binman

13 minutes ago, bing181 said:

No coincidence either that in both of those seasons we missed finals the preceding year.

(i.e. longer off-season/break).

Let's hope there's another non coincidence next year - as in what happened the year after we last missed finals!

3 minutes ago, bing181 said:

On paper.

The team you're able to get on the field and keep on the field (consistency) is something else.

Absolutely.

No coincidence of course that our two most successful years under goody, 2018 and 2021, directly correlate to seasons with a great run with injury

Or that our two least successful seasons, 2019 and this year correlate with a wretched run with injury.

8 hours ago, jnrmac said:

You're a glass half full man. We lost by a kick to Port, GWS, Blues and Brisbane.

Win those and the conversation would have been different.

We had a terrible year in my view but I can see how Goodwin would look at the above and say we weren't far off.

 

Agree we weren't far off.

But with our woeful preseason,  injuries, so many senior players clearly carrying injuries, and a third of the team kids running out of puff  even I doubt we had the wherewithal to do win a flag this year.

Hard not think it was a blessing in disguise missing finals - particularly if we land a gun at pick 5.

On injuries, the Swans have been blessed this season - very much like we were in 2021.

And anyone who doubts the impact of losing say tracc only need to see the influence of heeney in the finals.

The swans almost certainly lose week one if not for heeney. They lose that game and they are no monties to even make the GF (ironically they would have played the lions).

11 hours ago, binman said:

If you took a poll on demonland about the relative strength of our list compared to the swans, pies, lions, cats and perhaps even the blues in 'recent years' (so, for the sake of argument lets say the last five years) I suspect, when the outliers are removed the median response would be at best the strength of our list is equal to those clubs.

And i think the consensus would be that all those clubs lists, with the possible exception of the blues,  were 'easily good enough to win at least one more flag over recent years'.

None have.

On the weekend the swans or lions will win their first flag in recent years, meaning those five clubs, all with lists good enough to win flags have won the grand total of three in 'recent years'.

And none more than one.

Which just reinforces Smokey's point about the difficulty of winning a flag, and how much had to go right to do so.

And it refutes the argument 'we have underachieved by not taking advantage of our position and the relative weakness of the rest of the comp'.

In fact, in the 10 years since the hawks won the last flag of their threepeat, the ONLY club that has taken 'advantage' of the strength of their list is the tigers with their 3 flags.

No other club in those ten years has won more than one flag (Dogs in 2016, Eagles in 2018, Dees in 2021, Cats in 2022, Pies in 2023 and swans or lions in 2024).

None of which is to say it's not  disappointing we haven't won another flag thus far.

I'll go to my grave thinking we left one on the table in 2023.

But a key point is the era is not over.

We are in good shape to win another in the next few years.

The Cats, swans and lions have a model that rejects the idea of bottoming out and stocking up on pick ones, but rather staying in contention over a long period of time.

It is exactly that model that goody said he aimed to implement at the dees in his very first presser after being announced as senior coach.

And he has been good to his word.

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rubbish, our list was easily good enough to win at least one more flag over recent years. We have underachieved by not taking advantage of our position and the relative weakness of the rest of the comp.

If you took a poll on demonland about the relative strength of our list compared to the swans, pies, lions, cats and perhaps even the blues in 'recent years' (so, for the sake of argument lets say the last five years) I suspect, when the outliers are removed the median response would be at best the strength of our list is equal to those clubs.

And i think the consensus would be that all those clubs lists, with the possible exception of the blues,  were 'easily good enough to win at least one more flag over recent years'.

None have.

On the weekend the swans or lions will win their first flag in recent years, meaning those five clubs, all with lists good enough to win flags have won the grand total of three in 'recent years'.

And none more than one.

Which just reinforces Smokey's point about the difficulty of winning a flag, and how much had to go right to do so.

And it refutes the argument 'we have underachieved by not taking advantage of our position and the relative weakness of the rest of the comp'.

In fact, in the 10 years since the hawks won the last flag of their threepeat, the ONLY club that has taken 'advantage' of the strength of their list is the tigers with their 3 flags.

No other club in those ten years has won more than one flag (Dogs in 2016, Eagles in 2018, Dees in 2021, Cats in 2022, Pies in 2023 and swans or lions in 2024).

35 minutes ago, WheeloRatings said:

For those who have an interest in the Brownlow, you can track my predictions live during the count this year.

https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_brownlow_live.html

Thanks wheelo. 

I reckon you've got it right.

In terms of a Brownlow bet, hate to say it, but even at 2.75 Daicos is value.

