Macca

Some of the stuff that went on in those days makes you cringe Nearly every team had their thugs and thug acts happened in numerous games. Often unpunished as 'video' evidence was not allowed to be called upon until years later e.g. Balme king hitting 3 Carlton players in the '73 GF might carry a lifelong ban these days Just crossing the line to play back then took a special type of courage. Yet players such as Robbie Flower managed to not get king hit. That was a skill in itself back then!!

Yes, give the club a dream run with injuries like what happened in 2021, then those expectations would be more realistic A club should be able to cover for a modicum of injuries but 2023 saw us lose most of our starting forwards 2022? Different story We did not manage the list properly especially when we could have easily rested our stars against the lesser light teams that season Geelong did so and won the flag But were they the best team in 2022 or the best managed? As for this season, losing Brayshaw was a huge body blow as he was our most versatile player ... and then a handy utility in Smith was unavailable Neither player could even be replaced in season On top of that a huge out was Petracca missing half the season. And Clarrie had an ordinary season by his own standards Midfield which was our great strength, was decimated and bottom 4 or bottom 6 standard So any sort of high expectations with those extra blows that happened was pie-in-the-sky stuff I had us a possible top 4 chance way back in February but that was before Gus, Petracca & Smith were rendered innefectual with Clarrie never came good In my view, to get unto contention again we will need to rebuild our midfield as nothing is a 'given'

I tend to believe you are going to be right. With all the talk not refuted, it sounded like he'd already made up his mind that he wanted out. The silence was deafening And you cannot have a player dictating terms no matter how good a player they might be. Do that and before you know it, factions & cliques start appearing and that can last for years One caveat ... If we make it to a GF next year and/or win it, things might change But also, the club may well entertain the thought of receiving some prized draft picks in order to keep our window open. It takes 2 to tango Great player but there's a bit of baggage It's hard to see a trade happening this season but what if the Tigers come at us with a big offer? They'll have the capital

Ha! In horse racing, likely winners are called 'Morals' but no one in the industry is allowed to use the M word (so it's often used after the event which suits no one!)

We had a much better chance of winning the flag in 2022 rather than 2023 In 2023 we went into the finals with a D Grade forward line (with so many outs) and to expect to win 3 finals without any real fire-power up forward was totally unrealistic But in 2022 there was no such reasoning attached. But such was the euphoria of finally breaking through in 2021, we let the club off the hook. That was the year that got away from us Whilst the Cats were smart enough to rotate their better players, we just went with the same team and ran out of legs. But with better management, we would have at least made the PF In fact, as early as round 8 in 2022, it was obvious that we looked like a tired outfit. Class got us through to the top 4 but no legs The above is how I reckon many will see things in 5 or 10 years time unless ... we win another flag or 2 in the next 5 or 6 years If that happens, we won't be looking back This is what our forward line could have looked like in 2023 but for various reasons, Petty, JVR, Melksham & Brown didn't play. And Fritsch was banged up. T-Mac was a liability And after losing Gus, we couldn't use Petracca forward in the way we wanted to HF Fritsch (if fit) Petty Kozzie/Petracca F Melksham/Chandler JVR Brown/T-Mac (if fit) 2022 - No excuses 2023 - Reasons

Possibly but I've long held the belief that the league knows the result well before the night itself And their track history with reportable incidents/MRO/Tribunal is highly questionable as well They're are just like any other sporting body. They are a law unto themselves

Big game for Dallas on Friday and for those us who have streaming/cable and also get the public holiday off, we get to watch the game live!

Good summary, Gonzo That gives us 2 x Stone Cold Locks Bills +2.5 & Houston -4.5 1 or 2 others here might come up with a 1 or 2 more Might end up with 4 or 5 at the line

Bleacher Report Week4-NFL-Power-Rankings-where-does-every-team-stand 1 - KC 2 - Bills 3 - Vikes 4 - Lions 5 - Eagles 6 - Steelers 7 - Seattle 8 - Texans 9 - Packers 10 - Saints 11 - Bucs 12 - 49ers Others 13 - Jets 16 - Rams 17 - Dallas 19 - Atlanta 25 - Bears 29 - Jags

And how about the leak in 1978 when Blight won!! Seemed like everyone knew but the SP's probably didn't lay any bets After that we had the Mayne Nickless guards bringing in the locked-away votes in the big metal cases They kinda overdid it! They were still reading out the 1's then 2's then the 3's until 1984 so most of us knew it was a con So this time around, we were told before the 'count' that the Bont wasn't going to feature in the finish (?) How do they get away with this sort of stuff?

