Dogs finished 7th in home and away. It’s not as if Marvel Stadium delivered a gift top four finish. Kind of proves my point. The early fixture advantage had almost nothing to do with the flag. It was an amazing late run against the odds that did it , including challenging finals away wins in Perth and Sydney. Though as a Swans supporter I’m bound to say the GF umpiring helped.

Entertaining but not very logical or coherent article. The AFL is far from perfect. Its tribunal system is messy. The draft is too complex. But as is often the case, AFL fans are insular and don’t look much at other sports. Other football codes in this country ( and I’d argue internationally) have much much poorer administration. Just look at the Australian Rugby Union and its collapse of revenue and supporters (along with the Eddie Jones fiasco). Or Football Australia managing recently to shed about half the support jobs in its domestic competition. Many of the gripes here are beyond the capacity of administrators to remedy. The game is incredibly complex to umpire and yes there should be more goal post cameras. But mistakes are much rarer than the mystifying “bunker” decisions in Rugby League (with more camera angles and an easier to referee code). Given its complexity the Australian game is remarkably well umpired. Fixture anomalies exist in every sport and have very little to do with end of season success or failure. I can’t think of a single case of a flag winner that got there by virtue of a kind draw. AFL clubs have none of the fixture distortions created by State of Origin in the NRL. Then there’s equalisation. Again the scheme is not perfect but is much fairer to fans than other codes which have no draft mechanism. Unequal achievement has far more to do with club culture than draft distortions. The three teams with the most top ten draft picks on their list are in 2024 – Essendon, North Melbourne and Gold Coast. Table positions put the lie to any claim that unfair draft privileges create an elite set of clubs. By way of contrast the top two sides this week, Geelong and Sydney, are in the bottom four for top ten draftees on their lists, but have been finals contenders for years. Equalisation gives clubs opportunity but you can’t administrate to eliminate poor management. Good football programs and culture prevail as they should. The AFL is a financially healthy and thriving competition, unusual for an idiosyncratic sport only played seriously in one country. Look around and realise your good fortune.

Good article. Again and again the Tribunal undermines the AFL’s attempt to eradicate head injuries. I worry that in inevitable future court action against the code ,with player class actions insisting administrators knew about the dangers of concussion but didn’t do enough, Tribunal decisions will be used as evidence that sanctions were too weak and didn’t work. That could cost the game huge sums of money and threaten its future. Then there’s the human cost of ex players living with CTE.

The quote in the article was “ There’s a long way to go in season 2024, but amid a whole host of contenders, our two frontrunners have established themselves: “

I know it’s sacrilege but I think it might be worth trying the rugby union rule that a player can’t play the ball once he/ she has lost his feet whilst being held by an opponent. In rugby once on the ground you have to release the ball and if possible roll away from the contest allowing players on their feet to contest possession. It prevents on the ground tugs of war and while it doesn’t completely clear congestion in rugby it helps. My view is that it would be more effective in AFL, leaving players who keep their feet to pick up the ball or knock it free. That in turn rewards balance, agility and core strength Falling on the ball as Draper did would be a free kick unless he immediately released it and rolled away.

Hold on! Before we pronounce Carlton and Geelong the “frontrunners” in 2024 let’s just pause and recognise that this is an unusual season in that so far very few form teams have played one another. Geelong can boast a narrow 4 point win over an inconsistent Bulldogs outfit (one with only three wins but sitting in 8th spot). Apart from that the Cats have beaten 12th,13th, 15th, 17th and 18th. I’d argue the easiest fixture so far in the comp. I agree Chris Scott is a master coach but his troops have only fought unequal skirmishes to date. Not belittling the Cats! You can only beat who you are drawn to play. But “ front runners?” Carlton has also been tested by just one top 8 side. I was impressed by the Blues comeback against the Giants but for two and a half quarters GWS was easily the better side. Apart from that Carlton has (mostly narrowly) beaten 9th, 12th, 16th and 18th. And lost to the 15th placed Crows. Neither Geelong nor Carlton can claim to be putative grand finalists on the basis of a comfortable draw to date. My guess is that one or the other will drop away. The upcoming tie between the two will say something. At least then the winner will have beaten two top 8 sides.

