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.

Come on Dees. Get your s*** in a pile. Playing like Freo did the year year after they first played finals. Not so much a Premiership hangover as a played finals one.

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.

Exactly what I was going to say. Pretty well word for word. The current system is much more fair. Supposedly 3 from your group of 6 and 1 from each of the other 2 groups (mucked up by rivalries and blockbusters a bit). Something of an equaliser without going over the top. What screws it up is the scheduling that favours certain teams. We know WC and Freo travel more miles than anyone (their shortest journey is to Adelaide while the Crows longest journey is to Perth (to standard home/away venues)) but that is a function of locality. Where they do get screwed is consistently getting Tassie games, and NT games, and Canberra games. What is also not fair is that Eddiewood consistently travel less than anyone (while whingeing more) and certain games seem to always end up a certain way. Geelong get 9 home games and that gets stacked with interstate teams and 'lower' Melbourne teams (read - screw you Melbourne). Melbourne get to travel to Perth to play WC but if there is a second game WC don't get to visit the G, they get Alice Springs or Docklands. And so on. At the end of the day the AFL is a dictatorship and as in any dictatorship, some teams are more equal than others.

I agree on the Carlton stuff. Anyone should have seen that they would be bad. The Saints are a bit of a different story. They, along with Melbourne, were expected to push for a place in the 2018 eight. Over the past three years the two clubs were on seemingly identical upward progressions. 2015 - Mel 13th 28pts, StK 14th 26pts. 2016 - Mel 11th 40pts, StK 9th 48pts, 2017 - Mel 9th 48pts, StK 11th 44pts. Both with some early draft picks reaching maturity, both with an attractive style, both with a similar looking playing list and age profile, both just missing the eight for two years running, both looking at being a 'feel good' story. Like many viewers MFC exceeded my expectations for 2018 and the Saints fell short. But I can understand the AFL and FTA network giving the Saints a bit more profile than they have previously had.

Chazz is right. In the 6-6-6 fixturing world, if you finish top 6 you should get 3 games against other top 6 sides and 1 against a mid 6 side and 1 against a bottom 6 side. Doesn't always work that way due rivalry rounds and blockbuster games, but that's the idea. I think everyone would rather finish top and get a tough draw than bottom and get an easier one. And good to see that most people are accepting that it is only right that the QB clash is alternated. I hate all things Eddiewood, but this is actually a correct decision.

Unless M/WC playing twice this was likely to be a MFC home game. WC want to play games at the G so won't be excited by this idea.

I think a lot of clubs are going to be caught out in Brisbane in 2019. Regarding the number of Fri night games, I think MFC will get more than the two of 2018. Given there are 11 home games, I think that to get 3 Fri night home games (and maybe 1 or 2 away ones as well) and mainly Sat afternoon and night games would be a big win.

There's not a lot to complain about really. Yes, they stuffed up opening with Carlton. Late in season 2018 I read something (one of the early 'leaks' about the 2019 fixtures) that due to their sustained suckiness, Carlton were not going to be rewarded with as many (if any) prime time evening (read Friday night) games. So giving them the season opener is the reward. Yes, that is [censored]. But at the end of the day it is a home game at a good time. 35-45K if the weather is good. And Tough Kent. You missed the reward WC get for winning the Premiership. An away trip to Brisbane.

Given the 6-6-6 ladder based fixturing it should be 2 teams of WC, Pies, Richmond, GWS and Hawks. I'd guess Pies and either Hawks or Richmond. MFC will play Freo in Perth, WC in Melbourne. And that will probably be one of only two WC matches at the G, the other being the GF replay. My guess for the five double ups. Pies, Richmond, Kangas, Suns or Brisbane and Geelong. I think the double ups amongst the top 6 might be something like... WC - Pies and either Richmond or GWS, probably GWS Pies - WC (the AFL do love a GF re-match (or two)) and Dees Dees - Pies and Richmond. Hawks - Richmond and GWS Richmond - Dees and Hawks GWS - WC and Hawks