8 side. Just last week Essendon beat West Coast in a game possibly no one thought Essendon could win. Brisbane's 56-point win over Hawthorn remains one of the biggest WTF moments of the season. Those sorts of results are going to occur again in the run home. We might be victim to one, given everyone is simply assuming we get to 12 wins on the back of St Kilda, Fremantle, the Dogs and GC. But, of course, it only takes one or two of those sorts of upsets to the sides around us to make it that much easier for us to get in if we can get to 13. If we miss finals, it is almost certainly going to come down to our inability to take our contested possession and clearance focused game plan and make it work against high pressure sides with a number back. Not some key forward getting a hold of us.

Everyone is frothing over Collingwood. They've beaten Carlton (twice), St Kilda, Brisbane, Fremantle, the Dogs, Essendon, Adelaide and us. We've beaten Carlton, St Kilda, Brisbane, GC, the Dogs, Essendon, Adelaide and North. But the narrative at the moment is "Melbourne can't beat anyone good" whilst "Collingwood is more dangerous than Richmond". If we're no good then they have no wins against anyone good. At least we've beaten North!

Winning all 3 is essentially necessary to make finals. It won’t change the perception that we’re a pretender, we just need the wins. But if we can win all three, we still have three chances to beat a better side (Geelong, WC, Sydney).

The final against Fremantle in 2006 was played on a Friday night. Other than that, you're right, we haven't played an interstate Friday night game since that 2003 game.

Not under the current final 8 system (i.e. since 2000). But Carlton missed the finals in 1992 with a 14-8 record. Having said that, running through the ladder predictor shows that it's entirely feasible for us to miss the finals even if we get to 13-9. It would just be so MFC, wouldn't it? Last year we break the record for smallest percentage gap to miss, then we go on to be the first team in the modern era to miss with 13 wins.

Their rating of the runs home isn't too bad, it factors in opponents' percentage, games against the current top 8, and travel. I'm surprised ours is so easy given we still have three interstate trips plus a trip to Geelong. If we beat Port and do what we ought to do (and so far this year have done) against St Kilda, Fremantle, the Dogs and Gold Coast, we should be OK. But that's only 13 wins. A 14th win would make it a sure thing, which means the above plus probably Adelaide (assuming they continue to be tripe) or GWS at the G. If we only end up on 13 wins, we're going to need to do better in our losses than we have so far. We can't afford to shed percentage every time we lose, and we're going to lose. I'm confident 13 will get us in provided our percentage holds up. Round 23 vs GWS at the G could well be a "win and in" for both sides. Let's hope we've secured our spot because I really don't want to have to go through that again (and from 8-3 we shouldn't have to).

I’d agree with the OP if the subject was Vince. Lewis is providing far more right now than Vince. Maybe that says more about Vince than Lewis.