old55

The very point I was making. When thinking about the future success of the Tamanian team it's likely to be more relevant to consider the experience of WC, the Crows and Port - all teams who won flags within the career span of an AFL player, rather than GC or GWS.

You're right. I thought it was tomorrow. So maximum one out for sub is likely.

16 MFC listed players is good, although at least 2 will come out for the senior side for Sub and emergency.

"We've got a plan going in, but that may change in game" - Wait, what, surely not?

"In total, I’ve been involved at AFL club level for more than 25 years as a player, coach, and GM of Football for a decade at both Essendon and Melbourne. It has been a privilege and I look forward to what is next.” Sounds likely from that. Needs to get away from Dodoro too.

Michael Hibberd, on 195 games and turns 34 next January. He made it clear earlier in the year his goal is to get to 200 games. He'll be sub tomorrow which will help but there's not a lot of runway left this season to get there.

I asked West Coast, Adelaide and Port Adelaide and they all said it's possible.

Colby McKercher - captain of the first Tasmanian Premiership team

I didn't say he's going to stay at Sydney or Fremantle, I said he'd leave but they would benefit more from the draft pick compensation. Mate.

Incorrect, if Collingwood go 1-2 and Brisbane and MFC go 3-0 then top spot is decided on percentage and Collingwood's will fall, while Brisbane and Melbourne's will rise in that scenario.

If I'm Brady Rawlings I'm doing everything to retain McKay, he's only 25 and he seems to be finally getting his body right over the last 3 years. It takes longer for KPs to mature. They would be well set with Larkey forward and McKay back as their young talented midfield matures and they could draft another mid or medium this year. If McKay leaves they'll have to find another KPB and they're in short supply.

Colby McKercher will be going to the Tasmanian team in 2028 - nothing is surer. The club that selects him will be well compensated in draft picks. North would be ill-advised to pick him because if they do he'll be coming through with their current injection of youth and will lose him just when they are really improving. They won't want a new draft pick then. Melbourne would also be ill-advised to pick him because he'll be leaving just as Petracca and Oliver come to wards the end of their careers. We won't want a new draft pick then, we'll want a ready-to-go replacement. A club like Sydney or Fremantle would be in the best position to take him. They have young, already developed midfields and McKercher would augment them over the next 5 years. Then they can use the compensation pick to draft replacements for these their guns, replacements who can develop in parallel with them for latter half of their careers. The issue for Fremantle is they won't have a pick to take him of course.

I don't believe that it's correct that we lose momentum when Grundy is in the ruck. In R12 vs Carlton Max and Brodie each attended exactly 50% of CBs: https://dailyfantasyrankings.com.au/resources/afl/cba.php We didn't lose momentum at any time in this match: https://www.afl.com.au/afl/matches/4884#timeline In fact from R6 - R13 inclusive when Max and Brodie shared the ruck almost exactly 50:50 we went 6-2. I challenge you to produce evidence that we lose momentum when Grundy rucks.

Like Fanatique you mean?

Grundy rucks most of the first half, plays a bit forward and Max plays mostly forward, a bit of ruck. Grundy is subbed at or after half-time for Hibberd, Smith goes forward, Max rucks the entire rest of the match fresh. We can afford to do this because we're playing one more mid than we have in the past so our run won't be compromised.

I don't hate Toby, I like him.

Please stop making sense - it's discombobulating here.

Has he had you loading pre-finals by recording those excessively long posts into the dictaphone? You know "that's where they expect it least"

FIFY

Not necessarily. The range of the square of all real numbers is real numbers greater than or equal to zero. The existence of a positive square does not imply the existence of a negative square.

They've got Billy Frampton - no idea why they'd take a risk with Murphy.

There's no guarantee he gets to MFC if he tells WC he won't go there though. WC could trade pick 1 to North for pick 2 and the McKay compensation and then he'll end up at North and WC can take Curtain.

Reid would be mad not to go there. He'd be King of Perth soon enough and WC will be back strongly.

The latter is correct. Anyone using the former "would of" been incorrect. And while I'm down there, it's "24x7" which equals all 168 hours in the week. Not "24/7" which is 3hrs and 26mins - not much of a commitment at all

I think there's 3 broad alternatives this week, in addition to Oliver for JJ or Harmes which applies in all 3: In: Grundy Out: Petty Positives: Retains the extra mid we have and allows us to sub Grundy (Hibberd as sub) Negatives: Relies on Max/Grundy forward In: Tomlinson or Hibberd Out: Petty Positives: Retains the extra mid we have (Tomlinson or Hibberd as sub) Negatives: Relies on Smith forward (which may be better than Gawn/Grundy). Means JVR has to ruck significant minutes - he did 37% vs North. In: Tomlinson/Hibberd and Grundy Out: Petty, JJ/Harmes (so both of them are out, one for Oliver and one for Grundy) Positives: Gives us Gawn/Grundy and Smith forward Negatives: We lose the extra mid (but would have JJ or Harmes as sub)