Sydney_Demon

Surely you're not attacking Caro based on what she's said about De Goey? Why is De Goey having time away from the club? Because he doesn't like the responses he's received following his double-down on his so-called victimisation and excusing his behaviour because he supposedly has ADHD. Of course he's backed away from that now following no doubt multiple consultations with Collingwood media advisors. You don't have to like Caro without name-calling Ridiculously over the top. You don't seriously think that Eddie's comment was meant to mean that the information contained in the 'Do Better Report' was something Collingwood should be proud of, do you?. Clearly what he was trying to say was that the fact they'd investigated these issues and released a report was a positive thing. His words were chosen poorly and yet another example of Eddie's gaffs and insensitivities, nothing more than that. Well said. Personally I like listening to the Footyology Podcast with Rohan Connolly. I don't agree with everything said and Essendon gets too much of a run but at least it features a proper journalist rather than ex-footballers that are there just because they're ex-footballers. If you want to listen to proper analysis concerning the Melbourne Football Club only you only need to listen to the Demonland Podcast. Better analysis than anyone on 2, 7, 9 or Fox Footy.

Every week someone asks this question. Yes it is. Every VFL game is streamed live on the AFL app & website with the possible exception of the one game shown on 7 each week. The latter you can watch live I think on terrestial TV in the Southern States and stream from 7plus anywhere in Australia. Plus if you can't watch the game live (or you want to watch it again) the whole game plus mini-game is available usually the next day or shortly thereafter on the AFL website. Every game for the 2022 season is still there if you want to watch any of the past 11 wins. The only negative is you can't cast it to your TV from your phone. I usually just watch it on my laptop.

Could everyone get off Weideman's back. I'm over these gratuitous insults of various players. Some people I assume are very happy that Melbourne have lost 2 games because it gives them more of an opportunity to whinge about their pet-hated players without getting negative feedback. After tomorrow there are 9 rounds to go plus finals so plenty of time for the team & individual players to find some form. I agree Weideman's had multiple chances but we didn't get our best list together until Round 17 last year and didn't get on our winning run until Round 20. Weideman wasn't part of that but will highly likely get an opportunity with TMac's absence. I'm happy for any of Weidenam, vab Rooyen, Mitch or Ben Brown to be part of that side if their form & effort warrants it. There is a view that Gawn's presence last week caused issues for our forwards. Obviously his 3 goals were pretty important for us but personally I'd prefer to see him spending more time in defence where we clearly needed help last week, with the forwards kicking the goals. Whether the Browns are up to it remaims to be seen, but poor delivery & congestion didn't help. It wasn't just the talls. No-one seems to be arguing that the small forwards (who didn't hit the scoreboard either) should be dropped.

My apologies. I don't know where I got JVW from 😄

Chandler highly likely to be Melbourne medisub with Baker the next choice I would have thought. Normally you wouldn't name a key position player as medisub but I suppose Tommo's a posibility if the thinking is Petty might not get through the whole game. With TMac unavailable to go back during the game it increases the possibility of this option being pursued. Regardless, I think Tomlinson is unlikely to play today and they could also hold Weidemsn over as back-up for either of the Browns. So maybe only 1 plays today (probably Baker).

