Those titans of inner-city Melbourne football, Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond, have had some epic struggles over the years, but their latest contest is one no-one wants to win.
It's the injury count, and right now it's the Tigers out in front with the Pies and Blues neck and neck, or should that be strained hamstring, behind them. Richmond had no fewer than 18 players on the AFL's weekly injury list this week, Collingwood and Carlton both 14.
The Tigers have missed out on a total of 101 games from their senior list through injury in just 10 rounds in 2024. Just five players have managed to play in every game.
Still just under halfway through the home and away rounds, the 2024 AFL season is turning into more of an endurance test than ever, the danger that this year's premiership may be won by the "least injured" team rather than the best. It's compromising the competitiveness of some sides, and arguably diluting the standard of footy across the board.
What do we do about it, though? That's where the web becomes rather tangled, depending upon which interest group you are representing.
Collingwood coach Craig McRae waded into the debate during the week, raising the idea of shorter games, similar in length to those played during the height of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. "If you want my opinion, I just feel like the game itself, we're asking a lot of our players," McRae said on radio station SEN. "Is the game too long?
"We're playing off five and six-day breaks, our players are doing that weekly, and it's not just us, it's every team. Then there's a flow-on effect of fatigue, and the game has never been more powerful and physical in my eyes."
Collingwood has been hit harder than most. It seems far more than coincidence the Pies are battling more injuries than most of their rivals given their involvement in the season proper until Grand Final day last year left them with a shorter preparation in a lead-up to a new season, which also began earlier than ever.
Former Sydney, Western Bulldogs, and Gold Coast coach Rodney Eade has been particularly vocal on the Footyology podcast about the short pre-season and clubs trying to cram their fitness work into a shorter window being mainly responsible for the injury plague.
Rodney Eade considers what alternatives the AFL could explore to better protect players from the league's injury epidemic.
The introduction of "Gather Round" last year gave us a 24-round season. The addition this year of "Opening Round" has effectively made that 25 rounds. The season is growing longer almost by stealth. But at what cost? McRae is one who believes shorter game times may help avert so many soft tissue injuries.
"In hub life we played less time and I don't think the game was any less of a product," he said. "We were having five and six-day breaks regularly. We're going into our third six-day break in a row, there is a fatigue level."
Sounds reasonable enough. But it's also starting to ring some alarm bells for me. Because it taps into the fragile and often contradictory nexus between health and safety, the look of the game, and commercial imperatives.
It's pretty obvious why the AFL wants to squeeze as many games as it possibly can into the course of a season. More football equals more opportunities to maximise revenue. But what if players' bodies simply can't accept even the slightly greater level of strain they are now being placed under?
And what if that strain is being induced because of measures the AFL itself introduced in order to make the product more aesthetically pleasing?
Remember those debates we were having before the interchange cap was introduced a decade ago about the impact of limiting the opportunities for player respite during games, not only in terms of how the game looked, but the potential injury toll?
We're not having quite so many debates these days about the state of the game, and endless talk about the unintended consequences of rule changes. I think that has a fair bit to do with the cumulative impact of things like the six-six-six and "stand" rules, which have helped at least free up ball movement, if not increase scoring.
But perhaps even those relatively minor tweaks got us to a precipice of physical tolerance on player bodies. And that even one added imposition -- and that appears to have come with the five-day breaks and more six-day breaks now part of the fixture in order to give us more Thursday night football -- has been something of a tipping point?
Will shorter games actually help solve the problem? Or would they, because less fatigue meant greater intensity for shorter duration, actually increase further the risk of injury?
These are difficult questions to answer. They need to be investigated carefully, methodically, and with plenty of statistical data to back up the contentions. I'd certainly prefer that course to endless rule tweaks to counter the impact of previous changes.
The obvious problem with that, however, is how much time we have to do so. Because the way AFL players are breaking down left, right and centre right now, you have to wonder if some clubs are going to have enough fit players left come the end of the season to even field teams, let alone stay competitive when it counts.
You can read more of Rohan Connolly's work at FOOTYOLOGY.