PREGAME: Rd 12 vs Carlton

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,767]

1 hour ago, Superunknown said:

Juicy enough to get on board for an emotional hedge 

Freo at $3.75 on the Monday before our match was a tantalisingly emotional hedge.

[Jaded No More 68,867]

I hate the media noise around Carlton this week. Hating on them is flavour of the week. It could go one of two ways, but there’s no doubt that they’ll come out firing. 

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

12 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I hate the media noise around Carlton this week. Hating on them is flavour of the week. It could go one of two ways, but there’s no doubt that they’ll come out firing. 

We lose this and the media turn their full attention to us - even if Geelong lose to the Doggies. 

Melbourne of old would have buckled under the weight of expectation and off field pressure. Have some credits in the bank over the past few years. But lose and face a 4 possibly 5 match loosing streak. 

I just have a feeling the game in Geelong will be a game where it will be a battle for both teams to keep their respective seasons alive. 

[stinga 556]

All the better Key forwards have height around 200cm, so you need at least one backman around that height and we used to have it in Petty.   Lever has a decent leap and makes up for that when he has space to launch but because we only have 2 talls in defence that is a rarity.   We've tried with Thommo but he is more a bulk defender and that hasn't worked.  It's a pity Kye Turner has been injured all year as he is a leaping type.   J.Smith might have filled the roll but he's been put as a forward.  To make it worse Salem never gets airborn.  Verell might fill that role next year but you'd risk wrecking him this year as he hasn't got a mature body.  With 4 small defenders it makes it tough.

In the forward line it's the same problem.  We miss Brown's height but he's on one leg.  We have the ideal replacement next year with Jefferson but its the same as Verell above.   We don't have a 200cm replacement so you need a leaping forward at least to negate the defensive intercept marking.  There's only one but no one likes him.

[Deebauched 1,220]

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I hate the media noise around Carlton this week. Hating on them is flavour of the week. It could go one of two ways, but there’s no doubt that they’ll come out firing. 

Probably more chance of the umpires coming out firing than Carlton. They look a boiling hot mess. The media has been biting at their ankles for a while now. Dont see why this game should be any different. Cant pull up your socks if you dont have any. 

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

4 hours ago, brendan said:

This has a Carlton win and McKay to kick 6 goals straight feel about it, I wonder what the odds are lol

We opened very short and then drifted but since late Monday all the money is one way going on us.

 

[DemonWA 3,929]

3 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I hate the media noise around Carlton this week. Hating on them is flavour of the week. It could go one of two ways, but there’s no doubt that they’ll come out firing. 

I'd suspect Carlton fans are saying similar RE the attention were getting in the media too

[beelzebub 23,313]

24 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Probably more chance of the umpires coming out firing than Carlton. They look a boiling hot mess. The media has been biting at their ankles for a while now. Dont see why this game should be any different. Cant pull up your socks if you dont have any. 

be very verrryyyy  careful about saying things like that  !!!   ;)

[Roost it far 8,177]

34 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Probably more chance of the umpires coming out firing than Carlton. They look a boiling hot mess. The media has been biting at their ankles for a while now. Dont see why this game should be any different. Cant pull up your socks if you dont have any. 

Especially the poor excuse for footy socks these days. Hats off to JHF for sticking with the long socks

[Demonstone 22,309]

I'd be wearing the thickest socks I could find if somebody was biting at my ankles.  Maybe even two pairs.

[Fanatique Demon 2,642]

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

It could go one of two ways

Have felt that way about every game this year, JNM 😀

[Demonland 71,489]

 

[CHF 2,719]

Wonder what we will do with selection this week. In the first half of this season, except for the first few rounds, we have not had a settled effective setup with our tall forwards. While some on here and even our esteemed coach site the fact that we have scored the most points of any team so far this season, we have only played three teams presently in the top eight and lost to all of them. we have scored our points in 8 wins against teams in the bottom 10. Not a reflection of a good effective forward setup.

Some here also look at the delivery into the forward 50 as an excuse. To me it is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Could our delivery be better? Of course it could be but it would help if we had a settled structure to the forwards and then it would give the deliverers a clear idea of what was happening ahead.

So what to do over the Wednesday night cheese platters? Where to start?

Midfield, always a good place to start, as that is where the ball starts with a bounce. Oliver is out for another week so we need to get more run and cover in the midfield. Hunter comes back but do we slot him back in straight away? Langdon looked better last week and Gus had a very good game playing back on the wing. Same set up this week?

