Monday, December 4, 2023

AFLW Rankings: Finals 2023


The Brisbane Lions have won their second AFLW premiership (from their fifth Grand Final), and despite finishing fourth after the home-and-away season, it wasn’t much of a surprise. The top four teams – Adelaide, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Brisbane – were all rated similarly heading into the finals, and in line with this we saw a few close finishes in games during the finals series. There were some surprises along the way though.

First, Brisbane kicked seven goals in the Grand Final against North Melbourne from only 21 entries inside 50. The Roos’ defence had been stellar during the 2023 season, conceding less than four goals per game, and being the only team to concede less points per game than inside 50s (see Statistics table above). The Lions were seemingly well-beaten in the midfield, with 13 less inside 50s and 18 less clearances. But they found ways to stop the repeated entries into their defence, amassing 109 tackles (over 30 more than the Roos, and the Lions’ season average), and to score from their limited opportunities going forward.

In the end the Lions don’t quite finish the season as the top team on the rankings, but they are certainly one of the best teams in the competition. Like Adelaide and North Melbourne – and Melbourne until recently, more on which below – they were clearly stronger across the board than most of the league. A few unexpected losses to lower teams meant they had to do it a slightly harder way in the finals by beating Adelaide and North Melbourne away, but there would not have been many who thought they didn’t have the credentials to give it a good shake at least.

The main surprises of the finals series though were the significant changes in form of Melbourne and Geelong. Reigning premiers Melbourne had been a scoring machine during the 2023 season but could manage only nine points in their first final against North Melbourne. The Demons then faced Geelong the next week and kicked only one goal and trailed by 30 points at three quarter-time. They finally recaptured their offensive power in the final quarter by piling on five goals, but ultimately lost by five points.

After knocking off the reigning premiers, Geelong continued their impressive form by coming close to beating Brisbane at home. They lost by only four points, although like Brisbane in the Grand Final, they were helped by their scoring efficiency when inside 50. The end result is that Melbourne slipped away from Brisbane, North, and Adelaide in the rankings, and were replaced in the top four by the Cats. While it’s a little strange to see Melbourne end up there after being so dominant during the season, based on their finals form it’s hard to argue.

Sunday, November 5, 2023

AFLW Rankings: Round 10 2023


It’s been fairly clear to most serious AFLW followers from early on this season that there are four top teams, and then the ‘rest’: Adelaide, Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Brisbane. None of these would be a surprise to win the premiership. In a close finals series, the results may to a significant extent come down to home ground advantage.

Rankings finals predictions:

Elimination Finals: Gold Coast defeat Sydney, Geelong defeat Essendon

Qualifying Finals: Adelaide defeat Brisbane, Melbourne defeat North Melbourne

Semi-Finals: Brisbane defeat Gold Coast, North Melbourne defeat Geelong

Preliminary Finals: Adelaide defeat North Melbourne, Melbourne defeat Brisbane

Grand Final: Adelaide defeat Melbourne (barely)

Sunday, October 8, 2023

AFLW Rankings: Round 6 2023


The Crows halt Melbourne

In an AFLW classic, the Adelaide Crows surprised with an away win against reigning premiers and previous league ladder leaders Melbourne on the weekend. While the Crows are themselves one of the top-rated sides, Melbourne had looked a step ahead of even the best teams with their awesome offensive prowess, averaging over two more goals per game than even the Crows heading into the matchup.

Adelaide couldn’t quite stop Melbourne’s forward firepower – the Demons still scored on 40 per cent of their inside 50 entries, which is still pretty good for any team not wearing red and blue. They couldn’t also stop Eden Zanker, who kicked five goals to bring Melbourne back into the match in the final half hour.

What Adelaide did reduce though was Melbourne’s inside 50 entries and particularly their flow of uncontested possessions. The Demons had just 88 uncontested possessions against the Crows, way down on the 153 per game they had been averaging beforehand this season. That brought down Melbourne’s supply of scoring opportunities, with only 28 inside 50s, about ten down on what they had been averaging.

The Crows meanwhile were able to mostly maintain both their uncontested game and forward supply. They racked up 139 uncontested possessions and 38 inside 50 entries – a little down on their averages so far this season, but very respectable against the toughest opposition in the league on their home turf.

