Skuit

Also, I'm in a reasonably exotic part of the world, but won't name it to avoid humble-bragging. Nevertheless, this country seems to have its own woo-hoo bird.

Hey Wadda. I think our record at AO is something like 10-5 with a steady five-goal average-winning-margin, including a 2011 last-round seven-point tank and neutral loss to Essendon this year (with another crucial neutral win over Brisbane in 2021). Under Goody's tenure, starting with the 2017 upset over the Crows, I think we're even better. Have faith my friend - woo-hoo!

Is @joeboy writing our banner copy?

TL/DR: my proposed system – different from the McIntyre – still has major advantages over the current one in terms of integrity, fairness and marketing, with or without ‘nominations’. I appreciate the clarity you've brought to this thread Syd and you’re somewhat right once again – my proposal does have an element of McIntyre throwback about it, but, nominations or not, would repeat the first-week formula throughout the finals series, thus eliminating the pre-prelim bye, which is my biggest bugbear: an uneven contest ether way you argue the bye/no-bye debate, one less finals game, and the league having its two best-preformed teams sidelined for a week at the most exciting and publicly-engaged time of the year. So after week one, with two teams eliminated, the ladder is reordered according to the previously highest-placed winners through to highest-placed losers, and then 1 v 6 and 2 v 4 etc. in week 2, with the two lowest-placed losers eliminated before a 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 semi-final round. All teams then have a progressively harder path through the finals, and every team has an incremental advantage according to ladder position (including a guaranteed second chance for 1 & 2 in week one, and potentially a second). Currently, 2 has an ‘easier’ path after week one. If they want to expand the finals to ten teams in the future, it’s easily adaptable, by adding an extra week or eliminating four teams in the first round. Moreover, as a national competition, the current system is constantly open to potential integrity issues. Firstly, the ‘second’ chance isn’t one in the true sense of the term – it’s a first chance to compete for a prelim spot. Then you have issues for 3 and 4, if for example they go on the road week one against a highly-rated opponent, before playing at ‘home’ against a 5th-6th-placed winner which didn’t travel and had an easy win. While lower-ladder ‘positioning’ may not have occurred in the past, the fact that it has even been discussed in the media before is an integrity issue in itself. There’s a potential chance we’ll be chatting about it on here in a few weeks time, should for example the opportunity arise that we could overtake Brisbane, but then face a tough week one road-trip to Adelaide and come ‘home’ to meet say Geelong in week two, which may have had a soft assignment against a traveling an eighth-placed GWS at home. Staying in 4th playing Collingwood at home might be preferable. I think you’re correct again in saying that the McIntyre system was in part ditched due to the potential for dead rubbers, as well as repeat fixtures. Flexible scheduling can resolve the first one, and while higher-placed teams should be given the priority for longer breaks, we still deal with that now. The second I don't see as a major problem. The past two seasons we’ve played Geelong and Brisbane in the final round and then again two weeks later (with differing results) and I doubt anyone lost interest. Admitted, back-to-back finals repeats are somewhat different. My proposed system still has its other flaws; namely another McIntyre one, that losing teams can continue to progress through the finals without perceived merit. Think Adelaide in 1998, after we thumped them and so then booked a later tougher assignment against Friday night specialists North. My proposal will include one loser in the semis, which is a bit tough to swallow, but it's at least fairer in terms of future finals pathways, with teams better holding their ‘destiny’ in their own hands. I think my system is way more equitable than the current one, while adding a marquee finals match (rather than a pointless ‘wild card’ round) and resolving potential integrity issues. The nominations suggestion would take that one step further (teams would be scrambling for every ladder position possible), and help to mitigate against ‘bad luck’, such as the season-long form fluctuations of opponents and untimely injuries. Plus it would be a marketer’s dream. It at least makes for an interesting thought experiment. Which team would Melbourne have nominated in week one last year? It could well have been Brisbane, considering we had just thumped them, or Fremantle, on a long road trip. I’m sure it would have fired them up even more, or any team ‘nominated’ for that matter. Perhaps Sydney, to hopefully disadvantage a major flag competitor after round one? Or the ‘easiest’ kill in the Bulldogs, who we had just lost to?

