Sydney_Demon

Great to see your (sort of) positivity this week Deedubs. Were you happy with the pressure applied against St. Kilda last week or were you concerned about the 3rd Quarter drop-off? I agree that a low score for West Coast is more likely than a very high score for Melbourne but I'll be very susprised & disappointed if the game is close at 3-quarter time. As evidenced by their performance against Collingwood in Round 4? They definitely didn't tank last week and were competitive in the first half. I don't think Sunday's game will be anything like the Port game. Port went into that game (as I think St Kilda did to a lesser extent) trying to play keepings-off which worked defensively for 45 minutes. WCE won't play that way because with all their missing players, less-skilled players and disrupted game plan the only thing they will have to fall back on is pressure. I'm expecting them to be competive early but Melbourne's skill & talent will win out. It's not really the Melbourne way. It's all about resilience and playing through niggles. We only have 22 players and 18 have to be on the field at any one time so if they're picked they play meaningful minutes ( I agree though if we're 100 points up in the last quarter you might give star players more bench time). Langdon usually plays 100% of game time so I don't expect his on-field minutes to be managed as it would throw the rotations out totally.

Surely Moniz-Wakefield should be some sort of priority. I reckon he's showing the most potential of Melbourne-listed players playing for Casey. I also think Bedford should get an extension and you would think Smith as well.

Just wanted to correct the above. I meant to post the opposite. 6 & 10 I think is generally easier than 3 & 13. The point I was trying to make was that Melbourne's Draw playing 2, 3, 5, 11 & 17 twice is tougher than say 3, 5, 7, 9 & 14 although both produce an average across 22 games of 9.45. All I was saying was the first bit. I agree no recent premier has had an easy ride to a flag except perhaps West Coast in 2018 but even they had to overcome the requirement of 'hosting' the Grand Final at the MCG, an unfair imposition on all interstate clubs (especially when playing Collingwood, Hawthorn, Melbourne or Richmond who play home games there). I hadn't really thought about ladder position not reflecting strength of teams because of the impact of easier draws occurring due to prior year's form. So if you get 2 games in 2022 against a side that's position is elevated in 2021 due to a soft draw that reflected poor performance in 2020 you're getting an advantage. It all gets horribly complicated! I totally accept your point and supporting data showing Melbourne's advantageous total number of away games but point out that games against GWS in Canberra (I recall we've had a number of them) are not counted as away games (have we had more than other teams? I suspect looking at the number of games played in Sydney by other teams that we have). You obviously can't compare Victorian & Interstate teams because the latter play away more but have the corresponding advantage of teams from Victoria & other States having to travel to play them at home. You would also expect poorly performed teams (like Melbourne) in that period to have easier travel schedules against (generally) better performing Interstate teams. I made the point when the Draw first came out that at least for 2022 we have a tough travel schedule. We play non-Melbourne teams 12 games of 22 (when they are 9 of 18 teams). We play Brisbane H&A, Fremantle H&A, but of the remaining 8 games only play 2 in Melbourne (Sydney & GWS) while playing 6 away from Melbourne (Port in Alice Springs, and Geelong, Port, Adelaide, West Coast, & Gold Coast Away). So 4 of 12 games at the MCG, and 1 at a neutral venue. I've pointed out before that if Victorian teams need to sell home games like St Kilda to Cairns or Melbourne to Alice Springs it would be fairer if other Victorian teams played them there and Interstate teams had to play their away games in Melbourne rather than at neutral venues. Why should Port who finished 3rd in 2021 get to play Away games against Melbourne & St Kilda in Alice Springs & Cairns rather than at Marvel and the MCG?

I know West Coast & Gold Coast aren't new teams, bur I would also argue that Fremantle, Brisbane and even GWS have benefitted from being the first teams in their respective markets.

So you are saying why can't North play Casey next week rather than this? Part of the reason might be that there are currently 6 games this weekend and 8 next so that would make it 5 and 9. Not sure really. But the Perth location of the Melbourne game is a bit irrelevant. Last week was the first week when the Casey game was on either before or at the same time as the Melbourne game so Bedford couldn't play for Casey (neither could Laurie from memory. Other Melbourne emergencies?). We've actually been very lucky this year and I suspect other teams have fared worse. Missing NicNat, Yeo, Shuey, Rioli, Allen and Cripps is like us missing Max, Oliver, Petracca, Pickett, Brown & Nibbler. They might be playing 14 of their best 22 but are probably missing 5 out of their top 10!

