titan_uranus

Correct. North copped a much harder set of double ups than Hawthorn did. There are no guarantees with a bottom 6 fixture because it is set based on the previous year’s performance. Hawthorn’s just an example of how it can work in your favour.

In relation to the quoted line about acting in good faith, whilst the line comes in the analysis of the rules that were left to be decided by the judge, the paragraph and surrounds don't link that phrase solely to those rules. I don't know that the judge would have been so unequivocal on that issue if he had privately thought to himself that the club's conduct in relation to the other rules wasn't in good faith etc. It's at least open for debate I'd have thought, so I'm not sure I misinterpreted anything there. Then in relation to the second point, the judgment shows that Peter rejected the amendment the club ultimately made, which was to make it clear that the phrase "disparage" does not include reasonable constructive criticism. I find it hard to see what Peter thought was wrong with that amendment, which is precisely what the judge said. I agree though that it obviously came at the conclusion of the trial, so had he agreed with the amendment it wouldn't have made a difference to the fact that the trial had already occurred. But this wasn't the only rule left for the judge to consider. There was still at that point no agreement on the rules relating to giving interviews and using social media. So you've had a go at me for something "factually incorrect" but I'm not sure your post is completely correct either. Regardless, what I meant to focus on in my first post (but which I see on reflection was not clear) was less the disparagement point and more the point about being able to give interviews on TV and radio and post on social media. Combined, the effect of what he was seeking was the ability to go on radio/TV and criticise the club. As I said, I don't think that is something he ever should have sought in the first place. When I said the ends don't always justify the means, what I meant was that the outcome of this case, which should largely be seen as a win for him, doesn't mean that his actions can be stripped of any sense of entitlement or selfishness which would otherwise attach to them. But I completely accept that our election rules are better now. I also completely agree that Roffey's email was disgracefully misleading.

Overall record against the finalists: Sydney: 6-3 GWS: 6-6 Collingwood: 6-6 Port Adelaide: 5-3 Geelong: 5-5 Bulldogs: 5-5 Adelaide: 4-1-8 Hawthorn: 4-5 Carlton: 4-6 Melbourne: 4-7 Brisbane: 3-5 Essendon: 3-6 Gold Coast: 3-7 Fremantle: 3-8 St Kilda: 3-8 Richmond: 1-10 West Coast: 0-8 North Melbourne: 0-12 So whilst the bottom 6 draw worked for Hawthorn, it did not work at all for North, who copped 4 of a possible 6 maximum repeat games against finalists (Carlton, Geelong, the Dogs and Hawthorn). Adelaide had the roughest on this metric, with 5 of its 6 repeat games against finalists (Geelong, Port, Brisbane, Hawthorn and Sydney), meaning 13 of their 23 games were against finalists. Meanwhile Brisbane, despite making the GF last year, and Port, despite being a top 4 H&A side last year, ended up with just 1 of their 6 repeat games against finalists. Brisbane fared well getting Collingwood and us twice. It's obviously a rudimentary metric - part of the reason the finalists are finalists is because they beat the other sides. Also this doesn't take into account when a side won these games (e.g. of our 4 wins, 3 were in in Rounds 1-3).

The help of a bottom 6 draw can be seen in Hawthorn. They got each of Richmond, North Melbourne and Adelaide twice. They went 6-0 against them. The way they play is very attractive and exciting, but it's also important to note that the only finalist they've beaten since Round 13 was Carlton two weeks ago, when they had no one on the bench in the second half, and they only played three finalists in total since Round 13 (lost to Geelong and GWS, beat Carlton).

In Round 18: We were in the top 8 Carlton was 2nd Fremantle was 5th Essendon was 6th Port was 9th, 2.1% behind us The Dogs were 10th Hawthorn was 11th, a game and 10% behind us St Kilda was 15th, 4 wins and 14.4% behind us

So we just finished 14th. To be honest, I hate seeing us that low on the ladder. But if you’re going to have a down year (and let’s hope it’s just one year down), may as well make it as bad as possible. Getting pick 5 after being in the finals race with 3-4 games to play has its upside.