Was dead against it, to membership microwaving proportions, then decided on reflection that I really don't care all that much compared to other things. Probably won't impact on world hunger or peace or global warming (except for the ongoing, more tempting finals starvation of Essendon fans lol). My proposal for the Americanisation of football - before even the Americans have thought of it - is as follows: the top four teams, in order, can nominate their opponents from the bottom half of the eight. Two lowest ranked losers out and repeat the process, with a reordered ladder according to H&A position and winners/losers. It gets rid of the prelim finals bye and adds an extra match ($). Makes H&A incrementally more important by position, and removes travel bias and form flux. It also expands the combo of potential grand-finalists to infinity (a thing mathematics work on). Moreover, 'nomination day' would be an event of its own, and create crazy rivalries. Thought-test scenario based on current ladder positions. Who does Collingwood pick as an opponent? Probably wants to avoid Essendon in p8. Maybe St Kilda? Then Port picks Essendon at home, or maybe Brisbane, to bump them down the list or have them potentially eliminated. MFC picks the Bulldogs of course. Ask me anything.

All-time greatest death-rides? Can’t exactly recall or be bothered looking it up, but future trades commenced sometime around Clarry’s draft year, and we were at the forefront from the beginning. There’s probably an alternative universe out there where the Demons have been death-ridden on some obscure footy forums. Indeed, there’s now likely a multiverse of death-riding annals. As a weird microcosmic geopolitical inheritance metaphor, we were Africa, constantly selling out our future, but have somehow skipped a generation and are now the kids of Switzerland. My questions are; What’s the best and worst death-rides any team has had against us? North Melbourne I think gave us Pickett for a future first? They got some guy called Tom Powell in exchange? What are the all-time best and worst death-rides, and are we a chance to top that list as the finest ride ever? Something about the Carlton Stocker deal? What did the Crows end up with in return? There are multiple parameters in this buckle-up quiz, so please choose one or add your own variation in preamble to avoid arguing at cross-hairs. 1) Pure draft slides and points is an easy measure of future-first gambling. But has to be considered without context and a team’s expected trajectory. 2) Subjective, but who won and lost with ladder gambles? We finished 17th in 2019. North thought it was a trend. We probably couldn’t stop laughing in our tank-bank. 3) This one is a can of worms and will never be satisfied; but post-future-trades, who are the winners and losers according to the players the teams ultimately picked up with such picks?

Peoples asking how we could possibly lose to Flagmantle. Psychological player's conspiracy; If I play too well against this team I could soon lose my spot to a young, top-shelf draftee.

Now that trade month is dusted and we need to wait us a few more weeks for some further hope cookies, I thought it might be the opportune time to start a new thread on something that has occupied my mind for the past six or so minutes. Usernames. Q1: have you misinterpreted other posters' usernames without reflection? (Follow up Q2: where and why and what and who did you derive your username from?) I’ll get the ball gently rolling. (First easy question though: do any of the many ‘Dr.s’ on Demonland hold a PhD. or practice medicine?) More specifically, on reflection. Nasher: always thought it was something to do with being an admin and gnashing teeth, but probably just someone having the surname Nash. Cassiew: read it as someone who considers themselves a nut, as in cashew. But likewise probably just a person named Cassandra, whose surname starts with ‘w’. Pennant St Dee: always read in my head as Pennant ‘Saint’ Dee. Pretty obviously refers to a street though, somewhere in Perth likely. Google says such a thing exists. mo64: A dude named Moe or referring to modus operandi 1964’? DubDee/Sydee/Edm. Is it music related? Always picture you all in the different rooms of a rave. binman: still can’t help but connect with the strident support of Oscar McDonald, as in Oscar the Grouch = bin-man. Name probably came about well before OMac ever walked into our club. Demonstone? Is this Demon-stone like something out of Game of Thrones, or Demon’s tone where he or she forgot the apostrophe? DeeSpencer: just assume is a huge fan of Jake Spencer like me.

In the latest Gawn & Gussy podcast, Max mentioned that he and Jake Bowey were the only two players currently on our list to have come through the public school system. Max has spoken about this before, I think in 2017, when the number was the same (I can't recall the other player then?). The only footballer I know of making it to the AFL from my high school - which was basically next to Footy Park - was the largely forgotten Mitchell White, an All-Australian, leading goal-kicker, and premiership player for the Eagles. I get that promising athletes get scholarships to private schools, but obviously some must fall through the cracks. Are we missing a trick here? And should this system be fixed somehow, and if so how?

Also, all this bs about what each of us may have said in the past. If I was from the 1700s I might have used the N-word and thought it appropriate. I've said completely inappropriate stuff in my real past. A progressive society educates us that a lot of that isn't okay. We learn and move on. Some of us were stupid, and some genuinely bigoted. The fact that we're into the whatsapp era and Morris continues to espouse such horrible garbage suggests he's the latter. Therefore cancelled.