Thanks Wheelo. Really appreciate you providing some meaningful data on this topic. My take on this is that Geelong haven't got a particularly soft draw. They play the teams that finished 2nd & 3rd last year twice, also St Kilda. As I posted previously IMV the AFL shouldn't be adjusting the fixture based on what they think will happen in 2022, but what actually happened in 2021. The AFL use the draw, and obviously the draft, to equalise the comp and I totally support that. Melbourne have been massive benificiaries of this approach. Since the Comp became truly National, we have seen nearly every team become competitive at some stage and premiership droughts have been broken by multiple teams. This is a good thing! Totally disagree. The season is really 2 seasons: H&A and Finals. The object for the 22 rounds is to finish as high on the ladder as possible because that positions you better going into the Finals. So clearly a better draw helps in this regard (not that I think Geelong are being unfairly helped- see above). Once you're in the Finals, I agree form is crucial., no matter how that is ramped up. I would argue that the demolition we had against Gold Coast in Round 20 last year, and then wins against easy teams West Coast & Adelaide played us into form. Importantly it gave us confidence heading into the Finals and allowed us to be in a position to go top by beating Geelong in Round 23.

Disagree entirely. Yes, they were beaten comfortably in Round 1 after getting out to a lead. Hardly a surprising result, as we are a better team than the Bulldogs last year and this year. They lose in Round 2 to Carlton by 12 points and should have won that game comfortably (kicked 13.12 to 16.6), beat Sydney by 11 points which should have been 6 or 7 goals (9.17 to 9.6), a bad loss to Richmond (38 points but they kicked 7.19 to 15.9), thrashed North (meaningless), lost by a point to Adelaide, beat Essendon by 32 points, lost by 17 points to Port with key players out injured. Form mixed, lost games through bad kicking, injuries. They're not where they are because they are psychologically scarred from a not-unexpected loss to Melbourne in Round 1. They are 3-5 but are a lot better than that. Port are on the way back as well. Having said that, obviously losing 4 points from playing Melbourne hasn't helped the ladder position for a number of teams (8 so far 😄).

Yes, Melbourne. We get to play the 2nd bottom team twice and we won the Premiership. Some would argue that Collingwood weren't a true 17th team and North were a true wooden spooner (with possibly some marginal improvement this year) and that the AFL should be predicting where teams should finish in 2022 in creating the draw. I disagree. Teams go in both directions (as can be seen with Melbourne's 5 we play twice: Bulldogs, Brisbane, Port, Fremantle, Collingwood). It's hard enough putting a draw together without including subjective adjustments to ladder positions.

Thanks for this. It’s slightly misleading IMV as the higher ranked the team is the lower the average of their opponents’ positions. i.e. if every team played every other team only once the average ranking of Melbourne’s opponents would be 10 (average of pos. 2 to 18) while North’s would be 9 (average of pos. 1 to 17) with the other teams within that range. Better to show the variance from the starting point. i.e. Melbourne 0.5 higher than average, North 0.4 lower than average, so they have a better draw rather than worse. I also think it should be in order of finishing position after the finals, rather than after H&A, which in Melbourne’s case would make the number slightly lower (2 games against pos. 2, 3, 5, 11 & 17 rather than 2 against pos. 2, 4, 5, 11 & 17). Melbourne’s number comes down from 9.5 to 9.3 comparing 2021 actual positions with 2022 expected positions which I guess reflects Brisbane, Fremantle & Collingwoods’ improvements more than offsetting Western Bulldogs & Port Adelaide going in the opposite direction. In any case, I guess what it does show is that it’s not a huge variation between sides (not surprising given we’re only talking 5 out of 22 games). What it doesn't show is the effect of different travel requirements which for Melbourne is definitely tougher than for most teams. Also I'd argue that averages don't tell the whole picture, variance is equally important (e.g. playing against pos. 6 & 10 produces the same average as playing against 3 & 13 but IMV is a much tougher ask).

To be fair, this is only the 2nd game of Casey's 7 that has been scheduled before/during Melbourne's matches, thus impacting player availability. Bedford has only missed 2 Casey games (including today's) despite being medisub in all 8 Melbourne games.

