Sydney_Demon

I have absolutely no problem with Casey not playing Northern Bullants this season. Casey were Premiers and lost 1 game and should have been 1 of the 2 teams that didn't play them. More to the point is why was the 2nd team Casey didn't play Port Melbourne who finished 16th in 2022? That team should have been mid-table at worst. It also seems to me it should have been possible to play all other teams once. It would only have needed a reduction in the byes from 4 to 2 or from 4 to 3 with the season starting a week earlier. Well, I'd say it's more of a pathway to the AFL that a standalone VFA. There's 6 Victorian non-affiliated teams in the VFL and there's live video coverage of every VFL game played. Back in the good old days there was interest in the VFA because they played Sundays and the VFL played Saturdays. There was one game a week on TV. I'm sure no-ones forcing the standalone clubs to play in the VFL. In the early days it was State vs State and Victoria had huge wins because their side included nearly all the best SA & WA players (because they had moved to Melbourne to play VFL). Then it became State of Origin and was very popular because the teams were much more evenly-matched. I'd also say the Interstate teams were much more motivated than Victoria because it meant so much more to them and their fans. Basically, since the VFL went National and became the AFL there's really not the same demand for State of Origin. Where could they squeeze it into the schedule? Yes, State of Origin is huge in NSW and is bigger than the NRL Grand Final, although frequently the 3rd game is a dead rubber. They tried to talk up the 3rd game this year but did anyone really care that NSW won as they had already lost the Series? What I hate about State of Origin is it really compromises the NRL Season because players generally can't play for their clubs prior to or after mid-week State of Origin games. This wouldn't be acceptable to AFL Clubs or fans and is another reason why State of Origin doesn't work as an AFL concept.

Miles behind Collingwood? We beat them King's Birthday. Miles behind Brisbane? We beat them last week. We lost to Port by 4 points in Adelaide. I'm rapt with the win today. We won. That's all that matters. And Adelaide aren't going to play finals which is another bonus. If Adelaide play like they did today and kick a bit straighter they're a very big chance against Port next week.

Frankly, who gives a FF what happened when you played? Is it in any way relevant? What's (self-)indulgent is you posting this [censored]. Did it cross your mind for one moment this might be what the players want?

Yes, Adelaide really suck on the road which was shown by their horrific 1 point loss a month ago to Collingwood! Adelaide were playing for their season and this was always going to be a tough game to win. What's this about the big tests to come? No games are easy except when you're playing West Coast, but Adelaide are a better team definitely than Richmond and the Swans. Possibly not Carlton the way they're currently playing. In any case we're 2 games and an insurmountable percentage clear of all teams below us and I'd back Melbourne to win ar least 3 of 5. Win 2 of 5 and we'll still probably make it as I can't see any of the teams below us winning 5 of 5. St Kilda might even lose today which would definitely be an unexpected bonus.

I'd say Melbourne & Brisbane were just as impressive last week . Melbourne has beaten Brisbane & Collingwood the most recent times we played them and lost to Port by 4 points in Adelaide. Despite the gap at the very top for Collingwood I'd say the 4 teams top 4 right now are very evenly matched.

Collingwood are now certain to finish top. If we win tomorrow it will be hard for anyone to overtake us for 4th. We'll be 2 games and massive percentage clear of the 5th team which means we'll only need to win 2 of 5. Still, I'm taking nothing for granted. We need to beat Adelaide first. I agree finishing Top 2 isn't critical. But Top 2 is definitely better than Top 4. Rather than looking at who makes Grand Finals, who wins them? Under the current system (23 years) premiers have been minor premiers 8 times, have come from 2nd & 3rd 7 times reach, and from 7th once (Bulldogs 2016). So side has come from 4th (or 5th, 6th or 8th).

Collingwood were going to finish top anyway. If Port won the top 2 basically would have been tied up but we are now some mathematical chance. This will be devastating for Port Adelaide and this is their run home. R20: Adelaide @ Adelaide Oval R21: Geelong @ GMHBA Stadium R22: Greater Western Sydney @ Adelaide Oval R23: Fremantle @ Optus Stadium R24: Richmond @ Adelaide Oval First things first, Melbourne need to win tomorrow but only a 2 match gap to Port and Melbourne's percentage will be higher than Port's at season end. Thinking long term maybe it would have been better for Geelong to beat Brisbane but Brisbane winning certainly helps our quest for Top 4. Brisbane's run home: R20: Gold Coast @ Heritage Bank Stadium R21: Fremantle @ Optus Stadium R22: Adelaide @ Gabba R23: Collingwood @ Marvel Stadium R24: St Kilda @ Gabba A bit of percentage for Melbourne to make up but I would expect them to lose to Collingwood at least and we have games to come against North & Hawthorn.

