Life Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


titan_uranus last won the day on May 29 2016

titan_uranus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,574 Excellent

About titan_uranus

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

10,497 profile views
  1. This is clearly not close to our best 22. And yet, I still see talent on every line. A sign of the changing times, I suppose. IMO we need Watts to play permanently forward, as we need someone to keep Hurley occupied. Hurley's out of form but I feel like if we let him do what Rance did on Monday and zone off, he'll find that form pretty easily. I like the idea of TMac playing 100% of the game on Daniher. When Daniher rucks, he rucks. When Daniher goes to the bench, TMac does too. TMac is fitter than Daniher (hell, he's fitter than most players his height) and Daniher, though tall, isn't an amazing ruckman. Bellchambers is better for us than Leuenberger as he hasn't played in 18 months and he's also useless. Obviously would be better to have a ruckman in the side but if Pedersen can at least jump into him and make it some sort of contest in the ruck, I can see Pedersen getting amongst it quite easily through the middle of the ground and leaving Bellchambers in his wake speed- and fitness-wise. Jones and Viney appear to be fit. They both owe us after 3 and 5 games respectively of sub-par performances. If they lift, and our midfield gets on top of theirs, we can win this despite the outs. But if Essendon's midfielders are on top, I can see their forward line scoring with ease. I can also see Tyson being the one who is let go on the bench, rather than Harmes (it won't be Salem and I'd have Stretch above both Tyson and Harmes).
  2. I'm just querying the argument that it was obvious, before the season, that we didn't have sufficient ruck depth on our list. Some clubs have more ruckmen than us. Probably more clubs have more rather than fewer. But some seem to have a similar number to us, and some fewer. So I'm just not convinced that it was so obvious, before the season, that we should have had an extra ruckman on our list. It's not, for example, as if we are an outlier in terms of numbers. I certainly think there are arguments for and against it but I don't think it was this obvious, glaring error as some are suggesting. Maybe the question ought to be whether our list is, generally, too short? That our talls/key position players are shorter than other clubs'? So that the problem maybe isn't a lack of ruckmen on the list but, instead, the problem is that players like Weideman, Pedersen and Smith, who nominally appear to be KPFs, are too short and therefore we find ourselves in this position where we can't rely on them to fill the ruck void? But that's a different question and debate to the argument that we should have listed another ruckman like Petrie.
  3. If the general premise is that Tyson is not currently playing very well, I agree. I'm not sure I accept the argument that he's an inherently flawed player as I've seen more than enough from him to suggest he can be a vital part of our midfield moving forward. But right now his kicking is off and he's moving too slowly (both physically, in terms of legspeed, and mentally, in terms of decision-making). Not sure how I feel about calling him "senior". He's 23 and has played 75 games. At this club, that probably makes him "senior", but at any other club it wouldn't I don't think. Tyson has at least begun to kick on his right - he did it on Monday. I can't recall Viney using his right this year. What does "GWS knew which one to let go" mean? They've lost, what, 30 players? Did they "know" to let Treloar, Adams, Boyd, Bruce, Hombsch or Steele go?
  4. It's been said by a few on here but just laying some tackles is not, and cannot be, sufficient at AFL level. I'd back Kennedy, if not Kent, to apply the same level of forward pressure and provide far more to the team outside of that than what JKH offered on the weekend.
  5. McKernan's 196cm (and also awful as a ruckman). No more than a stopgap option. Keeffe is a defender. 200cm but otherwise no more a ruckman than Frost or OMac. Having said that, clearly overlooked Daw and I have no knowledge of Brisbane's list, so there's two clubs with slightly deeper ruck stocks than us. And I'm sure if I went through the rest there would be plenty with more talent than us. The general premise, though, is that I don't think our list is so different to the other 17 clubs' that it could readily be said that we did something stupid with our list management.
