Analysis 2017 fixture

Remove this Banner Ad

Striker475 said:
Didn't we play them at Etihad in 2014?
Click to expand...
I'd say that we've generally come much closer to beating the Saints at Etihad than we have at the 'G.
 
For me the Saints are a great benchmark team for Melbourne to play in Round 1. So I am super excited about this first game (I was a bit flat for playing the Giants last year to be honest).

Besides Melbourne getting the jump on the saints in one opening quarter, they have managed to pretty much out play Melbourne over the last couple of years.

With the extra experience in the Melbourne team now, and extra pre-seasons in the younger players I have expectations of a close game here.

I will not say I expect a win as I think both teams should be evenly matched.
 
DemonZombie_001 said:
For me the Saints are a great benchmark team for Melbourne to play in Round 1. So I am super excited about this first game (I was a bit flat for playing the Giants last year to be honest).

Besides Melbourne getting the jump on the saints in one opening quarter, they have managed to pretty much out play Melbourne over the last couple of years.

With the extra experience in the Melbourne team now, and extra pre-seasons in the younger players I have expectations of a close game here.

I will not say I expect a win as I think both teams should be evenly matched.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen our best play in the Melbourne - St Kilda games has been the best play between the sides. It's just that our worst ******* sucks, and is well below the standard the Saints have set as their minimum.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gysberts2Bate said:
From what I've seen our best play in the Melbourne - St Kilda games has been the best play between the sides. It's just that our worst ******* sucks, and is well below the standard the Saints have set as their minimum.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that. From what i recall, we belted them in both the opening quarters/halves last time. Then fell asleep at half time and let in the next 9 or 10 goals. You're spot on.
 
When I saw we are playing Saints at Etihad Round 1 I thought it was a troll, then I was angry, then hungry. Now I've come to terms with it.

Win or lose we will know where we stand after Round 1 I feel. If we can get a win away against the Saints to kick start our season we will be in a really good position, if we lose we know we will have our work cut out for us. No excuses anymore. If we are a good team we will win. No bullshit.
 
From memory, we played St. Kilda coming off a trip to Darwin and then again after a six day break. Both times we made minimal changes and ran out of legs after the first quarter.

At least, this time, we can be sure that they won't make the same mistake again.
 
space_cowboy said:
From memory, we played St. Kilda coming off a trip to Darwin and then again after a six day break. Both times we made minimal changes and ran out of legs after the first quarter.

At least, this time, we can be sure that they won't make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...

Last time we played them was coming back from Perth but was an 8 day break. Our problem against them is when they raise the intensity and their pressure hits peak levels we don't try and slow the game down. The Saints like us are still reasonably young and we need to absorb it when they come at us, not try and run through it like we did last time. You can completely shut a game down at Etihad but we never seem to try and do it against the Saints.
 
Who else is sick of playing down at Geelong? Nearly every year we 'have' to play down there because they need to fill their quota of home games at the ground, yet won't play the big crowd drawing clubs in Geelong? So we get 'forced' to play down there. The fixture is so unfair it's a joke..
 
Until the day every club plays each other twice (home and away) then our entire competition remains a joke.

The big games like Anzanc day should be shared too. The previous years Grand Finalists should earn that right - or at least some other method which gives everyone a chance.
 
I want a 17 round season, even though it's less football I reckon it would be awesome. Every club plays each other home and away over a 2 year period.

In the past I thought it would never happen because of $$. But I think something could be worked out, particularly if the women's league takes off (it has already made a good start).

Would be a gutsy call if it happened. But it would strengthen the competition immensely, IMO.
 
d33my said:
I want a 17 round season, even though it's less football I reckon it would be awesome. Every club plays each other home and away over a 2 year period.

In the past I thought it would never happen because of $$. But I think something could be worked out, particularly if the women's league takes off (it has already made a good start).

Would be a gutsy call if it happened. But it would strengthen the competition immensely, IMO.
Click to expand...
terrible business decision. The other codes would capitalise.
 
Gysberts2Bate said:
terrible business decision. The other codes would capitalise.
Click to expand...

