Melbourne are better than you think!

[mjp]

Watched them play for the last two weeks...

With Bruce and Davey coming off half-back, they have some quality run and carry, good decision making and good skills through the middle...

Jones and McDonald work SUPER hard through the midfield.

Miller is going well and playing like a poor man's Riewoldt...he works super hard, leads up, leads up, leads up again and is not scared to commit to the contest.

We need to be VERY careful next weekend - they are certainly NOT a rabble, and whilst they are down on talent they are very disciplined and seem to have a fair amount of spirit! Looking past the D's to Geelong would be a bad mistake.

[AndrewP6]

Watched them play for the last two weeks...

With Bruce and Davey coming off half-back, they have some quality run and carry, good decision making and good skills through the middle...

Jones and McDonald work SUPER hard through the midfield.

Miller is going well and playing like a poor man's Riewoldt...he works super hard, leads up, leads up, leads up again and is not scared to commit to the contest.

We need to be VERY careful next weekend - they are certainly NOT a rabble, and whilst they are down on talent they are very disciplined and seem to have a fair amount of spirit! Looking past the D's to Geelong would be a bad mistake.

Good call... we mustn't get ahead of ourselves...

[LostDoggy]

If we play at our best, Melbourne won't get close.

[Scraggers]

Agreed MJP ...

Just watched their game against the Eagles ... they moved the ball quickly and had a number of options through the centre corridor (particularly Cale Morton with 34 disposals). Their backs matched up well with West Coast's forwards, and for a large slice of the game they really controlled the game.

What is working in our favour is the 6 day turn around for Melbourne after the trip West and the injuries to Rivers and Frawley, two of their better ball users.

Still, it is definitely not going to be a walk over

[Pembleton]

I agree with the basic premise that if we're complacent we could easily lose to Melbourne. They are a fair bit better than what most people probably realise.

In the last two weeks that Mike talks about though, their scoring shots have been 36 v 18, and 30 v 17. Although we both have a 6 day break this week, it should hurt them a lot more coming off the late afternoon game in Perth than it will us, coming off the early afternoon game in Adelaide. We really shouldn't lose.

[LostDoggy]

I have to agree. Some of the WC 'home' frees yesterday were terrible. Melbourne give there all.

[Mofra]

What is working in our favour is the 6 day turn around for Melbourne after the trip West and the injuries to Rivers and Frawley, two of their better ball users.
The injuries will really hurt them, especially considering their baby defence. I think Bailey has the right idea of playing an entire young defensive outfit together, as it will pay dividends in seasons to come as they work out each other's game, when to go man on man, when to zone, when to leave their opponent & go third man up etc.

I would be very disappointed to lose, even if they did just get alot closer to WCE at Subi than we did.

[LostDoggy]

Melbourne over the last year and a bit that play week in week out trying to win. A side that does that is always one to be be mindful of. Though we should get over them it is a funny game football.

[ledge]

This is the reason Bailey isnt being critisized, he is building a good team dont be fooled.
You can see it slowly taking shape.
Wallace on the other hand has had 5 years and still nothing.

[1eyedog]

No their not. Not really. West Coast have multiple personality disorder this season so I don't look into their 8 point win too critically. As you say the Dees are having a red hot go but that's about it. They lack skill, class (other than Davey and Bruce maybe) and lack experience. Their younger players will drop off as the season unfolds and while they have enough cattle to remain competitive they should be nothing more than cannon fodder for the top 4 teams.

[Cyberdoggie]

I think they will win twice as many games as they did last year.

[The Coon Dog]

I think they will win twice as many games as they did last year.

Can they afford to do that though?

4 wins or less will result in them receiving a priority pick for the second season in a row, which would mean that the priority pick being would be the very first pick overall, giving them selections 1 & 2 (assuming they won the wooden spoon).

Very handy before GC17 come in & cause mayhem with drafting.

[LostDoggy]

Can they afford to do that though?

4 wins or less will result in them receiving a priority pick for the second season in a row, which would mean that the priority pick being would be the very first pick overall, giving them selections 1 & 2 (assuming they won the wooden spoon).

Very handy before GC17 come in & cause mayhem with drafting.

This is why the reverse order drafting rule + all the priority rubbish is so ridiculous though, because it puts clubs in an awkward position every year of having to question whether or not they should be winning!