Not a Toby Greene defender and there are comparisons with the Wright/Cunningham incident. Both Greene and Wright at the last instant took eyes off the ball and barrelled in, collecting an opponent’s head. But there are differences. Wright led with his forearm and elbow, impacting the head with a bent arm then his shoulder. Greene tucked his arm in with no flailing arm and absorbing some impact shoulder to shoulder. The bump was still high but there was less direct force to the head. The MRO graded it medium impact. Wright’s hit was rightly graded severe. Thus the difference between a three week and a one week sanction. Seems to me the classification system has worked ok.

I’m not one of the “sack-the-coach” brigade. It’s often a lazy reflex of AFL commentators and fans. Across world team sports franchises with stability of management and coaching are the ones with sustained success and thereby financial and membership sustainability. The most obvious cautionary tale is the descent of Manchester United into a rabble after the retirement of Alex Ferguson and the impatience of owners in repeatedly sacking managers in the hope of recapturing past glories. But there are many other examples. It’s no co-incidence that the two most successful clubs in terms of finals appearances in the AFL over the past two decades, Geelong and Sydney, have the longest serving coaches. The sack-the coach mob would have ousted Chris Scott before the 2022 flag because he hadn’t won enough premierships – despite being the most successful home and away coach in the history of the game. This clamour is despite an equalised competition expressly designed to deliver a single flag to a club once every 18 years. Consistent finals presence is a much better measure than premierships. The calls for Ken Hinkley and Chris Fagan to be turfed are just naive and foolish given both clubs are strong performers currently in championship windows.

However I have to agree Luke Beveridge has run his course. I don’t think the issue is an inconsistent game style. Tactical change and improvement are what assistant coaches are for. Beveridge seems to have a deeper and more worrying problem – inconsistent people management that erodes the confidence of his playing list. Remember the bizarre and frankly cruel treatment of Jake Stringer, a young man with an apparently fragile mind set but real talent and I think a basic decency that required nurturing. The current treatment of Caleb Daniel is just as baffling. Players seem to move in and out of approval to a point that it’s hard to tell whether loss of form is a cause or the result of being on the outer. Team success is about talent and style but equally about unity, collective loyalty and confidence. To an outsider Beveridge’s style wanders away from tough love into capriciousness. The loyalty of team members to a boss and a cause has to start with fair mindedness and consistency at the top.

You have to wonder what Chris Scott and the Geelong hierarchy could do with such a talented but underperforming squad.

Blues fan? Hard times coming!

Very likely that by the mid season bye Carlton will be well outside the top eight. They have only played one team in the top 8 so far: Freo who largely. dominated that match. Narrow wins over ordinary teams do not bode well for the stretch ahead during which they play all the teams above them on the ladder plus Collingwood, Gold Coast and Essendon. No more easy beats. Seems to me that Voss has done a lot to install morale and confidence but has yet to fashion a team full of high end talent into a cohesive game style can put less talented teams away.

Love an optimist. Would personally like to see Freo prosper. But for me the Dockers still lack attacking connection. So far the lowest scoring team in the top 8, balanced by excellent defence. I’d be surprised if Freo make top 4. Like to be wrong. I reckon however after this round the 8 is taking shape. As it currently stands Brisbane will come in and replace Essendon but after that it’s jostling for positions in the 8. Too early to tell who are genuinely the strongest 4. Every prospect that there will be no Melbourne teams represented in the top 4 this year.

Fair enough. Checked stats again and you’re right Carlton (narrowly) won a number of stats. But a heavy loss in clearances and conceding more uncontested possessions usually means the opposition has the initiative which is how it looked for all but the last 3 minutes.