Yes they didn't win as many games as teams with others in contention (cripps, neale, bont) but he doesn't have as many people taking votes from him.

And his skills stand out and are right under the noses of the umps.

He's my bet. 

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

Before the last game I said on this site that Goodwin needed to place a HARD tag on Daicos if we were to have any chance of winning.. so mastercoach didn't and the rest is history. IF he wins he should buy Goody a tattslotto ticket for gifting him 3 votes.....

......and us pick 5.

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Such a [censored] headline and line of inquiry...

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-12-players-most-under-the-pump-in-the-2024-afl-grand-final-20240922-p5kch3.html

It's our collective fault - angst is always a winner for the media.

It's ever been thus - even before algorithms.

On 12/09/2024 at 18:29, Gator said:

You have to treat the McAdam and Neale-Bullen deals separately.  They're not related, even though I understand the parallels.

For me, pick 25 for Neale-Bullen is an excellent outcome.  I reckon he's worth a late 30s pick.  But, ultimately, he's worth what someone will pay.

I accept his leadership qualities are valuable, but I don't overly rate the footballer.  A decent role player, but they're a dime a dozen.  Too much of a fumbler with many limitations.

In a deep draft this is a very good pick.

You won't be surprised I differ in my assessment of nibblas ability - he finished sixth in the bluey last year, and I'm guessing will be top 5, perhaps even top 3 this year.

And if the pies want a first rounder for noble, late 30s for nibbla is way overs.

Be that at as it may, I completely agree with you he's worth what the market says he's worth. Simple as that.

If that's pick 25 then so be it (by the by, in a vacuum, as highly as I rate nibbla, I would peg him at 20-25, so 25 is pretty fair).

It's the same with trading players into the club, both in terms of what draft pick we're prepared to give up and what salary we offer.

Which is why I find the annual debate about the 'worth' of players all a bit silly. 

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

This argument would be more convincing if those teams struggled when away from their home grounds. Lions the only one of them who have really struggled at the MCG but even they have overcome that in the last couple of years.

Our own record at the MCG under Goodwin is pretty ordinary. It might even be <50%. We're more reliable away from home than at the MCG. A bit of an oddity in my time watching Melbourne.

The relative form of the lions, cats and swans away from their respective home grounds isn't particularly relevant in terms of negating the fact, as evidenced by their win loss ratio over say the last 10 seasons, that all three clubs enjoy a clear home ground advantage.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it is relevant.

All three clubs' records away from home would statistically be way worse than their records at home.

That's to say, relative to their form at home they struggle playing away.

Which supports not negates the argument they have a home ground advantage.

Further, im guessing that two of the three clubs, and perhaps all three (not sure about the swans), despite being finalists most years, are underwater (ie less than 50%)  in terms of win loss ratio at the g in the last decade. 

Take the cats.

Up until their flag in 2022 they had made finals in multiple years, and made the gf in 2020, yet could not win a flag.

It was widely discussed that a potential factor in going all the way was not being able to translate the method they used at KP to the more spacious MCG.

2 hours ago, FreedFromDesire said:

You could argue though, conversely, they're at a disadvantage for half their games as every other ground would then seem "strange" to them. What are the dimensions "strange" in relation to as well? The MCG?

I think this argument doesn't give enough credit to how well those clubs are run and just how good those coaches are, in different ways.

Fair point about playing away, at least for the swans and lions, but more about the travel involved than playing at less idiosyncratic grounds.

(By the by, i don't think its a coincidence that since Kardinia park has become less idiosyncratic with the stands reducing the impact of the prevailing wind, the cats record has not been as good there).

As I said, I rate all three coaches very highly.

And I 100% agree all three clubs are super well run - which by the by is a huge benefit all three coaches enjoy, and arguably goody doesn't (making his very impressive record even more meritorious).

But the home ground record of all three clubs in the period Fagan, Scott and longmire have coached  means all three start each season with a solid block of likely wins (again particularly fagan as the lions have won something crazy like 90% of their home games since he has been coach).

And therefore all three clubs are excellent chance of making finals each year. 

Don't get me wrong, i think all three are excellent coaches, but in terms of assessing the coaching records of Fagan, Scott and Longmire, i think a relevant data point to consider is their home grounds.

The GABBA, Taxpayer Park and the SCG are strange grounds in terms of dimensions, and in the case of the GABBA also prevailing conditions (the lions play almost all of their games up there at night, when it is frequently humid and slippery).  