If that doesn't compromise the integrity of a competition I don't know what does.. if Melbourne is on 4 wins come the last 5 weeks of the season, their last 5 games will be absolutely and utterly a farce, tantamount to match-fixing in essence, as there is no way in hell they'll win those games, and you know what: with the system the way it is, who can blame them?

This was always going to happen -- a team will start to come good just before their time, and start to get close in a few games, but jeapordise their chance at a couple of young guns. What does the club do? Melbourne are damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The AFL can stick their heads in the sand as they like to, but the fact that the tanking debate comes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR tells me that something obviously stinks with the drafting system as it stands.

[ledge]

And sides who try, dare i say Richmond who end up 9th each year get bugger all.

[LostDoggy]

And sides who try, dare i say Richmond who end up 9th each year get bugger all.

I would love to be one of the teams playing Melbourne in the last few weeks -- stuff like this can end up determining the make-up and order of the final 8 and final 4, and with the competition so even that percentage can determine your final placing, it's just a joke. As if the draw wasn't uneven enough...

[The Coon Dog]

I would love to be one of the teams playing Melbourne in the last few weeks -- stuff like this can end up determining the make-up and order of the final 8 and final 4, and with the competition so even that percentage can determine your final placing, it's just a joke. As if the draw wasn't uneven enough...

I work with a passionate Dees supporter & he reckons they'd have to have rocks in their head if they won 5 games!

[LostDoggy]

I work with a passionate Dees supporter & he reckons they'd have to have rocks in their head if they won 5 games!

And you would have to agree, wouldn't you? Makes me feel dirty just thinking about it. Always thought the point of a sport was to play your best at all times and win as often as you could.

Well, one of the unintended side-effects of unthinking socialism is that it rewards those who intentionally reside at the bottom of the barrel -- as all economists can tell you, people will adjust their behaviour according to the incentive provided. The reverse draft order provides an incentive for finishing at the bottom of the ladder.

You see that now with all these long-term 5 year plans where clubs actually PLAN to finish at the bottom for a couple of years to pick up some early draftees. We even have a term for it now: "bottoming out". At any point in time you have up to 5 teams intentionally 'bottoming out' so you have nearly half the competition intentionally being mediocre so that they can have access to next year's top draftees. Talk about a race to the bottom.

The absurdity of the situation also manifests itself in the ludicrous situation of Mark Harvey and Paul Roos actually being criticised for strengthening their teams to win games, while Dean Bailey and Alistair Clarkson (and the hierarchy at Carlton) are hailed as geniuses for deliberately finishing last a couple of times. (It has become the 'accepted' norm now, and seen as 'smart coaching', but I submit that it's actually a mockery of sport to praise teams for finishing last).

What was the phrase? "Capitalism may be the unequal distribution of wealth, but socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."

---

ps. I understand that there needed to be some equalisation to prevent clubs like the Dogs and North from sliding into oblivion, but there HAS to be a better solution that does not provide incentive to DELIBERATELY finish bottom; AND better performance shouldn't be penalised over worse performance (Richmond shouldn't be penalised for regularly finishing higher than Melbourne, for example). I really don't understand the AFL's adversion to a random draw with the bottom team having a higher probability -- but not a guarantee -- of a high draft pick, ala the NBA.

pps. At some point, there should be reward for better performance -- as much as it pains me to admit, Collingwood deserve more money if they draw more people to their games, and North Melbourne don't really deserve anything for only getting 14,000 to a Saturday night game. Equality in this case doesn't equal fairness. Fair would be the bigger drawing team getting more money than the lower drawing team. Eugene Arrocca wants money for nothing.

[bulldogtragic]

If that doesn't compromise the integrity of a competition I don't know what does.. if Melbourne is on 4 wins come the last 5 weeks of the season, their last 5 games will be absolutely and utterly a farce, tantamount to match-fixing in essence, as there is no way in hell they'll win those games, and you know what: with the system the way it is, who can blame them?
.


It i was betfair or whomever, and Melbourne are in a like position, unlike Beaser, I wouldn't take any bets whatsoever. Suspend betting on Melbourne games and have it over. We talk in jest about taking a dive, choking or (Terry Wallace...) playing kids, that's not the same as tanking. But it is arguably matchfixing.

With so much gambling money out there, if clubs tank and effectively matchfix, what the hell is going to happen?