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I'm not suggesting TMac is hopeless in defence, just that he is a liability in the sense that he's not as good as our other tall defenders IMV (which is why he was only moved there after in-game injuries). You mention we are giving Sam an inside run to improve and grab a spot in the forward line. How? By dropping him and leaving a guy in the side who was only playing last week because Jackson was out with COVID? I recognise TMac has the advantage of being able to be moved into defence in an emergency. Likewise Weideman could be moved into the ruck in an emergency. But IMV their secondary abilities should not be a deciding factor for either of them being in the team

Are you serious? I acknowledge the excellent shepherd. I also acknowledge his 2 goals in the last quarter, the 1st of which was a result of a brilliant pass from Petracca (we were already 49 points in front and had the game won). The last was a result of a pass from Nibbler. Unlike others, I think he was totally within his rights to take the kick after the siren and I would have been disappointed if he didn't take it and treat it seriously. One shepherd doesn't make you an all-time great. If it does then the entire team including JJ who didn't make it onto the ground are all all-time greats. No problems with that.

We all have opinions (and options) but I don't agree with yours which is also fine. Weideman may not make it (as I've said) and I agree that after 6 years you'd like to think he would have shown conclusively that he was going to make it by now. He hasn't. He is contracted til the end of 2023 when he'll be 26 and TMac til the end of 2024 when he'll be 32 (like Ben Brown). The Club would be mad to give up on Weideman now given those age profiles. Yes, we are playing him to prove his worth (like every other player). If TMac was starring there'd be absolutely no argument from me about who should be in the side. We have 2 struggling forwards and at least 1 of them (ideally both) needs to find some form. I think that should be Weideman right now, others think TMac. That's fine.

I guess it all depends on recovery from COVID. Replacements for Jackson, Pickett, Sparrow and ANB included on the extended interchange bench are Weideman, Bedford, Dunstan & Laurie. Laurie has effectively come in ahead of Melksham & Chandler. I would normally agree that Laurie shouldn't play his first game as medisub but surely they wouldn't include Picket, Sparrow or ANB as medisub if they haven't fully recovered from COVID. The other option is Laurie in and Bedford medisub but that seems extremely unfair on Bedford. Laurie ahead of Dunstan perhaps if Sparrpw doesn't play? (seems unfair on Dunstan) I guess (nearly) all will be revealed when the team list is updated tonight.

Fair enough but the fact that Weideman was doing back-up ruck work rather than TMac last week I think shows where the club thinks it's at right now. I really don't care what Tmac did a few seasons ago, that he used to play in defence or that he trained to play on the wing pre-season last year when there was no spot for him in the forward line and Brayshaw hadn't developed in the role. I'm talking about 2022, not 2018. What I was responding to was you saying that Weideman could only do one thing reasonably well, which I (and apparently the Club) disagree with. Did the Club put TMac in the ruck ahead of Weideman? But responding to your comments re TMac, he would be our 3rd or 4th choice forward, maybe 6th choice ruck, 6th choice winger, and 10th choice defender. He has gone back in defence twice this year, Round 1 when we were missing 4 premiershiop defenders and Salem went down, and last week when Smith went off injured at 3-Quarter time. The only time he plays in defence is when a key defender goes down injured during a match. He would never be picked as a defender, as was shown both last year and this. We conceded 3 goals in defence last week in the last quarter. Now, I'm not saying that was all TMac's fault but arguably he is now a liability down back.

Bowey is over-the-odds but the problem with him winning is the criteria used for this award. OK, you have to be nominated as a weekly winner during the season which he has been already (and you can't be nominated more than once so that means there will be a pool of 23). I don't know the process employed each week but I'm sure that the whole panel doesn't watch every game played for that week. Regardless, it's just a panel of 'experts' that choose on a 5, 4, 3 , 2, 1 basis for the whole season. It's not done on a cumulative basis each week so it will be hugely influenced by media coverage, rather than an objective appraisal of the rising star across 22 games. If it was like the Brownlow you would assume Ginnivan has taken a lot of votes off Daicos already this season, giving a lot more chance to Horne-Francis for instance, but it won't work like that. Following is a list of the experts used last year. Do former players really have any special expertise? https://www.afl.com.au/news/670647/action-jackson-young-demon-crowned-rising-star/

Fox Footy's analysis is superficial in the extreme. As they say lies, damned lies & statistics. I appreciate your post though because it gives others more learned than myself to actually respond with analysis rather than just quoting a stat. Stats are the starting point of analysis, not the end point.

