So, Round 4 is done and dusted. Let’s get straight into the rankings.
Last week: 3
Sen-bloody-sational. Among the most impressive wins we’ve seen this year thus far, but it comes at a cost: Callan Ward’s ACL.
Still though, the Giants’ midfield effort – particularly after a flat first term – was nothing short of phenomenal, and this is a team gunning for a premiership. No doubt about it.
Last week 1
It would be exceptionally easy to overreact to this loss, but need I remind you that it was a four-point loss to one of the top teams in the competition.
Geelong firmly remains one of those top teams, even if they’d be fairly frustrated at letting this one slip.
Last week: 4
Their eighth straight Derby victory was not a pretty win whatsoever.
It’s difficult to criticise the Eagles for their closer-than-expected win – that was more down to Freo’s surprisingly determined effort than any poor Eagles performance.
West Coast will bank the four points and move on with haste.
Last week: 2
Back to reality? Kinda.
It’s rare we see the Lions play the Bombers at the ‘G, and even rarer to see them lose.
And for those that might wonder about fourth as their positioning, I’m loath to drop them further because the three teams immediately below them also lost games this week.
Last week: 9
Their scrappy win against the Bulldogs seems a good opportunity to bump them up the rankings.
Whilst I’d like the game to delete itself from my memory, it’s an important win in terms of evening the ledger, so they’ll take the four points and be happy enough.
Last week: 8
Well, everything’s going swimmingly up in Queensland.
Assisted by the Blues’ inability to put them away when they had momentum, the Suns never gave up.
And it’s important to remember to keep banking the wins, because next few weeks will see the level of their competitors raises significantly.
Last week: 6
Was that the most Port Adelaide loss we’ve ever seen? I think so.
In all seriousness, that’s now two close losses in a row.
Where to from here? Premiers up next, and that’s a scary though.
Last week: 5
They weren’t the only losers on Friday night: the football public was, too.
Evened out their season form with a loss, and suddenly much of the enthusiasm surrounding their early season form has evaporated a little.
I’m not as concerned – I still maintain they’re a good shout at sneaking into finals.
Last week: 10
The Saints are ignoring a helluva lot of conjecture about their fortunes, and are just progressing as well as they can.
Benefited from an injury-hit and fatigued Hawthorn, yes, but they’re 3-1. And that’s better than what they could’ve hoped for at this stage.
Also, re-sign Jack Billings. Immediately.
Last week: 7
Yes, they were injury ravaged, and yes, they lost.
But they were in it until the final few minutes, and that’s encouraging.
Huge game up next, though: Geelong won’t be an easy task. They’ll be praying Jaeger O’Meara returns to the side by then.
Last week: 13
Sensational win.
Missing the ‘big four’ for the first time in years, facing a hostile South Australian crowd and coming off some bad form. Yup, this’ll be up there in upsets for the year.
Last week: 15
Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti was phenomenally good, but let’s not forget that Essendon’s midfield is finally plowing along as the hyperbolic predictions tipped before the season.
Well placed to work their way back into finals contention.
Last week: 11
Whilst much of the skill on display was awful, and one goal in the entire first half was unforgivable, at least the Dockers showed some heart.
That’s about all you can ask for as a Freo fan when you’re heading into a Derby, against the reigning premiers, minus Fyfe.
Last week: 12
Oh man. Serious problems everywhere.
The were trash on Saturday night, and seem to be in a bit of a rut.
Like Sydney below, Crows fans will be beginning to question their coach, because if they keep this up they’ll be getting close to replicating last year’s drastically sub-par season.
Last week: 14
Yikes. Is now the time to start wondering whether John Longmire is the man to continue leading the Swans, because they seem to be going nowhere fast.
They’re notoriously slow starters, but I just don’t think they’re very good this season.
Last week: 18
Been in a deeply bad place for the first few weeks, but like North, they garnered their first victory.
Now they need more of that. Much more.
Last week: 17
Damn glad I tipped them. Vital win to get their season out of the genuine danger zone, but they were inefficient.
Nine goals 17 behinds is a frustrating score at the best of times, especially when you win a close one.
But there’s the key word: win.
Last week: 16
The fact that they were oh-so-close to winning belies the fact that they were awful at the same time.
Patrick Cripps was massive, but it was a thoroughly disappointing loss all the same.
anon
Roar Pro
Their salary cap was 10% higher. They could buy 42 players (however many there are on a list) and pay them whatever they like as long as it's under the cap.
Aus in Engerland
Guest
I think you've missed the point. The AFL did NOT increase Sydney's salary cap. They gave them an allowance for the supposedly higher cost of living. For ease, it was calculated as an additional % of the salary cap. When Sydney used it as a recruiting fund the AFL rightly warned them (Tippett) then took it away (Franklin). I don't know how loudly it needs to be shouted. It was NEVER meant as salary cap money.
anon
Roar Pro
The AFL increased their salary cap because of the higher cost of living in Sydney. Sydney can manipulate player payments however they like as long as they stay under the cap. Geelong pay less than market value to Dangerfield. Sydney were paying less than market value to Tom Mitchell and he left. If Sydney want to pay Franklin above market value and someone like Tom Mitchell below market value then that's their choice. The only way around this is for the AFL to stipulate what every player should be paid.