[ledge]

I think 9th should get the number 1 pick 10th number 2 etc, that way sides who arent going well will try and win.
Dont the Premier league in the UK also work on the higher up the ladder the more money you get?
I am sure their are ways to fix the tanking.

[Mofra]

as all economists can tell you, people will adjust their behaviour according to the incentive provided.
...and sociologists


I understand that there needed to be some equalisation to prevent clubs like the Dogs and North from sliding into oblivion, but there HAS to be a better solution that does not provide incentive to DELIBERATELY finish bottom;
I wouldn't say the system is totally flawed, however the priority pick issue makes the problem (and subsequent temptation) much worse. I don't think the priority pick should be awarded at all.

[The Pie Man]

I felt for Rivers yesterday, quality player dogged by injuries. Facing the reality of that against us though, he may not have had an obvious matchup anyway.

Dees were very brave yesterday, and I would love Miller in our side. Worth remembering that WCE had plenty more scoring shots though - in the last quarter it was like they were willing Melbourne to win with a heap of really silly turnovers, but a goal to Petterd was all they could muster in the last 8 mins of play.

Underestimate them at our peril, but we really should be winning this one. It is worth remembering Hawthorn may have felt the same before the Essendon game last week as well.

[Topdog]

The Dees are better than I thought but they are still the worst team in the league.

WC are very inconsistent though. Was surprised at how poor they looked at times and their playing on in the last quarter was beyond stupid.

[Scraggers]

The Dees are better than I thought but they are still the worst team in the league.

WC are very inconsistent though. Was surprised at how poor they looked at times and their playing on in the last quarter was beyond stupid.

Agreed, but with Priddis a late 'out' and Kerr injured, thet had very little drive out of the centre and little if no direction

[azabob]

I think 9th should get the number 1 pick 10th number 2 etc, that way sides who arent going well will try and win.
Dont the Premier league in the UK also work on the higher up the ladder the more money you get?
I am sure their are ways to fix the tanking.

I dont agree at all. Maybe if you limit it to 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th and its a lottery system.
But how can you say Richmond and Melbourne are tanking for draft picks? They are clearly in the bottom four teams in the league.

[LostDoggy]

I think it should be lottery system from 9th to 16th.Also I believe they should scrap the priority pick

[boydogs]

This is why the reverse order drafting rule + all the priority rubbish is so ridiculous though, because it puts clubs in an awkward position every year of having to question whether or not they should be winning!

If that doesn't compromise the integrity of a competition I don't know what does.. if Melbourne is on 4 wins come the last 5 weeks of the season, their last 5 games will be absolutely and utterly a farce, tantamount to match-fixing in essence, as there is no way in hell they'll win those games, and you know what: with the system the way it is, who can blame them?

This was always going to happen -- a team will start to come good just before their time, and start to get close in a few games, but jeapordise their chance at a couple of young guns. What does the club do? Melbourne are damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The AFL can stick their heads in the sand as they like to, but the fact that the tanking debate comes up EVERY SINGLE YEAR tells me that something obviously stinks with the drafting system as it stands.

Summed up perfectly as usual Lantern. I'm a believer though that if you are going to criticise you should offer an alternative - how does this sound:

Create a draft pick ladder, whereby losses count as wins for the first 15 rounds but for the last 7 rounds wins count as wins.

This will reduce tanking at the end of the season where teams are clearly out of finals contention, but still assist teams who are struggling to rebuild.

Could even change it to 17/5 - but please lets make the next 'Bryce Gibbs Cup' go to the winner of the game and not the loser

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's not complicated. Just scrap priority picks altogether.

Is there really any difference in picks 1, 2 & 3?

Johnstone, Ottens or Croad?
Hodge, Ball or Judd?
Deledio, Roughead or Griffen?

Some years - like 2003 :D - 1st pick is important, but how often do you hear the club with pick 2 or 3 say "we rated him no. 1". Essendon said that when they took Ryder at 8.

[AndrewP6]

It's not complicated. Just scrap priority picks altogether.

Is there really any difference in picks 1, 2 & 3?

Johnstone, Ottens or Croad?
Hodge, Ball or Judd?
Deledio, Roughead or Griffen?

Some years - like 2003 :D - 1st pick is important, but how often do you hear the club with pick 2 or 3 say "we rated him no. 1". Essendon said that when they took Ryder at 8.

Agree on scrapping priority pick...

But Roughead and Griffen are worth much more than Deledio, I reckon...

