Sydney_Demon

Well, obviously this didn't happen. I'm happy with the Pies at 1-3 and the Lions at 0-3. But I don't think any team is out of contention after losing just 3 games in a row. Obviously it looks bad when it's early in the Season but at some stage good teams will get on a run. Similarly I can't see how odds for Premiership can be so short after 3 games. Sydney $5, GWS $5.50. I know odds aren't purely based on the 3 games so far in 2023, but with injuries, especially at season end, poor form, let alone that there's 20 matches still to play I wouldn't be backing any team at those odds. You've still got to win 3 finals games including the last 2 to be Premiers!

True, but surely Western Bulldogs are a fair way ahead of Richmond, and similarly Hawthorn vs West Coast. Maybe you're right. Possibly that's why Melbourne haven't brought Tomlinson in this week and are relying on Petty and/or McDonald to do the job. In any case, Melbourne this year seem to be adopting a different approach with an emphasis on smaller mobile defenders with ball skills rather than being too top-heavy. e.g. Blake Howes coming into the side. I think the Club is recognising that other clubs are responding to the May/Lever dominance by adopting different game styles. Agree. I think the significance of the win against the Dogs has been downplayed. Comfortable wins against the Bulldogs & Hawks way better than Port's ordinary wins agaist West Coast & Richmond. I'd even say Melbourne's loss to the Swans doesn't look so bad in retrospect. Conditions didn't suit us and yet sides even at 3/4 time. Yes, home ground advantage significant. Dixon will be a challenge, but we only need to break even. I believe our new more mobile defence should provide rebound. Port will need to ramp up pressure to match us. Can they?

Yes, no doubt May getting subbed out in the first quarter had an impact in the Freo game, especially with Tom McDonald & Ed Langdon also out injured heading into that match. Having said that, Freo only kicked 2 goals to half time (only 1 in the 2nd quarter after May was subbed out). Fremantle dominated possession and kicked the last 10 goals of the match. Similarly, the Swans & Collingwood kicked the last 4 goals in those matches (Collingwood 6 out of the last 7, all in the last quarter) . Despite the poor finishes Freo only scored 94 points, with 61 of those coming in the last quarter and a half, the Swans kicked 73 points, Collingwood 82 points. I would argue none of these loses were due to performance of our defence, just losing clearances and lack of pressure further up the field. The same thing in the Opening Round this year. We were cooked in the last quarter, the Swans were dominant in the midfield and our pressure dropped off. And May was playing. Don't get me wrong. May is a great player and of course we are a better team with him playing, but I think its simplistic to roll out win-loss stats as some sort of definitive proof.

There's been a lot of talk about how having May out of the side is going to impact our defence. Clearly the selectors are happy with how the defence performed in the latter stages of the Hawthorn game as they haven't brought Tomlinson in (makes sense to me: Tomlinson is excellent one-on-one but team defence isn't his strong point). It will be interesting to see how Port defend tonight, because they haven't their first 2 games. Their approach seems to be to rely on outscoring the opposition. Defence 47 scores from 92 Inside 50s (51%), against West Coast & Richmond!! Melbourne Defence 58 scores from 160 Inside 50s (36%), and that includes the Sydney game where we lost, being overrun in the last quarter in horrible humid conditions which didn't suit our intercept defence (26 scores from 65 Sydney entries - 40%). Port have an excellent midfield but doesn't run as deep as Melbourne's. They will probably bring one more to the stoppages with Melbourne an extra in defence. If Melbourne defend well we'll win because I can't see Port stopping our forward line if we use the ball like we have the past 2 weeks.

In the Brisbane Game last year, Maxie went down in the 1st Quarter and we were totally demoralised. In 2022 we were in a mini-slump after winning the first 10 games of the year. We'd just had a bad loss to Fremantle with May in the side. In losses to Fremantle, Sydney & Collingwood Melbourne started all games well but were totally overrun in the 2nd half, particularly the last quarter. Loading? Clearly we're a worse team with May out of the side, but there were other extenuating circumstances in all these games. Going back further than 2020 is fairly pointless because as we weren't a top team (apart from 2018).

