2017 Ladder Predictions

[LB#16]

Yes, they aren't in the 8 in reality as it is the off-season, but it is a description I use when talking about changes to the ladder from one year to the next year.

Though I quoted you, it's something I've noticed generally every off season.

 

[Lsta062]

Though I quoted you, it's something I've noticed generally every off season.

Yeah I know it is a general thing many of us do. I guess those of us that do it like to use the previous ladder year as a reference for what we are seeing on the ladder in the current year.

 

[Roovolution]

I agree with that as a possibility. However, there is usually at least 2-3 changes to the top 8 though, so I'll just categorise them according to my opinion at the moment:

Likelihood on teams making the 8 from outside the 8:

Likely: Melbourne and St Kilda

Middle but leaning towards likely: Port Adelaide, Collingwood and Fremantle

Middle but leaning towards unlikely: Richmond, Gold Coast and Essendon

Unlikely: Carlton and Brisbane

Likelihood on teams missing the 8 from inside the 8:

Likely: North Melbourne

Middle but leaning towards likely: Hawthorn, Geelong and Adelaide

Middle but leaning towards unlikely: West Coast and Western Bulldogs

Unlikely: Sydney and GWS

May be strange that I put Adelaide and Geelong as leaning towards likely. Adelaide I feel haven't improved their list in the trade period but only lost depth. As a Richmond supporter, I can tell you what can happen if you don't improve your list when improvement is needed (2015-2016).

Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Geelong lost a bit of experience, and Fremantle 2015-2016 is the example for those three teams.

I think the likelihood of all four missing the top 8 is slim, but individually this is how I rate their likelihood. Having said that, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that 2-3 of them will miss the finals next year.

We lost Lyons by choice and have Hampton (injured last year), Menzel, Wigg, Reilly O'Brien, Milera and a finally healthy Brad Crouch all pushing for a spot. All will see playing time and Id expect several to be regulars by the end of the season. Lever is a 3rd year player, McGovern will be a second year player, Laird is still improving and pushing for AA already, Hartigan had a break out year and is only just scratching the surface, likewise with Charlie Cameron and Matt Crouch has heaps of improvement in him and this is just off the top of my head. Last year we played the second hardest schedule and this year it looks easier. It helps to know what you're talking about.

 

[Mattdougie]

Rubbish. All three are on the up due to their excellent youth. Combine that with sides who made the eight last year dropping, they are every chance to make the 8.

None will make it

 

[Lsta062]

We lost Lyons by choice and have Hampton (injured last year), Menzel, Wigg, Reilly O'Brien, Milera and a finally healthy Brad Crouch all pushing for a spot. All will see playing time and Id expect several to be regulars by the end of the season. Lever is a 3rd year player, McGovern will be a second year player, Laird is still improving and pushing for AA already, Hartigan had a break out year and is only just scratching the surface, likewise with Charlie Cameron and Matt Crouch has heaps of improvement in him and this is just off the top of my head. Last year we played the second hardest schedule and this year it looks easier. It helps to know what you're talking about.

What I see from Adelaide on face value and as a unit is what I am going with. To me, Adelaide is probably the least likely to miss the 8 out of the 4 I mentioned in the "likely" pile, but I just don't think that it is a stretch to say that a team who finished 6th overall despite having the strongest forward line in the competition will fall out of the 8 with not much change to their list. I just don't see Adelaide as a certainty to make the 8 next year.

 

[Mattdougie]

It's a bit strange to me to see teams like North, Geelong and Hawthorn being talked about as if they are "in the eight" when it's the off season so there is no top eight. If St Kilda, Melbourne and Essendon play quality football on a consistent basis, they'll be there. It really does not matter too much what those other teams mentioned are doing. In the same way that the Bulldogs didn't need their opponents to drop to allow them to take a premiership.

