Our AFL experts tackle some of the burning questions ahead of Round 14, including whether Thursday night footy is dead, if North deserves a priority pick, and if he league's illicit drug policy is fit for purpose.
Is Thursday night football worth persisting with in winter?
Rohan Connolly: Probably not, and certainly not during the bye rounds, in my view. Did we really need six games spread across five days in the round just completed? And nothing emphasises more the tipping of the balance between live and TV audiences completely in favour of the broadcasters than this sort of scheduling. I think that sends a really poor message to the fan base, that loyalty and the enthusiasm to actually turn up to games doesn't matter enough.
Jake Michaels: I love Thursday night football and would take a game in that slot every single round. Not only does it spread the games out (yes, I'm sick of the Saturday overlap) but it somewhat shortens the week, giving us footy heads something to look forward to ahead of the traditional weekend games. I understand Thursday night crowds mightn't be where the AFL would like them, but the same could probably be said for crowd numbers across the board in 2022.
Matt Walsh: I think Thursday night footy has a place during March and April, but as soon as you're playing school nights on freezing June, July or August evenings, it's hard to attract people to the ground. Just 21,000 showed up to watch Richmond take on Port Adelaide in what really was a crucial clash for both clubs. Having said that, I'm sure Channel 7 love it - more eyeballs on television sets, because that's what matters most, right?
Jarryd Barca: There was never really an issue with Thursday night games before this season's attendance demise, was there? It's way too commercially important for the AFL to scrap, but I still love the idea of Thursday night footy every week, and I think the current concern is resolved when footy fans suck it up and get back to supporting their team through rain, hail or shine like they used to. Seeing just over 21,000 at the MCG last week was incredibly disappointing for such a crucial game. I mean, seriously, Richmond folk, "In any weather you will see us with a grin", but as long as it isn't a cold Thursday in June... as Jake said, I don't think this is a Thursday-specific problem.
Does the AFL's illicit drug policy need rethinking?
RC: I'll say the same of myself as I do of those scores of football officials, coaches and media people with a view on this, that unless we have expertise and qualifications in the fields of physical and mental health, our views should be taken with a grain of salt. We tend to focus on the loopholes and the cases that slip between the cracks rather than the bigger picture with this stuff. I also think those advocating more of a "big stick" approach overlook the fact drug use is so often tied up with mental health issues. And to that end, the anonymity is absolutely critical. I don't care how well-meaning clubs are, they simply cannot have the same informed take on how illicit drug use in the game should be handled a trained health professionals.
JM: Come on, guys. What does illicit mean? Do we really need to be arguing this one? If anything, I'd say the AFL needs to introduce stricter measures and punishments for players caught using illicit drugs. As a professional athlete you have responsibilities, and obeying the illicit drug policy is one. It's really not that difficult...
MW: I almost can't believe I agree with Luke Beveridge - what does it really achieve? It shines an unnecessary light on players personal lives - and, potentially, their struggles. Obviously performance-enhancing drugs are a different kettle of fish, and while engaging in recreational drugs it not ideal nor behaviour anyone should endorse, I would think privately supporting a player instead of threatening 'strikes' and eventual bans is probably better for everyone involved. Help the player first - don't villainise them.
JB: I'm caught in between two minds here, because a player's personal life and choices off the field is none of my business and nor should it be -- and I understand the severity of a mental health illness -- but in the end they're grown men and need to be held to account for their choices. The current policy has too many loopholes that get exploited, so I'm all for a refined implementation that punishes those who take substances regardless of whether they've been outed on social media or not, all while ensuring the necessary education around the issue is still being supplied, which to me is the most important thing.
Is it time to consider giving North Melbourne a priority pick?
RC: As a rule, I'm very anti discretionary draft help, as there's in my view already enough mechanisms in the game to help struggling clubs, and there shouldn't be a reward of sorts of inadequate list management and performance. I don't like the arbitrary nature of such decisions, either, and the secrecy surrounding them. That said, in this current system, Brisbane (in 2016) and Gold Coast (2019) have both been given priority picks after winning only seven of 44 games (16 per cent) over two seasons. North has won three of 17 in 2020, and 4.5 of 22 last year (19 per cent). Even another two wins from here would still give them just 10.5 from 61 games (17 per cent). Over that long a period, I think it's enough to justify it.
JM: While I do think we need to start considering it, I still feel the Kangaroos are at least another year of misery away from receiving one. Recent results are for grim reading, with losing margins of 68, 60, 50, 78, 69, 47, 53, 62 and 49 points from their past nine outings, but one could make the argument North Melbourne's still not the worst side in the competition. Not only that but it was only three years ago the club won 10 games, following up from 2018's 12 win season. I just don't think we should make a habit of handing priority picks out after a couple of poor years.
MW: No, and I'm sick of this question. They're playing a brand of footy which is daring and, without the right players, sometimes reckless - and they're getting belted. Other teams that have undertaken tough rebuilds leant towards making their clashes as defensive and dour as possible to minimise scoreboard damage, and they weren't given priority picks. It doesn't help that the club's No. 1 draft pick is looking disinterested (but we won't hold it against him yet - he's 18!) and the veterans are struggling to make an impact. It's going to be a tough few years.
JB: North's form over the past three seasons (eight wins from 54 matches) probably does warrant one and aligns with the output of recent Carlton, Brisbane and Gold Coast sides who have at least requested AFL assistance, so on past precedent, the club is well within their rights to ask for one, I just hope they don't qualify because I'd rather clubs be responsible for their own list decisions and I'm not a fan of rewarding mediocrity. They got themselves in this mess, they can get themselves out of it.
Which side currently outside the top eight has the best shot of making finals?
RC: Richmond for me. I think the Tigers' best is still considerably better than the best of the other contenders outside the eight, and so is their form, for that matter, having won five of the last six and losing the other by just a kick to the Swans. Their run home is pretty handy, too, six of the last 10 games at the MCG, and only four of them against current top eight teams. There's plenty of improvement left, also, in some of their biggest names. I'm pretty confident they'll be playing finals
JM: Richmond's probably the best bet here, but I reckon they need to at least split the next two games, against Carlton and Geelong, respectively. Damien Hardwick's side currently sits in ninth with a pretty healthy percentage of 117.5. They do have some tough games in the run home, most notably Brisbane and Fremantle -- although it's worth nothing both of those games are at the MCG -- but clashes against West Coast, Gold Coast, North Melbourne, Hawthorn and Essendon should have them around the mark come season's end.
MW: Looking at the fixtures for teams in the hunt, could it be the Gold Coast Suns? I thought maybe the Bulldogs, but they've been flaky this season and have some challenging fixtures ahead, so aside from maybe Richmond and the Dogs, the Suns have a decent path to 13 wins and a possible (probable?!) first finals berth.
JB: It has to be Richmond, I had them making finals at the start of the year so have an obligation to back that in, but on merit they play six matches against teams below them on the ladder and should at a minimum finish on 13 wins, and that's not including clashes against the Blues and Cats at the MCG which they would no doubt fancy themselves in. Plus, I think they can do more damage in September than some sides currently situated in the eight. The Dogs will need to take too many scalps from here, and although the Suns have a favourable run home, I still can't trust them and fear a late-season collapse is inevitable (would love to eat my words, though!).