  6. We've lost to three teams who have suffered two losses combined through the first five weeks. We've led in the fourth quarter of every game and have the lowest average losing margin of all clubs to have lost a game (14.7). We've won 12 quarters (fifth best in the league, the only club not currently in the top eight on the ladder to be in the top eight in that measurement). We've led Geelong and Richmond, both undefeated, in the fourth quarter despite being one/two/three down injury-wise during those games. We've done all this with Viney playing his worst five game stretch in a long time, with Lewis missing three games, with Gawn missing 2.5 games, with Hogan missing two games, with Vince missing a game (and otherwise not being that good anyway), with Watts having to ruck more than he should, with a long injury list generally and having been forced to use 31 players (equal second most in the league). None of this means we're going to make the finals or even challenge for them, but IMO talk of the season being over, or of a lack of improvement, or of Goodwin struggling, is nothing more than classic MFCSS.
  7. I posted a few earlier in this thread. Looking through, some clubs have the same as us, others have one more it seems. Essendon actually has fewer than us: Leuenberger, Bellchambers and an 18-year old called Sam Draper (with Daniher). Carlton has Kreuzer, Gorringe, Philips and a rookie called Korchek (with Casboult). The Dogs have Roughead, Campbell and a 19 year old called English (with Tom Boyd). Geelong has Smith, Stanley and Ryan Abbott (with Blicavs). Hawthorn has McEvoy, Ceglar, Pittonet and Fitzpatrick (with Vickery). North has Preuss, Goldstein and a 20 year old called Sam Durdin (with Ben Brown). Brisbane has Martin and I don't even know who else (a bunch of kids it seems). Collingwood has Grundy, Cox and an 18 year old rookie called Max Lynch. Take the best two rucks out of these sides and you're left with teams in what appear to me to be quite similar positions to us.
  8. Hogan played last night. Are Vlaustin or Griffiths even best 22 for Richmond at this point? Certainly, if so, they'd be bottom 6 players. Shane Edwards was missing though. Anyway, not the point, we should have won last night regardless of the players missing and even taking into account the injuries on the night. It all came down to the first quarter.
  9. "I think I'm around the mark, but maybe not in front of them [Talia, Rance, Tarrant]". You have a problem with him saying that?
  10. Please provide evidence of this.
  11. Certainly Jenkins and Lobb are much better relief ruckmen than Watts but the main issue is how they would respond if they lost their best and second best ruckmen. They could play Lobb in the ruck but as it stands they play a forward line with Cameron, Patton and Lobb so to take Lobb out is to do the exact same thing we have to do by taking Watts out. And as for Geelong, isn't that precisely the argument in support of our ruck stocks? That, in a worst case scenario and we get injuries to ruckmen, we rely on our midfielders and the rest of the side to cope without them? It's the same tactic Geelong uses which supports the argument that our list management, insofar as we only have Gawn, Spencer and the two kids, is not actually that different to other clubs'.
  12. I think, clearly, we would have been a better side in each of the losses with Lewis and Hogan. But I just think there was more to each of the losses than simply their absence. The Fremantle one is the one they cost us the most. The other two are much harder to say with the forced lack of rotations in both and I don't think Lewis in the backline last night would have solved the problems we created ourselves earlier in the game. Would he have improved our efficiency in the first quarter (where the game was lost)? Possibly. I just think there's more to it than their absence. You're entirely correct about their actions, though. I don't want to re-ignite an old debate but my personal view is that the two views can co-exist: both deserved to be suspended (and ought not be defended for being "tough") but neither deserved the length of suspension awarded.
  13. I don't think this can be properly analysed without looking at other clubs' lists. Adelaide has Jacobs, O'Brien then Himmelberg (19yo) and Hunter (rookie). They get some relief out of Jenkins who is 200cm. GWS has Mumford, Simpson, Downie and Flynn (19yo). They get some relief out of Lobb (207cm). Geelong has Stanley, Smith then Buzza and Abbott. They get some relief out of Blicavs (198cm). We have Gawn, Spencer, then Filipovic and King. We get some relief out of Watts (196cm). We are in a position that is similar, I think, to the above clubs. If Adelaide lost Jacobs and O'Brien they'd be in a very, very similar boat to us (either Himmelberg or Hunter or they rely more on Jenkins or another forward/defender). Ditto GWS. Ditto Geelong. West Coast has more rucks but they started the pre-season with Naitanui and Lycett already out for all/most of 2017. I haven't been through the other clubs yet but at the moment I tend to think our ruck stocks are about the same as others' and the main issue is the bad luck of losing Gawn and Spencer. Happy to be proven wrong if other clubs' lists are different, though.
  14. Tell you what, if there were only 20k Melbourne there, that was the loudest 20k of supporters I've ever heard.
  15. I get you're responding to someone making a joke about the Carlton doctor but in all honesty do you truly believe the three losses are as simple as no Lewis and no Hogan?