Sydney_Demon

This makes sense. Nominating as a father/son (obviously) enhances your chances of being selected by that Club but does potentially scare off other clubs. WB can't even find a place for Sam Darcy in their current best 22. The problem with a lot of this speculation is that Melbourne's Pick 34 could end up anywhere from 32 to 37 and similarly Swans Picks 11 & 30 could end up (in an extreme case) as low as 18 & 37. And all those picks could be pushed back by North getting Pick 3 as free agency compensation for Ben McKay. If Jordan Croft doesn't nominate as a father-son then that will definitely encourage WB to pursue GC 4. I agree GC will want to to on-trade Pick 10 and even Pick 17 if that happens. 3-way reade involving GC, Melbourne & WB?

Port beat GWS by 51 points in Adelaide in Round 22 and have won their 2 games since including Fremantle in Perth, so why GWS to beat Port in a Semi? I also believe it will be hard for Collingwood to beat Brisbane in Brisbane given the latter hasn't lost a home game all year. But I will be very happy if it pans out the way you are predicting! 🙂!

I'm not sure what you mean by easily trading down. No club will want the picks after 4 except for another club trying to accrue points for a father/son or academy player (but even then you're not going to give away more points equivalency than you get). Would a Club really want to trade up to get a player at Pick 28 (or 32 as it's likely to end up at)? The whole point of acquiring those lower picks was to use them for Academy players. You have ignored the GC 4th Academy pick in your analysis (Will Graham, who is likely to go in the mid-30s) but I take your point about possible additional picks coming in to GC through player trades. I really just don't see that GC are going to be in a position where they would prefer a combination of future picks plus current picks (which they can use for points) to just purely current picks. If they had a 1,000 point Surplus I would get it. Now if some other Club was feeling really generous and threw in a future pick whilst still meeting GC's need for points this year that could be attractive, but the 2023 points will be mandatory component of any trade. We're probably all a bit early with all these prognostications given we won't know where all the picks lie until the final ladder positions are determined, we know where North's special compensation package ends up, all the trades are completed including free agency compenssation (especially fot Ben McKay) ... But we do know that Melbourne is very-well positioned to get a decent draft outcome, even if we don't get 1, or 4 or 10.

I'm not saying it's insurmountable. Just that it's something that might mean they are not as active in seeking a trade up to 4 as they would have been otherwise. It will mean that the Dogs will want to trade out 10 & 17 whether it's to go up to 4 or go down to get more points. 4 in it's own right will be attractive to a lot of Clubs whereas 10 is particularly attractive to Clubs like Melbourne that could package it with a higher pick to go even higher. 10 I think is a big advance on 15-18 as there'a a chance that 1 or 2 of the Gold Coast Academy picks and the Bulldogs Father/Son will fall below 10 (essentially what I'm saying is 10 might become 12 whereas 15-18 might become 19-22). As I posted earlier, Melbourne Picks 18 & 24 for Bulldogs Pick 10 + future 3rd round? Could even 18 & 37 for 10 work? Probably not, but it is a slight points improvement for WB. Then we have Picks 5, 10 & 37 (am I dreaming?) for Harley Reid or we just keep them for draft selections. West Coast would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5.

It's interesting different posters take on recent form. Everyone's jumped on the GWS bandwagon and are totally dismissing Port Adelaide's chances and yet GWS essentially got thrashed by Port as recently as Round 22. So GWS are in form after 2 wins while Carlton's most recent form apparently is meaningless because they had nothing to play for? I agree that Sydney aren't in supreme form but (notwithstanding last year's Grand Final performance) are a proven Finals performer. Yes, they were lucky against Adelaide in Adelaide but Adelaide have been extremely hard to beat even for the top sides. There will be considerably more pressure on Carlton than on the Swans this weekend. Let's see how they handle it.

Except that the Dogs I assume will be interested in getting Father/Son Jordan Croft who Cal Twomey has at 11. If they lost 10 & 17 (the latter linked to Brisbane's finishing position) they would be left with 36, 63, 66, 84 which will give them 694 points, a fair way short of the 1063 they would need for Pick 11 after the 20% discount.

Love your final prediction particularly. I like it that you've picked Sydney against Carlton. The general concensus amongst the 'experts' seems to be Carlton but as usual no in-depth analysis. The Swans are a Finals Team (look at last year's Qualifying Final) and Papley will be back. I was at last week's game and thought the Swans were phenomenal which is why it was such a great win by Melbourne.

Well, if iit's come from Damien Barrett you can safely ignore it. The guy's a total waste of space.

As I posted earlier, I agree that they don't have enough points, and that could be further exacerbated by them making a play for Will Graham who is likely to go in the mid-30s. One thing you appear not to have done though is apply the 20% discount. We should make a play for Pick 4, particularly as it will get us above the compromising of the draft lower down. Read & Rogers wil definitely go above Melbourne's 2nd Pick as in all likelihood will Jordan Croft, Western Bulldogs Father/Son. If we are targetting Harley Reid I'm not sure though that bundling 4 & 5 is the best way of getting there. Far too many points and we would need something back the other way from West Coast. I still think making a play for the Bulldogs Pick 10 is a more realisable option as they will want to trade out that pick. Bundling Picks 5, 10 & 37 could be attractive for West Coast as they would likely get Daniel Curtin at Pick 5. Concersely if Reid is not available 4 & 5 would get us 2 potentially excellent players. Pick 10 not so attractive unless it can be used as part of a trade.

