Prediction The Run Home- The next six Games and beyond

[F6Typhoon]

And hopefully assuming that we’ve had our parvo shots

 

[grassman75]

It is fine to have these threads, it is a discussion platform after all, but really football has really become a week to week proposition, moreso than anytime since it commenced.

We are starting to develop a stronger game style and more players are becoming more consistent.

Reality is whether B Smith is with us next season is becoming irrelevant to out opportunity over the next couple of seasons.

Some early losses this year whilst adjusting to the new game style and coaching structure, as well as getting games into 8 to 9 players may cost us in 2024.

If we make finals we will be dangerous, but the big issue will be improving again next season which would make us a genuine threat




On SM-S926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

2024 has a bit of a 2015 smell about it

 

[grassman75]

Wait, let me get this straight...

We play more games this year at the Adelaide Oval than we do at the MCG?

Wow.

And Sydney and other interstate sides sook it up about not getting to play on the G

In 2016, Sydney played more games there than we did

 

[Libbaaaa]

And Sydney and other interstate sides sook it up about not getting to play on the G

In 2016, Sydney played more games there than we did

It is beyond silly that Collingwood play us at Marvel but play Port at the G. They should play their two contacted marvel games against interstate sides. We should never be the away team at Marvel against the Pies, Tigers, Demons etc...

 

[JohnnySteel]

Baz would be one hell of a sub if we were to make finals and he is ready to go. Imagine bringing that kind of running power on in the 4th.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Scott Tracy]

It is beyond silly that Collingwood play us at Marvel but play Port at the G. They should play their two contacted marvel games against interstate sides. We should never be the away team at Marvel against the Pies, Tigers, Demons etc...

I agree. By all means i'm not on St Kildas level and want to play home games at the G when we can't even fill Marvel.
But playing Collingwood at Marvel in Prime Time was just stupid. So many of us including myself didn't get to go cause it was sold out.

 

[dogwatch]

Baz would be one hell of a sub if we were to make finals and he is ready to go. Imagine bringing that kind of running power on in the 4th.

Hypothetical:
We make the GF. Form is good but we are not the favourites to beat Sydney (or Carlton). Baz has been training the house down. But he has also declared he wants a trade.

• Do we pick him (even as a sub)?
• Do we thus piss off somebody young who misses out (eg Sanders, Gallagher) by picking a player who's half way out the door? Thereby maybe losing two good young players instead of one?
• What message does that send to the rest of the list? Disloyalty will not be punished?
• Or do we just say to hell with the list consequences, he might be the difference between being runners-up and winning another flag?

 

[grassman75]

Bloody hell DW…this is like choosing between Albo and Dutton

 

[dogwatch]

Bloody hell DW…this is like choosing between Albo and Dutton

Except that that one's not a hypothetical!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It is beyond silly that Collingwood play us at Marvel but play Port at the G. They should play their two contacted marvel games against interstate sides. We should never be the away team at Marvel against the Pies, Tigers, Demons etc...

Doesn't work like that though with existing contracts and AFL's interests, as much as I agree with you on principle.

• AFL are specifically contracted to play a certain division of games between the two Stadiums in Melbourne
• Under the previous ownership AFL had to play a small number of blockbuster games that would get 60,000, if played at the G, at Marvel. AFL now own the stadium, but presumably want to keep a roughly similar amount of 'blockbuster' type games to profit off a stadium they own, and to justify things like the taxpayer investment in the recent refurbishment.
• Collingwood are contracted to play two games at Marvel
• Collingwood are contracted to play five designated away games at the MCG, and gain certain benefits for reserved seat holders and their team using the home change rooms despite being the designated away team
• Other teams are contracted to play a certain number of home games at the MCG, or want to play as many as possible
• You can't stack too many Marvel or MCG games in a certain week, or have two games on a single day
• This needs to fit into all other fixturing constraints with days breaks, who plays who twice etc.

Considering all this, you end up in the situation where it's highly likely that Pies host Dogs at Marvel.

Obviously not knowing all the demands and fixture and contract requirements I can't map out an alternative fixture myself, but I don't doubt all reasonable fixture possibilities lead to it being highly likely.

It's similar to our two Ballarat games. Ideally, we would want these games to be against only the four opponents of Adelaide, Port, GWS and GC - the two Perth teams don't need extra travel and Brisbane and Sydney have enough Melbourne-based supporters. We ideally want these two games played early in the season, before winter makes the weather too bad, but not our literal first home game, where signing up members or making an effort to attend the first home game is a tradition. Some fixturing elements are absolute - like we would never play a Melbourne-based team in Ballarat - but some things are desired and requested, but impossible to accommodate - the above.

As such we have not had all of our desired elements, we've played Ballarat games vs. Brisbane (not great, as we miss out on the revenue generated by Brisbane away fans in Docklands), and this year, we played our first home game in Ballarat and we play a late-season game in Ballarat. Not ideal, but impossible to make a fixture if every desired request was fulfilled.

I wouldn't say it's beyond silly that Pies host us, at least without referencing broader contracts and commercial interests (some of Pies' contracts where they get home-ground benefits as the away team at the MCG is the silly element of it all!).

 

[grassman75]

Doesn't work like that though with existing contracts and AFL's interests, as much as I agree with you on principle.