I was devastated at the time Maybe more so because I knew it was rigged. It added to the cruelity of Wells not winning But you live and learn and I became a cynic at a very young age haha

@Dr. Gonzo So which team is your stone cold lock this week? Home or away Anyone else got one? Mine is Houston -4.5

I've been absolutely miles off and in the last 5 or 6 years, the NFL has been really hard to read. So many upsets and we used to see more spreads of 10+ on a regular basis. The lines are much tighter these days KC -8.5 @ the Chargers is uninticing but the Chiefs might slip into gear. Same story for the 49ers at home (-10.5) Both teams will probably win but I don't like either line. The Chargers are the value as are the Texans But what would I know? haha

@Gorgoroth @Go the Biff @DeeSpencer @titan_uranus @Clintosaurus @Dee Zephyr @Dr. Gonzo @DemonDave @BDA @layzie @Dappa Dan @ElDiablo14 @JV7 Leaderboard Tipping Comp (points awarded this week in brackets) 11 - DemonDave (3+1) 5 - Go the Biff (1), DeeSpencer (1), layzie (1), Macca (1) 3 - BDA (1), Dr. Gonzo (1), JV7 (1), titan_uranus (1) 2 - Gorgoroth (0), Clintosaurus (0), Dee Zephyr (0) 1 - ElDiablo14 (0) https://Bleacherreport NFL -Week-3-Top-Takeaways-For-Every-Game

And back in those days the votes were read out differently... all the 1's then all the 2's finishing with the 3's So there was no way of identifying which games certain players polled in. I believe it wasn't until 1984 as to when the match votes in 1, 2, 3 order was adopted In 1972 or maybe 1975, the last 20 × 3 votes read out were all from players in contention. So the 'Knowledge' of who had won was in my opinion, known So if people reckon it isn't hunky dory now, take a look back ... way back *Former Demon Greg Wells was 2nd in 1972 pipped at the post after Len Thompson received the last 3 votes read out Beaten by 3 votes but Wells was in front on the old countback system before that last 3 votes cruelled his chances Rigged for dramatic effect? You betcha *Memory is a bit sketchy as it might have been Stan Alves pipped by Gary Dempsey in 1975

I wouldn't be putting the Brownlow votes in the hands of the coaches either How do they judge opposition players when they are concentrating on their own players so much? They'd know the worth of their own players but the opposition? And what about bias? That would raise it's ugly head year one. No thanks

Whar are you talking about? The AFL are swimming in cash and my idea would not cost a lot anyway The coaches votes are stacked with midfielders so what's your point? Different mix but the media awards & Brownlow votes are also stacked with midfielders

In low scoring games where midfielders possessions are largely innefectual the backmen should get the bulk of the votes (in my view) And we don't often get high scoring games so a forward who kicks 3+ is often highly effective. Votes for forwards? But it seems that the midfielders are now getting far too many of the overall votes

Didn't midfielders dominate the voting? That was my point

A panel of qualufied judges (ex players, not media people) at each match awarding votes which takes into account the various positions on the ground and the degree of difficulty in excelling in the different positions In theory, the panel of judges at each match would include ex backmen, ex forwards etc etc Giiving votes out to forwards, backs, ruckmen, midfielders etc arriving at a consensus for the best 3 players A very big ask but it is possible Or, it stays as it is and we'll just continue to complain every year about the outcomes

The AFL determine that the umpires award the Brownlow votes. It's not the umpires taking it upon themselves. Never has been and never will be Cause & effect in a system that can easily be rectified. Not to perfect levels, that's impossible, but if we want a better system with regards to the Brownlow voting, the league needs to embrace a better, workable system To me, a player receiving 45 votes in the Brownlow is a red flag moment. It's just way too many votes regardless of how good a year Cripps had. Same deal for Nick Daicos We need a better system of awarding the votes (in previous posts I've outlined a different system using ex players as those who could award the votes) Blaming the A-end of a problem is pointless and not a realistic solution So without change, expect more of the same

The Brownlow voting system is not an umpire issue, it's a system issue Same as the game itself

The media & coaches voted the same way

Well I'm certainly not blaming the umpires and I never have and never will But there is a better way to judge the best players A panel of ex players who played in a variety of positions awarding votes to players in various positions But it will never happen as the AFL aren't a progressive organisation. It's all about the $$$$

The Brownlow needs a total revamp to be credible but I'd argue that overhaul should have happened close on a century ago (The Bob Pratt example being a standout misnomer) We have the AA team to recognise all the positions but the Brownlow can only be won by a midfielder (these days) How do you add an arbitrary degree of difficulty factor? Ditch the umpires and appoint a panel of judges (made up of ex players only) who all played in a variety of positions? Might work but I can't see the AFL changing anything anyway The coaches award was won by Nick Daicos who not only never has a direct opponent, but he doesn't even have an opposite number. He plays as a loose man wherever he chooses to wander And that's the coaches awarding the votes