binman

Not try to lose. Not maximize the chance of winning (eg having maxy on the bench for longer than we would normally). And not having anything to play for (other than pride) might mean we are not as manic as we might otherwise be. That and the Swans have a very big incentive to win - a home final. But i think a bit will depend on our final side ie which four from the extended bench come in (i wouldn't be discounting late outs either) And if Port and Lions both win i think we will be equal favs or even outright as we stay 4th even if we win in that scenario.

Agree on both points. Goody, who simply does not get the credit he deserves for his tactical smarts, has been really clever with the way they have used Tracc. Essentially, Fritter come back in as a forward and Tracc can go back to being a 70-30 mid with very little disruption to the set up. And, to boot, as you say he has been kept out of the fray in the middle (even against the lions and to a lesser extent the blues), so comes into finals relatively fresh, as does Clarry - which is brilliant for two power players. And is in contrast to last season when both looked really banged up at this point in the season.

Well, it is true to say we have never been in the same room together

I think they’ll do what they did in the roos game, which was to use the bench as a way of minimising injury risk and manage load. Tracc, viney and maxy all spent a big chunk of the last quarter on the bench. Sure manage any plsyer really needing a spell, but otherwise use the bench to give your A graders and young blokes a decent chop out.

I'd make it has to be kicked. Anything else is too radical change in the game it if touches the point post and goes thru the goal zone, it's a goal If it hits the point post and goes through for the point zone it's a point (instead of a throw in or out on the full). Pros: Is in the spirit of the game (ie isn't a huge philosophical shift) Free Replicable at every level (which clearly any system using video review isn't) Takes the pressure off goal umpires (again, at every level) Take one grey area away ie it is impossible to dispute if the ball went thru or not Takes human error out of the equation One less opportunity for the sort of drama we have seen since the keays non goal It means less reviews and therefore less delays and periods where the game stops And finally it helps mitigate the inevitable unforeseen problems and unintended consequences that will flow from whatever half arsed solution the AFL lands on. For example one of the solutions floated is going back to the rule where play can' restart until the goal umpire has waved his flags. The rule changes ive noted above would make that unnecessary if the issue was a query on whether it hit the post. Another solution being floated, in part in response to the one above, is to let play continue, review the vision and call it back if a mistake has been made. The potential for such a rule to be stuffed up by the AFL is limitless. And that IS a major change to the way the game has always been played. The rule changes ive noted above would make that unnecessary if the issue was a query on whether it hit the post. Touched would still has to be reviewed, and they simply have to pony up for decent tech. And fine (and suspend for any future infractions) any player, like Mckay who flat out lies, and there is irrefutable evidence they are lying, and screams at the goal umpire they touched it while gesticulating like some having stroke. No different to diving which ids a reportable offence.

Informed by what? 12 home and away games?

The karma bus hit the AFL. Stopped, and backed back over the AFL. The AFL would have had their final round drama if the Keays goal had been awarded. And the reason it wasn't awarded is they've had 14 years to get the goal review system, brought in to prevent exactly such howlers, right. And have still not got it right.

Yep, all good points, particularly about where the games in the first week of finals are played. I def factor that in to my assessment, but that usually doesn't become clear until close to the finals. But def should be a metric. You're right about me being too generous on the lions. I actually did that table a couple of weeks ago, after our loss to the blues, to inform a response to a question on the podcast. And didnt update the odds. At that point the lions had to beat the pies to get a home final. I noted my odds would change if they did. Same for port if they managed to get a home final, but less impact because their home ground advantage is not as big imo. The most probable scenario is the ladder stays as is for the top 4. But there is still a bit to play out. Saints could roll lions, and if they do the lions could slip to 4th if port win. If port and lions both lose and we win we will get to 2nd and play lions at the g. I'd prefer to play the pies to be honest, so it's weird to say but happy to finish 4th. And it is far from impossible that we will come into the swans game knowing a win means we play our first final interstate. I hope not, because that creates a weird energy for the game. But, I think you are spot on about the correct price for the lions. Almost. 5.50 is way too long with the probability they get a final at the gabba in week one (bad news for the saints because the lions have a huge incentive to win). 4.25 for the lions it is! Actually, i'll make them 4.50 because as strong as their form is at the Gabba, their form at the G is terrible. My theory is the g exposes their lack of leg speed, an issue that is greatly exacerbated by losing their quickest mid in Ashcroft. And even though its not a hoodoo ground, given the grand fianls is at the G, it can't help to run out for a GF with the hoodoo in the back of your mind The purpose of such an exercise from a punting perspective is trying to find a value bet ie can the punter secure a price that is better than the true price (as defined by the punter). Winning punting is about finding the value not the winner. The pies are 3.75, so on my market well unders. At 4.50 the lions are over the 4.00 bookies are paying. No joy there. Port are 6.00 and blues 8.00. Forget about it. I have the dees priced at 4.00 and you can get 4.50 with the bookies. So, the only value bet remains the dees, albeit not the great value it was when we got out to a ridiculous 8.00 after our gws loss.