As evidenced by their respective home ground records, particularly that of the lions, the Lions, Cats and Swans, unsurprisingly, play well at home and have very real home ground advantage.

That advantage puts all three clubs in the box seat to at least make finals every year and the sustained success of all three clubs in terms of making finals is not surprising.

2 hours ago, Sydee said:

Nice problem to have 😂 I would do it 

Genuine 50/50 game imo 

It would be the smart play.

The lions are currently 2.12, which I reckon is about right.

The disadvantage the lions face is the extra game the've had to play, well that and losing their ruck.

But they have run out the last two games very impressively.

And their strategy to chip kick the cats to frustration, whilst helped by the cats clearly flagging, could not have been possible if they weren't well and truly in great condition.

They have clearly timed their high performance program very well.

I backed the swans to win the flag  after their 112 point thumping by Port.

My only stress about the GF is whether to lay off and back the lions- and still make a healthy profit if they win.

3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

This will be my last post on this topic as we seem to be at polar opposites.

It was sorry for not reading closely to the bottom but not sorry for having a shot at you.  

Your post is amplifying the anti-Tracc sentiment that has pervaded most Melbourne supporters based on an assumption that Tracc fed Morris and others the story.  It's fact that Morris/Barrett stated people inside the club leaked critical parts of the story. Are you OK with that?  Serious question.

Just to remind you, we know Tracc had "confidential" conversations about wanting the club to improve as his statement said "I voiced my concerns as a leader, wanting better for our club, playing group, and fans.  During this time, I have been in open communication with the player leadership group and club leaders to ensure we can work together to improve as a club. I make no apologies for wanting to better our club and contribute to our success both on and off the field."

Everything else written could be leaks from inside the club with some mayo on them to make Tracc look bad and to protect individuals inside the club making them look reasonable.  Morris/Barrett stated the Brand Tracc stuff was from the club. It's likely we have multiple leakers. The bits of your post that I strongly object to are highlighted, but every other bit copied below is just amplifying what the media has speculated on and is not a fact, and is mostly based on leaks from the club.  

Anyway, I'm out on this topic.  Hopefully all supporters can get behind everyone in the red and blue and support them next year and stop the divisive sniping at our only Norm Smith medallist.  Hopefully the club can also block up the sieve and weed out the people who leak confidential discussions.  That will be a starting point to resolve the dysfunction that we all saw.

"Tracc fed Morris' his laundry list of complaints, which, combined with inferences people have made from the 'reporting'  can be boiled down to, what:

- Tracc unhappy with how the club dealt with him post injury 

- Tracc unhappy the club not more successful 

- Tracc unhappy being at a club with fewer supporters than the 'big' clubs

- Tracc unhappy with the 'culture' at the club (with the inference widely accepted that translates to a party culture)

- Tracc unhappy with how clarry was 'handled", before and after his dramas

- Tracc unhappy with the 'professionalism' of teamates

Have I missed something?

Notice the common theme - 'tracc unhappy'.

Let's accept that that is how tracc genuinely feels. 

And let's accept that tracc clearly had an agenda in feeding Morris 

That's not the same as those issues being real.

But of course, it doesn't mean they aren't either - to some degree or other.

I can't stand Morris, but don't blame him writing a hit piece based on info tracc fed to him.

He is merely feeding an insatiable demand for gossip, and seemingly for information that confirms many dees 'supporters' henny penny complaints.

Morris is not a journalist, so has no interest in balance.

But it would be great if people did some critical thinking, and rather than just drinking the tracc aid"

You're out on this topic?

Seriously WTF are you on about?

You are talking about a completely different topic (who leaked to Morris ) to the one i was talking about (the need to think critically and not but into a pat narrative). 

You are arguing with yourself. 

I have no interest in that discussion. I think he leaked, you think it was the club. As i made clear, who leaked makes no difference to the argument i was making. 

I responded to your question if i had any evidence Tracc had leaked, said no and noted it was supposition on my part (as is of course the same for you with you version of who leaked)

I wish i hadn't (and won't make that mistake again) as you have a narrative, an agenda, an axe to grind (poor, misunderstood tracc - lets all leave him alone) that you are trying to wedge into a completely different discussion -

And i'd add it was discussion i didn't ask for your feedback on. Its forum, so of course happy to discuss and get feedback.

But not happy with someone getting stuck into me and misconstruing my comments - particularly galling given you didn't even bother fully read my post such was your need to defend poor little Christian from slings and arrows. 

Its ironic actually, because i have no enmity toward tracc - i think he has been immature and frankly incredibly naïve but it has played out exactly predicted it would 

And you are not sorry for having a shot at me? As i suspected sorry, not sorry. 