Yes, it does mean something. Under the AFL rules the clubs have til 5pm on Thursday to name an 18-man team plus 8-man interchange for Sunday games. Then they have til 5pm on Friday to further refine the interchange to a 4 men plus 3 emergencies with the medisub chosen from the emergencies on game day. What that means in reality is that Melbourne couldn't name all 5 players coming back from COVID on the interchange because that would restrict them to only choosing 4 of them in the starting 22. Interesting that they named Petty in the starting side even though he came out later than ANB, Sparrow, Picket & Jackson. Maybe that shows he was a close contact rather than actually having COVID (a pure guess on my part). TMac is in the starting 18 so is playing. Wiedeman will only be playing if Jackson doesn't get up. Not a great message. IMV they shouldn't have brought TMac back in last week. He was dropped and shouldn't have been brought back after only one week even with Jackson out. They could have brought Van Rooyen or Mitch Brown in for a week (that would have sent the appropriate message. TMac kicked 3 goals against Richmond Reserves but again laid only 1 tackle). So TMac fortuitously (undeservedly IMV) comes back in, has a so-so game and then gets rewarded while Weideman adapts his game as asked, also has a so-so game and gets dropped. TMac did that nice move on the boundary line which ended up as a goal (fortunately, TMac's kick was a shocker), he took 5 marks and kicked 2 goals (as we all know it should've been 4/1). Weideman only took 1 mark but kicked a nice goal, made 4 tackes, 6 hit-outs & 1 clearance (TMac 1/1/0). It seems to me that people posting to this site consistently apply different standards to Weideman than they do to TMac. There's a lot more upside for Melbourne with Weideman improving his game and becoming a key member of the side than there is for TMac hanging on for another season. He's hardly about to take his game to a new level. I'm not saying Weideman necessarily is going to make it either but give him another couple of weeks, and if TMac doesn't make a compelling case to be in the seniors bring Van Rooyen in (he definitely has an up-up-upside 😁).

I think that's a little unfair. Weideman is a much better back-up ruck than TMac.

Roan Steele is a gun

The AFL is all about equalisation but clearly some clubs have to sell games to balance their books and some don't. Frankly, no side should ever have to play in Cairns. I couldn't believe how ordinary the ground condition looked pre-game and the humidity is not conducive to playing Australian Rules. If you're trying to sell AFL to Queenslanders why play in Cairns which doesn't show the game to best advantage? I'm sure there's about a thousand places elsewhere in the Country that are at least as deserving off hosting an AFL game. To me one of the biggest issues is that these games always involve non-Victorian clubs being the away team. How is it that Port Adelaide rather than playing away games in Melbourne against St Kilda & Melbourne get to play them in Cairns & Alice Springs. As I've posted before, these games should be against Victorian teams where loss of home-ground advantage isn't so significant. That doesn't happen apparently because Victorian teams don't like it. Well, bad luck. Their opinions should be totally irrelevant.

The ladder doesn't count until the end of the round surely. But I agree this will be an issue once the byes start (as they have already in the VFL) . There are solutions like ranking by ratio of wins to total games played and then percentage but for some reason the AFL doesn't do this.

I would have protested. He took a clean one-grab mark. In that situation, it's either a goal or a mark, never a behind. If he didn't take a clean mark and touches it before the whole ball is across the line then the only decision is a behind. Extremely clear cut decision-making process. There are 9 games every weekend. The way the AFL maximises it's revenue is the Channel 7/Foxtel arrangement. The TV rights deal is how the game survives. What that means is only 4 or 5 of 8 games gets shown live on 7. Parking my Demons supporters position for a moment, the St Kilda/Port game was objectively more likely to be a close game (at least pre-5 players going down with COVID at Melbourne). It's not about who are the Premiers, it's about TV ratings. Either go to the game or get Kayo. Or if that doesn't work, watch the entire replay on the AFL website the next day.

Not quite sure what your point is about Smith & Hunt being in the same backline given that Hunt has played every game and Smith has played 5 of 7, we have been missing key backs every game and have won all 7. It seems the backline has been functioning well as a unit and I expect even with the poorer performance against Hawthorn we will still have the best-ranked defence at round end. You could even argue Smith's absence in the last quarter against the Hawks was a big part of them kicking 3 last quarter goals. I think over-analysing our defensive performance based on one game when we were missing 5 players from covid, had disrupted training and had another 2 players probably not fully-fit coming back from covid is a bit meaningless and unfair.

I was slightly surprised they didn't bring Tomlinson in for Petty and Lever for Smith. I guess that with so many forced changes they thought an unforced change should be avoided. Not having that extra tall meant Lever wasn't freed up and he was coming back from covid. We do have a lock-down stopper, Hibberd, but I think Hunt is now in to play on the opposition's small forward with his closing speed. After mentioning Smith's possible non-selection, I did think he was missed in the last quarter when off injured. TMac moved back bit didn't seem to do much. I was also disappointed when TMac took that early mark of a ball that was clearly going through. Looked like the act of a man who was under pressure and desperate to enhance his stats, but maybe I'm being a little unfair 🙂.