Sydney_Demon

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but since the AFL Final 8 System was introduced in 2000 the minor premiers have won 7 of 22 (32%) the 2nd team has won 7, and the 3rd team also has won 7. The Bulldogs were the exception winning from 7th but they were a way above-average 7th in 2016 with a 15-7 H&A record. I do agree that looking at records prior to 2000 given the different finals systems in place is a bit meaningless. Until last year the previous minor premier was Hawthorn in 2013. I previously posted on this and, without boring you with all my reasoning, I have the view that it's probably preferable to finish 2nd rather than 1st. 2nd & 3rd are equal chances if there's no home ground advantage.

Well, Melbourne got the 17th team from last year twice and we were Premiers! I think it's done purely on ladder position from the previous year. We got the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th & 17th teams. Geelong got the 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th & 18th. So an easier draw but you would expect that since they finished 4th and we won. As it's turned out Geelong have had a particularly soft draw because the teams they play twice are currently 8th, 10th , 12th, 17th & 18th, with the bottom 2 sides being totally uncompetitive which has gifted them points and boosted ther percentage. As it's turned out I'd say Geelong have had the easiest draw of any side in the comp. For Melbourne it's been a different story with the teams we play twice currently 3rd. 5th, 6th, 10th & 12th. i.e. no easy games. The other part of the story though is travel, home games, 6-day breaks etc. Geelong have had it easy compared to Melbourne (and that was predictable in advance). Geelong 16 of 22 in Melbourne and only travelling to Perth & Adelaide once. Melbourne 15 of 22 in Melbourne and travelling to Perth & Adelaide twice, plus Alice Springs. This is actually the opposite of equalisation. Geelong want to play the top teams in Geelong. They're going to beat the bottom teams wherever they play them. Playing the top teams at home is there GMHBA is a big plus for Geelong. This year they've ended up with an incredibly easy draw which is largely luck (see above) but the fact that they only played Melbourne & Brisbane once and both games were at Geelong is totally unfair IMV. They've played 6 games against Teams 1, 2, 3 & 5 from last year and 4 of them have been at GMHBA. Also, unlike Melbourne they got to play Port at home whereas we had to give that advantage up and play in Alice Springs.

Not sure what your point is? He isn't saying Geelong is the best team and will win the Premiership (at least not in this Article). I couldn't disagree more. Players should get paid what the market'a prepared to pay, not more or less, with the qualification that there should be minimum pay & conditions for every player and overall payments should be at a level that doesn't bankrupt a club. i.e. exactly what we have now. We are being asked to sympathize with star players who 'only' get A$1 mio a year. What a joke! In no way comparable. The interstate sides have to fly interstate every 2nd week which is particularly tough for the WA teams. Geelong just drive up the road in an air-conditioned bus. Probably easier than players playing at Home. Geelong also play lots of games at the MCG (2 Home & 3 Away in 2022). As it's turned out Geelong have a particularly soft draw this year. The 5 sides they play twice include West Coast & North. The other 3 are Port, Western Bulldogs & St Kilda. Now I know a lot of that is random variation year-on-year but I can't understand why they've been given such an easy travel schedule. 9 games at GMHBA (a big advantage because of the unique dimensions of the ground and lack of Away supporters), 5 at the MCG, 2 at Marvel, so 16 games in Victoria and only 6 Interstate. Of the 6 Interstate Trips only 1 to Adelaide, 1 to Perth. I also find it hard to accept that they were given home games against both Melbourne & Brisbane and 6 of their 9 games at GMHBA are back-to-back with 3 of their last 4 at GMHBA. He doesn't say Dusty is overpaid and he explains why more senior players including Hawkins are paid less. Reading through the article, I can't see any bizarre points. I thought is was well-written and made total sense. Of course they're entitled to a Home Ground. I'll tell you what's a lot more unfair than Geelong not getting to play Finals at GMHBA. Every Interstate Club having to play the Grand Final at the MCG. Geelong play lots of H&A games at the MCG (5 this year), so the MCG isn't foreign territory. I assume because the bigger Clubs hold sway with the AFL, Geelong got home games at GMHBA against top teams Brisbane & Melbourne this year wheras they played 2 home games at the MCG against the ordinary Essendon & middling Richmond. Unlike Melbourne & St Kilda they don't need to give away home games to Alice Springs & Cairns or play in Tasmania like Hawthorn & North. Excellent point. The AFL is supposed to be all about equalisation, but in fact it's largely about maximising revenue. Both Melbourne & St Kilda hosted 'home' matches against Port this year in Alice Springs & Cairns. If it was about fairness then those games should have been against Victorian teams with Port having to play against both teams in Melbourne. How is it that richer Victorian Clubs can refuse to be involved in these games and the AFL just goes along with it? I know this thread is about Geelong but I'm still [censored] off about the preferential treatment of Interstate Clubs during 2020 & 2021 Finals. I mentioned Port above who got to play 2 away games at neutral venues in 2022. In 2020 & 2021 they also received Home Finals because there weren't COVID lockdowns in Adelaide at Finals time. The same applied for West Coast in 2020 & Brisbane last year. Why should non-Victorian & NSW clubs have received an advantage?

