2 hours ago, bandicoot said:

This weeks squad is at least 80% the same players that will play in round 1. 

If you think the saints are raging favorites maybe you should put your money where your mouth is. 

At $1.70 Melbourne are strong favorites 

Unbelievable.

4 hours ago, billy2803 said:

Plonk Frawley in our defence and we are a significantly better team.  I fail to understand how anyone disagrees.

 

My post had nothing to do with whether or not Frawley would strengthen our side.

It was that far too many supporters on here like to live in the past in regards to the form of a player. Whether it is one year of great form or in ANB's case, one game where he kicked a few goals as a HF.

Supporters hold onto that and speak as if that player is still replicating that output in the present, when they're not.

It's a classic demonland thing.

 

Those odds for the saints are too good to pass up, if we get beat at least I can win some money and if we win I won't care about the bet, win win 

2 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Unbelievable.

And Saints $1.92 with a line of 3.5 points. Load up on the line, shout for the mighty Dees, lubricate throat for the duration on account of the shouting. Win, win, win.

5 hours ago, fr_ap said:

Oh I forgot, ANBs elite endurance and trengove's decision making are going to overrun the zippy saints midfield on the fastest, smallest deck in footy. A brigade of mids who are forced to play half forward are going to contribute 10 goals plus between them, with brayshaw to kick 4, harmes 3 and salem 3. And watts will fire, despite having no match practise and being under intense scrutiny. And hogan won't get monstered by carlisle and double teamed at every opportunity. And oscar will fly high to deny bruce goalscoring opps. And garland will be incredibly alert and diligent to deny membrey time and space. And Tom Mac won't run off riewoldt and let him get off the chain. And Melksham won't turn it over through the corridor, and the saints wont overrun us with speed and spread on the counter.

Honestly I pity you if you think this week's squad would win rd1. To stand any chance watts and petracca would need to kick 8 between them without kent and garlett around.  The midfield would need to win the i50 battle by a big margin, because if it gets down there, the saints are going to score. Without hib/wag as third defender, we simply can't cover them.

How's that for a bundle of reality?

 

Are you the second coming of Nostradamus? Really, you could be onto something here

1 hour ago, Olgreybeard49 said:

And Saints $1.92 with a line of 3.5 points. Load up on the line, shout for the mighty Dees, lubricate throat for the duration on account of the shouting. Win, win, win.

4pts not much, but it might go down to the wire....

42 minutes ago, dworship said:

Are you the second coming of Nostradamus? Really, you could be onto something here

Jesus you lot are touchy.

1. Dont confuse my reality check post with my support or hopes. I will be at the game cheering the good plays and moaning at the bad. I will be as positive as any if it is warranted.

2. To the poster who said i should put my money where my mouth is - I actually loaded up a while ago when the Saints were 2.50. They are getting shorter and shorter and will continue to do so, because I'm right.

3. In no way did i say they were unbeatable. I commented at length about our deficiencies and then outlined what needs to happen for us to win (assuming the saints come to play).

4. It has been widely discussed that tomorrows squad is going to be relatively close (80% is quoted above) to the rd1 squad. Injuries limit the number of changes in any case, barring recoveries (although this would cause issues with match practise).

Clearly there is some hyperbole in my prediction but stranger things have happened. 

Would love us to win, just don't see it. Objectivity!

10 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Jesus you lot are touchy.

1. Dont confuse my reality check post with my support or hopes. I will be at the game cheering the good plays and moaning at the bad. I will be as positive as any if it is warranted.

2. To the poster who said i should put my money where my mouth is - I actually loaded up a while ago when the Saints were 2.50. They are getting shorter and shorter and will continue to do so, because I'm right.

3. In no way did i say they were unbeatable. I commented at length about our deficiencies and then outlined what needs to happen for us to win (assuming the saints come to play).

4. It has been widely discussed that tomorrows squad is going to be relatively close (80% is quoted above) to the rd1 squad. Injuries limit the number of changes in any case, barring recoveries (although this would cause issues with match practise).

Clearly there is some hyperbole in my prediction but stranger things have happened. 

Would love us to win, just don't see it. Objectivity!

If your first post on the matter was like the above then you wouldn't have had the response you got. Objectivity is fine, acting like a pratt in getting it across isn't. 

5 hours ago, hardtack said:

Not very realistic at all... if you seriously think that is the squad that will be presenting on March 25th, then you may have lost your grip on reality.  There are Kent, Garlett, Jetta, Frost and Hibberd, most of whom are likely to be ready to take the field against the 'Aints and will probably get a run at Casey the week before as a warm up.

Right so perhaps 3 to 4 changes different from this squad means I have 'lost my grip on reality'. Yep.

