Aus in Engerland

Were we watching the same M vs. WC game? To make sure, I watched a replay of Q4. Ignoring non frees to both sides, the paid free kicks were... 19:47 - WC - Cripps in the back. Nothing contentious. 18:17 - WC - Darling holding. Called by the commentators before the whistle, so clearly there. 17:55 - M - Harmes taken high by Kennedy. Clearly there and advantage called by the umpire and taken by Frost. 17:19 - WC - Jetta HTB on Smith. Contentious. Ironic that the only reason this incident happened is because everyone had stopped expecting Yeo to get a free for his tackle 2 seconds earlier. 15:59 - WC - In the back to Hutchings. Very obvious. Didn't cost anything as ball spilled to another WC player who goaled on advantage so would have been a goal anyway. 11:21 - WC - Fritsch holding the man on Sheed. Possibly the most obvious free of Q4. What was he thinking? Note - at this point the TV showed a free count of 5-0 for the quarter, so I had to go back and look at 17:55. The umpire blows his whistle then calls 'advantage, advantage' while giving the right arm play on signal. Clearly paid a free and gave advantage. Just weird this is not in the count. 6:17 - M - Gawn for holding. Pretty obvious. Umpire calls 'holding, Melbourne, advantage'. Advantage taken by Viney. 5:23 - M - Jones for holding. Advantage taken by Hunt. Clearly see the call/signal and hear the 'advantage' call. 00:57 - M - Viney - high contact. Soft but there. Played on with a HB to Oliver. 00:12 - WC - Hurn - holding the jumper. Pretty obvious. So the actual free kick count in Q4 was 6-4 in WC favour. Again, ignoring the non frees (for both teams), the only paid free that was in any doubt or in any way contentious in Q4 was the Jetta one. All the others were pretty obvious.

We know the AFL is outcome based on these things. The actual tackle was superb. No way was he getting the arms free, no way was he disposing the ball. Genuine ball and all tackle. Holding the ball all day. The problem obviously occurs when they go to ground. Was it dangerous? Was it careless? Was it a reversal of what was clearly a HTB? I give you an independent view from HB Meyers of The Mongrel Punt. Lewis Jetta tackled Tim Smith in the last quarter, and Smith was driven into the ground. The commentators cried for a dangerous tackle. The post-game show called for Lewis Jetta to be suspended. The umpire called holding the ball and Lewis Jetta was rightfully awarded the free kick. That’s right – RIGHTFULLY awarded the free kick. Let’s get this straight – I am sick to death of players with zero wits about them being bailed out for being pinged holding the ball. It is not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Tim Smith stood there like a stunned mullet and held up the play. It’s not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Tim Smith made an incorrect assumption, and it is not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Smith didn’t hear the umpire calling “play on”. Tim Smith stopped. Tim Smith got caught. And Tim Smith was caught holding the ball. Lewis Jetta took advantage of an opponent’s inability to react. He’ll get suspended because that’s what the AFL do these days – suspend people for great tackles, but I am so glad that Jetta was awarded that free kick, and that the Eagles went forward and goaled from it. I’m not a fan of rewarding ineptitude, and anything other than holding the ball would have rewarded Smith for one of the dumbest plays of the season.

On the WC site they are saying exactly the same about the umpiring, but that it favoured Melbourne all night. I give you... 'I've seen some **** umpiring and heard some **** commentating in my time, but that takes the cake. The non holding the ball decisions all night did my head in. Came home and rewatched last half and am even more annoyed by the crap umpiring. The commentators were literally barracking for Melbourne and when we drew at 61 all in that last quarter, there was just silence. They could not think of one thing to say. Just silence, awkward silence. After the game all they could talk about was the ONE instance where we may have thrown the ball (when Melbourne got away with it multiple times all night)' And I must confess that I thought the umpiring was pretty poor. But it was equally poor for both teams. Missed frees for throws both ways. If there is one umpiring positive, it was that they were consistently bad! And the general consensus all round is that Vardy was a tool for the Gawn incident. Was thrashed all night and did a ****head act. 'Was just watching the replay. Vardy getting into Gawn for being the step ladder for Ryan was not on. Vardy had been absolutely destroyed by Gawn, doing that was cheap.'

