Grand final winners have been total [censored] at the start of a season before...I guess anything can happen.  Probably want to fix up our forward 50 entries first though and get someone to teach our forwards how to be better forwards...I'm sure that would help.

17 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

The calls to drop Fritsch amuse me. Like it's going to make any difference if we're kicking high up-and-unders to the top of Fullarton's head instead of Fritsch.

Fritsch is a player that thrives on being isolated deep and sharking the ball off a spoil in space. Our appalling forward structure and entries absolutely kill him.

Really good call.

Yes, his chasing and tackling is below average. It always has been. It's highly unlikely to change after a stint in the VFL. 

His goals have dried up because our system for getting the ball inside 50, which has been suspect for ages, is now terminally bad. 

OUT- Jeffo, Tmac, Howes, Woey

IN- AJ, May, Langford (To start), Laurie/Melk

As george suggested on the latest Podcast. We have no depth and it’s showing. 
 

FB Salem May Lever

HB Bowey Petty Rivers

C Langdon Oliver Lindsay

HF Langford JVR Sparrow

FF Spargo AJ Petracca

 

R Max Chandler Viney

 

B Turner Sharp Henderson Fritsch

 

Laurie/Melk SUB

14 minutes ago, Doug Reemer said:

OUT- Jeffo, Tmac, Howes, Woey

IN- AJ, May, Langford (To start), Laurie/Melk

 

 

As george suggested on the latest Podcast. We have no depth and it’s showing. 
 

FB Salem May Lever

HB Bowey Petty Rivers

C Langdon Oliver Lindsay

HF Langford JVR Sparrow

FF Spargo AJ Petracca

 

R Max Chandler Viney

 

B Turner Sharp Henderson Fritsch

 

Laurie/Melk SUB

It’s not that we don’t have depth, it’s just that a teams depth is always tested when you can’t select the players of the calibre of May, Pickett, McVee, Windsor, Melksham and now Lever. Throw in AMW who looked a lock for round 1 and guys like Jefferson and McAdam and that’s a lot to cover. That’s potentially 7-8 of the preseason best 23. No team covers that well especially when trying to bed down a new system. We desperately need some continuity.

Edited March 25Mar 25 by Roost it far

2 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

It’s not that we don’t have depth, it’s just that a teams depth is always tested when you can’t select the players of the calibre of May, Pickett, McVee, Windsor, Melksham and now Lever. Throw in AMW who looked a lock for round 1 and guys like Jefferson and McAdam and that’s a lot to cover. That’s potentially 7-8 of the preseason best 23. No team covers that well especially when trying to bed down a new system. We desperately need some continuity soon.

The other issue as alluded to by others is that Pickett, McVee and Windsor are 3 of our quickest and most skilful players in a side with a lack of skilled players…. 

Just now, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The other issue as alluded to by others is that Pickett, McVee and Windsor are 3 of our quickest and most skilful players in a side with a lack of skilled players…. 

And AMW looked like he might add to that, May’s our best defender along with Lever and Jefferson, Johnson and McAdam appeared ready to impact at AFL level.

23 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Anyone know if Windsor will get up for this weekend?

1-2 weeks apparently

win or lose i dont care as long as we show a heap of ticker and intent. 

34 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

It’s not that we don’t have depth, it’s just that a teams depth is always tested when you can’t select the players of the calibre of May, Pickett, McVee, Windsor, Melksham and now Lever. Throw in AMW who looked a lock for round 1 and guys like Jefferson and McAdam and that’s a lot to cover. That’s potentially 7-8 of the preseason best 23. No team covers that well especially when trying to bed down a new system. We desperately need some continuity.

It’s both.

I’m with you on the injury impact. 13 players unavailable is making things tough. 

But we also have to acknowledge that the likes of Spargo, Laurie, Woewodin and Billings are all a bit “samesy”, on a background of Sparrow plateauing, Howes not improving, and Sestan, Adams and Verrall all queries as to when/whether they will debut. 

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

It’s both.

I’m with you on the injury impact. 13 players unavailable is making things tough. 

But we also have to acknowledge that the likes of Spargo, Laurie, Woewodin and Billings are all a bit “samesy”, on a background of Sparrow plateauing, Howes not improving, and Sestan, Adams and Verrall all queries as to when/whether they will debut. 

Agreed but if your list has its best 23 available then the next in line become guys like Sparrow, Howes, Langford, Johnson, Jefferson, McAdam. I doubt Sestan, Verrall are even on our list next year. We’re being forced to dig to deep. The big loss for mine is AMW, he was looking great in the preseason and is exactly the player we need developing. The rest will hopefully be fully fit in the next 1-5 weeks. 

43 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The other issue as alluded to by others is that Pickett, McVee and Windsor are 3 of our quickest and most skilful players in a side with a lack of skilled players…. 