• AFL are specifically contracted to play a certain division of games between the two Stadiums in Melbourne
• Under the previous ownership AFL had to play a small number of blockbuster games that would get 60,000, if played at the G, at Marvel. AFL now own the stadium, but presumably want to keep a roughly similar amount of 'blockbuster' type games to profit off a stadium they own, and to justify things like the taxpayer investment in the recent refurbishment.
• Collingwood are contracted to play two games at Marvel
• Collingwood are contracted to play five designated away games at the MCG, and gain certain benefits for reserved seat holders and their team using the home change rooms despite being the designated away team
• Other teams are contracted to play a certain number of home games at the MCG, or want to play as many as possible
• You can't stack too many Marvel or MCG games in a certain week, or have two games on a single day
• This needs to fit into all other fixturing constraints with days breaks, who plays who twice etc.

Considering all this, you end up in the situation where it's highly likely that Pies host Dogs at Marvel.

Obviously not knowing all the demands and fixture and contract requirements I can't map out an alternative fixture myself, but I don't doubt all reasonable fixture possibilities lead to it being highly likely.

It's similar to our two Ballarat games. Ideally, we would want these games to be against only the four opponents of Adelaide, Port, GWS and GC - the two Perth teams don't need extra travel and Brisbane and Sydney have enough Melbourne-based supporters. We ideally want these two games played early in the season, before winter makes the weather too bad, but not our literal first home game, where signing up members or making an effort to attend the first home game is a tradition. Some fixturing elements are absolute - like we would never play a Melbourne-based team in Ballarat - but some things are desired and requested, but impossible to accommodate - the above.

As such we have not had all of our desired elements, we've played Ballarat games vs. Brisbane (not great, as we miss out on the revenue generated by Brisbane away fans in Docklands), and this year, we played our first home game in Ballarat and we play a late-season game in Ballarat. Not ideal, but impossible to make a fixture if every desired request was fulfilled.

I wouldn't say it's beyond silly that Pies host us, at least without referencing broader contracts and commercial interests (some of Pies' contracts where they get home-ground benefits as the away team at the MCG is the silly element of it all!).

Clearly Brisbane or GC didn’t t request to play us in Queensland….haven't played either of them up here for 2 years - surely the fixture isnt that rigid that they cant make sure every team gets at least one game in each state every year. Especially now there is gather round in Adelaide, its possible to drop some teams off playing there against Port or Adelaide in some years as their fans have already had a chance to see them play live

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Clearly Brisbane or GC didn’t t request to play us in Queensland….haven't played either of them up here for 2 years - surely the fixture isnt that rigid that they cant make sure every team gets at least one game in each state every year. Especially now there is gather round in Adelaide, its possible to drop some teams off playing there against Port or Adelaide in some years as their fans have already had a chance to see them play live

Write down all the elements that go into creating a fixture. It isn't just 6 games being played at 2pm on a Saturday anymore.

Commercial interests, 5 and 6 days breaks, interstate teams not travelling consecutively too often, blockbuster fixtures, double-up fixtures from last year's ladder positions etc. etc.

What would take a hit is the commercial side of the game - they want good teams playing Thursday and Friday nights, and they want the big 4 vic teams playing each other twice ever year - so in order to achieve what you're suggesting, we'd have to cop boring blockbuster games and less money from less big 80,000 crowd MCG games. Maybe they should, but that's the direction they've taken. AFL has locked itself in with more weird fixturing quirks because of a desire to make more and more things and absolute priority to include. Right or wrong AFL has clearly prioritised certain commercial matches above the idea of every team playing in every state.

 

[dogwatch]

Write down all the elements that go into creating a fixture. It isn't just 6 games being played at 2pm on a Saturday anymore.

Commercial interests, 5 and 6 days breaks, interstate teams not travelling consecutively too often, blockbuster fixtures, double-up fixtures from last year's ladder positions etc. etc.

What would take a hit is the commercial side of the game - they want good teams playing Thursday and Friday nights, and they want the big 4 vic teams playing each other twice ever year - so in order to achieve what you're suggesting, we'd have to cop boring blockbuster games and less money from less big 80,000 crowd MCG games. Maybe they should, but that's the direction they've taken. AFL has locked itself in with more weird fixturing quirks because of a desire to make more and more things and absolute priority to include. Right or wrong AFL has clearly prioritised certain commercial matches above the idea of every team playing in every state.

I understand all the fixture constraints and I think you've outlined them well.

But I say the AFL is wrong in prioritising commerce above fairness. These constraints are mostly self-imposed by the AFL including where they have entered into a contractual agreement with other parties such as TV networks etc. That's not really an external constraint, it's one they've willingly taken on in exchange for 30 pieces of silver.

I understand that many people will see it differently, perhaps you among them. Maybe it depends on how much the fairness costs. If it meant the TV rights were reduced by say 40% then it'd give pause for thought. But it wouldn't be anything like that. If they wanted it to be fair and make 90% of what they're making now I'm sure they could. It's just that the merchants have a stranglehold on the game.

It's time for the Bont to head on down to AFL house and overturn some tables.

And Bont went into the temple of EJ, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold TV rights and hospitality boxes, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of fair play and equal opportunity for all clubs; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

—  with apologies to Matthew 21:12–13

 

[grassman75]

Agree totally - the fixture is effectively a rort because of all the quirks and requests.

It will never be fair while still taking into account making money, only way would be to make everyone play everyone else at least once before repeating games at a minimum but even that will cost the AFL $$