Who’s up for some high-scoring footy? The entire league, apparently.
It’s been spoken about a fair bit early this season about how attack is in and defence is out. References are made to the interchange cap and a changing of the guard and even comments made at head office in attempts to explain it, but most seem to agree it’s happening.
The evidence was laid bare in Round 3, when the lowest winning score was 92 points.
Yep, if you scored 91 points or less, you were a loser this week.
Spare a thought for Melbourne supporters – in other words, assume your regular Monday morning frame of mind – because their side’s 20.11 131 would’ve been enough to win any other game this round, high-scoring though it was, except for the game they actually played in.
North’s 21.10.136 got the job done in that contest, which harked back to the days of the shootout and provided some top entertainment.
That match was followed by another thriller between two genuine contenders in Hawthorn and the Western Bulldogs, which went down to the wire and also provided top entertainment.
It wasn’t all pretty watching, of course, but in the main the watchability so far this season has been strong.
Is it a coincidence that sides with more of a defensive tone to their recent history are struggling in this new environment? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t.
Maybe the power rankings can help answer that one.
No change; Ladder: 9th (2W, 1L)
They’ve faced three near-certain finalists in the space of three weeks and overall, earned a high mark despite some early detractors. They’re not at full strength, but when guys like James Sicily step in and perform it reminds us that the Hawks bat a bit deeper than 22 players.
No change; Ladder: 1st (3W, 0L)
Probably the Swans’ best win so far this season, given their previous two opponents aren’t looking finals-bound. There’s always a lot of interest in the Sydney forward set-up, but things seem to be ticking over quite nicely on that front. Lance Franklin’s season to date: 4.1, 4.3, 4.1.
+1; Ladder: 6th (2W, 1L)
Some viewed the Richmond-Adelaide clash as a toss-up, but the Crows had been a level above the Tigers and ended up playing like it on the day. They’ve snuck up these rankings, the Crows, but all that gets put to the test this week: a home game against the Sydney Swans on Saturday night. Bring. It. On.
-1; Ladder: 4th (2W, 1L)
You won’t hear of a side more desperate to rewind the last 90 seconds of a match than the Western Bulldogs this week. Losing not only the game but Bob Murphy to what’s expected to come up as an ACL. A sour way to end a match that was otherwise full of positives.
No change; Ladder: 7th (2W, 1L)
The Eagles kicked 12.20 against Fremantle. Here’s a fun fact: they’ve actually kicked more behinds than goals in four of their last five matches. That includes both the Round 2 and grand final losses to Hawthorn, not to mention a 10.20 preliminary final showing. Some kicking practice might be in order out west this week.
+2; Ladder: 5th (2W, 1L)
The much talked about Joel Selwood-Patrick Dangerfield one-two punch was in full swing in what was a comprehensive win over the Brisbane Lions. Selwood had 34 disposals, Dangerfield had 26 and three goals.
+2; Ladder: 8th (2W, 1L)
Did what they were supposed to do against Essendon, despite Chad Wingard being among the outs. The pressure is off for now, but we’ll find out a bit more this week against the Giants in Canberra, an assignment the similarly-ranked Geelong struggled with.
-2; Ladder: 3rd (3W, 0L)
The Roos and Demons brought back the high-scoring shootout, if only for a solitary Hobart afternoon. It’s not the first time Brent Harvey has earned a mention in this column and it won’t be the last, but how good is six-goal Boomer travelling right now? And what about five-goal, 38-hitout, all-round-star Todd Goldstein?
-2; Ladder: 12th (1W, 2L)
The Tigers were left to rue turnovers again. They had more of the ball against the Crows (25 more kicks, 17 more handballs) but were let down by what they did with it. West Coast, Domain Stadium and Friday night footy looms in the week ahead. The pressure could be turned up a notch again.
No change; Ladder: 2nd (3W, 0L)
The Suns would be more than happy with their start to the season. Second on the ladder, the Coleman Medal leader (Tom Lynch) and a general sense of optimism after last year’s disappointment. They’re a win away from equalling last year’s win total for the entire season. Why the low ranking then? Two of the three wins so far have been against the presumptive 2016 bottom two (Essendon and Carlton). The other was against Fremantle, who aren’t exactly the darlings of these rankings either. We await what the Suns do up against the big boys.