Going Noff

A major part of the Crows’ win were the amazing performances of their midfield engine room of Ebony Marinoff and Anne Hatchard. Between them Marinoff and Hatchard had 60 disposals, 19 tackles, and 4 goals, which proved decisive in the win.

Marinoff in particular has become more of a forward threat this season. She has averaged seven inside 50 entries per game this season, after never averaging more than five per game in her previous six seasons.

Indeed, Marinoff would be clearly considered the most damaging midfielder in the game – if it wasn’t for a certain #25 at North Melbourne. Jasmine Garner has averaged over eight inside 50 entries per game, and is the only player to be ahead of Marinoff this season for inside 50s and metres gained (see below). Both are also in the top ten for score involvements. The main difference is that Garner is a clearance/contested possession machine, while Marinoff remains outstanding in terms of her tackles (though both are near the top of either statistic).

Either way, Marinoff and Garner are the main driving forces behind the league’s top two teams on the ladder at the moment. They’ll face off against each other in three weeks time, in a matchup that may be crucial for shaping the top four this season.

Saturday, September 30, 2023

AFL Rankings: Finals 2023


Collingwood won the 2023 AFL Grand Final over Brisbane, as I predicted at the start of the finals series. As I also predicted however, it easily could have gone another way, as the Magpies won their three finals by a combined 12 points.

In their first final Collingwood were well-beaten for forward entries as Melbourne had 32 more inside 50s (37-69), but benefitted from the Demons’ inefficiency in converting their entries to scores. Their second final with GWS was a more even affair, with the Magpies clearly winning the clearances (44-26) and GWS clearly winning the contested ball everywhere else (140-154), but with the other main statistics being relatively even. The Grand Final was almost a reverse of the Magpies’ first final as they had 14 more inside 50 entries than the Lions (57-43), but with inaccuracy in front of goal almost costing them the ultimate prize – they got there though.

Indeed, since their 2018 preliminary final, Collingwood has been in a bunch of close finals: losing by 5 points, winning by 10, losing by 4, winning by 1, losing by 68, losing by 6, losing by 1, winning by 7, winning by 1, and winning by 4. If things had gone a little less their way, they may have had no premierships over that period, but if things had gone a little more their way maybe they would have four? Although the Magpies have never been clearly the best team in any of those years (not even this one); their breakthrough is more a testament of giving yourself enough repeat opportunities in the finals that eventually you go all the way.

Collingwood in fact did not really stand out in any main area this season. They were sixth for average inside 50 differential per game, and tenth for average contested possession differential. Their defence stood up well against the barrage of Demon forward entries in their first final, but they didn’t stand out in stopping opposition scoring shots per inside 50 across the whole season. They were just solid in enough areas to compete in a season that there wasn’t a stand-out team in, and they had the close games go their way. There was a decent chance that whoever won the premiership this season was going to have that story though – in the end, someone had to win.

It made for an intriguing finals series in any case, compared with the past two seasons in which Geelong and Melbourne steamrolled their way through the final weeks. Comparisons are already being made between this season and 1993, which is so fondly remembered now that it had its own podcast series. At least Collingwood have now given their living supporters some more joy, for all the finals and Grand Finals they have made over the past 60 or so years.

Sunday, September 17, 2023

AFLW Rankings: Round 3 2023



Reigning premiers Melbourne have been an offensive juggernaut so far this season:

- They have amassed 255 points at an average of 85 points per game. This is almost 20 points per game more than the next highest team (Brisbane), and more than double the points of twelve of the seventeen other sides.

- They have 0.57 scoring shots per inside 50 entry so far this season. This is 13 percentage points better than the next highest AFLW team (see table below), and 10 percentage points better than even the highest AFL men’s teams.

- They have taken 46 marks inside 50, which equates to 0.37 marks per inside 50 entry. That is 10 percentage points higher than both the next best AFLW team Adelaide (0.27), and the highest AFL men’s team.

The Demons may have the most formidable forward line in AFLW history. They have two of the top three highest goalkickers in AFLW history with Kate Hore and Tayla Harris, who are both also in the all-time top 10 for goal assists. They have two other capable forward targets in Eden Zanker and Alyssa Bannan. They’ve got great attacking midfielders in Paxy, Tyla Hanks, and Olivia Purcell. The Demons lost Daisy Pearce to retirement and haven’t missed a beat.