Yes a good list. But not playing particularly well and certainly not across 4 quarters. fell 46 points behind Brisbane and only won because Brisbane fell apart and repeatedly missed certain goals. A one point win that should have been a loss. Struggled against a willing but thin Richmond line up that will not play finals. Should have lost to Freo and were beaten in key stats in that game. After the Crows the Blues play the Giants,Cats, Pies, Melbourne, and Sydney (away) . Win the majority of those and they are the real deal. But on current form they will struggle.

I’m wondering if Carlton/Adelaide might be the biggest upset of the round/season, Carlton were very very ordinary against Freo and are over-rated. And Adelaide is playing for its season. Having said that I’ve not been brave enough to tip the Crows who are poor away and need huge improvement.

The only real option, apart from better technology, to eliminate umpiring shockers, is a limited captain’s challenge. Leigh Montagna has it right when he says the AFL is one of few sporting codes without it. I was agnostic on the issue until this week. And I support neither Carlton nor Freo. But the replays show the kick and mark which determined the game included the ball deflecting about 20 degrees off a Freo shoulder. The game’s laws were not properly adjudicated. It’s not criticising umpires to say it was a missed call. They didn’t see the deflection. But the players did. Rugby Union and NRL give captains a single challenge per game which they lose if the decision goes against them. In the AFL you could further limit a challenge to only in the attacking or defensive 50. One problem with the AFL is that many fans and even administrators don’t watch other football codes. The game’s idiosyncrasies are mostly great. But sometimes putting your head in the sand and ignoring innovations in other sports just makes your solitary bum in the air look stupid. If you watch other codes you understand the captain’s challenge adds to drama . Has one captain blown it by using up the challenge earlier in a hopeless cause when he/she later desperately needs it to determine a winning or losing call? Will a last minute challenge save or win the game? I suspect in practice teams would reserve their challenge for the last two minutes of a match adding to tension and therefore entertainment. In an age where thousands analyse every game via technology in their living rooms and every small injustice is magnified, it undermines the game to ignore a reform which would add to tension and natural justice.

No doubt Freo were dudded by the umpiring. Their own ill discipline at the end didn’t help and I actually thought they were lucky not to concede 50 metre penalties for dissent on several other occasions. However on a number of occasions they had cause. But is it just me or was this for all its closeness a frustrating and often inept game? The number of fumbles and spilled marks, errant hand passes and poor attacking 50 entries on both sides seemed excessive. Maybe that was a symptom of mutual pressure? But there wasn’t much on display to strike fear into other top 8 teams. And this was the first top 8 opponent either had faced.

I think there was a certain arrogance in the Swan’s approach against the Tigers. They believed they could overcome the Tigers admirable pressure by just runnng and gunning. In the past Longmire teams have always had a lower gear. A capacity to kick short to uncontested marks, slow the game down for a few minutes to see out a burst of high intensity from the opposition. Richmond didn’t sustain the 220 plus pressure of the early game but the Swans had lost control of the match. Good coaching by Yze. Less impressive on field leadership from Sydney. It’s the first time this year that the loss of Callum Mills, who as a captain owns strong tactical instincts, has been glaring. Rampe’s injury was important. Mill’s absence was match defining.

Sadly Gold Coast will be bottom six again. Melbourne look the best of the Vic teams though it’s hard to judge Geelong so far. Carlton are also yet to be fully tested. Thus my interest in next week against Freo. I’d like to see Freo top 4. But it’s to early to tell. Adelaide are awful and nearly brought the Dockers down to their level. Something is wrong with Brisbane and the North defence are witches’ hats.

In my view the Blues are untested. Were gifted the Brisbane game. Richmond, a bottom 4 side made them earn it and the Kangaroos don’t defend.

This brings about a fascinating clash next week. Both Carlton and Freo are 3 zip. Both have their respective fans bullish and buzzing. But both have only beaten winless teams at the bottom of the table. That’s not to say both are pretenders. You can only beat who you play. But both have mixed up clunky quarters with impressive ones. And both have suffered scoring runs against them as well as scoring themselves heavily. With “gather round” neither will have home advantage. My tip is Freo’s defence will prevail but who knows?