Remember that Margetts is a Freo supporter who hates WC, so it wouldn't have been a deliberate decision. His mother was a Fremantle politician and his partner is one of the Fyfe clan. Jetta will get a week. Seems the standard for that.

8 frees to 1 to WC when WC on top, previous to that 21 frees to 13 to MFC when M on top. Paying the team that is playing in front/doing the tackling/playing the ball etc. All this whingeing about the umpires, and MFC won the free kick count (22-21). Hate to see the rage if the umpires actually favoured the opposition.

Well, there's an hour of my life I'm never getting back. Wish I'd done something more enjoyable like scrub the toilet or clean up the dog poo from the garden.

MFC is managing the whole thing like Fremantle did when they first played finals. Blaming next years poor start on a reduced pre-season, less injury/surgery recovery time and so on. It's no excuse. Clubs like Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney plan their whole year around having an off season that runs from early October to February. Clubs like St Kilda and the WB (and it looks like MFC as well) plan an off season that runs from the end of August to February. And they don't seem to be able handle an off season that included some September action.

True. Even umpiring in favour of MFC wouldn't have saved this debacle. And as someone said. Losing Getting thrashed by the St Kilda Spuds makes it so much worse.

The AFL really didn't think this one through did they? Come on, how thick can you be? I don't care if they are the best band in the world, the next Beatles, whatever, but guys and girls.Come on! Beats head against wall.

Hear, Hear. They were temporarily punished but got the keep otherwise ill gotten gains. They got to keep the #1 draft pick in 2016 and got to keep whoever turned out alright from their top-ups and rookies. A MacDonald-Tip for one.

If indeed O'Meara signed a back-ended deal to help free up space and the rumours about Tom Mitchell and Chad Wingard doing the same are true, then... 1. The Hawks have space to chase Coniglio, and 2. They are setting themselves up for a bigger than Buddy budget hole when all the back-end pay comes due on players on the age slide.

I think a few of us choked on our cornflakes at the beginning when the Swans gave a 9 year, somewhat back-ended $-wise deal to Buddy. At the time they didn't have salary cap to spare after signing Tippett, so they had to back end. It was a financially risky deal at the time, that after the loss of the COLA now looks like dotcom boom silliness. The Swans set themselves up for the 2020-2022 financial troubles by leaving that $3.9Mil to pay in those years. There was never much doubt that, no matter what a great player Buddy is (was?), that he was never going to be the 'rip a game apart, week in/week out' type in his mid 30's that he was in his mid 20's. There is not a club in the land that would take Buddy for 3 years for those $. Not a chance. The only chance would be if the Swans were to pay a substantial part ($500k+), and even then I'm not convinced anyone would bite at Buddy for 3 years at ~$800k. He is now an impact player who is likely to become even more sporadic in output. No thanks in answer to the original question. And the warning for any clubs thinking of offering 10 year deals to anyone in this risky game is... DON'T. Just as an aside, one of the biggest problems hitting the Swans now is recruitment and retention of mid tier players. Jake Niall saw this coming in 2017 when he wrote 'The combination of no COLA and the Tippett-Franklin deals (which prompted COLA’s removal) means the Swans can’t pick up many mid-range players from other clubs.'

I obviously needed an irony emoticon. Dodgy selection decisions were the preserve of tanking clubs and that is the only game WC did the dodgy selections. Therefore, no tanking. And as for tanking to get Gaff? Makes no sense. Pick 4 was for finishing last, not a priority selection. So as a carp team they were getting pick 4 rather than pick 5 (Brisbane). Are you seriously suggesting that a team would tank, and get the only wooden spoon in the clubs history, for an advance from pick 5 to pick 4? And a mid 20s priority pick? No way! Maybe if the 2009 draft situation was in place where the priority pick was pick 1 and finishing last got picks 1 and 2. Then I might buy it. And as Hillary Bray says, the club had been ripped apart and was a mess both on and off the field. Gardiner, Cousins and Chick had gone though the legacy was still there. Chad Fletcher was not so much off the rails as completely out of the station. And Kerr wasn't far away. Thankfully, he for one, appears to have broken away from that group when the club re-invented itself.