The main question around Melbourne’s performance this season is whether their forward line can stay at this ‘off-the-charts’ level. They’ve yet to play Brisbane, Adelaide, or North Melbourne so far this season, all of whom they will play in the remaining rounds. But they’re currently so good on offence that even a reversion back to more ‘normal’ levels would still stand them in great stead for a tilt at back-to-back flags.

Monday, August 28, 2023

AFL Rankings: Round 24 2023


So here we are at the end of the longest ‘home-and-away’ AFL season ever, and there probably still aren’t too many people outside of the most ‘one-eyed’ supporters who have a clear favourite to win the premiership from here. The top four teams have shown mixed form in recent weeks, while the team that looks to be the most in-form – the GWS Giants – had to win in the final match to even qualify for the finals in the first place.

In any case, let’s have a go at predicting again how the finals will play out, using the current rankings and estimated home ground advantage. Note here that most of these match-ups would be expected to be very close, and I’m not picking the winners with much confidence. Nevertheless, here’s the ‘head-to-head’ outcomes of how the rankings have the finals playing out.

Collingwood is the predicted Grand Final winner, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground over Brisbane. I’d also say however there’s not much less than a one-in-four chance the Magpies go out of the finals in ‘straight sets’. Still they finished on top of the ladder, and almost on top of the rankings, so they seem to have about as good a chance as anyone.

However, Collingwood was helped a bit this season by their opposition being inaccurate in front of goal. There’s a fair case to be made that the two strongest sides in the home-and-away season may have been Brisbane and Melbourne. Both have better differentials for scoring shots, inside 50s, ‘net possession chains’, and contested possessions than Collingwood (see table below). A slightly different rankings system could well have them as the two ‘best’ teams going into the finals – although the Pies and Demons do still have the advantage over the Lions that the Grand Final will be played in Melbourne no matter what happens.

Sunday, August 20, 2023

AFL Rankings: Round 23 2023


A surprising battle for the eighth finals spot

Suddenly, unexpectedly, modern-day rivals GWS and the Western Bulldogs are fighting it out for the last AFL finals spot this season. Just a couple of weeks ago the Bulldogs were considerably more favoured than the Giants to get a spot in the final eight. The Dogs had a big advantage in terms of percentage, and were playing two of the bottom three teams on the ladder – Hawthorn and West Coast – in the next two rounds. Geelong in the final round presented a tougher match-up for the Bulldogs, but they still were widely considered a better chance of beating the Cats than the Giants were of winning on the road against a red-hot Carlton side.

Well, no more. The Bulldogs’ shock loss to West Coast on the weekend – possibly the most unexpected loss of the season – puts them now one win behind GWS, and no longer ‘in control of their own finals destiny’ (I mean, they still have control if GWS lose). Even more, GWS look a good deal more formidable than they did a week ago. The Giants kicked their highest-ever score on their way to a massive 126-point win against Essendon, which has them now as the fifth highest-rated side on the rankings heading into the final round.

If GWS beat Carlton next week they are into the finals. The rankings give them a 40 per cent chance of doing so, whereas it would have been about 30 per cent a week ago. But even if they lose they can still make it if the Bulldogs lose as well. The Dogs are given a 36 per cent chance of beating Geelong. Putting that together gives GWS roughly a 78 per chance of grabbing the last finals spot, and the Bulldogs a 22 per cent chance.

Of the two teams, given recent form/competitiveness, the Giants would be the more ‘interesting’ team to see in the finals. Still, if the Dogs can get there in the final round they’ll have (somewhat) ‘earned’ it, and we know from recent history what damage they can do from the bottom reaches of the eight.  

Locked in

The Bulldogs’ loss means that St. Kilda and Sydney are locked into the finals, as is Carlton after their win on the weekend. Credit to the Saints for making it and their performance against Geelong to clinch a spot – and they have been in the top eight all season – but it would be surprising if they got past the second week. The Swans’ season basically improved significantly after their massive 171-point win against the Eagles in Round 15, and while they have had some narrow – and controversial – wins in recent weeks, they look slightly better-placed to go further.

Carlton seem to be the most dangerous of the three teams after nine straight wins – although again, a couple of those have been narrow. Their defence has improved significantly over the season, and they now rank with St. Kilda and Melbourne in terms of their miserliness in allowing opposition scores when the ball goes inside their back 50. Unlike those two teams however, the Blues are also relatively decent at scoring when the ball gores into their own forward 50. They rank highly for clearance and contested possession differential, which in theory, should stand them in good stead for the ‘pressure cooker’ of finals.