Ridiculously harsh. Hunt has not been pathetic. Too much attention has been paid to his disposal count last week. Who cares if he has no possessions as long as his opponents don't score and he plays his role? Papley scored 2 goals including 1 from a soft free kick near the end of the match. Heeney scored 1 due to Hunt flying too early. That Heeney goal was symptomatic of how luck went against us last week. Bounces off his shoulder and luckily goes straight up where he can take it on the 2nd grab. At the end of the day Hunt pays the price for a couple of costly mistakes. Ben Brown has been poor the last few weeks, but what are your proposed alternatives? Weideman can't be brought back in after 1 good game for Casey against mediocre opposition. JVW had a quiet game last week and didn't deserve promotion. I do agree that if BBB has a quiet game tomorrow and either Weideman or JVW outperform it might be time for a change (although sadly Casey get a bye next week as well). That might also depend on how Mitch Brown plays (but he deserves another week IMV). Our options are limited with TMac out. I note some have posted about Bedford being 'dropped'. He didn't get game time as Melbourne medisub last week and didn't get to play for Casey since the Casey game was before the Melbourne game. The same would be the case this week. So either he gets named in the 22 or gets game time for Casey. Obviously from a Melbourne perspective he can't be medisub again. Chandler highly likely to be medisub. It would appear a lot of Demonlanders don't understand how team selection works. Assuming no late injuries (not sure what the protocols are here with the AFL) the 18 can't be changed. Initially an extended interchange of 8 gets named. The final 4 interchanges must get selected frrom these with the other 4 becoming emergencies. Then on game day the medisub comes from these 4. So, it was clear from the initial team selection that 2 defenders were going to be selected from Tomlinson, Turner & Hibberd. Hibberd was onviously coming in for Hunt, not Tomlinson. Turner was named early as playing so it was clear by Thursday night that Tomlinson was out. There is still a chance that Petty doesn't get up for tomorrow, in which case I assume Tommo comes back in. Tomlinson, Weideman, Baker & Chandler named as emergencies but all have been named as playing for Casey this afternoon. We'll get a clearer picture of how Petty is going and who is to be Melbourne medisub tomorrow from seeing who of these play.

I don't understand the reference to not being in the 18. It doesn't matter whether a player's in the 18 or the 22. Just because they are named on the interchange doesn't mean they're more likely to be a late withdrawal. Or am I missing something here? Are there different rules for late withdrawals from the 18 than the 22? Sunday games are of course different because 8 are named on the rxtended interchange and this has to be trimmed to 4 by 5 on Friday night (and you can't change the 18). See above.

So Melksham's playing his 200th this week. I do agree that he had to be in the 22 rather than the medisub if he was picked. Interesting that they chose not to bring in a replacement for Lingers. Who were our wingers last week after he was subbed out?

I'm not writing them off. I did the ladder predictor the other day and have them finishing 3rd with a16-6 record (which is 8-4 for the rest of the season). I have a different take on them blowing big leads and hanging on, but that's fine. Lots of games to go. Let's see what happens. In no way comparable. Carlton's percentage 114.6%, Melbourne's 161.7%. Melboune have not been in danger of losing in any game, whereas Carlton have fallen over the line in 4 games and lost 2 quite badly (including against the Suns who we beat). Yes, Melbourne have had a comfortable lead in a number of games at 3-quarter time and then closed down the game in the last quarter. Carlton have had massive leads (to their credit) and just hung on. I can't recall a game Melbourne has played where a side has made a massive comeback.

Great podcast as usual and a must listen every week. I agree this is the best technical podcast about AFL out there and puts the shallow views of the so-called professionals in the shade. Also I agree with the David King takedown. His problem is his mouth gets in front of his brain. His expressed views are inconsistent & superficial. I was particularly disappointed with King's promotion of the potential introduction of mid-season trading with absolutely no nuanced discussion of the pros & cons. Following is the analysis that King wasn't interested in and/or able to make: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/legalised-tanking-the-cons-of-mid-season-trading-in-afl-20220507-p5ajd8.html

As others have said, it was a practice match, we were missing most of our defence, didn't turn up until half time, Carlton got numerous goals from 50s because the umpires over-umpired dissent (but only against Melbourne), 2 6-6-6 violations at the end of the match. The only think you can take out of the match is that was the template for how Carlton have played all year. Teams with poor defences don't win Premierships. Do you seriously think Carlton's midfield is better than Melbourne's? It's interesting that there has been a view that Melbourne has benefitted from favourable umpiring. I'll concede we got the rub of the green against North but that had no effect on the result. Let's compare that to Carlton who have been favoured all year in a way that has affected results. But that would be an anti-Carlton narrative so forget it. It could be just be my anti-Carlton bias coming out but looking at Carlton's record they could well have been 4-6 this year as all of Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide & Sydney blew numerous opportunities to run over the top of them. Even if Carlton had won 2 & lost 2 of those they'd be 6-4. The 2 losses they've had have been very ordinary performances against Gold Coast & Fremantle. Carlton's percentage is 114.6%. I guess it comes down to how you rate wins as opposed to all the other factors and I acknowledge that Carlton have played and won with significant outs through injury (impacting their backline in particular). I hate the way the media are all jumping on the Carlton bandwagon without doing in-depth analysis of the cons as well as the pros. I look at Carlton a bit like Port last year. Port won all 6 close games in 2021 so weren't a true Top 2 team IMV. Now I know there is a view that top teams win close games but there is still an element of luck. In Carlton's case it was their good defending at the death but it was also poor decisions/skill execution from their opponents. I don't think Carlton are a true Top 3 or 4 team now as their luck will run out at some stage.