No change; Ladder: 11th (1W, 2L)
The little brother tag will have to be worn a little longer after another loss to the Swans. Shane Mumford continued to underscore his importance to the Giants by laying 10 tackles to go with his 30 hitouts and a goal. The man can do it all.
+1; Ladder: 16th (0W, 3L)
Did Ross Lyon reverse course at the weekend? Was that a return to the lockdown, defensive game plan of recent years? Is the brief experiment with greater dosages of attack over? We might have to keep a closer eye on the Dockers in coming weeks, but whatever the approach was against West Coast, the end result was another loss. A big, massive, humungous turnaround would be needed to get this team from where it’s at now to being in finals contention. And sadly yes, that’s before taking into account the loss of Aaron Sandilands.
+2; Ladder: 13th (1W, 2L)
What better way to commemorate the 1966 flag than with a win over Collingwood? Last week I said there would be little shame in losing to the Western Bulldogs this season. The Saints showed why by bouncing back with such a solid performance.
-2; Ladder: 14th (1W, 2L)
Nathan Buckley said they lacked forward pressure, they couldn’t force turnovers in their own half. That the tackle count was in St Kilda’s favour despite Collingwood trailing the possession count by almost 100 says it all. The Pies had a week out of the spotlight due to some luck against Richmond. There will be no avoiding it this week.
+1; Ladder: 10th (1W, 2L)
If we take the first three rounds overall, the Demons are going to be the most up-and-down team this season bar none. If we take the loss to North Melbourne yesterday by itself — Max Gawn’s 63 hitouts and all — then the Demons are going to start racking up the wins. Which Melbourne is the real Melbourne? We’ll have to tune in next week to see. I’m not ready to tip a winner between the Pies and Dees.
-2; Ladder: 18th (0W, 3L)
Losing two experienced heads in Tom Rockliff and Daniel Rich would’ve hurt, but the Lions were beaten in all facets against Geelong. One to forget.
+1; Ladder: 15th (1W, 2L)
Yes, you’re eyes don’t deceive you. The Bombers went up a spot after a 61-point loss. Send me all of your negative comments. All of them. For those interested, I’ll let you know how this happens. Both sides went into the round neck and neck. In fact, Essendon very nearly overtook Carlton with their win last week but fell just short.
This week, Essendon lost by 61 points to a side ranked higher than the side Carlton lost to by 54 points. The quality of opposition does come into it and, in this case, it tipped things in Essendon’s favour. The takeaway? Who you play matters. And sometimes there’s a big gap between sides one position apart, while other times there’s not much in it at all. Welcome to the crazy world of power rankings.
-1; Ladder: 17th (0W, 3L)
A goalless last quarter — and five goals overall — were among the concerning parts of Carlton’s loss to Gold Coast. It’s easy to pin those numbers on goal kicking, given the Blues went 5.11. But opportunities are another aspect of it — the Blues had five marks inside 50 from 49 inside 50s. That’s about one mark for every 10 inside 50s. On the same night in the same conditions, the Suns were going at better than one in three up the other end.
godders
Guest
Worst power ranking I have ever witnessed. How can you have Adelaide at three and North Melbourne at 8. North have already shown they can beat Adelaide and to have Port Adelaide in front of North Melbourne is just further disrespecting there current form. Port Adelaide have struggled since round one but apparently they would beat North if the two were to face off next week? I think not. GWS should be in 8th with Port dropping to 11th. Gws will beat them at home and have been playing some very fast paced footy. Still please wake up and put some real effort into the rankings as they are deplorable (considering Sydney who have played no one in top 8 contention, albeit GWS possibly and you have them second?).
gbomg
Guest
Boomer for a Brownlow
macca
Guest
Also Michael you discount Gold Coast wins because of who they have come against but Ports 2 wins have come against a team ranked 17th and a team ranked 13th - both of whom went up this week.
macca
Guest
Hal - I don't like to complain about the draw but I it has caused a raised eyebrow this year with the first 5 rounds. If you look at North they play just Adelaide, the Bulldogs and Freo from the finals last year in the first 9 rounds - only one top 4 side while getting games against Melbourne, Brisbane, Carlton & Essendon. Putting a draw together in an 18 side comp with about a dozen different stadiums is very difficult but it does strike me that some teams have been given a soft start to ensure there are plenty of teams still fighting for the 8 in the second half of the year.