Unintended consequences alert

Good question binman. As a long time punter on the ponies i have key metrics i put great stock in when doing my form and assessing the 'true odds' of each runner in order to determine who i'll back. So for example i put a lot of weight first and second up form (for horses in their first or second race after a break), handicap rating, racing pattern, record at the track, record at the distance and record in the track conditions (ie good, slow, heavy). I take the same approach to my football analysis in terms of predicting the flag winner. The key things i weight highly (my premiership metrics if you like) are, in order of significance: Injury Fitness System List strength Deefence Experience in finals Recent form For this exercise i'm setting a fresh market for the flag (ie no best yet) and therefore the odds of each team winning the flag too. I have given a score for each team out of ten in each category to help illustrate how i have come to my conclusion. These ratings are obviously subjective. Team Best 22 injured Fitness System Defence win GFs Experience in finals List strength Recent form My price Dees 8 Fritter Petty Brown? Tmac? 10 10 10 Averaging only 10 points per loss 10 10 9 4.00 Implied probability is 25% we’ll win the flag Lions 8 Ashcroft Gunston 9 9 8 25.3 points per loss 9 9 8 4.50 Pies 6 Daicos Moore Sidebottom 7 6 7 21.5 points per loss Defensively getting worse in last month 7 8 5 6.00 Port 9 Georgiades Clurey 8 6 4 35.5 points per loss 13th for points against – last team outside of top 5 points against to win the flag Roos mid 90s 9 8 6 7.00 Blues 5 Cerra Silvagni Zac Williams McGovern Kennedy Mackay Walsh (back in this week maybe) 8 10 7 26.5 points per loss (but improved massively) Only the top 4 teams have a realistic at winning the flag. In the last 25 years, only two teams have won a flag from outside top 4 - dogs in 2016 (the first year of the pre final bye) and crows in 2018 3 8 10 9.00

Something that i think creates some confusion with the betting odds for the flag this close to finals is that they don't necessarily (or even usually) reflect the true odds or the actual rankings as they might objectively stand right now. That is because the bookies only set the odds once - when they first open the market. When the market opened after last years GF, the bookies probably has the Cats, a reigning premier, as favs and Pies perhaps second fav at something like $6? Form that point on the market drives the price, with the bookies just trimming their sails, so to speak, to balance their books. Money has poured in all season on the Pies, forcing them as low 2.75 in the middle of the season. Even if they are indeed a great team that was just a ridiculous price - too many things can go wrong for those odds to be anywhere near the true odds. The Pies current price, favs at 3.75, is still way, way, way unders. But they are that price because of the weight of money over the season. They'll drift, but not till the serious punters start weighing in and back other teams with some serious moolah (and by doing so dramatically increase the pool). The Pies winning this years flag is a wipeout event for the bookies. But if they don't win it the bookies will be partying like its 1999. I'd be guessing, but i reckon the pool SB has for the GF will end up quadrupling before GF day. An interesting question is what prices, with all their analysts and access to data etc, the bookies would set right now if they reframed the market (ie created a brand new, no bets yet, flag market).

Go ask Alice.

As ive posted a number of times, i think the logical rule change about the ball hitting the post is if it goes thru, its a goal (by the by, a benefit I haven't highlighted is that unlike a technological solution, that solution is replicable at every single level, from under 8s, to the ammos, to state leagues). I have not heard a single media person support what would be a cost free way to remove at least one scenario where a mistake is made that costs a game (you would still need ARC for touched). In fact every single media person i have heard respond to the suggestion had rejected it out of hand. Any number of stupid reasons are given for rejecting - tradition being the most common (as if they've had video calls and the stand rule since 1859. And some of the same people are advocating for a NHL or NFL style video review after all scores and resetting the clock if there is a scoring error). But one of the most common, and funniest, responses I've heard, including from Whateley, is that the AFL just need to get the system right. The AFL get a system right? I can barely think of a single system the AFL is responsible for that isn't deeply flawed - the MRO, ARC, tribunal, finals ticketing, fixturing, AFLW, rule development and implementation, umpiring, equalisation, free agency compensation. The list goes on. And people seriously see the solution to this ARC mess as the AFL developing and implementing a robust and effective system and processes? I mean come on. Just look at the crows and dees non goals/goals. In BOTH, completely predictable, instances the system and procceses the AFL has had 15 years to get right were CORRECTLY FOLLOWED!!!!!!!. The system operated exactly as designed by the bloody AFL! And the solution to this mess is the AFL overhauling a sytem they have designed and/or coming up with another process to bolt on with no thought about unintended consequences of doing so. Jesus wept. On the media, they don't really want simple solutions either - they're as addicted to controversy ad the AFL.