Great effort. Well done. Even just a simple list helps bring it into perspective. Made me reflect, that's for sure. Couldn't help but see the two names at Villers-Bretonneux, France, where I was privileged enough to be a part of the ANZAC day ceremony in 2004.

I think we all accept that Carlton were the master tankers of tankland, and Melbourne had a good run at 'bringing the game into disrepute' *cough *cough, but as to the rest, I'm not so sure. Collingwood and Hawthorn, maybe/maybe not, but West Coast. I don't buy it. The reason is that the only two years they got priority picks were in the compromised GC and GWS drafts. Their reward was pick 26 and then pick 28. No top of the first round rewards, only end of extended R1 picks. Hardly tankorama stuff. We also have to remember that at the time they were basically rubbish. In 2005-7 they had the best midfield (possibly ever) and a good defence, but the forward line was rubbish. Ash Hanson? Q Lynch? And they were best of them. By 2009 even Phil Matera (2005) and Ash Sampi (2006) along with Hanson and Lynch were all long gone. Kennedy had arrived but was yet to fire and there was no midfield left. Judd had gone, Cousins was gone, Kerr was on his last legs, as was Cox. The fallout from Chick (who Hawthorn couldn't have been happier to offload) and Cousins's antics, along with the finished midfield and never-existent forward line meant they were just rubbish. The only game they made questionable selection decisions was the 2005 Grand Final where they left out their two best goal kickers (Lynch, Matera) for questionable reasons. But I don't think that even Carlton would tank in a GF! No need to tank, and no reward if they did. Let's put it another way. If they tanked, they were f****** rubbish at it.

Two other game plans. Freo - Death by flood. Flood the back half (very 2010-2015 idea), kill the ball at every opportunity and hope the opposition and their supporters all die of boredom. Then, when everyone has given up the will to live, meander the ball forward and hopefully score. Essendon - Get 'em on the counter. Pressure in the back half and hit hard with run on the counter. When it works can be devastating. Watch the mid 2018 match where they totally destroyed WC to see how it can work. The Chaos vs. Precision games can be absorbing to watch. Does Precision cut apart the Chaos? Or does Chaos overwhelm and crack the Precision? If WC or Collingwood make very few mistakes they can beat Richmond 75%+ of the time. If Richmond can start to force mistakes they can crack the game plan and win 75%+ of the time. And TitanU, I think WC just made too many mistakes in the forward half more than anything else. JK and Darling dropped far too many marks you would expect them to take. The running and marking patterns were off with 2, sometimes 3 talls flying for the same mark. Freo just weren't good enough to take advantage.

The reward for finishing 4th rather than 9th is a tougher fixture list. That means a 2019 4th place finish means that the team has improved. Having said that, MFC needs to aim higher. I am anticipating that Richmond (with the addition of Lynch) will finish top and be likely grand finalists. MFC is one of a bunch of 5 or 6 fighting for a top 4 finish. Achieve that and the chances of a prelim or better increase dramatically. So targets need to be. Don't lose games that should be won against lower teams Become like Richmond at the G. Steal a few away games that you are expected to lose. Win those games against the other teams in the mix. Finish top 4. Target the first final. Makes it easier. See what happens.