So what don't you like about the development component? It seems that players who come up to replace injured/dropped Melbourne players step right into the Melbourne game plan. Isn't that what's required? Melbourne have a deliberate polocy of not rotating players in and out of the senior side so the fact that there haven't been players coming through means absolutely nothing. Yes, it's horrible that we are 2nd with a 13-4 record and a percentage of 132.6%. Clearly both Melbourne & Casey are a long way off this year. Yes, the fact that he had only 33 possessions & 8 marks today means his positioning was terrible. It's really easy to take 8 marks when you're where the ball isn't. Casey's last line defence was terrific today and no doubt Baker was playing the role he was asked to. I agree with you about his disposal effeciency but the rest is BS. Did you watch today's game? Yes, almost exactly half. 2 NSW teams, 3 Queensland teams, 16 Victorian. BS. I'm happy to concede Baker's disposal isn't always great. And well done to highlight 2 disposal errors out of his total of 33. What did you think of the other 31 and his 8 marks? I hate it when posters make stuff up about seagulling for cheap kicks (what's that in English?). He was an important player today and his pace off the mark is crucial in providing defensive cover.

Sorry, I don't hate your suggestion. I just think from past systems which re-rank teams and/or have certain teams progressing (or not) based on other results there's a lot of confusion and fans don't understand or accept it. Despite it's flaws the AFL Final 8 System introduced in 2000 is understood and accepted and is not unnecessarily complicated. The Top 4 get a 2nd chance, there's a cross-over ahead of the Prelims, higher-ranked teams get home-ground advantage (except the unfair anomoly of the Grand Final being played at the MCG in non-COVID years). Regarding what is the appropriate advantage to allow for ladder position I guess that's a matter for debate. Whether it's 8, 9 or 10 teams in the finals the fairest system would be an evenly-graded chance of winning from 1 downwards but that is impossible to achieve in a 4 or 5-round finals system. The McIntyre Finals systems was actually better than the current system in that regard but was rejected for other reasons. I don't like straight knock-out systems because I personally don't think it provides enough advantage to the top teams. At least the best of 7 format in the NBA means generally the cream will rise to the top rather than just one unexpected result meaning a higher-ranked team is knocked out. In the current AFL system the obvious break in advantage is 1-4 vs 5-8, with in pure mathematical terms and ignoring home-ground advantage the top 4 having a 3/16 chance and teams 5-8 having a 1/16 chance. Including home-ground advantage these odds would even out but there is still an unfair break IMV betweem teams 4 & 5. I've argued elsewhere that it's actually better to finish 2nd than 1st, with the Premiers being split 7 7 7 out of 22 from teams 1-3 since 2000. But clearly this is influenced by the significance of home-ground advantage which is dependent on which team ends up in which position. Top 2 are equal unless there's has a home-ground advantage for one over the other, 3's as good as 2 if there's no home-ground advantage, 4 is definitely worse than 3.