Garlett will not play. Perhaps Kent, but will be underdone. Casey doesnt adequately prepare. See Brayshaw this time last year. 

Jetta and Frost - again only one may play, likely short of match practise. Not sure what is wrong with Frost but is nowhere to be found. 

Hibberd won't play. AVB wont play. Wagner won't play.

End result = no potent hf/forward pockets with goals in them other than Trac. One of Garland/J Smith plays. Like the kid Smith but Saints would be licking their lips at having one of these guys in the backline with an at times shaky oscar and very attacking minded melksham/vince/hunt. Goals galore beckon for one of the league's better forward lines.

These are realities mate. If all the above miraculously recover and play well despite having no match practice, we are a good chance. Otherwise we are up against it.

The game in Perth will tell us a lot. If we clean up the Eagles who look to be at full strength then I will remain cautiously optimistic, however if we fail badly tomorrow night I will return to my usual slough of despair.

10 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

If your first post on the matter was like the above then you wouldn't have had the response you got. Objectivity is fine, acting like a pratt in getting it across isn't. 

Was it not incredibly clear that my entire post was a sarcastic play at all our problems surfacing in one game? Although funny enough, describes quite a few previous saints games at etihad. 

We wouldn't want to write with emotion now would we. Goodness.

4 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Was it not incredibly clear that my entire post was a sarcastic play at all our problems surfacing in one game? Although funny enough, describes quite a few previous saints games at etihad. 

We wouldn't want to write with emotion now would we. Goodness.

I was talking about your very first post, not the other one.  I got the sarcasm and wit in that one, which was brilliant by the way.  The Melbourne Comedy Festival beckons.  

With how well we've been playing you would have expected to cop some retaliation from supporters when you took the view that our current side would get smashed by the Saints in Round 1.  Had you backed up that claim with something substantial then fair enough - if you believe that the Saints have us covered in a few weeks time then that's fine, there is nothing wrong with that.  But why?  What do they have in their side that we don't?  Their tall forwards have the potential to cause us some problems, but I believe our midfield is on par with theirs now and our forward line is more than capable of causing them a few problems as well.  It should be a very, very even game.

4 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Unbelievable.

Those odds are utter crap

3 hours ago, brendan said:

Those odds for the saints are too good to pass up, if we get beat at least I can win some money and if we win I won't care about the bet, win win 

I would have to bet so much on St Kilda to get any sort of semblance of satisfaction, that it would upset me when we win.

I know no doubt that Goodwin and co will play it down, but in my mind round 1 is a must win game.  If we are going to be a decent side this season and aim at making finals, then we must put away teams we should beat  (Essendon, Carlton, North, St Kilda, Richmond, Gold Coast,Freo etc).

We win round one, I'm happy - simple.

50 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Right so perhaps 3 to 4 changes different from this squad means I have 'lost my grip on reality'. Yep.

Garlett will not play.

Hibberd won't play

I'm not sure how you can be so sure Garlett and Hibberd won't play.  Garlett will have had 5 weeks for a minor hammy he would have to be more likely to play than miss.  Hibberd is probably 50:50 given the extent of his injury is vague.  Likewise Jetta must be close.

i think it's safe to put a line through VDB, Frost and Wagner, and agreed Kent is probably unlikely.

My two issues are, one - if VDB, Frost and Wagner are out the difference between us winning and losing against the Saints then our list is in worse shape than either of us want to admit. Personally I don't have VDB or Wagner in my best 22 and Frost would be borderline.  Secondly, you've identified our weaknesses but ignored any on the Saints side. They have players that miss targets, they have Backs that our forwards have beaten before. 

If the Saints come out and torch the Swans this week then maybe It'll change my opinion, but I don't think they are a massively better side than us.  Certainly not to the extent you make out.

1 hour ago, fr_ap said:

Right so perhaps 3 to 4 changes different from this squad means I have 'lost my grip on reality'. Yep.

Garlett will not play. Perhaps Kent, but will be underdone. Casey doesnt adequately prepare. See Brayshaw this time last year. 

Jetta and Frost - again only one may play, likely short of match practise. Not sure what is wrong with Frost but is nowhere to be found. 

Hibberd won't play. AVB wont play. Wagner won't play.

End result = no potent hf/forward pockets with goals in them other than Trac. One of Garland/J Smith plays. Like the kid Smith but Saints would be licking their lips at having one of these guys in the backline with an at times shaky oscar and very attacking minded melksham/vince/hunt. Goals galore beckon for one of the league's better forward lines.

These are realities mate. If all the above miraculously recover and play well despite having no match practice, we are a good chance. Otherwise we are up against it.

And you base these assertions on what exactly?