Agree. Too much talk about key forwards, not enough about the midfield. I’d rather spend whatever we’d have to pay Lynch on a mid, assuming we can find one.

Daicos’ worst game this year was arguably KB, when ANB tagged him right out of it. We didn’t get near them.

I found our losses interesting this year. They were either close games, which we largely botched, or they were large scale losses. From 6-2 onwards, when we went 5-10, our losses were by 1, 2, 5 and 5, and then by 35, 38, 56, 50, 51 and 92. Six times we couldn't keep the margin below 6 goals. The other four were botched close games. Nothing in between after Round 5. Edit: so were our wins, too. After Round 5, our wins were by 3 and 8, then 17 to Essendon (but that was 40+ with 10 minutes to go), and otherwise were 38, 43, 54 and 54. One game after Round 5 that wasn't decided by a single digit or by 6+ goals.

A lot of clubs have bogey sides. Right now Collingwood and Fremantle are that for us. It'll be partly in our heads, I'm sure. It's also talent. Collingwood are smarter and faster than us, whilst Fremantle match us at contest and are too strong defensively for us to score against. There was a thread going around the other week asking when we know our season was shot. For mine, it was King's Birthday. Losing to a half-strength Collingwood by 6 goals told me we were no good.

Sadly, he's just not good enough. He didn't deserve to be dropped after the GWS game, which was arguably his best, and maybe some continuity would have helped, but the rest of his performances didn't warrant ongoing selection. I've never seen it, and I still don't. The decision to give him the contract extension was baffling given the lack of faith we showed in him.

Well, so it ends. From the Oliver trade story 11 months ago, into Joel Smith, into copping a fixture that we now can see was as difficult as could be, into Gus, we had an off-season we all wanted to believe we'd put behind us, but which ultimately wrecked us before we even set foot onto the SCG for Opening Round. At the absolute least, the capitulation from 6-2 and 4th on the ladder after Round 8 to 11-12 and in the bottom 6 with a sub-100% percentage tells us that we do not have the right list, coaching staff and general approach to contend, so it forces us to change. We can't sit still, make list changes at the fringes, and go again. Already seen a stack of posters going on about getting a key forward. That's not the number one issue. The number one issue is, and has been all year, our midfield. Even assuming Trac and Clarry get back to their peak levels next year, we don't have enough depth or support through the middle, nor do we have anywhere near enough quality ball users. We need a complete re-think of how we approach the midfield in 2025. After the midfield, I don't want an A-grade forward as much as I want a cheap third tall who can ruck and therefore allow us to stop rucking JVR. It's wasting his development. I don't hate Petty as a forward as much as others (although I find it hard to run that argument when we gave him 20 games this year for 9 goals) but if the consequence of getting a proper second ruck is that we have to play Petty back, that's not exactly a bad thing. And the other thing I care about? Our fitness. We didn't have repeat soft tissue injuries but we also didn't look fit enough for most of the year. We won just 10 of our 23 fourth quarters, which is a shadow of the side we were in 2021-23. Whatever approach we took to fitness this year failed IMO. Let's celebrate the wins of the year (getting Windsor, Rivers in the middle, McVee again (but not as a mid), Gawn's hopeful 7th AA jacket) but acknowledge that on most measurements this was a failure.

If St Kilda beat Carlton, and GC beat Richmond by about 20-odd points I think, we will finish 14th. The draft pick crew will be happy.

It's either 0 or it's 2-3+ (2 if they grade it as high impact, 3+ if they grade it as severe). Can't be 1 if he was concussed. If it's anything it will be careless and high contact.

It shouldn't be a suspension. The bump would have been fine had Moore not gone to ground. Having said that, and whilst I hate conspiracy theories, I can't help but feel he'll cop 4 weeks.