Got a bit ahead of myself there. The AFL will find a way of giving North a first round free agency compensation pick for Ben McKay and there'll be at least 1 Gold Coast Academy selection ahead of us in Round 1, with likely 3 in the first 20, so Picks 6 & 27 are coming our way 🙁

Freo will get 2 wins at best for the rest of the season, probably only 1. With their percentage I'd say 15th is now a certainty. Picks 4 & 23 are coming out way!

My understanding was that the standalone VFL Clubs have a substantially higher salary cap than the AFL-affiliated Clubs which meant that theoreiically they should have a better chance of attracting high level talent that is not on AFL lists. Certainly Werribee are very successful this year which I'm assuming is partly because of that. Having said that, is there any funding of the standalone clubs by the AFL? I assume it depends on whether a club is well enough resourced to use their full salary cap? The standalone clubs ladder positions currently are: Werribee 2nd, Williamstown 7th, Southport 14th (but runners up last year), Port Melbourne 15th, Frankston 18th, Northern Bullants 20th, Coburg 21st (bottom). A mixed bag but generally struggling.

@KC from Casey Just inquiring whether there was any consultation with the VFL Clubs before introducing the Wildcard Round this year?

You haven't read my latest post properly. I said the 5th & 6th teams are generally better than the 7th & 8th teams so you would expect them to win more games. I totally accept your evidence that 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams. That is because the 5th team is usually better than the 8th (which is why they finished 5th rather than 8th) and the 6th is better than 7th for the same reason. The other factor is home ground advantage. I also differentiated it from a situation where the same teams are playing on a neutral ground and their positions are switched. I agree with your comments about 5th & 6th teams being advantaged by the possible inclusion of a wildcard round (in fact I made them earlier). I also agree with you sometimes less is better. I know 4 of 12 teams used to play finals which equates to 6 of 18 (and we currently have 8). We both know it won't be reverting to 6 and support leaving it at 8. I also agree with your last point. Clearly the AFL want it because it will be a money spinner which is their only concern. The inequity of playing 22 games to eliminate 8 out of 18 teams and have teams with losing records play finals is I'm sure nothing that's even crossed their mind. The fact that they snuck this into VFL this year for a test run (any consultation? I doubt it) shows where they're coming from.

I posted this earlier under the Wildcard thread but it probably belongs here instead. It was in response to round robin groupings 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 with no promotions between the groups (which apparently is the option CEO's are looking at: Downsides: You are basically making it a 17 game season because the 7th-12th teams are competing for 2 positions that they'll find it virtually impossible to win the premiership from. After 17 rounds this season St Kilda in 6th position have a 9-8 record and a percentage of 104.3%, but more typically you would need a 10-7 record. On that basis fans of lower teams would be tuning out after about Round 10. At least now, apart from the absolute bottom teams, there's still a mathematical chance of getting Top 8 (even Top 5 or 6). Do we really want to consign teams to the rubbish heap so early in the season? Very demotivating for fans. Also, it really works against teams coming home with a big rush and playing good footy coming into the finals. Let's look at what's going to happen post-Round 17. You'll potentially have teams in the lower reaches of the Top 6 resting players once they know they can't make Top 4. Contrary to the idea of 8-point games, for the last 2-3 rounds of the season you'll have teams not really being competitive because they know they can't drop any lower on the ladder. That compromises the whole fixture. Right now you've got teams needing to keep winning and being extremely motivated. There's about 6 or 7 games each week involving at least 1 team that's competing for finals. Instead we'll have at least 3 games every week between 13th-18th teams (and maybe even a game in the 7th-12th bracket) that are of absolutely no interest. In fact, for those tanking conspiracy theorists, there's every reason to tank in the bottom bracket, you can't get higher than 13th so you might as well finish lower and get better draft picks. And finally, this only works with 18 teams and 22 rounds. There's nothing wrong with the current system. Yes, its inequitable but so is the draft. Why do we need a totally equitable fixture? It's all part of equalisation which is a good thing. Even if the AFL do want to improve equity, surely they could just change the fixture to distribute the 6 second-team games more evenly. A much easier solution and then there's still the flexibility to play 23 or 24 rounds of 9 matches.