It could be just be my anti-Carlton bias coming out but looking at Carlton's record they could well have been 4-6 this year as all of Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide & Sydney blew numerous opportunities to run over the top of them. Even if Carlton had won 2 & lost 2 of those they'd be 6-4. The 2 losses they've had have been very ordinary performances against Gold Coast & Fremantle. Carlton's percentage is 114.6%. Geelong have been up & down but are 6-4 with a percentage of 124.8% & have only won 2 of their 5 close games including a 3-point loss to Fremantle. They've had one bad loss (to Sydney). I guess it comes down to how you rate wins as opposed to all the other factors and I acknowledge that Carlton have played and won with significant outs through injury (impacting their backline in particular). I hate the way the media are all jumping on the Carlton bandwagon without doing in-depth analysis of the cons as well as the pros. I look at Carlton a bit like Port last year. Port won all 6 close games in 2021 so weren't a true Top 2 team IMV. Similarly I don't think Carlton are a true Top 3 team now as their luck will run out at some stage (but maybe not. Time will tell).

These odds are of course out-of-date as GWS & Gold Coast have joined the AFL since the analysis was done and would have joined Group 1. Carlton have moved from Group 2 to Group 4. North Melbourne have moved from Group 5 to Group 4. I think the numbers are all premised on home-ground advantage producing a 58% winning percentage (which I guess will have changed since 1999). And also in reality it would be different for each ground. e.g. Melbourne-based teams would play away at the MCG & Marvel a number of times during H&A season, thus diminishing home-ground advantage. Finally, it is based on the assumption that every team has an equal chance of finishing in any position after completion of the H&A matches. For 2022 we definitely don't want to finish 3rd below 2 interstate teams (which realistically could only be Brisbane & Fremantle) because we'd potentially have to play 2 away finals (assuming we lost the QF to Brisbane/Fremantle and Brisbane/Fremantle won the other QF). The knightmare scenario would be also having to play a SF against Richmond/Collingwood/Hawthorn (the winner of an EF between 6th & 7th) with no home-ground advantage. Also we don't want to finish 1st or 2nd and have to play Richmond/Collingwood/Hawthorn in a QF. This is my predicted ladder for what's it's worth. I'd be very happy with this. 1 MELB 22 76 129.9 19 3 0 W W L $2.4 2 BL 22 72 127.5 18 4 0 W W W $5.5 3 CARL 22 64 110.7 16 6 0 L L W $12 4 GEEL 22 60 117.2 15 7 0 W W W $13 5 SYD 22 60 115.5 15 7 0 W W W $15 6 FRE 22 60 115.3 15 7 0 L W W $13 7 RICH 22 52 111.0 13 9 0 L W W $14 8 WB 22 52 109.0 13 9 0 Too much to worry about but winning on Saturday against Fremantle would be a very good starting point 😄.

I don't you can compare us not playing 4 quarters with Carlton not playing 4 quarters. We gave up 8 goals in a row once (and that was the 1st game of the season against last year's grand finalist), but a bad quarter for Melbourne is not scoring a goal and the opposition scoring 2. We've been outscored in last quarters after we've parked the bus but have never been under threat of losing whereas Carlton have been in 4 games. Melbourne's perentage 159%, Carlton's 114.6%! I think you're being a bit tough on Carlton's defence. They're missing players and I thought they did an amazing job hanging on last night in the last quarter (not helped by poor delivery into the forward line by the Swans). I think the Swans are overrated personally. They've clearly gone backwards since 2021. 6-4 and were very lucky to beat North. They play Richmond, Melbourne & Port the next 3 weeks and unless they find some form are in danger of missing the 8.

