absolutely no problem with SnOZ's, Len's or TiB's responses - I happen to believe we get stronger by talking about possibilities rather than ignoring them. I would be delighted to read another 14 responses to my 'idea' as it would mean the 2014 FIXture Committee had the benefit of the majority view on which to proceed.
You forgot anthak's response. But (as they say in NZ) always fairly safe to assume you are a happy little cow.
More likely a matter of pagination would be my guess. chels tends to read the sports pages first and turns his attention to matters of substance only when someone else is banging on the door wanting to use the dunny.
anthak wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: Edit: this was in response to chels before someone stuck their beak in. As it happens, I agree with the sentiments of said beak. Not hard to agree with the idea...........but the execution? Player management seems to be determined by timing, ladder position and opponent. From memory Ross was saving on airfares to Tassie earlier in the season last year. Geelong seem to do it whenever the opportunity arises throughout the season, usually one or two. A lot of coaches in SC coloured their teams purple on the basis of Freo's easy run home. But they must have known the Lyon factor. My point is, bringing the ORFFA granny forward by one, two or even three rounds is no guarantee that 'player management' will not occur in that chosen round. Additionally, we are discussing an alteration to the fixture to satisfy (possibly) the needs of two teams. What about the other 16? How do they maintain their interest in ORFFA when their season ends prematurely in R21 or R22? And, under the existing setup, a really clever coach could choose his opponent based on how many Freo players they do have, given Ross' reputation. Also, amongst all the outs at Freo, there are also some ins and most of these ins are in ORFFA teams. Two sides to the coin. Fyfe and Drum? I think I agree with you TiB I personally like the idea of using all AFL rounds - except the 3 week bye rounds of course. and on that, in response to this: Lenh191 wrote: The teams play 22 times, one of which is compromised by the 3 weekends bye period. This does give us 21 to play with as chels has suggested some room to see if there is a better way to skin the cat. Over the 3 weeks of byes, teams play 2 games and have 1 bye... meaning there should be 20 rounds we can play with (as I thought was already worked out earlier), if we so choose Correct ant, I forgot about round 1, I just figured I was wrong the first time If we still only have 20 'real' rounds then we have what we have now, or a completely different finals structure, ie a different number of finalists. I don't hate what we have now tbh