Really, the Blues’ main weakness is they are not going to finish in the top four. So while they can probably match it with any team, they are going to have to win another four matches in a row – and against good opposition – to ultimately win the premiership. That’s hard, and unlikely – although really, any premiership is ‘unlikely’ for any one specific team – but after ten years out of the finals, Carlton fans may be content just to get any finals wins back under their belt.

Friday, August 18, 2023

(Way Too Many Thoughts) On the Selection and Revision of the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century

As part of the VFL/AFL’s 100th season celebrations in 1996, a Team Of The Century was selected and announced. While the team is in part now an historical artifact, it still to some extent shapes comparisons between the great players, and serves as a benchmark for discussing new stars. For example, when there are discussions about whether Matthew Scarlett is the best full-back of all-time, the main reference point for comparison is usually Stephen Silvagni, who was often referred to as ‘Full-back Of The Century’ after he was named in the side.

But how much are those reference points actually historical ‘accidents’, determined by the Team selection process itself? As I’ll get into below, Silvagni probably wasn’t even the first choice of the selection panel. There were rules and limitations around the selection process – how much did that affect the final outcome?

My conclusion: a little. I think the majority of the team had a reasonably strong ‘consensus’, but there may have been some ‘quirks’ in a few of the positions.

(P.S. – If at any point your response is “How can they be compared? No-one saw them all play”, just stop reading; this type of sports discussion isn’t for you.)

The Team Of The Century – and the rule that got Silvagni selected

Alright, first let’s re-cap who was selected:

 

Now here’s the main point to note. Also as part of the 1996 celebrations the Australian Football Hall of Fame was established with an initial set of 136 inductees. To be eligible for selection in the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century, a player had to be in that initial Australian Football Hall of Fame class (and actually played in the VFL/AFL of course, so no Barrie Robran or Merv McIntosh), unless they were not yet eligible to be in the Hall of Fame – i.e. present-day players and recent retirees. (That initial Hall of Fame class also had selection boundaries, with 30 players each from the three periods of 1901-1930, 1931-1960, and 1961-1995, and some from pre-1901).

As selection panel member Allen Aylett recounted years later, this rule played a large part in Silvagni being selected into the team. Aylett’s view is that the panel preferred either David Dench or Geoff Southby, but neither were eligible to be selected as they only made the Hall Of Fame a few years later. Now you could argue that if they were not in the 100-odd initial inductees maybe they shouldn’t be in the ‘greatest ever’ team of 21, but it sounds like they were the preferred candidates of the panel in any case. (Also, to get in the Hall of Fame, they weren’t competing for 100-odd spots against players from all eras, they were competing for the 30 spots allocated to players from 1961-1995.)

Collingwood full-back Jack Regan was eligible and the overwhelming favourite to be selected, but Aylett says the two oldest members of the panel (Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs) who saw Regan play weren’t supportive of him. That is when they started considering Silvagni as a candidate, noting too they would have been short of other options since there were only a few full-backs in the initial Hall of Fame class.

Hence, Carlton’s Silvagni ended up being selected and wound up as the ‘benchmark’ for full-backs ever since, whereas before that barely anyone rated him higher than Regan (at least based on accounts of Regan, as even then not a lot of people would have seen him play) – or even Dench or Southby. Now it is true Silvagni was partway through his career in 1996, and subsequent accomplishments may have seen him considered the ‘greatest’ full-back eventually anyway. But it sounds likely he at least would not have been ‘Full-back Of The Century’ if Dench or Southby had been eligible.  

The nominations

Each of the 18 field positions had three nominations, with the three-man interchange able to be made up of players from any position not in the starting 18.

It is unclear whether the nominations happened first, and the selections were made from those ‘shortlists’, or the selections were made first and nominations filled out around them to build suspense for the announcement. From what Aylett says about the process to find a candidate for the full-back position after Dench and Southby were ruled out, it may well have been the latter.

If the nominations did come first, it is also uncertain whether players could only be considered for ‘one side of the field’ only; i.e. they were up against two other nominations rather than five for pockets, flanks, and wings. I expect that at least some players were up against others for specific roles – one of the back pocket groups is clearly a ‘second ruck’ role, while one of the forward pocket groups looks like a ‘second rover’ role. (I do know what it was for the readers’ vote, which I’ll get to below.)