I'd like to formally apologise for my earlier posts. Yes, when Melbourne traded 14, 27 & 35 for 11 we only gained availability to a player 3 positions higher in the open pool. Whether 11 ends up being 14 with 3 academy & father/sons taken earlier or 16 with 5 taken it makes no difference. I suppose theoretically those unavailable players could come into the open pool if a bid isn't matched but the 20% points discount & ability to accumulate points means that rarely happens. The only slight caveat now is that 14, 27 & 35 have become 14, 28 & 36 🙂.

Thanks @Viscount Cardwell for this clarification. I was incorrectly thinking 11 would be a significant advance on 14 because we would likely get ahead of the Rogers, Croft & McCabe picks. Cal Twomey had McCabe at 18 in his Sepember List so maybe we'll end up with 15 rather than 16. We can only hope that some of these picks from Rogers onwards slide a bit. It depends how honest Clubs with picks at those levels decide thet want to keep Gold Coast. Who can forget the ridiculous situation where Collingwood got Nick Daicos at 4?

Thanks @Lucifers Hero for your continuing great work on this. Do we still have Pick 92 (sorry I think that might be 93 now) or do we need to use that to upgrade Disco Turner to the 2024 Senior List? Also, is it likely Melksham will be rookied in 2024 or just stay on the Senior List?

In fact the WB/Gold Coast trade was 5, 47 & 52 for 11, 18 and a future first (let's say 13ish, adjusted to 16 after 2024 FA Compensation, Father/Sons, Northern Academy picks) Let's translate this into what it likely means after Northern Academy & Father/Son Picks: 19+30+38 = 13 27+29 = 19 27+29+30+38 = 13 23+27+29+30+38+2024 16 = 5+49+54 So in reality 5 plus Chris Burgess have been traded for a late first rounder and 4 2nd round picks. Not quite as extreme as you have stated, but no doubt it reflects the thought that the top end of the draft is considered a step above. Points equivalents though are fairly meaningless except for the clubs who are using points to acquire players or the clubs who want to trade picks with those clubs. I think we all recognise that the AFL points scale overstates the value of lower-ranked players.

I disagree about us being screwed on this. The Swans wanted to give us just 46 which I agree was too far below the 27 we traded for him. But a Swans 2nd rounder is worth at worst 36 and maybe as high as 29 (assuming they just scrape into the 8) so I reckon that's way more than the Club would have initially expected. As far I recall Grundy had one good game for Casey which was the Wildcard Round that Casey won by 101 points against North. Where does the 'quite well' come from? I think you need to differentiate Grundy's performances as sole ruckman from those where both he and Max were playing. If you are playing a sole ruckman then Max obviously gets picked. So the form when Max was out of the side injured was irrelevant (and in any case it was against easier opponents generally). The fact that you believe the relationship was beyond repair is neither here nor there. Do you have special information that the rest of us are not privy to?

Point well made about the later picks 27 & 35 coming in, except I think that effect will be minimal, especially for 27. Would expect picks 27 & 35 to be pushed out 5 picks (GC 3 Northern Academy, Hawthorn 1 Father/Son, Western Bulldogs 1 Father/Son) and 27 might come in 1 spot because of GC pick exhaustion although GC will probably be trying to push back even further from 18. Maybe 35 comes in 2 or 3 spots (although even there Caiden Cleary & Will Graham are likely to be taken as Northern Academy before 35). Net effect maybe is 27 & 35 becoming 31 & 38. So 11 becomes 12/13 and is effectively being swapped for 17, 31 & 38. (not 11 for 14, 27 & 35!).

I think what has been overlooked is where these picks will end up. There's only one definite Northern Academy player that will go to Gold Coast before 11 and that's Jed Walters. It's quite possible that Ethan Read & Jake Rogers go after 11 but before 14. And Jordan Croft has now nominated as a Bulldogs Father/Son. So, 11 could end up as high as 12, 14 could end up as low as 18 (or even 19 if Hawthorn take Father/Son Will McCabe around about that point).

There are so many problems with the Brownlow Medal process that it isn't funny. But essentially it's a midfielder's award and Melbourne's elite midfielders take votes off each other. At the Bulldogs Bontempelli is the standout and the only reason he hasn't won the Brownlow is he's playing for a mid-range team that doesn't win enough games. Very hard to get 3 votes if your team has lost the game. Why Neale? Because he's the standout midfielder in a standout team. Clearly be benefitted from Will Ashcroft's season ending early. I feel sorry for Nick Daicos because he deserved to win.