Lol Essendon fans forgot they finished last and really aren't that good

Miles off the 8 even with blokes back

 

[Roovolution]

What I see from Adelaide on face value and as a unit is what I am going with. To me, Adelaide is probably the least likely to miss the 8 out of the 4 I mentioned in the "likely" pile, but I just don't think that it is a stretch to say that a team who finished 6th overall despite having the strongest forward line in the competition will fall out of the 8 with not much change to their list. I just don't see Adelaide as a certainty to make the 8 next year.

We finished 5th on equal points with GWS and one game off top spot while playing the second most difficult draw in the comp.

 

[bungee]

I fear the achilles heel for GWS may still be Mumford. The Giants have only ever won five games without the big man. Now, one could argue that indicates that the greater maturity of the team has allowed them to wander further from their Mummy's apron strings (they had no wins without Mummy in 2014) but the handful of games GWS have won without Mummy were all against bottom five teams, and three of those were on their home ground. Hardly convincing stuff.

Wins without Mummy :

2015 Blues (18th), Bombers (15th), Saints (14th) @ Spotless and Suns (16th) @ Metricon
2016 Bombers (18th) @ Etihad

Just how much of the 2016 success of GWS relied on Mummy staying injury free ? In 2016 he only missed one game (after missing an average of 8 games/season previously) and he was huge in the finals (quite literally).

So, for me, the big questions to GWS being successful this year are : Can Mummy avoid injury (at 31 this year) ? If not, are the team sufficiently weaned from Mummy's teats to win big games without him ?

 

[WestCoast05]

Just how much of the 2016 success of GWS relied on Mummy staying injury free ? In 2016 he only missed one game (after missing an average of 8 games/season previously) and he was huge in the finals (quite literally).

So, for me, the big questions to GWS being successful this year are : Can Mummy avoid injury (at 31 this year) ? If not, are the team sufficiently weaned from Mummy's teats to win big games without him ?

We could also add the question "will Mummy continue to be allowed to charge at the opposing ruckmen without actually contesting the ball?"

 

[Lsta062]

We finished 5th on equal points with GWS and one game off top spot while playing the second most difficult draw in the comp.

Richmond finished a half a game out of the top 4 in 2013, and then a game and a bit of percentage out of the top 4 in 2015. Both years we had a close game against Fremantle that if we won could have landed us in the top 4 (we needed a bit of percentage in 2015 too, but not a lot).

Point is, we fell the year after in both years (2014 and 2016) as we failed to improve our squad through trading. So, I am basing my opinion on Adelaide by this. Whether this fall is a fall within the 8 (like post-2013 for us) or whether this fall is out of the 8 (like post-2015 for us), I expect a bit of decline from Adelaide next year.

I could be wrong as what happened to Richmond may not necessarily occur to Adelaide, but I think this is the case for now.

 

[B4Bear]

Ricky, do you think the fixture is even? Or do you acknowledge that at the end year, when you look back - you can see some teams had an easier run than others? I don't think anyone is blaming the fixture but you would have to be blind to not think that it doesn't matter at all.

Here is last year's fixture analysis. Note that Geelong had and equal top 17 games in it's home state in 2016, and had the 10th toughest draw. They had the toughest average rating at home, and the 2nd easiest away. That is a bit of a perfect storm.

Hmm, there are several points that could be made here.....

 

[B4Bear]

I agree with that as a possibility. However, there is usually at least 2-3 changes to the top 8 though, so I'll just categorise them according to my opinion at the moment:

Likelihood on teams making the 8 from outside the 8:

Likely: Melbourne and St Kilda

Middle but leaning towards likely: Port Adelaide, Collingwood and Fremantle

Middle but leaning towards unlikely: Richmond, Gold Coast and Essendon

Unlikely: Carlton and Brisbane

Likelihood on teams missing the 8 from inside the 8:

Likely: North Melbourne

Middle but leaning towards likely: Hawthorn, Geelong and Adelaide

Middle but leaning towards unlikely: West Coast and Western Bulldogs

Unlikely: Sydney and GWS

May be strange that I put Adelaide and Geelong as leaning towards likely. Adelaide I feel haven't improved their list in the trade period but only lost depth. As a Richmond supporter, I can tell you what can happen if you don't improve your list when improvement is needed (2015-2016).