Anyway, these were the nominations:

The main thing of note in terms of the selection process is that six players were nominated for more than one position: Rantall, Bourke, Reynolds, Ablett Sr, Bartlett, and Matthews. Of particular note is that Ablett Sr wasn’t nominated as a half-forward flank, which is the position he is most associated with, and Reynolds wasn’t nominated as a rover. That means Ablett Sr had to ‘get past’ either Matthews in the forward pocket or Coleman at full-forward to earn a spot in the first 18, both of which were a tall order. And while Reynolds was known to play on the wing or half-forward, he is certainly most well-known as a rover (or ruck rover). In the end, Reynolds was named at half-forward, again suggesting that perhaps the selections came first and the nominations came second.

Nicholls nominated as a back pocket but not a ruck also makes me think the team may have come first. Dempsey was a ruck that was well-known for also playing in the back pocket, and Mueller played on multiple lines, but Nicholls was primarily a ruck who ‘rested’ forward. I expect the panel decided that the two ‘best’ rucks were Farmer and Nicholls, and placed one at ruck and the other in the back pocket – and similarly for Skilton and Bunton in the rover and forward pocket positions.

Another thing of note, which I’ve pointed out above for full-backs, is that some positions were not high on options; for a few of them (backs mostly) if you were in the initial Hall of Fame class you were a good chance of being a Team of The Century nomination.

Conversely, for positions full of ‘stars’ it is noteworthy who wasn’t nominated. In particular Tony Lockett, Jason Dunstall, Peter Hudson, and Gordon Coventry were not nominated at full-forward, so based on that you’d assume the panel rated Coleman and Pratt and even Ablett as being better in that position.

The readers vote

Leading up to the announcement, Herald Sun readers also had a chance to vote from the ‘nominations’ in each position, and name their interchange. I remember ticking the boxes and posting my vote! Here’s the published ‘readers team’:

Noting that the readers were limited by the nominations (so they couldn’t pick Lockett for example), the readers team as a whole was fairly much in line with the panel’s choices. Given that fans picked three full-forwards on field when given a broader range of options in 2014, limiting their options may not have been the worst move.

They agreed with the panel on fifteen of the twenty-one spots: Nicholls, Doull, Whitten, Murray, Bourke, Stewart, Greig, Jesaulenko, Hart, Coleman, Bunton, Farmer, Barassi, Skilton, and Dyer – with Ablett Sr on field rather than the bench. Hence, I’m comfortable in saying there was a fair degree of ‘consensus’ on the Team of The Century – although apart from not being able to pick some players, I reckon there’s a good chance that six players being nominated in multiple positions affected the outcome.

The readers team doesn’t include Leigh Matthews! I repeat, the player that is often considered the greatest footballer ever – Leigh Matthews – was not in the readers’ team, not even on the interchange! What happened?

It’s unclear whether the readers team was decided by who had the most votes, or who had the most votes in that position. I know for sure from filling out the form that there were only three possible candidates in each spot on the field. My guess is that Ablett Sr is in the final ‘readers team’ over Matthews because he got the most ‘ticks’ in that forward pocket spot, and Skilton got the rover position because he had the most ‘ticks’ in that spot. But Matthews could well have got more total votes than either Ablett or Skilton. And if Matthews didn’t get many ‘interchange’ votes, because he was usually picked on field as either the forward pocket or rover, maybe that’s how he missed out there too.

Similarly with Dick Reynolds. Reynolds not only may have his vote split over two positions, they are also – as discussed above – two positions he is not heavily associated with. Greig is far more well-known as a wing than Reynolds, and Bartlett is more well-known as a forward. Reynolds may have been ‘shafted’ in the readers’ team in part because of this.

Though it is worth noting that some of Bartlett’s vote could have been split too with the forward pocket. This suggests that perhaps more people voted for Bartlett relative to Reynolds than they did for Bartlett relative to Bunton, resulting in Bartlett in being named at half-forward on the readers team, and Bunton beating out Aylett for the forward pocket.

Note the readers picked Regan. It feels like the only two people at the time who didn’t think it should be Regan at full-back were Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs.