Can't see it myself. I reckon Gold Coast have a much bigger chance against Brisbane and Port are a definite chance against Geelong. Gold Coast & Port will be definitely motivated by last night's result (unfortunately so will the Bulldogs!).

On the positive side, from a Melbourne perspective I would prefer Richmond not to make the 8 and the draw last night made it much harder for them. Bulldogs, Saints, Port & Suns all have worse percentages so a draw is virtually a loss comparitively for Richmond. It also helps Carlton & especially Collingwood who also have lower percentages.

Freo drawing is of course a marginally better result for us than them winning, but given they were 12% behind us on percentage (and 5.4% compared to Brisbane, 16.4% to Geelong) it's basically the same as a win compared to the sides above them on the ladder, as they were never going to make up the percentage anyway (definitely in the case of Melbourne & Geelong). A Richmond win would have been so so much better from a Melbourne perspective. From a Freo perspective it's the same as a loss to all the teams below them who all have much worse percentages (and possibly to Sydney who have virtually the same percentage). The results against Melbourne and the Bulldogs are crucial over the next 2 weeks. Our team benefits extremely marginally (see above) but I agree all the teams below Freo benefit significantly. Freo's destiny is still in their hands. Win the last 4 and they finish above Melbourne (assuming Melbourne losses against Brisbane in the last round) which is exactly the same as if they'd won against Richmond. Yes, obviously but the point here is that a draw means different things depending on what your percentage is relative to the sides above and below you. As I've said above, Fremantle's draw is essentially the same as a win against the teams above them and a loss to the teams below them.

I missed this part of the initial proposal. So as you say the Minor Premier just has to finish 2nd (1 win, 1 loss) to get through as to a Prelim, regardless of the results in the other pools. 2nd team gets through to Prelim with a 1-1 record if the results are split evenly or Pool A is won by 1st team. 3rd or 4th teams get through to Prelim with 1-1 records if Pools A & B are won by 1st & 2nd teams. All other teams need to win both games, and if they do they make a Prelim. So it's similar to our current system in that Top 4 get a double chance (or close to it) with Teams from 5 onwards needing to win every game. Where it's not similar is that the Top 4 don't get rewarded with a week off for winning their 1st Final and progression is partly dependent on results in other matches. This last aspect is what sunk the McIntyre Final 8 System even though it's actually fairer than the current Final 8 System. Fans want their team to be in charge of it's own destiny and have certainty regarding progression post-game.

I'm happy that you liked what you said, even though I responded with my reasoning and you provided absolutely none for your initial view and no comment on my thoughts. And thank you dor your erudite conclusions like: Solved. You're welcome. Case closed. They're doing so much to convince me of your (well-argumented) position.

I don't think Duryea or Crosier for that matter are still in the Bulldogs Best 22. Ed Richards is ahead of both of them. Daniel is a big out though. Interesting the Doggies didn't bring in Schache or Hunter this week off H&S Protocols. 6 players out last week (only 1 omitted) but have only brought back Naughton.

I know Petty played up forward in 2019, although I'm not quite sure what you can take from that season given we finished 5-17. I don't think it was a considered move. Basically he was the last man standing and since the middle of last year he has been a key part of a Premiership-winning defence. I take your point about having a backman playing forwards providing the benefit of providing cover in case a key defender gets injured during the game, and we have been unluckily caught out a couple of times this year in TMac's absence. Certainly, it's proved that Weideman can't play defence. JVR is a swing man and played as a key defender before he was drafted. I still think he's a better option than weakening our defence to basically experiment when we have alternatives. I'm not sure I understand your point about Joel Smith. Surely you're not suggesting him as a replacement for Petty down back? I'm happy for others to disagree with me. I have no idea what our selectors are considering and I'm surprised you're sure they're pondering this move. I'm not saying they're not. If they were, I would have thought this was the week to make the move rather than drop Tomlinson. I don't think it's remotely as simple a decision as you present. It comes down to how much the contract was worth. It could well have been a case of contract smoothing, like it reportedly was with TMac. Depending on contract value you can still trade players mid-season but I do agree if his form totally craters and he becomes an untradable liabiity then we're stuck with him. Players form is a bit of a moveable feast and it's not like we did a Grundy and offered a long-term high-value contract which I assume can only be moved on on the basis of Collingwood continuing to pay a significant part of his salary.