Hawthorn, North Melbourne and Geelong lost a bit of experience, and Fremantle 2015-2016 is the example for those three teams.

I think the likelihood of all four missing the top 8 is slim, but individually this is how I rate their likelihood. Having said that, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that 2-3 of them will miss the finals next year.

Excellent points. At least you have a consistent methodology beyond: They are shit.

FWIW I think I agree with your assessment.

 

[baldandbroke]

Hmm, there are several points that could be made here.....

Yep, North had it tough last year fixture wise, no matter which way you slice it

That should be a warning to people completely writing off a team like North for 2017 ... of course when you change a team's core as much as North have over this off-season, it is always going to be a bit of a suck-it-and-see for 2017 with the Roos.

 

[LB#16]

Lol Essendon fans forgot they finished last and really aren't that good

Miles off the 8 even with blokes back

You're conveniently forgetting they won three games with just their young blokes and a few members of dad's army. "Really aren't that good" and yet some returning players are no longer best 22 because of the emergence of Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Parish, Laverde and Langford. This team is deep. You're also forgetting just how determined the returning blokes will be after itching to play footy all year.

I can tell you don't watch them because there isn't even an argument there, just an opinion. No reasons as to why they won't make it. Try watching them before commenting.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Considering Geelong dropped three games to non-finals teams and still finished top 2 I think the 2016 fixture argument is irrelevant for Geelong.

Spot on, I think mentioning the draw leads to a lazy and inaccurate analysis of Geelong's season.

 

[Mattdougie]

You're conveniently forgetting they won three games with just their young blokes and a few members of dad's army. "Really aren't that good" and yet some returning players are no longer best 22 because of the emergence of Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Parish, Laverde and Langford. This team is deep. You're also forgetting just how determined the returning blokes will be after itching to play footy all year.

I can tell you don't watch them because there isn't even an argument there, just an opinion. No reasons as to why they won't make it. Try watching them before commenting.

Your over rating blokes and clearly biased. This team is deep?? Lol please stop taking crap.

The players that are returning may be determined but haven't kicked a footy in a real game in over 12 months so will take time to get back.

You won 3 games without them you will win around 7-8 with them.

I have watched them and they were ok but I simply don't rate your list and think your an average team at best.

But hey who am I to question your clearly blind bias with an opposing opinion

 

[baldandbroke]

Spot on, I think mentioning the draw leads to a lazy and inaccurate analysis of Geelong's season.

I think ignoring the fixture leads to a lazy and inaccurate analysis of any team.

 

[LB#16]

Your over rating blokes and clearly biased. This team is deep?? Lol please stop taking crap.

The players that are returning may be determined but haven't kicked a footy in a real game in over 12 months so will take time to get back.

You won 3 games without them you will win around 7-8 with them.

I have watched them and they were ok but I simply don't rate your list and think your an average team at best.

But hey who am I to question your clearly blind bias with an opposing opinion

7-8 wins with them back? An extra 4 wins with 10 players back? It almost sounds like you're determined to write them off. Funny that.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

I think ignoring the fixture leads to a lazy and inaccurate analysis of any team.

Have you noticed I haven't been speaking generally about the fixture, just the fixture relating to Geelong?

In some cases the fixture is relevant to final finishing position. In Geelong's case it wasn't.
Pretty straightforward.

 

[Mattdougie]

7-8 wins with them back? An extra 4 wins with 10 players back? It almost sounds like you're determined to write them off. Funny that.

And it's clear you are dreaming. Funny that

 

[LB#16]

And it's clear you are dreaming. Funny that

-Good coach
-unearthed solid players in Tippa, Hartley as well as good depth players in Dea and Kelly
-drafted Parish, Francis, McGrath who will all play a lot of games in 2017.
-experienced players, the same ones who gave Essendon a finals appearance just two years ago.
-players have been itching to play since January. They will be determined, like they were in 2013 when they had 14 wins.