Finally, the readers picked Charlie Sutton over Bernie Smith. Smith is clearly considered a ‘great’, but this selection seems more lineball the more I think about it. I find it interesting that The Sporting Life unofficial ‘All-Australian’ teams in the late 1940s and early 1950s picked Sutton four times and Smith only once. Smith didn’t even get picked in the year he won the Brownlow! – it was Sutton and Magarey Medal winner John Marriott. Jack Dyer’s book ‘The Greatest’ also left Smith out of the best side from 1947 to 1956 (and picked Sutton as the best back pocket ever). Did having fellow Geelong player Bob Davis on the selection panel help get Smith over the line? Did they want a South Australian representative in the dawn of the national competition? This all suggests at least he wasn’t as ‘out of the box’ in his position as his selection led me to believe.

An ‘alternative truth’ Team Of The Century

Considering the above observations, I propose this ‘alternative truth’ VFL/AFL Team Of The Century, if the selection process had been a touch different.

It is mostly the same as the official team. We ignore the ‘old guys’ on the panel though, and go back to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the time that Regan was the greatest full-back ever, no questions asked. Regan did poll well in the Brownlow, so we’re not just relying on anecdotes here. Now the debate becomes whether Silvagni surpassed Regan after 1996.

We’ll also side with the Herald Sun readers of the time and those Sporting Life selectors, and pick Sutton over Smith.

The half-forward flank situation is murky, due to Ablett Sr not being nominated there, and Bartlett and Reynolds being nominated in multiple positions. I think we can say the readers sided with Bartlett over Reynolds at half-forward. Whether they would have sided with Jesaulenko or Ablett Sr over Bartlett is unclear. But since Bartlett didn’t actually make the official team, let’s put Jesaulenko and Ablett Sr on the half-forward flanks, and give Bartlett a spot on the bench instead. Reynolds stays in the team too, as he made the official team, and I think he may well have got ‘shafted’ by the selection process for the readers team.

Note that if this selection had happened a few years later I reckon Wayne Carey (not even nominated in 1996) would have been picked over Hart at centre half-forward, although that may have depended upon whether Carey was involved in any scandal at the time. So if you want an alternative ‘20th century’ VFL/AFL team, replace Hart with Carey instead.

The 21st century ‘greats’

OK, now since the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century was released, there have been a number of attempts to update it, on the view that it essentially stands as an ‘all-time team’ as much as a 20th century record. For instance, one of the most ‘searchable’ attempts was by the Herald Sun in 2014, where they made four changes.

(Many would argue that it’s best just to start again since the AFL started, but I’ve seen that done plenty of times, and I’m of the view it’s one continuous league.)

Below are some of the more common suggestions I’ve seen for changes to accommodate more recent legends, and what I think of them.

Gavin Wanganeen over Smith or Sutton: I’ve warmed to this one now I’ve found out Smith may not have clearly stood out to his contemporaries as someone extraordinary, while noting that Wanganeen himself picked up five All-Australian selections. Both Smith and Wanganeen won Brownlow Medals from the back pocket, so there isn’t really a strong argument for one or the other on that basis (other than I don’t know how Wanganeen beat Greg Williams in 1993, and Smith had an all-time great acceptance photo). As for Wanganeen v Sutton – Sutton is more revered, though in part because he’s synonymous with one club. Wanganeen looks more like the ideal of a modern defender. I think there’s a decent case to be made for Wanganeen here.

(Corey Enright and Chris Johnson are other recent small defenders that get support, but probably more as mainstays of successful teams – though Enright being ‘twice best-and-fairest’ of a premiership team is a nice argument to have in one’s – ahem – back pocket…)

Silvagni or Scarlett over Regan: This probably wouldn’t even be a discussion if the pre-1996 consensus had survived the Team Of The Century selection. Silvagni was pretty much who he was by the mid-90s. Let the Magpies have this one… (Otherwise, Silvagni v Scarlett is a tough one I reckon. I also think the stats are kind to Dustin Fletcher.)

A ‘true’ defender over Nicholls: Yeah, a second ruck resting in the back pocket is very much a thing of the past. But it’s still enough of the past I’d allow it, particularly because Nicholls is generally regarded as closer in greatness to Farmer than any ‘true’ back pocket is to him. (Bourke moving to the back pocket is a better suggestion than I first appreciated though.)