You think its ok to have shot at someone who post something you disagree with - noted. 

By the by, on your topic of choice, your rationale for it not being Tracc, but rather some mysterious person, or people, from the club is, to say the least, unconvincing. And completely fails the Occam's razor test.

One example. Leaving aside the strange use of the word fact, the "fact that Morris/Barrett stated people inside the club leaked critical parts of the story" could hardly be a less compelling point to support your argument.

It may be a fact they said that, but you'd be hard pressed to name two media people I'm less likely to believe, or two media people i thinks are more likely to make stuff up. 

But to be clear, i have no interest in debating wit you who leaked to Morris. I could care less to be honest. So it works for both us that you're out on this topic.

9 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Apologies. The facts you quoted I don’t disagree with and hadn’t focussed on them.  I was too irate after reading the long spiel where you stated several times that Tracc had been feeding Morris info.

Well, to be honest that feels like a sorry...but.

Next time you decide you want to vent about one of my long spiels because they make you irate, go to the effort of reading it to the end

Or don't- but don't have a shot at me.

Ironically, you perfectly made my central point:

Rather than simply accepting Morris’s narrative (WHOEVER FED IT TO HIM) at face value, people should consider the full range of agreed facts and then decide what they think is going on (and I'd add not go off half cocked).

3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

None of your logic around this makes any sense at all. What are the agreed facts.  I think what you have decided is a fact and what is actually a fact are two very different things.

The point is absolutely not the same irrespective of what source the story came from.  According to Morris and Barrett we have leakers inside the club.  That is confirmed as they named sources inside Melbourne as the origin of some of the stories about Tracc.  Have you considered that when sources inside Melbourne leak confidential information (Traccs brand stuff, ANB leaving etc), these sources are actually dishonest and unethical individuals, and therefore you cannot trust what they say.  Morris may be printing what they say, but fundamentally he is printing stuff leaked from dishonest people.

Sorry, don't follow at all, and clearly you haven't followed me either.

Of course there are agreed facts. I listed several such examples

For example it is an agreed FACT that at least 10 players have resigned with the club in the last 3 months.

I didn't 'decide' that was a fact. It is a fact.

As for the source of the leak not making a difference, you have clearly misunderstood me, as evidenced by your spiel about it which reads as if you are replying to an unrelated post.

I mean, I think i know whether the source of the leak was relevant to the point I WAS MAKING.

But whatevs.

1 hour ago, Watson11 said:

So you are still convinced Tracc or a surrogate leaked the story.  I'm convinced it came from Morris's source inside Melbourne, the same source that fed him the "Brand Petracca" stuff.  My view is it's likely Tracc confidentially spoke to people inside Melbourne about his frustrations saying he would leave if not contracted, and this was leaked to Morris by his source inside Melbourne.  In those circumstances the situation would definitely blow up like it did.

But we will probably never know until Tracc writes a book after his career is over.

Yep, 100% convinced.

But whether it came from tracc, or from another MFC employee my point remains the same - whilst that narrative may have some veracity, in sorting the wheat from the chaff,  people would do well to also consider the agreed facts, such as those that i noted, rather than just swallowing the Morris narrative whole.

23 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

Do you have any evidence Tracc fed the story to Morris.  The only public statement Morris made about sources was that the “Brand Petracca” source was fed to him by people at Melbourne and not Tracc.

I'm assuming it was, but no I have no evidence tracc (directly, or more likely via a surrogate) fed the story to Morris.

Supposition on my part.

3 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I disagree with minor things, but not worth further debate.

I always appreciate your detailed replies.

Ta.

Admittedly, 'bleeding players' was perhaps a bit Tom Morris.

24 minutes ago, BAMF said:

I'm not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with your post but the quoted part isn't valid to the conversation.

Tigers are in a hard rebuild. Trading those players out is a blessing and nobody is reporting that they are leaving because they are saying the culture is terrible.

Noble is a non event. Bottom six player going to another club. That happens every year.

I didn't say the tigers were bleeding players due the culture reasons, or any reason. Ditto noble leaving the pies.

I just stated a fact - not my opinion.

And the relevant fact is we have one best 22 player advising the club he wants to leave, whereas, say the tigers have multiple such players (and by the by, there is very little upside for a club in a rebuild losing three of their best 5 players in rioli, Bolton and Baker, all at the peak part of their career. It would have been the equivalent of gawn, tracc and Oliver walking out on the dees in 2017).