[Sockeye Salmon]

But Roughead and Griffen are worth much more than Deledio, I reckon...

That's my point. Most drafts no-one really knows if pick 1, 2 or 3 will be the best 5 years down the track, so what incentive is there to tank?

Who will be the better player of Watts, Naitanui or Hill? If Melbourne had finished 3rd last they would probably still got Watts.

[AndrewP6]

That's my point. Most drafts no-one really knows if pick 1, 2 or 3 will be the best 5 years down the track, so what incentive is there to tank?

Who will be the better player of Watts, Naitanui or Hill? If Melbourne had finished 3rd last they would probably still got Watts.


Ah, sorry, I get ya now... I've got a cold (my excuse and I'm sticking to it!):)

[LostDoggy]

That's my point. Most drafts no-one really knows if pick 1, 2 or 3 will be the best 5 years down the track, so what incentive is there to tank?

Who will be the better player of Watts, Naitanui or Hill? If Melbourne had finished 3rd last they would probably still got Watts.

We should start up a consulting company and go into business together. We won't make any money though as the AFL would never listen to us.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Melbourne have struggled to put together 4 good quarters but are a much improved outfit

Given we haven't strung together a commanding performance yet ourselves it's a game we should be attacking.

[The Coon Dog]

Is there really any difference in picks 1, 2 & 3?

1. Adam Cooney 2. Andrew Walker 3. Colin Sylvia

I'd say YES! :D

[Mantis]

Melbourne's midfield is their major asset. If we can at least break even (which shouldn't be a worry) with the likes of Jones, McLean & Moloney we will have no problems with this one.

[Mofra]

The Dees are better than I thought but they are still the worst team in the league.
I'm not sure. With Richo out & Cousins due to twang a hamstring next game (averages a twanged hammy almost every two games out of his last 17) I'd back Melbourne again if they played next week.

[LostDoggy]

1. Adam Cooney 2. Andrew Walker 3. Colin Sylvia

I'd say YES! :D

4. Farren Ray (!)

--

To be fair, TCD, SS did point out 2003 as the exception.

[Mofra]

4. Farren Ray (!)

--

To be fair, TCD, SS did point out 2003 as the exception.
Only Riewoldt can stand next to Cooney as being a no 1 pick and the bext player from the draft (although too early to tell in the case of Gibbs/Watts/Kreuzer).

[The Coon Dog]

4. Farren Ray (!)

--

To be fair, TCD, SS did point out 2003 as the exception.

Oops! Missed that, sorry SS! ;)

[LostDoggy]

Only Riewoldt can stand next to Cooney as being a no 1 pick and the bext player from the draft (although too early to tell in the case of Gibbs/Watts/Kreuzer).

Gibbs has already lost the race to Joel Selwood (pick 7), who will probably end up the best of the bunch. That draft looks pretty ordinary actually, and I'll say that the rest of the competition for 'best player of draft' status will end up coming from Tippett (pick 32) and Josh Hill (pick 61!!!), who may already be ahead of Gibbs as it is.

It's amazing how every year is considered the 'best draft ever' before the day.. they hype was especially loud for 2006, but Scott Gumbleton at 2 (!!!) and Lachlan Hansen at 3 doesn't exactly inspire awe, does it.

[ledge]

I dont agree at all. Maybe if you limit it to 16th, 15th, 14th, 13th and its a lottery system.
But how can you say Richmond and Melbourne are tanking for draft picks? They are clearly in the bottom four teams in the league.

Umm where did i mention any teams and tanking???

[hujsh]

Gibbs has already lost the race to Joel Selwood (pick 7), who will probably end up the best of the bunch. That draft looks pretty ordinary actually, and I'll say that the rest of the competition for 'best player of draft' status will end up coming from Tippett (pick 32) and Josh Hill (pick 61!!!), who may already be ahead of Gibbs as it is.

It's amazing how every year is considered the 'best draft ever' before the day.. they hype was especially loud for 2006, but Scott Gumbleton at 2 (!!!) and Lachlan Hansen at 3 doesn't exactly inspire awe, does it.

What's wrong with Gumbleton? Surely injury doesn't mean he can't play

[The Coon Dog]

What's wrong with Gumbleton? Surely injury doesn't mean he can't play

It's just that we still don't know.

[hujsh]

It's just that we still don't know.

Tim Walsh problem then i guess.