You were very, very wrong

Great article, but get your hand(s) off it, Dan

Thanks Scott.

Yes, I did. Bangladesh are better than most people think. They are a good chance to beat Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan and West Indies (but will probably drop one of these matches, most likely WI). I suspect they’ll end up with 4 wins and 5 losses, but if a couple of things got their way (washouts, upsets), then they could scrape into the semis.
Scott, who do I contact to have the tipping table corrected? I got 4 out of 5 in the first week (Eng, NZ, Aus, Bang), but the table has me at 3 out of 5. Cheers.

Some good observations in this article, however I would like to note one thing. Mitch McGovern had played 48 games before being traded to Carlton. To lump him in as an “underperforming senior player” is a little unfair. By comparison, Charlie Curnow had played 47 games prior to this year, is he a senior player?
I’m not saying that either of these two have played their best footy this year, but they are both relatively inexperienced. It’s widely believed J. McGovern took 50 games to really start to shine, let’s hope that his brother shows the same improvement.

I’ll play your silly game Billbob, but instead of comparing the two at the same age, I’ve compared the two after the same amount of games, as that is a much more valid comparison.
Jack:
Kicks – 434
Handballs – 156
Tackles – 126
Marks – 275
Goals – 72
Behinds – 53
Goal kick % (excluding out of bounds) – 57.6%

Charlie:
Kicks – 509
Handballs – 199
Tackles – 124
Marks – 283
Goals – 63
Behinds – 37
Goal kick % (excluding out of bounds) – 63.0%

Taking into account that Jack plays at Full Forward, whereas Charlie plays further up the ground, I would say that’s a fairly even set of numbers. 1 extra goal for every 6 games played is not enough of a difference for you to be crowing the way you are, especially given Charlie’s dominance in just about every other stat.

In answer to the questions posed in the article:
1. What’s actually happening up there?
It looks like the author is using “up there” to refer to the forward line, so I’ll continue in that vein. Carlton is one of eight teams that has improved their scoring this year (compared to last year), albeit coming off a very low base. Noting the continuity issues highlighted by Macca, this is still an area of concern. Harry has looked excellent this year, really happy with his progression. Charlie has been down this year, let’s hope he can find his spark. McGovern has been OK, but there’s still plenty of room for improvement (remember he’s still only played 50 games). Cuningham has looked good when he can get on the park, so let’s hope Andrew Russell can work his magic and keep him out there. I’m not convinced by Polson, Silvagni or Fasolo, so we need another couple of small forwards. Could Pickett or Garlett be the answer? Also, the forward structure needs to work. Teague had Adelaide’s forward line working well in 2016-17, so let’s hope he can do the same here.
2. Is the list as good as we think it’s going to be?
Who knows? One thing I do know is that no matter how talented a player is, he still needs development to become a good AFL-standard player. I wonder if this is where Carlton are falling down. The coaching and development teams seem very young, with most of them in their 30s (I haven’t compared to other clubs however). Whether that’s good or bad I’m not sure, but let’s hope they aren’t wasting what seems to be a talented group of players. As for the lighter frames, Fisher’s tackles of Dusty in round 1 provide enough evidence that this shouldn’t be a problem (note shouldn’t).
3. Is Brendon Bolton the man to take us all the way?
Again, who knows? The players seem to respect him, and he doesn’t appear to have “lost the dressing-room”, so these are positives. Rumours of over-coaching are heard, but we don’t really know what goes on behind closed doors. The successful recent examples of Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood keeping their coaches after pressure to sack them might be an indication that there is value in keeping the faith.
4. What comes next?
Most observers can see that there have been improvements. Based on for and against, Carlton are a 24 point per game better team than last year (although four games is a limited sample size). Only four teams (Brisbane, Fremantle, Gold Coast and Western Bulldogs) have improved more. Whether these improvements are enough, and whether they translate into wins, are really the vexing questions. From my perspective, there is still more media discontent than supporter discontent, especially on sites like this. However a few big losses and the groundswell of calls for change might pick a momentum that will be impossible to stop. For now, it’s shoulders to the grindstone, try to fend off the inevitable slings and arrows that will come our way, and hope that the team continues to improve and the wins eventually come (although sooner would be better than later).

I think we can both agree there are regional variations for many things, but using a name incorrectly is not a variation. And we should all refer to sports by their correct name, that’s just common courtesy.
But you’re right, this is an AFL discussion (note the A isn’t a V). So given most of Australia use the correct term, wouldn’t it be nice if the Victorians did so as well?