Aus in Engerland
Guest
If Danger is willing to take less than what he is worth or could get elsewhere, congratulations for his team spirit and Geelong club system. Nothing to get bent out of shape about. Re Franklin, what the AFL got out of shape about is that the money wasn't from the salary cap but from the COLA. They had been warned, they did it, they got it taken away. The Swans are now left with a budget hole. They were expecting to continue to pay Buddy out of COLA, but now can't. They are basically short $1.3 Million they have had taken away and are having to pay Buddy roughly the same for another 4 years. If they had not had COLA, would they have been able to afford to recruit Buddy? No chance. So now they don't have it, they have a Rolls Royce but not the money to pay the lease fees without severely compromising the rest of the fleet. No matter how you look at it, that has to hurt. And has to have an unplanned impact on who and what they can afford until his contract expires.
anon
Roar Pro
*why are
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Just to clarify for those who can't get it to roll off the tongue, a derby (darby) is a race while a derby (derby or doiby) is a fight. East Fremantle v South Fremantle is the originalfight or doiby (Irish). WC v Freo is a battle/fight, not a horse race.
anon
Roar Pro
My argument is if Danger only getting $800k (when he's worth $1.3 million), why aren't you getting bent out of shape about someone like Allir Allir getting $300k instead of $400k. If the Swans want to pay above market value to Franklin and it fits under their cap then so be it. Some player get above market value (Franklin), some get below (Dangerfield).
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
AD, you mention injury for Hawthorn and Richmond's big 4...but no mention of 8 best 22 players missing at Freo. Why is injury an explanation for some teams and not for others?
Aus in Engerland
Guest
I must say that I have lost the entire point of this post. Your first sentence just agrees with me, me having said 'There is absolutely no problem with spending the salary cap how you want as long as you keep within the rules'. And as for the rest. What has the fact that Danger et al. took lesser money for team reasons got anything to do with this at all. If anything it supports the arguments of some that Buddy is overpaid. I think Sydney were silly with how they back-ended the deal (short-sighted) and caught themselves out by ignoring the AFL warnings re the COLA. If they weren't living on a warning, if they hadn't done the Tippett deal that upset the AFL and other clubs and so on they could have afforded this. But they knew what was coming if they did another Tippett style deal, but they did it anyway. That's just arrogance, madness, whatever you want to call it. As I said previously, maybe they just didn't believe the AFL would actually sanction them and take their mis-spent COLA away. That's just being stupid, and taking a big future gamble with salary cap affordability.
anon
Roar Pro
Who are you to say what x player is worth on the list? Dangerfield is only on $800k per year at Geelong. Hodge and Mitchell were similarly underpaid at Hawthorn so that lesser teammates could be paid ABOVE their market value in order to retain them.
Jakarta Fan
Roar Rookie
If power rankings reflect "power and form" then the Gold Coast are too high - scratching through but no power. Brisbane were just wallopped so a bit high and Essendon's last 2 weeks were full of power and surely must be higher. If it was based on ladder positions it's a different picture but this is supposed to be POWER rankings!
Aus in Engerland
Guest
It was not the back-ending that was the abuse of the COLA. It was how they spent it/how they used it. The COLA was meant to be just that, a Cost of Living Allowance designed to make up for the 'fact' that it was supposedly more expensive to live in Sydney. It was not meant to be extra salary cap. But that is how Sydney treated it. If they had spread the love over all the players to give them a bit extra to make up for the extra Cost of Living (a clue there somewhere) then the COLA would still exist. But they treated it as extra salary cap for the purchasing of big name players. It's not as if they weren't warned either. After the Tippett controversy the AFL made a lot of noises (mainly after Jeff Kennett kicked up a stink) about the misuse of the COLA. Basically they told Sydney to use the COLA for what it was designed for and not as extra money other clubs didn't have. But Sydney didn't believe the threats, or thought they could get away with it, or just couldn't resist the idea of Buddy. Regardless they used the COLA as extra salary cap again, and had it taken away. There is absolutely no problem with spending the salary cap how you want as long as you keep within the rules. Front end if you have a bit of space, back end if you know a big name is retiring in a couple of years and so on. Use the salary cap as you see fit. But the COLA was an allowance (another clue in the name), not part of the salary cap. It was put there (as a salary cap +%) for ease by the AFL and this created the opportunity for misuse, and Sydney drove a bus through the technicality provided. If they had been subtle they could have kept it, but they misused it, got caught, got it taken away and will pay from now to the end of Buddy time for it.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Dee Bleus?
Aus in Engerland
Guest
You might get lucky. The way Carlton and Adelaide are playing at the moment the end result might be Out - pick 1, In - pick 2 and Stocker.
anon
Roar Pro
They didn't misuse COLA. Every team has a salary cap and can manipulate payments how they like as long as they remain under the salary cap. Sydney didn't do anything wrong. If they exceeded their salary cap then yes you could have your whinge. But to backend a contract so heavily for a 35-36 year old 5 years past his peak is as dumb as it gets. I never realised it was backended so heavily.
true blue
Guest
ScottD: True, but this is our problem; we think we must win premierships now. Our hubris stymies sound decisions, hence we react out of greed for flags. We were going along quite nicely under Ratten, but it’s been all downhill since.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
1st joke ever. We should be pleased. That should read 1st deliberate joke ever. Mostly those who can be bothered just laugh at the unconscious tripe you unload.
ScottD
Roar Guru
True Blue: – Well to be fair Ratten wasn’t going to take you to a flag was he?
Aus in Engerland
Guest
It was back-ended because at the time of signing the COLA was still in place. It made sense to pay what you had in hand and pay the biggest share with the ever increasing COLA (as the salary cap increased, so did the COLA amount). And remember, the early Buddy years salary cap space was Tippett affected. They shot themselves in the foot by misusing the COLA and getting it taken away and now it's coming back at them. As they say, Karma's a bitch.
Cat
Roar Guru
Exactly. I think we're seeing Port return to the middling team they are instead being overhyped as 'reborn' like they were after a couple of games.