Thanks Big Col for the huge amount of work you've done to come up with this system. I don't think they'll adopt a 9-game finals system for a number of reasons, but my main problem with your proposal is that it is not sufficiently fair to the better-performong teams from the H&A rounds. Apart from the fact that you get to play against nominally-weaker teams there is no advantage, not even home ground advantage, for finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Basically, there are 9 teams going into the Finals with an equal chance to win the Premiership. Taking an extreme case, a side that finishes 9th with an 11-11 record (assuming 22 rounds are still played) on a hot streak tops their group. They then host a Prelim, maybe against a side with a 1-1 Finals record and then go on to win the whole thing... This is basically what they're currently doing in the NBA, except there they have the ridiculous situation where 10 out of 15 in each Conderence make the Finals, including 'play-ins'. Currently, ignoring home-ground advantage there's a 3 in 16 chance of the Top 4 teams winning the AFL premiership and a 1 in 16 chance for the 5th to 8th teams. This would change to a 1 in 32 chance for Teams 7 to 10. I really don't see this as necessary and would advantage Teams 5-6 too much. Keep the Final 8. See above. Why more logical? Not the only justification surely. Think about supporters of struggling teams historically (including Melbourne). It keeps the fan's interest in the season going longer, and protects the integrity of the competition because less teams throw in the towel, send players to season-ending surgery, etc. Fundamentally, any Finals system in unfair. The only truly fair system would be one where every team plays each other wwice, home & away, and the top tream is declared the Premiers. It's fine to argue for culling of Victorian teams, as long as you don't support one of the teams being culled! To be fair, the odd number was brought about by the voluntary withdrawal of Aspley, not the VFL's fault. But I agree there are too many teams. 22 rounds but 4 byes, so you don't even get to play every team once. The AFL will want an even number of teams. 20 teams, and assuming 23 rounds including one bye, would mean an increase from 198 to 220 games which would be a plus from a revenue-raising perspective. Regardless of whether it's 18, 19 or 20 teams, keeping the Final 8 I think would be the way to go. Well, we had a Top 4 with 12 teams from 1931 to 1971 so I would have thought that was a stronger argument for 8 of 19 than the anomoly of 8 of 15 in 1994. I notice you've chosen the most extreme ratio that applied for 1 year only as your justification. In a typical year having 10 finals teams of 19 in all likelihood would mean the 10th team could have a negative win-loss record! One thing that stands out for me is your 2nd Qualifying Final. This is basically a dead rubber with the advantage of winning relatively negligible. Also, having a higher-ranked winner in Week 2 progressing to a Prelim means progression is dependent on a result from another game. This was the problem with the McIntyre Finals Sysytem that applied from 1994 to 1999. This system was fairer than the AFL Final 8 System adopted in 2000 but basically unacceptable to the fans because teams didn't always control their own destiny (and too many uncompetitive games). Why have you never liked double chances? Higher-ranked teams deserve to have significant advantages. Any system where you play a lengthy H&A season and then that gets virtually ignored is inherently unfair. With your proposal a team could finish 10th with a 10-12 or 11-11 record, have an easy game in the 1st round, and then go into a process where all 8 teams have exactly the same mathematical chance of winning, except for home-ground advantage. Forgetting teams 7 to 10 for a moment, all Top 6 teams have the same chance, except for the extremely marginal benefit of being Top 2 and getting to play a team that has warmed up by beating not particularly tough opposition in the 'play-in' round.