I can see both sides of this. JH is a top level talent. Top end KPF don't grow on trees and are worth something. Two high 1st rounders? Not for me. Looking at the whole picture, 5 and 23 seems reasonable. On the other side, I can see the potential problems. He is 1/2 way through his AFL career (8 of realistically 15ish years) so you are buying a 1/2 empty glass of champagne. His foot injury is of a type that is potentially career ending if it goes wrong. With that, would I pay the reputed $8Mill over 8 years? Again, no way. Over this whole trade period Freo are doing what Essendon were doing a few years ago. Talking up their players and demanding way too much while down valuing outsiders and offering under. As a KPF that Freo desperately needs, on the surface Hogan is a more valuable commodity than Lachie Neale. But he is a higher risk proposition (see foot). That evens up the respective values somewhat. I also agree with some on here that there are a whole bunch of deals that have been done in all but name, and the AFL are just sitting on stuff to make the 'live' broadcast more exciting.

They really are playing stupid buggers. Just because they suckered GC with the Lachie1 (Weller) trade last year, and Lachie2 (Neale) is a better player, they think they should get more for Lachie2 than Lachie1. Sorry, it's a case of GC paid way overs and you got lucky; not a case of Brisbane offering unders. Grow up and do the Lachie2 trade for fair value (pick 5) and everything else goes through. If you keep inflating the value of your second hand Toyota while down-valuing the other guys second hand Mercedes, everyone will just think that you are not worth dealing with.

Failmantle have some very strange ideas on sharing the money love. They signed Bennell on a 3 year $650k pa contract and kept Lachie Neale on $450k pa. There is every chance that Bennell will be gone soon (or at the very least get a new low $ contract) and if LN goes as well, that is a lot of money in the kitty. As well as any retirements, delistings and current underspend. So you are right. Lots of salary cap space in the land of purple muppets.

I agree with the AFL website dudes. Just a ploy. More to play out yet. The domino in this whole business is Lachie Neale. When that falls, everything else can get done. It just needs Bell the **** to realise that pick 5 is more than fair. It's not very often that a club comes along and gives a stupid trade like pick 2 (Brayshaw) for a near spud like Lachie Weller. Message to Freo - you got lucky with a Lachie trade in 2017, it's not going to happen twice.

Stop claiming Gibbs went for two firsts as a standalone argument. It is not true. Carlton also gave up 2018 picks 21 and 40, which in draft points value are more than pick 16. If you want to get real say that Adelaide gave up pick 10 and future pick 28 for Gibbs and swapped pick 16 for future picks 21 and 40 (about the same points). But back on topic. Freo as usual have been a bunch of tool merchants over the whole process, but there is every chance it will still get done. Given that MFC have apparently admitted to be willing to have accepted pick 6 and a second round selection for Hogan it could work very simply. Failmantle pull their fingers out of their collective ***** and accept Brisbane pick 5 for Neale. A fair offer. They then give that pick and the pick 23 they got from Port to MFC for Hogan. Edit - and has been noted by some, pick 5 and 23 (a 1st and 2nd rounder) is better than picks 16 and 18 (2 x 1st rounders) Deal is then done and we can all go and have a nice cup of tea.

They can try, but the Suns have that one sewn up already. And equally badly run.

Not supporting the Gibbs trade (they paid too much) but it wasn't simply picks 10 and 16 for Gibbs. Adelaide also go 2018 picks 21 and 40. And gave up 2018 pick 28, expected to be much later as Adelaide were expected to finish a lot higher.

Bryce Gibbs was definitely not worth two first round picks (10 and 16) at age 28. They paid way overs because they were blinded by losing a GF and thinking this was the trade that would be the difference in 2018. Plus there were a bunch of other picks swapped that meant Adelaide got a future 2nd and 3rd rounder as well (picks 21 and 40), so that equates to better than pick 16 and dilutes what they paid. Still too much. Treloar is a good player who hasn't missed a lot of games through injury. They paid overs to get him, but not excessively. He was 21 when traded, so had a lot left in him. I'm not denying Hogan is a talent and a bloody good player. What would I pay? A top 10 and a 2nd rounder. A demand for any more and I'd walk away. He's 24 early next year and has a history of injuries. Foot injuries are often persistent and can be career ending. See Eric MacKenzie.