We have 4 top 10 players (May, Pickett), (top 5) Mcvee and Windsor) not currently in the side, no team can cover that but Sunday was inexcusable. 

Execution and effort in the last was deplorable.

Edited March 25Mar 25 by YesitwasaWin4theAges

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

It’s not that we don’t have depth, it’s just that a teams depth is always tested when you can’t select the players of the calibre of May, Pickett, McVee, Windsor, Melksham and now Lever. Throw in AMW who looked a lock for round 1 and guys like Jefferson and McAdam and that’s a lot to cover. That’s potentially 7-8 of the preseason best 23. No team covers that well especially when trying to bed down a new system. We desperately need some continuity.

We lost 2 mid to small sized defenders and we don’t have anyone else who can play that position, without reshuffling our midfield.

Sestan, Laurie, Woewoden. Hard on Sestan because he hasn’t played.

But tell me what position Laurie & Woey are best suited to at AFL? Not even they know because they are either subs or just throw into whatever hole we have.

When Laurie was drafted the talk was he was better than Bowie (clearly not).

Maybe it’s time the club gives these players position in to nail down?

Edited March 26Mar 26 by Doug Reemer

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

win or lose i dont care as long as we show a heap of ticker and intent. 

I do!  We've not lost to them since Trump was a 'thing'. We are playing at our home ground against an interstate team that didnt make the finals and we are finals aspirants ourselves.  Their top 6 are mostly butchers (albeit decent) but their bottom 6 are no better than ours. I'm all for heart and effort but this one is a must win.   Non negotiable.  Do not let King win them the game. Do not let Sexton kick 4 cheapies. And do not leave Anderson unchecked from stoppages, he's an absolute gun. 

Edited March 26Mar 26 by Jjrogan

On 24/03/2025 at 15:56, Deespicable said:

Goody is facing a huge week to decide whether he resorts back to bash-and-bang clearances style with the kick down the line safety option as the cornerstone of our game or whether he sticks with his run-and-gun mantra that looked good pre-season, but has been destroyed by turnover howlers and the unavailability of our three quickest players - Pickett, Windsor and McVee.

I'd expect our midfielders to really lift after being blitzed by the Roos, but Gold Coast's strength is their midfield clearance ethic that comes from Witts, Rowell, Miller, Anderson, Graham and the emerging Humphrey. 

Personally, and I said it before Gawny took on his nemesis Xerri, that we need to play Tom Campbell in most games so that we can win clearances and not have to rely on the weaker (because of height) second ruck option like JVR (Rd 2) or Johnson (Rd 1). Gold Coast has Ethan Read as back up and he's 202cm tall and developing quickly but he's still a kid so imagine if he has to ruck against a fresher Gawny. That's where we can get an advantage. So why we would throw Johnson in against him is beyond me?

We still need to take a chance with our run-and-gun through the middle, but the other area that needs a rethink is our forward structure.

Can we afford the class of Fritter when he doesn't get a chance to show it, can we continue to go with three small forwards even without Pickett, can we keep backing in JVR, who came to us as a potential key defender but is yet to be played there? Is Turner good enough?

I have to say I was shocked that we again threw Spargo in so quickly - as we did in the clash against Sydney in Rd 1 last year. He's barely played a game in two year, missed our practice matches this year, had a VFL practice game and then comes straight in? Sure he was great in 2021, but is he worthy of that amazing loyalty by Goody? Now that he's in do we stick with him and young Jack Henderson - another player that was rushed in with barely a practice game. Ironically the one player I wanted to be tried out as a small forward this year is Jack Viney because when he tackles, they stick and he's actually a good mark for his size. But that won't happen this week.

And making it harder for Goody is that both Laurie and Billings, who did the entire pre-season, did not dominate in the VFL which makes it hard to bring them in, although I suspect Laurie may have been taken off late, just in case he was a last minute call up to be sub at Marvel. Can anyone confirm that? 

Then there are so many questions from the game about individuals.

Does Sharp's lack of awareness spell the end of his career? Or do we try and use his incredible running ability to tag players like Bedford is now doing at GWS? Is Sharp tough enough to be effective in that role?

Has Rivers totally lost his way as a midfielder, meaning he has to be dropped or be sent back to defence, in turn meaning we don't need Howes as the fourth tall down back?

Is Petty that much better than T-Mac as a key defender. I've always liked Petty as an interceptor, but Lever has that role and as we saw with Petty on Larkey, he doesn't have the game awareness and defensive skills in that role? T-Mac sticks to his man, but he's not as quick, although he is a smart player generally (his second-quarter howler excepted). But if I had a say, I'd drop them both and send JVR or Turner back because they both can provide run.

Wow it's tough for Goody.

