But how is a rolling ladder of 18 games any better than seeing if a side had doubled up on the three easy beats or not? How is the method you're referencing actually offering an advantage, especially before everyone has even played each other once? Essendon, Geelong and Port have all been around top 2/3 while not very good at all, while Brisbane, Gold Coast, Hawthorn etc have had some strong form lines while climbing from the lower end of the ladder.Wasn't a gotcha reply at all - any person can see that using 4/18 games to judge a fixture is ridiculous.
And on injuries I never said "best 23" injuries is all that matters. What I have seen from the other set of supporters in here is a focus on top 5 Carlton players not being injured. Unless we are playing basketball "injuries to top 5" would not be a reasonable way of determining injury issues. Again something I don't remember you mentioning
None of this is "playing the man". I don't know you so none of this is personal
It is playing the man when instead of addressing the topic, you state that a bias against your football club is the reason for the points made.
For injuries, Carlton had 2-3 notable ones at a time for the first half of the season (but essentially none to the big 5 so that much is true), with a splash affecting bottom 10 players (some who are still playing in the magoos, or in/out of the team on form) who didn't move the needle much. There is no perfect way to grade injury lists, much like the fixture. Surface level attempts are a joke and then it gets too complicated/subjective to go further in depth.
But it is self evident that Cripps and Walsh, or Curnow and McKay breaking their legs in round 1 would be more deleterious than missing 5-6 players that are picked 12-22 most weeks.