I hadn't really thought about Joel Smith up forward, but I prefer him as an option ahead of Petty, who would definitely be a case of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. I'd like to see JVR in the side ahead of the Finals. Give him a few weeks to see what he can do. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Why do posters keep talking about moving Petty forward? We have the best defence in the league with Petty in the side in defence. So you keep Tomlinson in the side and push Petty forwards? That weakens our defence and Petty hasn't been training in attack so why experiment? If you want to go tall you bring a forward in from Casey, not play a backman in attack! You don't pick a side based purely on one game's form. Tomlinson is a defender, Melksham is a medium forward. They play different roles in different positions and are not interchangeable. Tomlinson would have known he was in as a short-term replacement for Petty. But I agree that any fringe player who isn't getting regularly picked will be looking at alternatives. Tommo would be down the list of essential Melbourne players going forwards. Pick JVR if you want to look at going tall in attack. Leave Petty in his best position (defence). Goody addressed BBB's ongoing injury management during the week. BBB played well against Port. The selectors have gone medium (rather than tall or small) wth Melksham. I personally would have liked to see JVR in the side but don't have an issue with Melksham being in instead given how he exwcured hisrole last week. As has been pointed out by others this is not the 3rd week in a row with this set-up, but I agree with your last point. What are you talking about? Defenders currently in the side are May, Lever, Petty, Salem, Brayshaw, Hibberd & Rivers. Defenders currently not in the side are Turner, Bowey & Tomlinson (plus a few others who aren't at AFL level yet). So we have 10 AFL- standard defenders. Not sure how you define 'key' defender, but I think we are very-well placed. JVR is a swing-man, but clearly he is playing as a forward and back-up ruck. He gets around the ground. We are missing one key forward at the moment, essentially because Weideman & Mitch Brown aren't playing at the level required at AFL, and the selectors have decided not to rush JVR. I don't think we are far off where we need to be going into the finals.

OK, the ladder predictor part of my post was the definite weakness. I did it quite a few weeks back and it has just been automatically updating since then with actual results. I do think Port are a sneaky chance of knocking off Geelong but agree that it's hard to see them making the 8. I've now come up with Geelong, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle, Carlton, Collingwood, Western Bulldogs. This has Collingwood going 2-3 for the last 5 including losing the last 3, but they could definitely go 3-2 or 4-1. What do you think? Wishful thinking but from a Melbourne perspective if we finish Top 2 with Brisbane & Fremantle 3rd & 4th that would be perfect 😁!

Bowey? He was dropped for the Port game, Casey didn't play on the weekend and he's a backman. I can understand Chandler in for Bedford. Why? I agree Tomlinson did a good job but Petty is one of our best defenders. I can see the logic if Tomlinson is a better backman than Petty but he isn't. I know Petty played forward in 2019 when we were desparately short of other options, but that's not where we're at right now. Total over-reaction. Papley is a selfish player but rightly is always going to be picked in the Swan's Best 22. You drop someone who does what May did, but this is not remotely in the same category. Frankly, this is just another example of Fox Footy clickbait and I'm amazed Demonlanders have fallen for it hook, line & sinker. Does anyone think Fritsch is sitting back thinking he's going to do what he likes intil the team 'sends a message' by dropping him? Why? I would have thought here's a stronger argument to include them because they haven't travelled to Alice, played in warm conditions and are playing off a 6-day break. With due respect, just because you agree with the opinion of one poster doesn't mean the conversation gets closed. Seriously! I can't understand why anyone is arguing for Bowey to come back in. Casey had a bye on the weekend so Bowey didn't play and he's a backman! I'd try JVR and he's not going to stay playing for Casey just so they can win a flag. I hope Casey do win the VFL this year but JVR potentially contributing for Melbourne is at another level of importance. Laurie was unlucky to not be picked against Port but we won the game with Melksham playing his role. I disagree with yoi totally about Goody's conservatism in selection matters. Picking Melksham was considerably less conservaive than just picking someone because they're in good form or a midfielder (and in any case I'm sure Goody doesn't personally pick the team each week). Who gives a FF what Montagna or any of the other Fox Footy 'experts' suggest? I can guarantee not one of these pundits would have proposed bringing Melksham into the team who I assume is now part of 'the best path forward'. If we bring a tall in next week and it succeeds you can guarantee that Montagna & King will decide that's the new best approach.