If GC Northern Academy players go at the level Cal Twomey is predicting (2, 9 & 12) they will need 4,203 points after the 20% discount. They currently have 4,191. Apparently they're also potentially going to take another academy player Will Graham who's currently at 34 according to Rookie Me Central (another 434 points after 20% discount): https://central.rookieme.com/afl/power-rankings/rolling-rankings-top-40-afl-draft-prospects/ I know they can go into deficit but I'm assuming that's not their preference. So, again I would suggest GC would prefer to trade totally for points rather than 2024 future picks. They won't want to go backwards on the 4,191 they currentky have. In fact that 4,191 will be reduced if North get Pick 3 as compensation for Ben McKay and 9 & 12 with become 8 & 11 and thus require more points if Ryley Sanders (Cal Twomey 7) is gifted to North as they are attempting to negotiate with the AFL. It's a rolled gold certainty they will trade out 4, if they can get 1 point more than the 2,304 that's worth and there will be a number of teams who will want to trade up to 4 so that's a definite.

I accept that most first year players aren't going to be playing immediately but that's actually an argument for selecting them earlier, not later. It's time in the system and multiple pre-seasons that get players ready. It's also true that the top sides are less likely to select draftees in their first year because they don't need to. Melbourne won't select players to win Casey the flag but experience playing in the VFL prepares them for the AFL. Using your logic, if we push our selections back to 2024 none of them are going to be playing for Melbourne until 2026! There's also the uncertainty of future drafts. 2023 draftees will largely be a known quantity at 2023 draft time, whereas obviously that's not the case for potential 2024 draftees. But of course it all depends on what players are likely to be available at what draft position. If Melbourne misses out on a player they want of course they'll trade back by draft position and/or year.

I like this as Schache clearly feels he can make it as a Melbourne player and the Club is showing faith in him. BBB, TMac & Melksham are highly likely to all be gone by the end of 2024 and in another year we'll definitely have a better feel for whether Jefferson is going to make it. A one year contract makes total sense to me.

It's definitely worth it from a GC perspective because it's a net gain of about 400 points and it probably brings more clubs into the negotiating area as they can consider offers above 1878 points for Pick 5 rather than 2045 for Pick 4. I'm hoping pick 34 becomes pick 37 and then it would be a net gain of 340 points. I'm thinking though that it's not such a great deal for Melbourne unless we clearly have a player in mind that will go at 4 rather than 5. Having said that we definitely want to trade up with picks 18, 24 & 37 because there's every chance that by the time of the draft they'll become picks 24+ after North gets 1st round compensation for Ben McKay (Pick 3) plus gets gifted Ryley Sanders (Pick 7ish?) and GC take their 3 Northern Academy players. The Bulldogs are likely to trade out Pick 10 for points to target Father/Son Jordan Croft and that might be a more achievable target than Pick 4. Picks 18 & 24 for Pick 10 + future 3rd round? Then we trade Pick 5, 10 & 37 for Harley Reid + Pick 54 😀. West Coast would likely get their man Daniel Curtin at Pick 5.

Apparently he was offered such a ridiculously good offer we couldn't refuse.

Am I missing something here? Don't the Suns need points this year to get their Northern Academy players? Doesn't that mean that directly trading using future picks is going to be of no interest to them? There's been some suggestion by some posters that Melbourne could package a future first round pick in a swap. Now that could still happen if there's a 3-way trade with another club giving us a pick this year in return for a future pick, and we on-trade to Gold Coast. GC aren't going to want to trade up, only down, and they will do the deal with whichever club gives them the most points so elaborate calculations about points equivalents aren't really that relevant. We will need to come up with a deal that is advantageous to Gold Coast without being ridiculous from a Melbourne perspective.

Similar, except that at least North last week weren't playing an opponent who had had a week's rest and Casey were also playing off a 6-day break today! I still can't understand why the Wildcard Round was played on a Sunday. Maybe the argument was that North, Casey & Richmond all played Round 22 on the Sunday and Collingwood on the Saturday. On that basis I guess there was an argument for the Collingwood-Richmond Wildcard game being played on the Sunday but absolutely no argument for the Casey-North game. Basically this just confirms everything that's wrong with the concept of the Wildcard Round. It was basically close to impossible to win from 7th or 8th previously. It's now totally impossible. All about the money and nothing about anything else. That's the AFL administration in a nutshell 🙁.