If Geelong thump West Coast, as I expect they will, they could finish 2nd (requires GWS and Port to lose, which are both possible, and to make up 7% on Port, which they could do themselves by beating West Coast by 120 at GMHBA). If they had lost to Fremantle two weeks ago, they'd be 9th right now and no guarantee to even make finals. They will IMO be one of the weakest top 4 sides we've ever seen, and if they finish 2nd undoubtedly the worst top 2 side we've ever seen. This has been the season for it.

There's no doubt Roffey's email was disingenuous. It's Christian Porter-esque, to be honest, and insulting to members as a result. Over the last few years I've generally found myself disapproving of Peter Lawrence's actions. As much as you and his other supporters on here seek to characterise his push for change as noble and in pursuit of best practice, it has always, and IMO reading the judgment clearly remains, also in push of his selfish desires. However, the judgment makes relatively clear enough that the club ultimately couldn't resist most of what he was asking for, because the majority of his proposals were clearly fair and reasonable. For that, the failure to work this out prior to litigation is a failure which sits as much on the club as anyone else. At its core, I continue to think that his selfish desires got in the way of a better and more important message. Even with what should be considered largely a success, I doubt he would ever be elected to the board, and I think that's something he should accept responsibility for. Related to that, I noticed the following parts of the judgment: The judge accepted that the board acted bona fide and without collateral motive, balancing the club's interests against Peter's. That is contrary to what I believe Peter has argued, and what I know some on here have argued (i.e. that the board had ulterior motives, designed to protect them or their boys/girls club) Peter persisted with the litigation because he wants the club to allow candidates for election to be able to go on radio and TV and give interviews in which they are permitted to disparage not just the current board, but members, players, the club at large and other candidates. The club's board and governance is important, but not important enough that we should be having candidates running a Trump v Harris style debate in public, bringing the club to the forefront of the media where we've been spending far too much time of late Both the club and Peter were faintly criticised by the judge for comparing the club's rules to other club's. The judge made it clear that is irrelevant. There's no doubt the club's election rules are in a better place now than they were 2 years ago, and for that Peter deserves credit, but the ends do not always justify the means. PS: there's also no doubt the board has failed in a number of its own KPIs (so to speak). The home base situation is a debacle.

Obviously not important but there’s no [censored] way McKercher, Wilmot or Rachele are better players than McVee. It’s amazing to remember how young Gulden is though.

So are you saying that if we were 1-6 on the ladder, or no chance of finishing 9-10, you wouldn’t be in favour of it? If we’re saying 8/18 isn’t enough, but that we’re rewarding the top 6, isn’t that inconsistent? Why not just reward the top 8? Using the outcomes of an H&A season where there is no wildcard to justify how good it is also doesn’t make sense. Teams would likely do things differently in the lead up rounds if they’re targeting 10th instead of 8th. But if you want to do that, go the other way. Would Fremantle v Port have any interest this week if Fremantle were already locked into wildcard round? Would there have been any excitement over Carlton’s final fortnight if they were already locked in?

I watched that video on instagram and didn’t think there were issues…

That’s twice you’ve run an “ends justify the means” argument. I don’t agree. We’d get bigger crowds with a whole host of bad or annoying ideas. That doesn’t stop them being bad or annoying. At any rate, we will see crowds and viewership diminish if we keep playing more games. Scarcity is an important concept and one the AFL doesn’t appreciate.

Yes. I hate that we’re in the bottom half of the competition after 22 games and yet would, if there was a wildcard round, still get a chance to play finals. Talk about rewarding mediocrity.

I always liked how we looked when Brown was in the side and playing well. He never gave anything other than 100%, even when his body and/or his limitations held him back. Obviously integral to the flag, for which he will always be a Melbourne immortal. But also should be remembered for being a great person and, I suspect, an under the radar key leader. Go well, Ben.

He’s also earned it off the back of his form since returning, IMO.