The only wish I have is that Tom Campbell plays because anyone who saw him train all pre-season knows he's a meat-and-potatoes goer who can win hitouts. He did really well on Xerri in our practice game against North and I could not believe he was left out on Sunday for that same role. And unlike when we stupidly kept starting Grundy on the bench, he needs to be in the middle at the very first bounce with Gawny playing from the goal square - yes I know he's captain and wants to win another AA, but the team has to come first. Then at three-quarter time, Campbell is  subbed out and a fresher Gawny has a chance to be the match winner.

You are making far too much sense.

1 hour ago, D Rev said:

1-2 weeks apparently

This is what our club doctor said yesterday. But I find it interesting that on Sunday he was on crutches with his foot heavily bandaged, mainly around his big toe, but yesterday there was no bandaging, no crutches, with just a little square patch, like a bandaid, on the back of his heel. He was walking around fine. 

Fullerton has to come in, we need a KPF of any caliber. 

1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

We have 4 top 10 players (May, Pickett), (top 5) Mcvee and Windsor) not currently in the side, no team can cover that but Sunday was inexcusable. 

Execution and effort in the last was deplorable.

Bont

Treloar

Weightman

JUH

19 hours ago, Young Blood said:

INJURY UPDATE:

According to club site:

May - possible to return this week

Lever - questionable after the bad ankle roll. Has to pass a fitness test later this week. Concern with the short turnaround.

Melksham - possible to return if he gets through full training this week OK.

Windsor - still another week away. Round 4 return they think

Jefferson - A fracture in the hand. 1-2 weeks

Hore - Reinjured the calf in last qtr for Casey but no timeline. Bummer

Hore reinjuring his calf doesn't bode well - they call it an old man's injury and they can be very problematic

11 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

Stats will tell you top 4 is near impossible when 0-3. And finals is 50/50. 

Reigning Premiers Brisbane Lions say hello

2 hours ago, Doug Reemer said:

OUT- Jeffo, Tmac, Howes, Woey

IN- AJ, May, Langford (To start), Laurie/Melk

 

 

As george suggested on the latest Podcast. We have no depth and it’s showing. 
 

FB Salem May Lever

HB Bowey Petty Rivers

C Langdon Oliver Lindsay

HF Langford JVR Sparrow

FF Spargo AJ Petracca

 

R Max Chandler Viney

 

B Turner Sharp Henderson Fritsch

 

Laurie/Melk SUB

Melksham needs to find form at Casey first.

12 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

Stats will tell you top 4 is near impossible when 0-3. And finals is 50/50. 
 

So maybe not this weekend but it’ll make the prospect of finals incredibly more difficult. 
 

TBH finals isn’t even a thought atm, I just want the team to win a game playing good footy. 

 

Can't argue that history says that going 0-3 makes top 4 very unlikely. A 0-3 start would be a shocker for us, absolutely no doubt. 

But I'm firmly of the view that the game at the elite level (ie AFL) is in the middle of a fundamental change to how it's played.

Almost every player now covers 12 plus kms a game - unthinkable even 10 years ago. As an example, two defenders in Tmac and Comben covered the equal second most kms in our last game, only 500 meters less than Sheezel. 

And the emphasis on fast transition and high-speed running means each teams needs to be stocked with elite runners with massive tanks (to enable the huge amount of two-way running transition footy demands) who can also reliably hit targets and play decent footy (ie the days of 'he's an athlete first, footballer second' are over).  

Of course, you still need the bulls who win the ball, and key position players to contest in the air, but the best teams have 10-12 elite runners. Logic suggests that the change to the style of play (from forward half footy to back half transition footy) and the athletic profile it demands that high performance and conditioning programs also have to fundamentally change.

An analogy might be training an elite squad of runners that for a decade or more were 70% power athletes (eg 100 and 200 metre) and 30% fast endurance athletes (eg 400-800 metre runners) but now the equation has flipped to 70% endurance athletes and 30% power athletes.

The high-performance programs at each club have to adjust to this new reality, one in which there is far less data available on best practice.  Which is why i think the lessons of history in terms of early season form are less relevant now. 

The goal remains the same for the genuine final's contenders - be in peak, optimal condition come finals time. But again, logic suggest the path to achieve that goal has to change.

At the risk of putting too much emphasis on last year, and acknowledging it represents small sample size, we all saw last season how demanding the game now is over the course of what is an incredibly long season given the physical demands of the sport (a brutal combination of contest and elite running).