macca
Guest
It isn't so much about Melbourne going up but North going down and Port going up.
macca
Guest
Michael - My issue is with the "power" you have assigned sides - Port missing a number of the top flight players are somehow a stronger outfit than the Suns? Looking at who the 2 teams have played and the results that have occurred it is very difficult to see how Port can be more powerful than the Suns.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
Hi Michael, thanks for the response. On North I can see where you're coming from and accept the rationale, it make sense. As you say with the middle there are too many line calls which is what makes it such a great conversation. But, when I asked myself the question: who would I be more concerned about if my team were to face either North or Port? And for me its North by a long way. In terms of GCS/GWS I had them moving up in lock-step due to my downgrading of Port and Richmond I think we should have a better picture after thhis week with GWS taking on Port and North vs. Freo. Assuming a GWS and North win would give a lot more to base a ranking on. Adelaide and Sydney looks to be a good clash with top 4 ramifications?
anon
Guest
"anon, I’m not all that close to the stage of writing off the Hawks just yet. They’ve bounced back since the Cats game against two real quality sides. The Bulldogs are going to make all sorts of teams look all sorts of things this season, so it’s not something I’m going to read too much into yet." If these were College Football rankings, you couldn't have the Hawks at number one given they've lost to Geelong at the MCG and scraped by with a 3 point win after allowing a 51 point turnaround against a young Bulldogs side that was dealing with the pressure of expectation for the first time. Not to mention the Bulldogs won all the key stats. I can only see the Bulldogs becoming more hardened after this loss. A close loss that proves they can match it with the Hawks might be the best thing for them. They'll only work harder to improve.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for reading Josh. There's a lot of moving parts in power rankings. Freo benefitted by a team previously above them having an even more shocking weekend than themselves (that would be Collingwood). As for North, I'll just say that wins and losses aren't what I look at. Performances and opposition are. A narrow win over Melbourne will cost you I'm afraid!
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Cheers Chancho. The middle certainly seems to be where the discussion is at! The arguments can be made for both Port and the Tigers, as you have laid out. My response would be not to dismiss those arguments, but to say North were simply hurt because they had only a narrow win against Melbourne. It was entertaining and it was great that in such a battle they can prevail, but it's Melbourne. As of right now, wins over Melbourne aren't something the rankings think too fondly of, particularly when the wins aren't that big. In the case of Gold Coast and GWS, like you I like that the two are neck and neck right. The reason being I suspect if Gold Coast had GWS's draw and vice versa, the results would probably have been similar. If GWS had Essendon and Carlton at home and a trip to Perth, my guess would be they'd be a 3-0 side with about the same winning margins. If Gold Coast had gone up against Melbourne, Geelong and Sydney, they too would be around the 1-2 mark, 2-1 if they were lucky (and if they didn't do a GWS and lose to Melbourne). Should that translate to them being placed above the likes of Port and Richmond? Possibly. In my view though, the answer is not yet. We have a body of three games that says 'why not?' but what's left of last season in the rankings formula says they were starting from a long way back and we need to see a greater body of work.
hal
Guest
Macca: I find it hard to believe that the side who finished dead last in 2015, has to play 4 teams that made it into the finals in their first 5 weeks; namely Richmond, Sydney, Footscray (read: Western Bulldogs), and Fremantle (in Perth). In fact Carlton have had to play Fremantle away for the past 3 years. Gold Coast finished above Carlton and has had a far easier start to the season. So much for giving the sides that finish bottom an easier draw. Carlton play Sydney (who they have a shocking record against twice, while they only play Melbourne once). It is not a draw, it is a fixture that really can determine who finishes last and who finishes higher up the ladder. An equal draw with every team playing each other twice, home and away, would really determine who is the best and worst side. Brisbane's draw was far easier that Carlton's last year. In 2015 Carlton had to play Hawthorn twice (who they have not beaten since 2004), Richmond twice, and Collingwood twice. They only played Melbourne once last year. They had to travel to Perth twice last year as well. Interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Great comments guys, thanks for the contributions. Ryan, I'd suggest the Swans have the midfield to stay above the average with inside 50s (maybe not 70 a game though of course!) but you're right in saying they would want to bump up the forward 50 efficiency. Not sure your thoughts on this, but I much prefer using points per inside 50 than % of scores purely because of the risk of inaccurate teams being made to look "efficient". The Swans are going at 1.68 points per inside 50 (where 2 tends to be the rate of a really, really good forward line and 1.5 is very much on the lower end). That's a worry.