Why is this the accepted societal standard of journalism? (And I ask that as basically a journalist myself). There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in. Others trying to hide stuff? Like most people, as part of my job I'm privy to confidential commercial information. Are my efforts to keep that private akin to me 'hiding stuff'? Or is all information open slather for the public? Do football coaches not have some right to go about their already high-pressured jobs without other people constantly sniffing around trying to undermine that process? Who knows if Hunter had even been told of his demotion yet. That's where mental health may have come in. There are probably numerous protocols at clubs nowadays for how to support players being demoted, which is a publicly-broadcast set-back to one's career and ambitions. And breaching that is for what? So that people who are interested in other people chasing a ball around can get their fix a few hours earlier than the official team release? And so that someone can build their own public profile? How do you reckon Goody would have felt if Nathan Jones found out he wasn't playing in the grand final through the media before Simon had a chance to discuss it with him personally? Leakers are only one part. Our premiership coach recently talked about the strain that he had been under. Journalism need to move on from recognition for point-scoring to celebration of accuracy and good writing and factual reporting. However wayward the content, I fully support Beveridge having the opportunity to take a swipe at a journalist in return, especially one who wants to be in the public conversation by taking swipes in the other direction.

Devil's advocate but also a genuine question (the official rules are consistently vague): does there need to be actual contact for an action to be considered blocking? A common test applied seems to be whether a player had eyes for the ball. Smith clearly didn't. He had one intention and that was to block Weightman's run at it. Weightman altered his run and jump to avoid what would have been illegal contact, and so was impeded by a player not contesting the ball. Smith's approach was actually quite dangerous. Had he crouched rather than jumped out of the way at the last moment - a scenario Weightman would have to assess - there was a serious risk of high-impact tunnelling. Why should the onus be on the competing player to take the risk of such a hit to prove they were impeded?

Not a bad effort by Jamarra.

Teams will be looking at ways to disrupt our defensive set-up, and one of the more successful attempts last year was in dragging Lever away from the zone. Hence I imagine Smith's inclusion, due to his better closing speed and aerial ability and the flexibility for a more mobile one-on-one rolling-off system where required. On the flip-side, I reckon Goody would have spent a good deal of time planning to negate Caleb Daniel's influence, and I wouldn't be surprised if he deploys Harmes for a forward-tagging role (ignore the team-sheet). Harmes is a proven shut-down player who is also a genuine threat going the other way if given space inside 50.

People want to make a fairly innocuous tackle into a catalytic moment, but Petracca's also-milked response in the doco suggests otherwise - if it was really a thing we were in obvious trouble, such as our moments of bullying Selwood in the 2018 elimination final. I remember my reaction on grand final day and it was basically nothing, maybe that we should be given a free. Viney's efforts which resulted in Harmes' collect are also overblown in my opinion. We scored a goal from a stoppage on the wing which steadied the ship and gave us back some belief, normal stuff really, which in turn led us to getting back on top in the midfield and scoring a couple more not especially well-constructed ones. We then went from there with extra wind in our sales.

Does this qualify for the 'Jack Viney made me cry' thread?

Cheers SWYL. Are you in Thailand at the moment? I'll be passing through soon if you fancy a catch-up?

I expect that I'll be in and out of Australia for the course of the upcoming season, though unlikely much in Melbourne bar maybe one or two matches at most. Previously had the membership-linked Watch AFL when living overseas, and am currently subscribed to Kayo while here. is there some solution where I can have constant access without forking out for both? Ideally while channelling money to the club rather than Rupert?

The people who have been complaining about the costs involved in a postal vote seem to forget the investment it will take to switch to a digital one. It's not small fry - we're among the largest sporting clubs in Australia competing in a multi-billion dollar competition. The cost of lawyers to rewrite our constitution and have it signed off would probably outstrip the cost of a single postal election, let alone the expense of building or licensing a secure online voting platform. I understand that each election is a sunken cost, but we are in a period of budgetary squeeze and it's simply not a priority - rather than a lack of haste as some would like to frame it.

People complain that we're still wasting money on postal votes. Then complain that we didn't host an in-person AGM.

Should be resurrected to cut through a lot of the recent nonsense.

Can't quite recall which clown it was on here who called me our for using the phrase 'bent over' in a trade negotiation context once, like in using that phrase I was somehow being disparaging to men who like [censored] intercourse. ?

I'm still astounded that @picket fencehas somehow emerged as our most ever mentally stable court-side reporter.

Adam Tomlinson shows Clayton Oliver how you deal with a dislocated finger.

Steven May and Jake Lever as co-captains of the future. There will be no slacking.