Do we persist with Gawn and Grundy in the same team?

Petracca, Viney, Sparrow, Pickett, ANB, Rivers, Harmes and Laurie all rotating through the midfield at times. Langdon, Jordon, Brayshaw and Woewodin to the wings with the last three to have time on the ball as well.

In the defence we have a pretty good structure with May and Lever as the kingpins. I am of the opinion that Petty, when fit, returns to the back line as we look a lot better with him there beside the other two. With him injured, we may look at Tomlinson for this match and possibly the next. He did a good job at the back when required earlier in the season and I think we will need tall options against the Blues. Rivers and Salem back there and a choice of two of Hibberd, Bowey and McVee.

Forwards are a problem and have been for the last few seasons. Even in 21 we looked fragile up the pointy end during the season. 

I would keep Spargo in there and drop Chandler. Chandler has been good but he has not been as effective in the last couple of games and might need a freshen up. Fritsch is there, of course. ANB and Pickett will spend time there. The rest??? A lot of questions. Dr Seuss, in one of his books has The Cat In The Hat saying to someone "Sometimes the questions is complicated and the answer is simple." If we accept that, then the reciprocal is also true. "Sometimes the question is simple and the answer is complicated." 

Unfortunately, we suffer from the later when discussing the forward setup.

I think there a a lot of versions of an answer but no idea how effective they might be.

Anyway.... this is the way I would go for the Blues game.

Backs: Hibberd, May, Rivers

HB: Lever, Tomlinson, Salem

C: Langdon, Sparrow, Brayshaw

HF: Spargo, Grundy, Pickett

F: JVR, Brown, Fristch

Fol: Gawn, Petracca, Viney

IC: Bowey, Jordon, Harmes, Laurie, Woewodin ( One selected as sub)

McVee having a rest

 

[whatwhat say what 22,684]

12 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

my mfcss says that they'll still win

[McQueen 17,864]

18 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

The AFL will look to apply ad-hoc equalisation methods beginning tonight by clearing Cerra for his dump tackle. 

[Demonland 71,489]

12 minutes ago, McQueen said:

The AFL will look to apply ad-hoc equalisation methods beginning tonight by clearing Cerra for his dump tackle. 

That is the biggest certainty. 

[titan_uranus 24,971]

21 minutes ago, CHF said:

Wonder what we will do with selection this week. In the first half of this season, except for the first few rounds, we have not had a settled effective setup with our tall forwards. While some on here and even our esteemed coach site the fact that we have scored the most points of any team so far this season, we have only played three teams presently in the top eight and lost to all of them. we have scored our points in 8 wins against teams in the bottom 10. Not a reflection of a good effective forward setup.

A good post but just highlighting this. I understand your argument but it’s not entirely correct. 

We scored 115 vs the Dogs. The only time they’ve conceded 100, and indeed they have only conceded more than 71 two other times. 

We scored 82 against Brisbane, albeit much of that was after the restart. But Collingwood’s 83 is the only higher score they’ve conceded at the Gabba. 

We scored 134 against Sydney with their full backline playing. The only other two games they’ve had their full backline they conceded less than that combined. 

We scored 76 against Port in the rain. The Dogs also played Port in the rain and scored 56.

We scored 90 against GC on the GC who are playing pretty well at home. 

Anyway, I know we’ve had big scores against the bottom 3 sides but I don’t think we’ve been completely impotent against the better sides. 

[DubDee 25,601]

Bring in T Mac

2 weeks later 

Bring in BB FFS!

and repeat

[chook fowler 19,444]

34 minutes ago, CHF said:

Wonder what we will do with selection this week. In the first half of this season, except for the first few rounds, we have not had a settled effective setup with our tall forwards. While some on here and even our esteemed coach site the fact that we have scored the most points of any team so far this season, we have only played three teams presently in the top eight and lost to all of them. we have scored our points in 8 wins against teams in the bottom 10. Not a reflection of a good effective forward setup.

Some here also look at the delivery into the forward 50 as an excuse. To me it is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Could our delivery be better? Of course it could be but it would help if we had a settled structure to the forwards and then it would give the deliverers a clear idea of what was happening ahead.

So what to do over the Wednesday night cheese platters? Where to start?

Midfield, always a good place to start, as that is where the ball starts with a bounce. Oliver is out for another week so we need to get more run and cover in the midfield. Hunter comes back but do we slot him back in straight away? Langdon looked better last week and Gus had a very good game playing back on the wing. Same set up this week?