It might be perfectly legal, but just because Victorians do it, doesn’t make it right. There are plenty of other places (both in Australia and around the world) that pronounce castle “cassel”, or call scallops “potato cakes”, so that can justify those uses. However the use of rugby to refer to rugby league isn’t just wrong in most of the rest of Australia, but also around the world (refer to the Rugby World Cup v. the Rugby League World Cup, Super Rugby, the Rugby Championship, Six Nations Rugby, etc). Maybe Victorians, who claim to be the sporting capital of the world, should learn to differentiate between two similar but different sports and use the correct terms. After all, they have no problem differentiating between netball and basketball, or do they just refer to both as one?
And while I can accept this may be pedantry, it is most certainly not code warring.

Actually, the use of Rugby alone without context generally indicates Union. Check out the headings at the top of the page.

It is incorrect to say “it certainly never will”. There are plenty of examples of sports being dominant in certain areas, then losing that dominance. For example, Newcastle (in NSW) was an aussie rules stronghold in the early part of last century (up until about WW2), but now they mostly support rugby league. Similarly in Canberra, aussie rules was by far the most popular winter sport, with ACTAFL games recording crowds of 10,000+ in the early 1980s. Then the NSWRL added the Canberra Raiders and now league and union draw the most crowds (and get the most corporate support).
The expansion into GC must be viewed through a very long term lens (30+ years). It is a high population (and high population growth) area that, if successful, will help ensure the long term health of the AFL.

The way I see it, the more unexpected and the more powerful the win, the higher you should be on the first round power rankings. Port’s victory was the most unexpected of the weekend. They had 4 first gamers, 2 new players and 11 changes from their round 23 team, were playing away against a top 4 fancy. It was easily the most impressive win. Hawthorn on the other hand, had won something like 13 of their previous 14 against Adelaide, so the win wasn’t totally unexpected. The strength of Brisbane’s, Freo’s and GWS’s victories puts them above Hawthorn. Bulldogs were impressive, except for 15 minutes of the last quarter. Geelong did well, but the game was scrappy, Richmond did what they were expected to do, and the Saints were lucky. So my power ranking ladder would be:
1. Port
2. Brisbane
3. Freo
4. GWS
5. Hawks
6. Bulldogs
7. Geelong
8. Richmond
9. Saints
10. Carlton (showed a bit, won 2 quarters against the premiership favourites, other 2 quarters were awful)
11. Gold Coast (won three quarters, but seemingly weak opponent)
12. Sydney (playing away, still won 2 quarters)
13. Collingwood (scrappy game, but could have won it)
14. West Coast (limited preparation, strong first quarter)
15. Melbourne (started OK and were still in it at three quarter time)
16. Adelaide (don’t seem to be able to counter the Hawks, were never really in it)
17. Kangaroos (travelled to WA, got ambushed)
18. Bombers (effort has been questioned, nothing positive in their game)

Then I expect you’d argue that the Anzac Day game should be shared around too. And Queen’s Birthday. Shouldn’t they also be interesting games?

“If he was not selfish, then why didn’t he bat at first drop ”
Was Allan Border selfish, or less of a leader, because he didn’t bat at 3? What about Virat Kohli, is he selfish? What about Tendulkar, or Kallis, or Clive Lloyd? Did Mike Hussey “hide down the order”? It’s a convenient (yet stupid) argument to define someone as selfish based on where they bat. Some players are more suited to different positions, otherwise we’d pick the six No. 3s from the state teams and that would be the Australian top 6.
“A joke he averaged 50.” How is it a joke he averaged over 50? Is it a joke he scored nearly 11,000 runs? Or that valued his wicket enough to not get out? Pretty sure we’d be happy with a no. 5 that averaged over 50 over a long period at the moment.
“You need to be a leader by doing a bit more than wearing the cap to bed at night.” How about leading a team to a world record number of consecutive wins. Many players played their best cricket under his leadership. The decision to drop Warne in the West Indies should be viewed as outstanding leadership, leading to a series levelling (and therefore Trophy retaining) win.
I have no problem if you aren’t a fan of Waugh, but to make a character assumption of him being selfish or not a good leader because he didn’t bat at 3 is misguided at best.

Pretty sure Brett answers your question in the article:
“The opposition and location are factors in judging performance, obviously. But they should never be the sole reason a performance is good or bad.”

So what if it’s double standards. It’s not us creating or even applying the double standard. How about we just have our own standard and live by that. There’s nothing wrong with being the better man.

Actually his 100 and 90 were his 12th and 13th innings ago. So his test batting average for 2018 is an awe-inspiring 23.6. If you go back a further 3 innings and include his 181, his average is a mammoth 35.1. And that is as good as it gets. The further back you go, the lower his average gets. On test form, he does not deserve to be selected.