The crows loss was shocker for the AFL, fix and 7 in terms of its impact on the final round. They all would have been salivating at the thought of mutiple games with top 8 implications. But that loss was very good for the swans and I reckon us too. I say that because I reckon the crows could have done some damage in the finals. I'm pleased we won't have to play them.

If i interviewed Choco it would go for two and a half days!

His big head is life size.

That's so unfair. He sometimes posts after 'disappointing' wins over any team outside the top 4 (or even teams on top of the ladder - see the posts about our win over the flu ridden, injury depleted, having an off day, supposedly 'great' pies and how poor it was to let them have a sniff very late). Probably had one drafted and ready to go 10 mins in the last quarter ('can't win a flag if we can't beat a team in 16th convincingly at this stage of the season.....'). Must have been gutted by our late run of goals. Hard, but not impossible ('i suppose you're thrilled by a win over a tired 16th placed team missing their three best players') to turn a five goal win into proof the dees aren't a premiership threat.

Mitchell said in his presser they came in with a plan to deny us the ball, hence the really high uncontested possession and mark numbers in the first. My take is we consciously allowed them to play that way in the first because it suited us - the very last thing we wanted was another brutal, energy sapping encounter as we would have still been recovering from last week's epic. So a bruise free game is exactly what the doctor ordered for us. I think that was tactical error by Mitchell, because their chance to beat us was to come at us early. Which is the approach the Suns took against the blues. Perhaps Mitchell thought that spreading, chipping it around and forcing us to run and cover would gas us the way it did against the Pies (though they were way more brutal in that match - and went faster in terms of going forward). And perhaps he didn't have another option as they were coming off a six day break and their own mini epic. They also lost their best, most physical player in Jai Newcome and a power forward in Lewis. Their drop in uncontested possessions and marks in the second quarter directly correlate with our increased pressure rating (192 - 155). They could not match us in that quarter for pressure - a 37 diff is nuts (I'd be very surprised if we have had a bigger diff, either way, this season), nor in the third when the pressure ratings diff was 21 (still very big). Two quarters in 4th gear (with a gear up our sleeves). That increase in pressure allowed us to play the second and third quaryers and first third of the last quarter on our terms, the dees DNA (as evidenced by CPs, time in forward half, i50s and scores from turnover) And as you say DD translated to much improved territory and intercept outcomes, and eventually scoreboard impact. In the last quarter, once we got a 3 goal margin, we dropped back to third gear and allowed them to go back to their chip it around mode - and we did the same thing too for good measure (which i just loved to see). Our pressure in the last q was 179, but i suspect it was probably only 150 for the last 10 mins (so perhaps 185-190 in the first third of the final quarter). Very smart coaching from Goody from both a tactical and load management perspective.

And nibbla's 100th game highlights vid:

And maxy highlights vid from MFC (couldn't embed it) https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1408744/gawn-milestone-highlights-200-games?videoId=1408744&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1692416930001&tagNames=AFLClubExclusive:No

Credi where it is due. Club vids celebrating nibbs and maxy. All three are excellent. :

The nightmare Collywobbles scenario. They Pies play the dees at the G in front of a sold out crowd. They rush Moore and Daicos back. Both struggle and get hit from pillar to post. Will they come up? The dees beat them in a tough, physical encounter (and because the pies don't have premiership winning defensive system). The blues beat GWS week one of finals. The Pies play the Blues at the G in front of a sold out crowd. They select a clearly struggling Moore and Daicos back. Both struggle and get hit from pillar to post. The blues beat them in a tough, physical encounter (and because the pies don't have premiership winning defensive system). And this 'great' pies team is out of the finals in straight sets. Might test Mcrae's famous positivity.

That's right - I have heard Stafford, Yze and some players use the term 'speed forward' for the small forward role that look to apply pressure inside 50 and crumb packs (as well of course getting up and down the ground contributing to all team defence). They use the term 'speed forwards' to differentiate the role from the other distinct forward roles - KPF and HHF. And it's a good term because it captures two of the key attributes the speed forward need - power and acceleration from a standing start and speed over 30 - 40 metres (whereas, as TMac notes the high half forward have to be able to run quickly over 150 meters - striding speed - and do this over and over thru the game - and again as Tmac notes this requires diff, and very specific, athletic attributes and strengths). Tmac explicitly says in the clip i referenced that Spargo and Nibbla are our high half forwards (and may even mention the distinct small forward role). Yze said Laurie came into the side to play the high half forward role (ie not the speed forward role - if laurie wasn't selected, Spargo, who was in the squad, would have almost certainly been picked). Koz, Chandler (and AMW at Casey) are our speed forwards. Using the miers example, at the the cats he is a HHF and stengle is a speed forward. There is of course some cross over - its not like the difference between say defenders and forwards for instance. HHFs still crumb and kick goals and speed forwards still get up and down the ground to help out on all team defence running (but hopefully not so much they they are too gassed to be an effective speed forward).