hal
Guest
Samantha: I totally agree, my thoughts exactly. I also think North should be higher, yes they narrowly beat Melbourne, but that is what good teams do, they find a way to win. Lindsay Thomas saved the match in the last quarter. I agree with Macca as well, as I too, find it hard to believe Freo went up this week. I subscribe to Mark Fine's theory that West Coast are down hill skiers. Even though I despise Hawthorn,(being a Geelong fan), I picked Hawthorn last week, as West Coast do not play the MCG well and they fold when things do not go their way. I also feel Port Adelaide are total front runners, who are only good when everything goes their way. I have never respected that side. I picked Essendon in round 2, because I knew Melbourne weren't good enough to win 2 in a row, but as much as I wanted Essendon to win on Friday night, I knew they wouldn't as they were coming up against the AFL's biggest front running side, in Port Adelaide. At the start of the season I had Adelaide in my 8 but not Port. I also tipped Richmond to miss out, as they have a much harder draw this year, and in my mind only made it to fifth last year, courtesy of an easy draw. I will never jump on board the Richmond band wagon....I simply do not rate them. I personally feel North Melbourne are a far superior team to Richmond, and in my life time a far more successful team, despite their far from affluent status. I personally admire North, as they are true working-class team who always do it the hard way. The media never rate North and are quick to pump the tyres up of trendy clubs. Melbourne went up this week because they pushed a good side to the wire by actually playing some good football. It frightens me that Melbourne were capable of kicking 20 goals as I fear what they will do to lesser sides. The Melbourne Tankers avoided the embarrassment of collecting a couple more mahogany spoons because the expansion clubs were added, they were gifted Paul Roos as coach by the AFL, and got a mere slap on the wrist for tanking.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the observations, Dalgety. The Sandilands loss has hardly come at a great time. Be interesting to see whether Ross can engineer some sort of turnaround.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
AB, we've seen it happen to all the Dogs' opponents, them just not being able to get the ball in their own hands. Yesterday was the first time another side played large patches more on their own terms.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
anon, I'm not all that close to the stage of writing off the Hawks just yet. They've bounced back since the Cats game against two real quality sides. The Bulldogs are going to make all sorts of teams look all sorts of things this season, so it's not something I'm going to read too much into yet.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks for the thoughts mattyb. I'm a bit reluctant to get carried away with Gold Coast, for reasons stated in the article. On North, such a close margin against a team like Melbourne gave other teams an opening to overtake them. Might be harsh, but that's how it all works. On Brisbane, there weren't any real alarm bells there in rounds 1 and 2 (they cracked the ton at least against West Coast), so this was their first week of things looking a bit more serious for them. Not quite bottom two level yet, I'd say, but they'd want to be careful.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Thanks spruce, Saints over Freo is an interesting one. St Kilda's ranking may have taken a bit of a hit with the Dogs loss, though the win over Collingwood helped them recover ground. Re Freo, it's funny. I could've been accused of being too harsh on them a couple of weeks ago (placing a preliminary final team 10th after round 1). But you're right, take out a finals win and their recent body of form is lousy. The last three weeks have been particularly uninspiring. Obviously the rankings don't take into account the expected impact of injuries that just happened, so the Sandilands aspect doesn't come into it. But the likes of St Kilda are in a prime position to overtake Freo if Freo keep up their rounds 1-3 form.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
I'll take it Mullo, thanks for reading. North higher, Richmond lower I'm hearing a lot of. Don't mind your thinking with GWS but like Gold Coast they'll need to build up a little bit more of a resume. Win over Geelong and competitive against Sydney constitutes a good two weeks in my books. They'll have to keep at it.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Harvey, we'll see won't we! The Lions this week, which you'd tip the Gold Coast to win, but then it's North Melbourne at home and Geelong away. If they deserve to be ranked higher, they'll prove it in those fixtures.