I agree, I don’t think the Blues will trade pick 1. But if the option was offered, and it looked like you could get Rankine and either Bailey Smith or Jye Caldwell instead of Walsh, would you take it? I would.

If those trades were to happen (which I think is extremely unlikely), I don’t think the Blues would take the King brothers. They need quality mids, and mids from the rookie draft won’t be good enough. They would only do those trades to pick up 2 midfielders to counterbalance missing out on Walsh. At least one of Rozee/Rankine/Smith would be available at pick 5 (possibly two of them if St Kilda take a King at 4) and that’s who they’d pick up.

So that still makes 10 in one conference and 8 in the other. Surely the aim would be to have 2 equally sized conferences?

Great effort. Having gone through a similar exercise (but without going the extra step of writing an article), I’ve compared our teams and here are my thoughts.
Freo: I would have Matera ahead of Ballantyne. I also had McCarthy in the team, but happy to have Taberner instead. I somehow missed Luke Ryan – have now slotted him back in. Average age: 25.0, average # of games: 93.6. Good looking team on paper, will be interesting to see how they play and whether they can push for the top 8.
Gold Coast: I’d have Murdoch before Ah Chee and Holman before Fiorini. Jesse Joyce probably slots into the HB line, with Hanley to HF and Corbett drops out. Average age: 24.7, average # of games: 79.2. Not a terrible best 22, but depth is minimal and injuries will hit hard. Probably headed for the spoon.
North Melbourne: I had Anderson, Wright and Turner ahead of Garner, Simpkin and Vickers-Willis. On reflection, I’ll drop Wright and include Simpkin. Average age: 26.5, average # of games: 113.0. Good amount of experience and should be hard to beat (but not unbeatable), I see them just missing out on the 8.
GWS: I didn’t include Mumford as he’s not on the list yet, so Simpson in for him. I also had Patton and Reid instead of Bonar and Perryman. Average age: 26.0, average # of games: 111.7. Plenty of talent and experience, so should make the 8 and challenge for the top 4.
Brisbane: I had Walker, Robertson and Lester instead of Lyons, Robinson and McCarthy. Average age: 24.8, average # of games: 92.6. I think they’ll win more games than this year, but not enough to make the 8.
Carlton: I didn’t include Walsh as he’s not on the list yet, so Williamson on the bench. I also had Garlett instead of Pickett. Average age: 24.0, average # of games: 84.0. Still a young and inexperienced line-up, especially if players like Simpson or Thomas are pushed out of the best 22. They should win more games than last year, but looking at their draw, I can’t see them getting any more than 6.
Collingwood: I had Scharenberg, Aish, Mayne and Sier instead of Elliot, Phillips, Thomas and Mihocek. I’ll swap out Aish and Mayne and put in Phillips and Thomas. Average age: 25.9, average # of games: 113.2.
It’s interesting to note that the top 4 teams from this year’s ladder (Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood and Hawthorn) have average ages of around 26 and average # of games of 120 for their best 22. I know this isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it does indicate that experience is a valuable commodity on an AFL list. Other teams to have similar averages are Adelaide (26.0, 113.2), Geelong (26.8, 131.8), GWS and North Melbourne (see above), Port Adelaide (26.2, 121.0), and Sydney (25.7, 126.0).

First Suns game is away, however, although the Blues have a reasonable record v GCS in Qld. Would be great if the Blues could jag a win v either Port or Swans (or Hawks), but they really need to target GCS and Dogs, as both are winnable games. Seven away games in the first half of the season will make it tough to build some momentum.

Although I think the Blues are on the right track, I suspect 2019 will be another very tough year. Looking at the list before the draft, the average age is 23.6 and the average # of games played is 63. These averages will most likely go down after the draft, even if they take someone like Barlow. There are only seven players with over 100 games experience, and 20 of the current list are less than 22 years old. This is a very young and inexperienced list, and the draft will make it younger and less experienced. I predict only 4 wins for 2019, hope I’m wrong.

His average since October 2016 is 28.6 (600 runs, 22 innings, one not out). I don’t think that’s a “lot more” than 26. This is a period of time in which he scored his two (and only) test centuries. So on “recent form”, he should not be picked in the test team.

I don’t know when Mitch returned from injury, but starting from his 181 v England, Mitch has scored 526 runs in 16 innings with one not out. This is an average of 35.1, again hardly 50ish. Including any other innings will only reduce this average, so your argument that “their averages say otherwise” is completely wrong.