I agree with you about the attacking part. Disagree with you about the rest. Melbourne in 2018 finished 14-8 with a percentage of 131.4%. Should have been 16-6 after throwing away 2 games to Geelong. Carlton are 8-2 with a percentage of 114.6% and arguably should be 4-6 with Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, Port & Sydney running all over them at the end and missing many many chances. Carlton's percentage is the giveaway and their luck is going to run out at some stage. Having said that, last night's win was meritorious given they were missing McKay, Pottonet, and lots of defenders. People have also made the comparison with Melbourne in the first half of 2021 but let's be serious. Melbourne started 9-0 with a percentage of 144.3%! I'm always disappointed with how fans rewrite our 2018 Season. The reality is we should have been top 4 which would have made a huge difference, had great wins against Geelong & Hawthorn in the finals and then played one horrible half against a well-rested West Coast in Perth. One side in the last 22 years has won from outside the top 4. It's bloody hard to do. That's the reality.

Thanks for this. Brilliant work and much appreciated. Overall in 22 years you'd expect mathematically these lower teams to win 5 or 6 premierships between them (25% x 22) and the top 4 to win 16 or 17 (75% x 22) but this assumes 50% probability of each competing team in each game & no home ground advantage (still you wouldn't expect 1-21, maybe 3-19 at worst). I'm a bit surprised at the QF results. 1 vs 4 16-6 doesn't surprise me, but 2 vs 3 16-6 does. I'd assumed 2 vs 3 would me much more even. The 5-8 results in SFs are really very poor, losing 35 of 44. 1 & 2 have similar QF & SF records and won their premierships largely from winning the QF, PF & then GF, while 3 seems to be capable of winning from anywhere and overcomes its poor QF record. 4 hasn't really managed to get past the PF (lost 15 out of 18). Basically 3 & 4 do equally poorly at QF stage & equally well at SF stage but for some reason 3 goes super-well from then on while 4 goes super-badly. Whenever 4 goes directly through to the PF from the QF it appears to lose to 3 coming through from the crossover. All very strange.

I wasn't being entirely serious but on reflection maybe I should give up on humour because I'm clearly not very good at it. I'm sure Melksham is being picked on merit and I think that was proved by the fact that he wasn't picked as medisub last week ahead of Chandler. Instead he was only picked once Harmes was out through injury. Clearly he is being picked as the best replacement for Harmes, even if I and some others don't necessarily agree with the decision. Good luck to him. I hope he plays well and if he does he deserves to retain his spot.

Am I missing something here? Everyone assumes that if he leaves it will only be to Freo to join his brother. I accept that he's not going to go to West Coast, but the market is not restricted to Fremantle. Accepting that, these Melbourne family vs Perth family vs where his girlfriend wants to live arguments are very simplistic.

He's been in the system since the 2009 Draft and apparently has a large property portfolio but I concede he may still need or at least want more money. I did say probably.

But doesn't that include the Cairns game against St Kilda? In those conditions it was impossible for either side to score goals.