AVB and JKH will not play, definitely.  Garlett was reported today as running well. Kent is more than likely, based on reports here, to be ready. Hibberd could go either way as I understand it was an injury caused by contact rather than a strain. Jetta is a good chance, again based on reports here.  Frost? Who knows?

One thing is certain, it will be a different, and most likely stronger team than that lining up tomorrow.

And to back up my references to comments in other reports on here:

 

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

This weeks squad is at least 80% the same players that will play in round 1. 

If you think the saints are raging favorites maybe you should put your money where your mouth is. 

At $1.70 Melbourne are strong favorites 

How/why are we always such short prices favourites against the Saints?! They've had as good a pre-season as us, they've shown they are as much on the rise as us,  and it's at Etihad stadium where we've barely won a coin toss let alone a footy match (GWS & NAB barely count). 

Maybe I just don't like seeing us go in as favourites, doesn't seem to end well for us!

If we beat WC in Perth then it's justified, otherwise it should be even odds IMO. 

1 hour ago, fr_ap said:

Right so perhaps 3 to 4 changes different from this squad means I have 'lost my grip on reality'. Yep.

Garlett will not play. Perhaps Kent, but will be underdone. Casey doesnt adequately prepare. See Brayshaw this time last year. 

Jetta and Frost - again only one may play, likely short of match practise. Not sure what is wrong with Frost but is nowhere to be found. 

Hibberd won't play. AVB wont play. Wagner won't play.

End result = no potent hf/forward pockets with goals in them other than Trac. One of Garland/J Smith plays. Like the kid Smith but Saints would be licking their lips at having one of these guys in the backline with an at times shaky oscar and very attacking minded melksham/vince/hunt. Goals galore beckon for one of the league's better forward lines.

These are realities mate. If all the above miraculously recover and play well despite having no match practice, we are a good chance. Otherwise we are up against it.

I reckon we can rotate Brayshaw, Tyson, Oliver, Viney and maybe Salem through half forward and each will give us something a bit different in that role. 

The last however many times the saints have beat us has been because the game has been played on their terms. They've won their share of the ball and ran all over us. Changing that dynamic is far more important than potent half forwards which I think you've overrated. 

Hibberd could be very important down back and if he's out that's a decent blow considering he gives us a calming presence who can defend and attack, but again, we've got Lewis, Jones and maybe Salem to spend time at half back and provide the skill. 

Having our best team would help but the guys we might have out so far aren't nearly good enough to significantly change the result. I just don't believe that.

If anyone actually read the article on afl.com.au today, it said that Jeffy will play in a practice match next week and will be available for round 1. It also said Kent is racing the clock to be fit. Meaning he's a chance. Although Mission last week said that he'd be available this week so he must be close. Club website said Hibberd missing is just precautionary due to his long layoff and it is just him being stepped on rather than anything structural

 

I think Wagner, AVB, Frost and JKH will be our only unavailable players come rd 1 

20 minutes ago, DemonLad5 said:

If anyone actually read the article on afl.com.au today, it said that Jeffy will play in a practice match next week and will be available for round 1. It also said Kent is racing the clock to be fit. Meaning he's a chance. Although Mission last week said that he'd be available this week so he must be close. Club website said Hibberd missing is just precautionary due to his long layoff and it is just him being stepped on rather than anything structural

 

I think Wagner, AVB, Frost and JKH will be our only unavailable players come rd 1 

It was also mentioned that Jetta is available for selection now (that was in the article on AVB's injury).

I know it's only a JLT game but jeez I hope we win this, I love being at a game over here and beating the home side. If Watts has 25+ touches and kicks 4 and we win, I plan on making a real mess of myself.

43 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

...

The last however many times the saints have beat us has been because the game has been played on their terms. They've won their share of the ball and ran all over us. Changing that dynamic is far more important than potent half forwards which I think you've overrated. 

...

They beat us because:

* They know how to move the ball easily from contested to uncontested situations, and how to prevent us doing it.

* They know how to stifle our attacks through the corridor.

* Their mids know where their forwards are going to run, so they don't bomb it blindly.

If we stop playing into their hands, we'll win.

My god, just realised that this game is starting at 8:40...

Stoked for this game, we had the goods on the Eagles last time but kicked ourselves out of the contest. I know from friendship with some WC people they are taking this one deadly serious, so it should be a good hit out that simulates the intensity of Rd1. Last time around we lacked the nous to put that away, I'm thinking the addition of Lewis could give us some X-Factor (that and their somewhat makeshift ruck division).

3 hours ago, special robert said:

The game in Perth will tell us a lot. If we clean up the Eagles who look to be at full strength then I will remain cautiously optimistic, however if we fail badly tomorrow night I will return to my usual slough of despair.

With no Nik Nat, not sure they're quite at full strength.