I think it's you who is delusional in writing this side off. They're not ready for contending yet but average? Spare me.

 

[JayJ20]

No doubt Essendon have some talent but it might take some time to gel and all come together. Could still struggle a fair bit next year before making a decent run up the ladder in 2018 for mine.

See that is reasonable. No doubt. If it even takes a new coach at least half a season to adjust, then what about 10 players (of which 5-6 are best 22)? It will take a while. Plus, we'll have to face off against the likes of Melbourne, Fremantle, Port and St Kilda to make it, so we're up against it.

But to say "Essendon will be bad because they were bad before the ban" while using the past two years as reference, despite those years having no previous example that is similar to it, is very very lazy.

 

[baldandbroke]

Have you noticed I haven't been speaking generally about the fixture, just the fixture relating to Geelong? In some cases the fixture is relevant to final finishing position. In Geelong's case it wasn't.
Pretty straightforward.

Did you notice I said "any team", that includes Geelong. It doesn't have to be a major consideration, but you surely agree it needs to be in the mix? I understand what you are saying ... that for Geelong it didn't have any effect last year regarding who you played twice ... I just disagree with that stance.

In 2016 Geelong played these teams twice for 9 wins / 1 loss:

• Adelaide - 2 wins
• Western Bulldogs - 2 wins
• Greater Western Sydney - 1 win (home) / 1 loss (away)
• *Essendon - 2 wins (+90 points)
• *Brisbane - 2 wins (+134 points)

In 2016 Adelaide played these teams twice for 6 wins / 4 losses:

• Geelong - 2 losses
  
• West Coast - 1 win (away) / 1 loss (home)
• *Fremantle - 2 wins (+105 points)
• North Melbourne- 1 win (home) / 1 loss (away)
• Port Adelaide - 2 wins

* indicate bottom 4 teams

I personally think that is a pretty good return for your double-ups ... had the fixture fallen differently for you, that may have changed. Some teams matchup better than others (Cats vs Crows for instance )... there are things like form, injuries, reports, travel for each team that all make up the toughness of the fixture. For all of those reasons ... Geelong had an easier run in 2016 than most other teams. That's all. I am not saying that Geelong will have a much tougher run this year than last year because they finished 3rd - but it would be very lucky for you to get the run you got in 2016 in 2017. So, that has to be a small negative for the coming season ... it might not change too many game results - but even if it changes one, that could be crucial.

I've got Geelong in the 5th - 8th bracket, Adelaide in the top 4 ... and as I have said previously, only a very small amount of that prediction is attributed to the fixture. Changes in personnel and a guess on the progression of existing players and coaches is most of it. Last year about the only thing I got right was Bulldogs top - and they really got that from a once in a lifetime finals run, so what would I know anyway

My horrible guesses are:

Greater Western Sydney - top 4
Western Bulldogs

- top 4
Adelaide

- top 4
Sydney - top 4
---------------------------------
Geelong -

5 to 8
West Coast - 5 to 8
St Kilda

- 5 to 8
Gold Coast -

5 to 8
---------------------------------
Hawthorn -

9 to 12
North Melbourne -

9 to 12
Melbourne - 9 to 12
Essendon -

9 to 12
---------------------------------
Collingwood -

bottom 6
Port Adelaide -

bottom 6
Fremantle - bottom 6
Carlton - bottom 6
Richmond - bottom 6
Brisbane Lions - bottom 6

 

[Milux]

I'll do another one:

1. GWS
2. West Coast
3. Western Bulldogs
4. Sydney
5. Melbourne
6. Richmond
7. Adelaide
8. St Kilda
------------------------
9. Gold Coast
10. Essendon
11. Hawthorn
12. Fremantle
13. Geelong
14. Collingwood
15. North Melbourne
16. Brisbane
17. Carlton
18. Port Adelaide

It's hard to tell without seeing them play at least a couple of preseason matches.

Yes please. Picks 1 and 3 for the lions. And we didnt even happen to finish last.

 

[RePete]

Essendon were bad before the ban, they will be bad after.