1,6,7,8 rewards Team 1 which I like but also aids 6,7,8. They all have 1 tough game and 2 easy ones and have easier draws than any of teams 2,3,4,5! The current Final 8 isn't perfect (there's not enough graded differentiation across the 1-4 & 5-8 ranges) but I think there should be a reward for finishing higher up the ladder which the Top 4 double-chance does.

I don't feel so bad now. I left the Melbourne-Carlton game with 2 minutes to go last year, missed the 2nd last goal and saw the winning goal on delay on my phone. But I was still rapt with the win and didn't actually mind 😀

I hadn't looked that closely at Casey's fixture this year. I know Casey are defending premiers and lost only one game last year but to not play the 16th & 21st teams seems particularly harsh. I can understand not playing the Bullants but surely the other team should have been mid-table at worst. After copping that draw finishing 5th will be particularly hard to take. I know that a 21-team comp must be hard to fixture, but surely it would have been possible to do 20 games 2 byes, or 20 games 3 byes and start a week earlier (VFL started a week later than AFL). 4 byes when only 2 more games are needed to play everyone once is nonsensical.

We don't want him to play too well. We need to be able to get him at 4 of 5 (go Swannies). The problem is this should be a demolition job and everyone's going to look good 😀.

Yes, 5th-6th teams are normally better than 7th-8th teams so usually you'd expect them to win but that's not the same as saying an individual team has more chance of winning frome 5th-6th positions as 7th-8th positions. The reality is that if there is no home ground advantage then you have exactly the same chance 5th vs 8th as 8th vs 5th (the same of course comparing 6th vs 7th with 7th vs 6th). Basically this is the same as Collingwood vs Melbourne at the MCG is identical 1 vs 4 or 4 vs 1 which numerous people have made on the Run Home thread. You make a point that 20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers. Not true. At least not true in relation only to 7th & 8th. I'd argue that the only relevant period is the 23 years since the current Final 8 System came in. In that period no side has come from outside the Top 3 other than Western Bulldogs in 2016. So what evidence does that provide that 5th-6th is a cut above 7th-8th. I'd say precisely none. Thanks for that clarification. Important information. I can see a few more downsides. You are basically making it a 17 game season because the 7th-12th teams are competing for 2 positions that they'll find it virtually impossible to win the premiership from. After 17 rounds this season St Kilda in 6th position have a 9-8 record and a percentage of 104.3%, but more typically you would need a 10-7 record. On that basis fans of lower teams would be tuning out after about Round 10. At least now, apart from the absolute bottom teams, there's still a mathematical chance of getting Top 8 (even Top 5 or 6). Do we really want to consign teams to the rubbish heap so early in the season? Very demotivating for fans. Also, it really works against teams coming home with a big rush and playing good footy coming into the finals. Let's look at what's going to happen post-Round 17. You'll potentially have teams in the lower reaches of the Top 6 resting players once they know they can't make Top 4. Contrary to the idea of 8-point games, for the last 2-3 rounds of the season you'll have teams not really being competitive because they know they can't drop any lower on the ladder. That compromises the whole fixture. Right now you've got teams needing to keep winning and being extremely motivated. There's about 6 or 7 games each week involving at least 1 team that's competing for finals. Instead we'll have at least 3 games every week between 13th-18th teams (and maybe even a game in the 7th-12th bracket) that are of absolutely no interest. In fact, for those tanking conspiracy theorists there's every reason to tank in the bottom bracket, you can't get higher than 13th so you might as well finish lower and get better draft picks. And finally, this only works with 18 teams and 22 rounds. As I've posted earlier, there's nothing wrong with the current system. Yes, its inequitable but so is the draft. Why do we need a totally equitable fixture? It's all part of equalisation. Even if we do, surely we could change the fixture to distribute the 6 second-team games more evenly. A much easier solution and then there's still the flexibility to play 23 or 24 rounds of 9 matches.