And most clubs were trying to implement the transition game, so we have some data on the impact of the change to how the game is played in terms of early season form and peaking come finals:

• The Swans were, for the first half of the season were almost universally regarded as the fastest, fittest and best transition team in the AFL - on top of the ladder at the halfway mark of the season, having won their first 10 games they were 1.80 to win the flag at that point
• Come finals they started to flag (pardon the pun), lost their relative advantage in terms of running power and ultimately looked slow and struggled to transition the ball in their humiliating shellacking by the Lions in the Grand Final
• The Cats won their first 7 games, looked fast and in great shape - finished top 4 but like the Swans dropped off come finals, ultimately losing their prelim 
• The Lions, the premier, lost their first 3 games and looked slow and off the pace (their third loss was against the pies who had yet to win a game at that point) 
• The Hawks lost their first five games by an average of 32 points, including 9 goal shellackings by us and the suns, before roaring home and looking in great shape at the back end of the season, winning a final before bowing out in the semis 

Edited March 26Mar 26 by binman

53 minutes ago, samcantstandya said:

Melksham needs to find form at Casey first.

We thought that last year and Goodwin bought him straight in.

13 minutes ago, binman said:

including 9 goal shellackings by us

God that was enjoyable. Miserable hawks fans leaving at 3/4 time!

11 minutes ago, Doug Reemer said:

We thought that last year and Goodwin bought him straight in.

Which was a good decision. I can see him going straight into the firsts. 

10 minutes ago, binman said:

Can't argue that history says that going 0-3 makes top 4 very unlikely. A 0-3 start would be a shocker for us, absolutely no doubt. 

But I'm firmly of the view that the game at the elite level (ie AFL) is in the middle of a fundamental change to how it's played.

Almost every player now covers 12 plus kms a game - unthinkable even 10 years ago. As an example, two defenders in Tmac and Comben covered the equal second most kms in our last game, only 500 meters less than Sheezel. 

And the emphasis on fast transition and high-speed running means each teams needs to be stocked with elite runners with massive tanks (to enable the huge amount of two-way running transition footy demands) who can also reliably hit targets and play decent footy (ie the days of 'he's an athlete first, footballer second' are over).  

Of course, you still need the bulls who win the ball, and key position players to contest in the air, but the best teams have 10-12 elite runners. Logic suggests that the change to the style of play (from forward half footy to back half transition footy) and the athletic profile it demands that high performance and conditioning programs also have to fundamentally change.

An analogy might be training an elite squad of runners that for a decade or more were 70% power athletes (eg 100 and 200 metre) and 30% fast endurance athletes (eg 400-800 metre runners) but now the equation has flipped to 70% endurance athletes and 30% power athletes.

The high-performance programs at each club have to adjust to this new reality, one in which there is far less data available on best practice.  Which is why i think the lessons of history in terms of early season form are less relevant now. 

The goal remains the same for the genuine final's contenders - be in peak, optimal condition come finals time. But again, logic suggest the path to achieve that goal has to change.

At the risk of putting too much emphasis on last year, and acknowledging it represents small sample size, we all saw last season how demanding the game now is over the course of what is an incredibly long season given the physical demands of the sport (a brutal combination of contest and elite running).

And most clubs were trying to implement the transition game, so we have some data on the impact of the change to how the game is played in terms of early season form and peaking come finals:

• The Swans were, for the first half of the season were almost universally regarded as the fastest, fittest and best transition team in the AFL - on top of the ladder at the halfway mark of the season, having won their first 10 games they were 1.80 to win the flag at that point
• Come finals they started to flag (pardon the pun), lost their relative advantage in terms of running power and ultimately looked slow and struggled to transition the ball in their humiliating shellacking by the Lions in the Grand Final
• The Cats won their first 7 games, looked fast and in great shape - finished top 4 but like the Swans dropped off come finals, ultimately losing their prelim 
• The Lions, the premier, lost their first 3 games and looked slow and off the pace (their third loss was against the pies who had yet to win a game at that point) 
• The Hawks lost their first five games by an average of 32 points, including 8 goal shellackings by us and the suns, before roaring home and looking in great shape at the back end of the seaosn, winning a final before bowing out in the semis 

 

yeah, it's still uncharted/unchartered territory how to handle these longer seasons. The above examples are probably not all coincidences. Instead of having 3 or 4 preseason games and then having round 1 late March now there's 1 'match simulation' and only 1 practice match for each team and teams need to be match-ready 2 or 3 weeks earleir yet also not 'too' fit. People shouldn't take this for granted. I doubt coaches are. Back in the 80s and 90s teams would often try to win all their pre-season games as they aimed to win the pre-season competition. I'm guessing back then because many players would stay within 70m of their official position on the field all day they could easily get to Septmber with plenty left in the tank.... and often the pre-season premier would go well into September. But even by the noughties suddenly some pre-season premiers fell away badly including one or two ending up winning the wooden spoon. I'm guess even by then there was more running in games and more tired legs come September.

I doubt we'll do what Hawthorn did last year. But we may be one of the teams that will improve as some other teams lose their early-season fitness advantage. Fingers crossed.