I've posted on this before but an analysis of Finals since the current system came in in 2000 shows it's virtually impossible to win from 4th (or 5th to 8th). Split is 7, 7, 7 for positions 1, 2 & 3 with the outlier being the Doggies who won from 7th in 2016. My (not very scientific) take on this is that 4 gets a very tough game in the Qualifying Final, generally loses and then usually has to beat 5 in a Semi Final that has just come off a much easier game against 8. If 4 win that they get to play away against 2 or 3 in a Prelim. Compare that to 2 & 3. Tough Qualifying Final but the loser gets to play 6 or 7 in a Semi. Yes, they usually have to play 1 in a Prelim but have had an easy lead-in to that match. Obviously the winner of 2 vs 3 goes straight through to a Prelim. I'd even argue that it's better to finish 2nd than 1st, and if 2 & 3 come from the same State then the finishing order doesn't matter. Last year though it was clearly better for Melbourne to finish 1st as Geelong had to play away against Port in Adelaide in their QF while Melbourne played Brisbane (also in Adelaide). Expected matchups: QF 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 (would expect 1 to win, 2 vs 3 hard to pick unless 2 has home ground advantage) SF 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5 (would expect 3 to win, 4 vs 5 hard to pick unless 4 has home ground advantage) PF 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4 (would lean towards 1 & 2 to win but 1 has a harder game than 2, again home ground advantage could be important) GF 1 vs 2 (hard to pick unless one team is a Melbourne-based team and the other interstate) Prior to last year the Premier hadn't finished Minor Premiers since 2013. Using the AFL ladder predictor I come up with: Geelong, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle, Carlton, Port, Collingwood. If that's how in pans out it might be one case where it would have been better for Melbourne to finish 4th rather than 3rd! And Home Ground Advantage will be a significant factor in virtully every game.

Not sure what your point is here. Doesn't the fact that we've lost to higher-placed teams show that our form isn't all bad? The MCG is also Collingwood's home ground, so we've lost 2 home games, one at Geelong (a large away disadvantage) and one at a neutral venue. Yes, we have a massive 5 weeks because our Draw this year has turned out to be truly horrible, essentially due to Fremantle & Collingwood having totally outperformed in 2022 compared to their ladder positions in 2021. It's OK for posters to criticise poor performance, but it seems there's a tendency to lose perspective. Agreed. I did the same. I'm a relative newcomer to Demonland but I hate to think what the posts were like in the bad years post-2006. Well, I think the intention was never to have all 5 of these in beyond this week. Oliver comes back and I assume Melksham goes out. I'd be surprised if we continued the small forward line experiment going forwards. I thought we cut down on the overuse of handball, put more speed on the ball, and I agree we definitely left space to run into for our small forwards.

He only had 6 disposals, but the run-down tackle and goal he scored were important. He was brought into the side to limit Aliir's influence and he did that. Importantly, he paid 7 tackles. I'm no Melksham fan but credit to the selectors for picking him. Well said. Frankly, I would have taken a 1-point win pre-game. Port were virtually playing for their season today. 8-3 actually. 1 bad loss to Geelong in Geelong (35 points) . The other 2 losses were by 12 points to Richmond at the MCG, and 8 points to the Dockers at Optus. And we've had a much tougher draw (which will continue for the rest of the season). This has been the issue all season. Looking at the draw pre-season Western Bulldogs looked to have the toughest draw, just ahead of Melbourne, but for Melbourne the issue has been the travel and the fact the AFL inevitably give us a 9 or 10 day break following a Thursday or Friday night game. Oliver is the best player in the comp. Obviously we haven't got someone to replace him. Rather than bring Dunstan in the Club decided to bring Melksham in to play a role (which he did). In retrospect given Bedford's lack of impact it might have been better to have played JVR/Dunstan rather than Bedford/Melksham but overall the win justifies the decision even if we did lose clearances. It is. I'm so over Demonland posters who say we've beaten no-one yet. We've beaten Port twice, Western Bulldogs, Brisbane, St Kilda. The sides we've lost to are currently 1st, 4th, 5th & 6th. The draw this year for Melbourne is particularly tough because the teams we play twice are Port, Western Bulldogs, Brisbane, Fremantle, Collingwood (at worst all in the Top 10). We got Collingwood, Geelong got North. We play Geelong once and it's in Geelong. We get a home game against Port In Alice Springs, they get a home game against us in Adelaide. Not true. BBB gets up and down the ground better than nearly all KPFs in the Comp, with the exception of Jeremy Cameron. He didn't show up for 1 quarter only. 14 disposals, 8 marks, 2 goals. Could have kicked another couple easily. Our record is 13-4 with a percentage of 132.6%. We've been off our best over the past 7 weeks, but we've lost to good sides in form. We've lost to the 1st, 4th, 5th & 6th teams. If we're playing at 70% of our best then our best will be a GF win like last year. We've beaten last year's Grand Finalist, beaten one losing Preliminary Finalist twice. Fremantle & particularly Collingwood have been much better then last year's ladder positions would have indicated. We're not going to finish with a 17-1-4 record this year because our Draw is at least 15% tougher than 2021, and as it turns out much tougher than all our rivals. We could not finish Top 4 and still have played better on average this year. People are entitled to their opinions, but it's not just those who are more positive in their opinions who need to admit it when they get it wrong! Complete BS IMV. You only need to look at last year's Grand Final to see how good is fundamentals are!