It's relevant because it speaks to stability and contradicts the narrative of a club in crisis.

The only facts in Morris’s initial reporting was trac was unhappy.

And even they is open to be questioned because Morris was 'backgrounded' by tracc rather than him having the courage of his convictions and publicly standing behind his concerns, for example with a proper interview.

12 hours ago, Foopy on the telly said:

Of course they’re not going to verify that. Because it’s negative. What do you think they’d say if asked? 

“Nah, I’m sick of the club, the culture is trash and I want out”?

Dreaming. 

You have to go with what multiple people report and if there are similarities in the stories that different people tell, then the odds of that being true rise quite dramatically.

Morris’ account of the trac fiasco matched Goodwindees (and others)’ mail to an absolute tee. So based on the balance of probabilities, you can draw the conclusion that there is likely a reasonable degree of truth to it.

The 'tracc fiasco'?

Honestly, I've never seen so many people sucked into one persons (ie tracc) desired narrative so unquestionably (outside of America or course).

What exactly is the tracc fiasco?

Tracc fed Morris' his laundry list of complaints, which, combined with inferences people have made from the 'reporting'  can be boiled down to, what:

- Tracc unhappy with how the club dealt with him post injury 

- Tracc unhappy the club not more successful 

- Tracc unhappy being at a club with fewer supporters than the 'big' clubs

- Tracc unhappy with the 'culture' at the club (with the inference widely accepted that translates to a party culture)

- Tracc unhappy with how clarry was 'handled", before and after his dramas

- Tracc unhappy with the 'professionalism' of teamates

Have I missed something?

Notice the common theme - 'tracc unhappy'.

Let's accept that that is how tracc genuinely feels. 

And let's accept that tracc clearly had an agenda in feeding Morris 

That's not the same as those issues being real.

But of course, it doesn't mean they aren't either - to some degree or other.

I can't stand Morris, but don't blame him writing a hit piece based on info tracc fed to him.

He is merely feeding an insatiable demand for gossip, and seemingly for information that confirms many dees 'supporters' henny penny complaints.

Morris is not a journalist, so has no interest in balance.

But it would be great if people did some critical thinking, and rather than just drinking the tracc aid, balanced the 'feelings' of a disgruntled player with some cold, hard undisputed facts (ie not 'joining the dots', conjecture, feelings, opinions or vibes):

-  tracc didn't leave (and I have little doubt absolutely could have if he was prepared to go to any club - which if the culture was so bad he surely would have been)

- unlike say the tigers, who are bleeding players, only one of our best 22 is leaving the club, for family reasons (unlike, say, noble who just wants out of the pies full stop)

- off the top of my head at least 10 players have recommited to the club in the last THREE MONTHS

- this included two first year, first round draft picks, in kolt and windsor, who had no need to do so for another two years

- our president has stepped down

19 hours ago, waynewussell said:

The real problem with the MFC's culture is that we have a multitude of 'supporters' who hate the club, hate the club leaders, hate the coach and hate the fact that we aren't the club depicted in the media narrative!

We might call such 'supporters' detractors.

'I've been a detractor of this one great club since the 70s.

And i have been staunch in my criticism -  disco blue jumpers, the stupidity of sacking Stan Alves, falling for the messiah complex with Barrassi, Vinny Cottagio, Crosswell, Balme as coach, David Cordner, whites board Wednesday, soft Watts, of course Gerard healy quit the club, Gutnick,  Goodwin, - the list of our failings is endless!'

I haven't read a single post in.this thread, so apologies if it's been covered.

Is goody a verb?

If so, what does it mean?

I'm thinking perhaps it's a typo, and thread title is actually

Time to go giddy?

Or perhaps goody is a euphemism?

For what, I'm shudder to think.

47 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Neither is whiskey but if you start pushing it on 8 year olds as being a part of following the footy, I'll take an issue with you.

I'm a punter - horses and footy.

I really enjoy betting on footy. But find the ads - and even more so the integration (eg the in game ads and 'tips' from peanuts like brown) - obscene.

In 20 years time we will look back on such advertising in the way we look back im horror at the total integration of say Benson and Hedges sponsoring cricket (and all the rest, eg motor sport).

What were they thinking?

And the parallels are clear:

Like we did with tobacco in the 1970s, we know the damage gambling does to our society. The research is crystal clear.

The motivation of the advertisers and companies is also the same- create life long customer loyalty, from teenager to grave.

And the AFL, like sporting organisations in the 1970s will argue the money is critical - but when push comes to shove will find other revenue streams.