I posted on this regarding the proposal to introduce a Wildcard Round for the AFL (which was rejected by the Club CEOs). Basically the introduction of a Wildcard Round severely advantages the 5th & 6th teams which will probably also have implications for the Semi-Finals, as the losing Qualifying Finalists will be disadvantaged compared to the winning Elimination Finalists (assumng the latter are the 5th & 6th teams). The situation is further exacerbated by the Wildcard Round being played on Sunday when it should have been played on Saturday. So the 5th & 6th teams not only get a week's break but they play the 7th & 8th teams off 6-day breaks which could have been totally avoided. Unlike others I have no problems with Melbourne resting fringe AFL players this week. Obviously they're going to do what maximises their chances of success on Thursday night. Imagine if they had played them for Casey and injuries/concussions had occurred. Much easier and more sensible to manage their loads in a controlled training environment.

I can't believe people are still bitter & twisted about missing out on Mac Andrew. He went at Pick 5. A 25% discount would have meant we had to give up the equivalent of Pick 10 in points to get him. We used picks 19, 39 & 65 to get Jacob Van Rooyen, Blake Howes & Taj Woewodin which in points is about the same as Pick 10. I know who got the better deal (and it wasn't Gold Coast!).

Can't Port trade this year's picks for Grundy? Clubs have to use 3 picks each year but that includes rookies. Couldn't they offer up 37 & 43 in return for Grundy plus Melbourne's Future 3rd. 37 & 43 are worth 861 points in return for Grundy (27 is what we used to get him worth 703 points) with a future 3rd worth 220-233 points based on Melbourne finishing Top 4 in 2024. We would definitely prefer draft picks this year to bundle for a trade with Gold Coast. Of course 37 could drift out a bit as it's based on Colingwood winning the Premiership.

Obviously Gold Coast & Hawthorn winning today is what we needed to get Pick 4 so will have to settle for Pick 5, but actually I feel better with both results going the wrong way. It would have been more annoying in a way if only one had happened. And of course North losing Pick 1 is a plus. Actually I guess we shouldn't count our chickens, West Coast haven't lost yet.

And well-deserved.

Incredibly disappointing that Casey managed to lose their final 3 games and so turn Top 4 into a 7th place finish but agree that our fixture was compromised by not playing Northern Bullants. I assume though that the other side not playing the Bullants was Southport who finished 14th who we played in last year's Grand Final (only 2 sides miss out). I still don't understand with 21 teams & 22 rounds why every team couldn't play every other team once with 2 byes. Maybe there's a mathematical fixturing reason why this couldn't happen. It would seem to me that that the Casey-North game could have been played on Saturday so Casey aren't disadvantaged by having to keep players out as emergencies for the Melbourne-Swans game when North don't have to (since their AFL side is playing on Saturday). Why wouldn't you play both Wildcard games on a Saturday? The 5th & 6th teams are already extremely advantaged with the introduction of a Wildcard Round without additionally potentially playing their opponents next week off a 6-day break. The other issue is that the Wildcard Round has been introduced by stealth for the VFL (was there any consultation?). Clearly an attempt to pre-empt a possible move into the AFL for this unnecessary & flawed idea. Anyway, despite all the negatives, hopefully Casey beat North (who have lost 4 in a row) and go on to play Footscray who will be a much tougher proposition, especially if the Western Bulldogs don't make the AFL Finals.

I don't think that really explains it. Firstly, playing against well-rested opponents in PFs (winning QFists) applies for all winners of SFs and yet 14 Premiers have come from 2nd/3rd and only 8 from 1st/4th since 2000. No side has won from 4th and yet 7 sides have won from 3rd. But I do agree that a QF is almost a must-win for Melbourne. Hard to win if you lose a QF, then have to beat Carlton (most likely), then Brisbane (most likely) at the Gabba and then a GF against Collingwood (most likely). Much easier winning against Collingwood, Adelaide & Brisbane, all at the MCG.

27 of 41 GFs won by winner of 2SF (2 weeks vs 1 week break. Played 1 final in Week 2). 25 of 41 PFs won by loser of the 2SF (1 week break vs 2 weeks break. Played 1 final in Week 2 vs 1 final in Week 1). Loser of 2SF has surprisingly good record in PF. Maybe having that break in Week 1 gave teams the opportunity to freshen up and meant the lack of gap between Weeks 2 & 3 wasn't an issue but then told against them in the GF. 18 of 27 GFs won by winner of 2SF were the top team, 9 2nd team. The other 14 GF were won by losing 2SF (Ist team 5, 2nd team 5) with 4 won from 1SF (4th team, no winners from 3rd). What does this all mean? I'm not sure but maybe in the era of 12 Victorian teams there were big gaps in the abilities between teams so top teams were so much better than lower teams that they won anyway. I think you can make comparisons between the 1/2 vs 3/4 groupings 1931-1971 and the 1/2/3/4 vs 5/6/7/8 groupings 2000-2022. Clearly it's hard to win when you have no 2nd chance and have to win all your finals. That's why Top 4 is so important. I would normally say Top 3 but not this year because Collingwood-Melbourne are evenly-matched and there's no home ground advantage.

Richmond defeating Port in Adelaide. Can't see that happening. Look what Port did to GWS in Round 22. Maybe if it was at the MCG. St Kilda defeating Brisbane also very unlikely but more of a possibility. The chances of both happening on current Sportsbet odds roughly 25/1.