No. Gus is basically in All Australian form on the HBF so why would you move him for one week? When Salem came back the selectors made the decision to drop Rivers and keep Gus where he was. Gus did a great job on the Wing last year but is doing an even better job in the backline, and JJ has been excellent on the Wing in 2022. Tomlinson is in for Petty, Rivers for Bowey. These make sense but I feel a bit sorry for Bowey. I thought the backline as a unit did a phenominal job against Geelong and no-one deserved to be dropped. The problems were with clearances and a non-functioniung forward line. The selectors have clearly decided to give the small forward line one more chance, have brought Melksham in to play a role and are looking for our midfielders as a group to cover for Clarrie. Strange approach IMV. Surely Dunstan in rather than Melksham was the logical choice. Maybe given the lack of connection last week the concern was Dunstan's lack of foot skills adding to the misfiring!

I have no news but I just thought it was important to add to the 2,261 previous posts that fall into this category... 😄

I agree. If we had a 2nd key forward in form, or at least performing a role, then I'd leave Bedford out, but that's not where it's at currently. Geelong are missing Stewart & Kolodjashnij from their preferred backline and the weather is showery so I think going small makes sense. With Gawn spending so much time forward, having Mitch Brown/Sam Weideman as well as BBB makes us too tall IMV. We don't need 3 talls flying together. I think both BBB as well as Bayley Fritsch will benefit. Certainly Mitch Brown & Sam Weideman haven't impacted the scoreboard when they've been in the side. There's going to be the occasional shower, it's not going to be a slog in the rain, but I do agree the wind and slightly slippery conditions aren't going to help the tall forwards. Why would our ground ball game not be on? I can't see the logic of this at all. Tommo 's either in the side as a back or not at all. TMac's move up forward was out of desparation at the time. If we're that desparate (which we're not) I'd prefer to move Petty forward (he's had experience there in 2019) and either bring Tomlinson or Rivers into the side.

The law of averges is actually a fallacy, but the law of large numbers isn't if you believe the current sample size is too small to be a reliable predictor for the future (although 14 rounds is a good sample size). There is a tendency to revert to the mean so if we assume that 56%/50% is reliable then we should expect 9.21 & 3.12 to be improved upon, but there is no reason to expect Trac & ANB to suddenly become dead-eye [censored]. They never have been & their inaccuracy so far this year in no way logically means the opposite will happen for the rest of the year. Having said that, I hope I'm wrong 😄.

The timing isn't great I agree. It will work against both Melbourne's & particularly Casey's prospects this season. Still, it will provide more opportunity for Jack Bell to show what he can do for Casey, and push for some consideration as a Melbourne player (late draft, rookie) in 2023. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1135842/bell-reloading-for-another-shot-in-2022