I love that Swinburne paper! I think it's pretty clear from this table that the McIntyre system is more equitable than the current system. But at the end of the day the one big selling point of the current system is that each team is ultimately in charge of it's own destiny and it's easy for fans to understand how it works. The big drop-off from 4 to 5 is tough but frankly the reason Melbourne finished 5th in 2004 and ultimately lost to 8th team Essendon was because we lost the last 4 games of the season after being top and a game clear after Round 18. Entirely our own fault that we didn't benefit from being in the Top 4. As you know, the above percentages are overstated for lower teams compared to reality because they don't take into account home ground advantage (nor of course the obvious fact that higher teams are generally better-performed). I've had a look at recent finals performances. Prior to 2021 the minor premiers hadn't won the Premiership since 2013. Despite that the minor premier has won 7 of the past 22 (since 2000) , 2nd & 3rd teams also 7 and the only other winner was Western Bulldogs who came from 7th in 2016 (but were a lot better than the average 7th team with a 15-7 H&A record). This seems pretty counter-intuitive because at face value 1 & 2 should have equal advantage, then 3 & 4, etc. Why has no-one come from 4th? But thinking it through, 2 & 3 have a tougher game in the QF but the winner usually has an easier game against 4 in the PF before going on to the GF. 1 normally wins the QF against 4, but then usually has a tougher game against 2 or 3 in the PF, before going on to the GF. 4 has to play the best team away in the QF which it usually loses, then come back through a SF to play 2 or 3 away in a PF. Losing QF teams hardly ever lose to teams from 5-8 in SFs, as they are playing at home and in any case are generally better teams. But again it's toughest for 4 as they have just had a tough (losing) match to 1 and are usually playing 5 which are close in ranking to them (a case in point: Hawthorn vs Melbourne SF in 2018). 2 or 3 has the luxury of playing 6 or 7. 1 is generally too well-performed to have much trouble with 5 or 8. So in a nutshell it's important to finish Top 3, rather than Top 4. Of course this is further complicated by not wanting to finish 3rd if the 2nd team is Interstate. I appreciate none of this is overly scientific but it make sense to me at least! 😄

Sorry this is a duplicate bit I so impressed myself with it that I had to post it twice 😄. It's all becoming clear in my mind now. Melksham's playing this week so he can get to 199. Clearly he's going to have a great day because we're playing North which will provide justification for him staying in the side to play his 200th against Freo. If Bedford had been picked amd Melksham made medisib it would have been impossible to drop Bedford for next week and you can't pick Melksham as medisub for his 200th. So Melksham gets to 200 and by then Salem will be ready to come back into the side. Melksham can safely go out without any ongoing concerns about not getting to 200 before his contract expires. I'm not sure what we do when James Harmes comes back though. I haven't got that far in my thought process.

It's all becoming clear in my mind now. Melksham's playing this week so he can get to 199. Clearly he's going to have a great day because we're playing North which will provide justification for him staying in the side to play his 200th against Freo. If Bedford had been picked amd Melksham made medisib it would have been impossible to drop Bedford for next week and you can't pick Melksham as medisub for his 200th. So Melksham gets to 200 and by then Salem will be ready to come back into the side. Melksham can safely go out without any ongoing concerns about not getting to 200 before his contract expires. I'm not sure what we do when James Harmes comes back though. I haven't got that far in my thought process.

Deedubs, what you actually posted in conclusion was 'keep up junior' but if you're not capable of recognising insults in your own posts don't worry about it. I'll take it as a compliment 😄. I'm not quite sure exactly what basketball, and the NBA in particular, has to do with Australian Rules, but my naive view would be that height is a lot more crucial in any position on a basketball court including point guard than it is for a midfielder or forward in the AFL. I'll take your word for the fact 195cm (about 6'5'' in the old language) is pretty standard for a point guard in the NBA and that there is a trend towards more height, but as I say I can't see how this is directly translatable to the ideal height for AFL players. Steph Curry is a point guard and only 188cm and seems to do quite well so all is not lost for the smaller NBA guys. I am glad that you mentioned how tall Patrick Cripps is, because that clearly shows how tall key forwards ideally should be. Jacob van Rooyen can move to the midfield as we are desperately short of midfield depth.

I thought they'd pick him last week as medisub which made sense as it would have got him to 199 probably without playing (and as it turned out would have saved Chandler from a 2-week suspension). I don't agree with you about Melksham being underserving of his spot. And this Essendon mate thing I think is crap. They've hardly been gifting him games in recent times. He played well when he came in with 5 out because of COVID. ut having said that I can't really understand why Bedford has been overlooked. I thought he was a cerainty this week especially with his promotion with the indigenous jumper. They could have made Melksham the medisub and that would have got him one game closer to 200. He has to be in the 22 for his 200th but that doesn't have to be in a challenging and important game like Fremantle. If they'd picked him as medisub last week it would have made sense to bring him in for his 200th against North. Possibly which can be the only reason he was picked. I still think it would have sent a better message based on both form and effort for Bedford to be in the 22 and Melksham to be medisub. It's not as if we're going to lose anyway.