All that is true. But the AFL is not an Olympic sport. It’s a team football code played seriously in only one country, but in which over a thousand young men and women are professionally listed. Some of those athletes are statistically bound to be users of recreational drugs. The AFL has been a reluctant signatory to the WADA code which as you say is very strict black letter law. And it’s not alone. World soccer (FIFA) has been a hesitant signatory as well. That’s not because either code is soft on performance enhancing drugs. It’s because both administer large numbers of young people with a multitude of behavioural and sometimes mental health issues. And both would like to separate performance enhancing drug protocols from recreational drug protocols. The AFL would like to treat the latter as a medical/counselling issue. All the advice it gets from drug policy experts tell it to do that. But it’s not so easy. Marijuana can be treated in that way. It has no performance enhancing qualities and is not on the WADA proscribed list. But cocaine and amphetamines are. Nobody seriously thinks players are using cocaine to play better. But with “uppers” there is a crossover between recreational drug policy and performance drug law. I’m not sure it’s possible to marry WADA compliance with the humane recreational drug rehabilitation recommended by doctors. Australian rules football will never be an Olympic sport so there’s a cogent argument for forging its own model – tough on performance drug cheats but with case by case care on recreational users where naming and shaming might lead to significant harm. However withdrawing from the WADA code is politically difficult!

I agree with this analysis of a poor game. I thought Brisbane were particularly lax in not copying the formula three teams have used in dismantling the Pies – pressure around the ball leading to Collingwood turnovers then quick ball movement in counter attack. Brisbane laid 32 fewer tackles than Collingwood so didn’t apply pressure. And though the Lions won clearances they continually stopped after marks, slowed the play looking for free team-mates. This gave the Collingwood defence time to fall back and organise. So though Brisbane had ample inside 50s they were often to a crowded forward line. In that context poor kicking didn’t help. I do wonder though if the ball was slippery with high humidity in Brisbane last night. That occurred in similar conditions during the season’s opening Sydney/Melbourne match. There were a lot of comments about errors with punters not understanding the ball was like wet soap. Both teams have played skilfully since.

I agree Willie had every right to raise the issue. As they say sunlight is the best disinfectant. However his language and tone were off mark. He argued that the Prime Minster should intervene, that the AFL was secretly manipulating games and that its behaviour was egregious. The policy sounds to me more like an attempt to handle what ethicists call “ a wicked problem”. One in which every potential solution has an awful downside. Making such pre- match day testing public would make every late withdrawal with an injury suspect and risks demonising young players, guilty or not. Doing nothing opens players who have partied inappropriately before a game to game day doping tests and a public pile on. Doing it “off the books” leads to today’s suspicions of a conspiracy and the potential contravention of sports doping law. I’m not sure the AFL has handled it well or made the right choice, but this is the real world. In proportion to the rest of society a minority of players will use cocaine. I note the League’s illicit drug policy has the support of the Players Association and there are no easy remedies.

Though I think he’s a valuable whistleblower supporter in Parliament, Andrew Wilkie is over milking the outrage. It’s a complex issue. The secret testing was apparently a way of managing the risk of recreational cocaine use and the prospect of a player being tested on game day. WADA classifies cocaine as performance enhancing. But there is no real suggestion that cocaine is being used to improve player output. Removing a young person from the peril of a test on game day and the life shattering consequences of positive result seems compassionate. Australia has the highest per capita cocaine use in the world. With 880 active players on AFL lists some will have a cocaine problem. In one sense it’s like a breathalyser machine in a pub – there to dissuade you from being a risk to yourself and others by not getting behind the wheel.

But any secret program is pregnant with risk. It maybe seen as undermining WADA rules. The use of fake injuries misleads fans and punters (limited sympathy there). And I suppose it is about managing the game’s image rather than addressing recreational cocaine use in a more profound way.

I’d be been happier with 3 matches plus a send off during the game. Leigh Matthews is absolutely right that the AFL has to address the unfairness of an illegal act taking out a player early in a game whilst the offender stays on and in this case kicks two valuable goals.