I'm not sure why you think 5th & 6th currently have a much bigger chance than 7th & 8th. Yes, if 5th/6th is Geelong playing at GMHBA or 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7 are played between teams from different states, but not otherwise. It basically comes down to whether there's any home ground advantage. If there is none then it's the same chance between all clubs from 5 to 8. I'd even argue it's better in such circumstances to finish 8th than 6th because if you win you likely play the 4th team in a semi rather than the 3rd. Let's be clear. A wildcard round severely disadvantages 7th & 8th and significantly helps 5th & 6th (in the latter case even compared to 1st-4th). The 5th-6th teams will get an easier EF against more-fatigued sides & likely go into a SF against 3rd/4th teams that have just had tough QF games. Even without a Wildcard I can see that worked against Melbourne last year in their Semi against Brisbane.

I'm with you. For a start it allows fans to actually plan their travel (travelling from the country, interstate trips etc.) well in advance. Round 24 of course needs to be quarantined to ensure as much as possible there are no dead matches. For me, the complete fixture should be released in advance including dates, with the only exception being precise dates for the lasr round. This of course won't happen because it's all about maximising television ratings rather than aiding the fans who actually fo to the games! You could always watch the AFLW. So you think getting 80,000 fans to the MCG for a game between 7 &10 or 8 & 9, the winners of which will have a 1% chance of winning the premiership, overrides any questions of the integrity of the competition?

I disagree about these so-called 'problems'. The combination of the draft (priority to lower-ranked teams, compensation for free agency moves, special assistance compensation, northern academies) and inequitable draws works. Why should it be left to the draft alone? Why do we need to make the draw totally equitable? I think the distribution of the double-ups is fine because it is inequitable. Firstly, I totally disagree with your 1st paragraph. Just because something creates more money and interest doesn't make if good for the game !!!! Secondly, regarding your 17/6 proposal there are still problems. The bye doesn't work after 17 rounds. It is mid-season because it has been negotiated with the players association to provide a mid-season break and helps the players survive a 23-game season. Further, having the 17 teams play each other once to begin with still isn't equitable because it depends on which teams you get to play at home & which away. Then coming up with a balanced fixture for the last 6 rounds is impossible because different teams are trending in different directions and then sudden reversals of form happen. Of course you could base it entirely on ladder position which is what they do now for the whole season so why not just leave it as it is? The reason they don't run the AFL & AFLW concurrently with the AFL Season is that the AFLW would be buried. Starting the AFLW during the AFL pre-finals bye makes sense because AFL fans will be desparate to watch some footy that weekend, there will be reduced AFL games on TV in subsequent weeks because the finals are happening, and 10 clubs won't be playing in the AFL finals so can at least transfer their loyalties temporarily to AFLW.

Fair enough. Even less reason for this unnecessary & undesirable change to fixturing. Why don't they just leave it alone? If it aint broke, don't fix it! P.S. My West Coast comments were partly driven by the fact that unfortunately we weren't one of the sides that benefitted from geting to play them twice in 2023. Still, I can't complain too much as the sides we play(ed) twice are/were Sydney, Brisbane, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn & North Melbourne (could have ('of' for the illiterate ones out there 😀) been worse.

If you're Harley Reid it's fine because every Club is after you but it's a brave move for most potential draftees. Limiting potential draft clubs means you might not get drafted at all as in general there's a limited number of clubs interested (or they're genuinely interested but make a last minute switch because of unexpected availability of a more highly-regarded player.

Did you read earlier posts? Pick 56 and above we apparently have to match the bid using ponts and our 5th round pick has no points attached to it. 57 and below we can use our last pick in the draft to get him without worrying about poinrs (so our current 89 would be fine). I guess if we are worried he's going to go earlier we do a pick swap to move up from 89.

No-one's going to come out and openly say they won't go to a Club for obvious reasons but I have no problem with Harley Reid letting it out (if he has) that he'd prefer not to move. to WA It doesn't compromise the draft. West Coast can still take the risk and pick him. Surely North Melbourne would have preferred it if Horne-Francis had told them he didn't want to go there, rather than force his way out of the Club the next season. If West Coast have good intel Harley Reid isn't for them for whatever reason they trade out of that spot and focus elsewhere.