Luke Hodge or Andrew McLeod over Murray: I think there’s something to this one. Hodge and McLeod had basically the same longevity as Murray. They definitely had more team success, and won two Norm Smith Medals each, although not getting to the Grand Final is hardly Murray’s fault. But even still I think Murray may have a slight edge. He racked up best-and-fairest awards for fun, although in a relatively poor team. Outside of the team though he not only won a Brownlow Medal, he got a truckload of votes in his career – only Skilton had more when he retired. Plus, there’s less doubts over his status as an ‘actual’ defender. At the least, I don’t think either Hodge or McLeod go clearly past him.

Gary Ablett Jr, Chris Judd, Michael Voss, James Hird, Nathan Buckley, any great inside midfielder over Bourke and Greig: The All-Australian team has infamously left out ‘true’ wing players for years to fit more inside midfield stars in, and revisions of the Team Of The Century have sometimes pulled the same thing to fit in the 21st-century midfield stars. Were Ablett Jr, Judd, Voss, etc. better players than Bourke and Greig? Possibly. Were any of them actually wings? Probably not. I don’t think there’s a ‘true’ wing/outside midfielder in the 21st century that is rated as highly as people rated Bourke and Greig. I might accept Adam Goodes, since I’m not sure he even had a position.

Greg Williams over Stewart: I haven’t mentioned Williams much yet, who I ‘kicked out’ of the Team Of The Century above without comment. Williams was great. Three Brownlows beats two though, and the readers didn’t pick Williams back in ’96. (P.S. ‘Diesel’ probably should have had three Brownlows; again, I don’t know how Wanganeen beat him in 1993.)

Carey over Hart: This hurts, but I accept it.

Lance Franklin over Carey: Hmm, it’s tempting…

Lockett or Franklin over Coleman: I get the argument. Lockett has kicked more goals than anyone in VFL/AFL history. Franklin was a marvel to watch, and has kicked the most ‘era-adjusted’ goals ever. Coleman kicked about half their total amounts before his career ended prematurely. But on goals per game, only Hudson is close. Really, the main reason why this is even a debate seems to me simply that John Coleman dislocated his knee. Or maybe that many more people in Australia could tell you who Lockett and Franklin are.

Judd or Voss or Hird or Buckley, etc. over Barassi: This seems a little wrong to consider since Barassi was central to defining the ruck rover position. As much of an icon as he is though, he also seems to be the one that experts – when pressed – admit was just a rung below the game’s greatest on‑ballers. I think from a pure footballing standpoint either Judd or Voss could be considered a better choice, I personally lean towards Judd. Lucky we have a fourth bench spot now, so I can somewhat avoid the ire of any Demon fans reading this.

Ablett Jr over Skilton or Bunton (or Matthews): Man, you could make an argument these are four of the best players ever. Skilton got the rover spot over Bunton in the Team Of The Century. Matthews was a star up forward, and Ablett Jr was very capable there. I think Ablett Jr should be in the starting 18, and I’d bench Bunton who also had by far the shortest VFL/AFL career of the four.

Dustin Martin over Bartlett: I reckon the consensus for best-ever Tiger shifted after Martin won his third Norm Smith Medal in the 2020 Grand Final. Dusty probably gets in over KB now – not that Bartlett actually ever was in the ‘official’ team – and I think there’s a decent case he takes one of the onfield forward spots as a midfielder-forward. Martin, Carey, and Ablett Sr as a half-forward line is the stuff of dreams or nightmares. Jezza is more versatile coming off the bench anyway. (Could Hird be half-forward instead of Martin? Yes that’s definitely a reasonable view, but Martin seems to be at the ‘top of the pyramid’ now. Plus, he’s just cooler than Hird was.)

Anyone over Whitten or Doull: Nope. Although Teddy probably wasn’t anywhere near as much of a pure centre half-back as these exercises make it seem like he was.

Taking my ‘alternative truth’ Team Of The Century as a starting point then, an updated all-time VFL/AFL team could be this – with the benefit of a fourth interchange player like current teams:

That’s not a lot of changes given the passage of about 30 years, but many of the main stars in that time have been inside midfielders or forwards. So unless we’re somewhat ‘cheating’ to get guys like Judd or Buckley on the wings, I think the half-back and centre lines should stay as they are. You might disagree though.

OK that was a bit, but hope it was of interest. Don’t ask me about an all-time All-Australian team; I’m too tired now to even consider how to fit Robran in…