17 rounds could work if they played a state of origin carnival in the 5 weeks we lose provided teams were full strength
People say the dumb argument of 'what if a player gets injured' but that doesn't stop them from playing players in nab cup games or meaningless end of season games

5 teams
Victoria
WA
SA
NSW
Queensland

NSW and Queensland open the carnival for the right to joint the main group then each team plays each other once and the top 2 play off in a final

Doesn't have to be like that but I reckon you could make a lot of money out of those games
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NFL has shown that less is more when it comes to fixturing. You need credibility in your draw.

I'm also an advocate for the splitting the league in 2 model after 17 games, or even the splitting it in 3 model.
 
Topkent said:
17 rounds could work if they played a state of origin carnival in the 5 weeks we lose provided teams were full strength
People say the dumb argument of 'what if a player gets injured' but that doesn't stop them from playing players in nab cup games or meaningless end of season games

5 teams
Victoria
WA
SA
NSW
Queensland

NSW and Queensland open the carnival for the right to joint the main group then each team plays each other once and the top 2 play off in a final

Doesn't have to be like that but I reckon you could make a lot of money out of those games
Click to expand...

Poor Tassie :(

I like this idea, but VIC, SA, WA and All Stars (NSW, QLD, TAS, NT)
 
pjfairbairn said:
NFL has shown that less is more when it comes to fixturing. You need credibility in your draw.

I'm also an advocate for the splitting the league in 2 model after 17 games, or even the splitting it in 3 model.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the 17 and 5 model, and think its just about the only way to go. If its set up in the right way, it should maintain interest and excitement across the competition, rather than tho teams who are out of contention having put the queue in the rack.

This is what I'd go with ...
  • All 3 pools of 6 are locked as of Round 1
  • Top 6 but can shuffle positions with in.
  • Middle 6 battle to take up the last 2 spots in finals
  • Incorporate a Draft Lottery system at the same time, which incentives wins amongst the bottom 6.
 
The fact that other leagues could capitalise if it went to 17 rounds is why it's a gutsy business decision. It would require a strong plan to make up the potential loss of exposure and $. The women's league and state of origin ideas are two examples of some creative thinking that could be applied.

I know why it seems it would never happen but then again under Andy D I would never have imagined a national (albeit fledgling) women's league. In 1980 they would probably never have imagined a twilight grand final (okay hasn't happened yet bit it's on the cards) or a team in West Sydney.

Things change. There are more ways to make money than just pure saturation of the same product.
 
My preference is for a tabular system, similar to the EPL. It would mean reducing the AFL Como to about 14 teams.

State leagues should lead into a playoff for an AFL place or 2 each year.

We should increase the number of rounds to make sure each team plays twice, and have larger lists to cope.

It's a massive change to swallow so I couldn't see any commission having the balls to put it forward, but until each team plays twice, it's a load of s**t.
 
I like the 17-5 model, at the very least every side should play each other before round 17. None of this play Collingwood twice in 8 weeks and then don't play Carlton to round 22.

When was the last time we played Geelong once at the G. Shits me too we have to keep playing them away because the big clubs don't have to play down there
 
State of origin is dead. It doesn't work in AFL, though the carnival idea works better than a once off against an SA or WA. Also AFL is more spread across Australia so in a way you get state of origin every week where Rugby League is is essentially only played in 2 states and the NRL has only 2 teams outside nsw and Queensland. NRL fans see origin as the pinnacle of the sport AFL supporters are more intersted in clubs success. Everybody here would rather Melbourne win the premiership than seeing Victoria win some meaningless carnival. Also I don't think the injuries thing is dumb I would be annoyed if a few Melbourne players got injured a few weeks out from finals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FootyGuy13
Fixture 2024 Fixture Release
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
pjfairbairn
pjfairbairn
Scythe94
Fixture 2023 Fixture
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
lewdogs
lewdogs
Johnny Karate
Simon’s Grousewins 2017-
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
A11dAtP0w3R
A11dAtP0w3R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top