As I understand it these are the current criteria: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/free-agency The formula used is deliberately opaque and then the result produced from the formula can be overridden 'where the formula produces a materially anomolous result'. In who's opinion? I'm at a loss to understand why there needs to be 5 bands and why three of them are dependent on where the Club concerned finishes on the ladder. Why should ladder position affect compensation given? Equalisation already happens through the reverse draft based on ladder position and through the fixturing process which favours lower teams. Why not just allocate a free agency competition pick independent of finishing position? Much fairer.

It's great that the AFL has finally confirmed Sanders is not available to North unless outside Top 40 (🙂). It's not just him being available to Melbourne, but it takes pressure off other potential choices having him in the mix.

We were gifted Pick 1 in 2009 as a Priority Pick you might recall.

But this will change after AFL Free Agency Compensation for Ben McKay. Extremely likely to be North Pick 3 with every subsequent pick sliding back 1.

I agree. It doesn't make sense but at this stage the AFL hasn't put any restrictions on North trading those picks right now as far as I can see.

A bit harsh! I guess we'll see if there's any interest out there. If other clubs are interested they won't be offering him a multi-year contract because they're after depth.

Look at it from his perspective. He plays 5-10 games next year and he's out of contract so Melbourne could delist him if there's no interest. He moves now, gets a multi-year contract, more likelihood of game time elsewhere. From Melbourne's perspective: he walks next year (and we are subject to the vagaries of AFL free market compensation) or his form drops off and his value decreases. We should trade him because he's likely worth more this yer than next year and there's no compelling reason to have him on the list. We need to improve the list and free up spots. That's more important than depth. If there was some upside for him then it would be different. Others are younger and improving.

Only about a million times. I know posters have varying opinions on Jordon but the considerations are totally different for a free agent and a contracted player.

The reason why we want to trade Harmes out surely is because he's not in our Top 23 now and is a free agent next year. We'd get more for him now and he'd get more certainty and guaranteed game time elsewhere. In both the Club's and his best interests.

No, the AFL will still give them Pick 3. They'll have a riot on their hands from North supporters if they don't because there's no way this package is worth anything like Pick 3! And it's a lot less that what North were seeking. I think we all agree that Pick 3 for Ben McKay is a joke and I'm still at a total loss to understand why free agency compensation picks should slot in straight behind the team's draft pick. Why should he be worth Pick 3 as a North Melbourne player but Pick 19 as a Colingwood player? It's the same player and I don't think Free Agency Compensation should be yet another factor in equalising the competition and rewarding mediocrity. All the bottom teams would have kept their earlier picks even if North had got Pick 11. Now all the teams keep their First Round picks. From a Melbourne perspective we get to keep 13 now instead of it being pushed back to 14 so I'm happy. Importantly from a trade perspective, if North had got 11 it would have meant Western Bulldogs 10 wouldn't have slid but our 13 would have.

Well, I assume they will be tradeable as will this year's pick. The difference between this year and last is they don't have to trade them. Last year their Special Acceptance Package was a 2023 2nd round pick and a 2023 3rd round pick available after their normal picks that had to be traded (currently picks 22 & 41 owned by Fremantle). I agree with you that they'll want to trade those 2024 picks out just in case 2024 is a better-than-expected season. Here's the full statement from the AFL. Nothing in there about having to hang on to the 2024 picks, so don't know what the AFL will do if they're traded out before the 2024 season starts: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1041620/afl-statement-on-north-melbourne-assistance-package No, this has nothing to do with McKay's compensation pick. Theoretically they're totally unrelated processes and they're treated separately (having said that the free agency compensation process is so opaque and who's to know whether the AFL have factored in an assumed Pick 3 compensation somewhere in their background considerations).

What it means at this stage that Melbourne picks 5, 13, 24, 32, 87 will become 5, 13, 25, 33, 88. Assuming the Ben McKay trade to Essendon happens and North get Free Agency Compensation Pick 3 that will change to 6, 14, 26, 34, 89.