Do we persist with Gawn and Grundy in the same team?

Petracca, Viney, Sparrow, Pickett, ANB, Rivers, Harmes and Laurie all rotating through the midfield at times. Langdon, Jordon, Brayshaw and Woewodin to the wings with the last three to have time on the ball as well.

In the defence we have a pretty good structure with May and Lever as the kingpins. I am of the opinion that Petty, when fit, returns to the back line as we look a lot better with him there beside the other two. With him injured, we may look at Tomlinson for this match and possibly the next. He did a good job at the back when required earlier in the season and I think we will need tall options against the Blues. Rivers and Salem back there and a choice of two of Hibberd, Bowey and McVee.

Forwards are a problem and have been for the last few seasons. Even in 21 we looked fragile up the pointy end during the season. 

I would keep Spargo in there and drop Chandler. Chandler has been good but he has not been as effective in the last couple of games and might need a freshen up. Fritsch is there, of course. ANB and Pickett will spend time there. The rest??? A lot of questions. Dr Seuss, in one of his books has The Cat In The Hat saying to someone "Sometimes the questions is complicated and the answer is simple." If we accept that, then the reciprocal is also true. "Sometimes the question is simple and the answer is complicated." 

Unfortunately, we suffer from the later when discussing the forward setup.

I think there a a lot of versions of an answer but no idea how effective they might be.

Anyway.... this is the way I would go for the Blues game.

Backs: Hibberd, May, Rivers

HB: Lever, Tomlinson, Salem

C: Langdon, Sparrow, Brayshaw

HF: Spargo, Grundy, Pickett

F: JVR, Brown, Fristch

Fol: Gawn, Petracca, Viney

IC: Bowey, Jordon, Harmes, Laurie, Woewodin ( One selected as sub)

McVee having a rest

 

Hunter will come back in.

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

9 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Let me get in first...

A good post but just highlighting this. I understand your argument but it’s not entirely correct. 

We scored 115 vs the Dogs. The only time they’ve conceded 100, and indeed they have only conceded more than 71 two other times. 

Game one - doesnt count

We scored 82 against Brisbane, albeit much of that was after the restart. But Collingwood’s 83 is the only higher score they’ve conceded at the Gabba. 

Game two - we still lost - doesnt count

We scored 134 against Sydney with their full backline playing. The only other two games they’ve had their full backline they conceded less than that combined. 

This is the exception that proves the rule

We scored 76 against Port in the rain. The Dogs also played Port in the rain and scored 56.

We didn't play for 3 quarters - so its a shambles up the front, so doesnt count

We scored 90 against GC on the GC who are playing pretty well at home. 

But we almost lost... and as we conceded effectively the same amount, so doesnt count.

Anyway, I know we’ve had big scores against the bottom 3 sides but I don’t think we’ve been completely impotent against the better sides. 

Is this how its done?

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Engorged Onion

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

Oh no the Carlton Lawyers have brought out the long hair defense. How can you tell if his head hits the ground when his hair is so long.

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,352]

7 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Oh no the Carlton Lawyers have brought out the long hair defense. How can you tell if his head hits the ground when his hair is so long.

If the player's action has the potential to cause concussion then it's a stick on guilty verdict surely. Isn't that what got Kozzie rubbed out for a fortnight? 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Rab D Nesbitt

[SPC 3,532]

Parker upheld for a lesser tackle. Cerra is no chance of getting off..

[Roger Mellie 3,972]

8 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

McVee's been good in most games and I'd have to re-watch the game to determine if he was beaten on the day. He certainly had a low impact possession game (as did his senior mates down back).

Chandler has been well down since the North win and I was hoping he would respond with a 2-3 goal game and 12+ touches. Instead he got 0 and 6 and was subbed off.

I do think Chandler is at real risk of getting dropped this week.

 

I've re-watched the game up to 3/4 time (not that keen to proceed). I haven't seen an issue with McVee's game other than he doesn't get enough of the footy. When he does get it, he usually does something good to great with it. He makes few mistakes, is super clean and hits targets in good positions. He's just a young player trying to play his role. With experience and confidence, he'll take on the game more.

I also didn't see a lot wrong with Chandler's game other than low impact. There was no lack of endeavour/pressure and he didn't do a lot wrong when he was involved, but he just wasn't that involved. Whether that was his issue or symptomatic of how the game unfolded is another matter.

[loges 6,767]

Has Cerra been cleared yet?