titan_uranus

In Rounds 1 and 2, May was injured. In Rounds 3 and 4, Lever has been injured. Also in Round 1, Petty was one of our best. He's been poor from Rounds 2-4, but there hasn't been a better option to bring in, with Hore injured and Adams not clearly ready.

If I'm looking at the trade correctly, we traded 14, 27 and 35 to Gold Coast for their pick 11, which we used on Tholstrup. Players who were picked from 18 onwards (pick 14 became 18 due to academy and f/s), who weren't also academy and f/s, and who have debuted so far, are Darcy Wilson, Wil Dawson, Riley Hardeman, Lance Collard, Archer Reid, Angus Hastie, Cooper Simpson, Shaun Mannagh, Tew Jiath, Clay Hall, Kane McAuliffe, Liam Fawcett, Joe Fonti, Joel Freijah, Harvey Johnston, Hugh Garcia, Archie Roberts, Will Lorenz, Arie Schoenmakers and Lawson Humphries.

The list is such a problem. No one is really falling over themselves to pick Spargo, Sharp, Woewodin, Billings and Laurie. That's five players who are too "samey", none of whom appear to be capable. I'd keep Henderson out of that group for now, given he can run, has a bit of pace, and can kick, but the point remains - swapping Sharp/Spargo for Woewodin/Laurie doesn't really have much appeal.

This won't be the lowest point. Richmond on ANZAC Eve, followed by West Coast, is where that point will be. Even if we beat Essendon, if we lose one or both of the Richmond and West Coast games, that could (should) be tipping point.

He plays in a very different side. He has Walker and Fogarty (and Curtain) presenting as marking options around him. JVR has Turner (a defender with, what, 15 games experience as a forward), Jeffo (1 game experience) or AJ (2 games experience) for support, and at times when we go with two talls, he has no one. Which raises an interesting point. So many on here have argued that because Hawthorn have just Chol, that we should be going with fewer tall forwards, not more. But there are plenty of sides who are going with 3 talls and succeeding. Adelaide is one, Sydney is another (they went into last night with Amartey, McLean and Ladhams, alongside Grundy). Both Adelaide and Sydney move the ball with pace, like Hawthorn, but kick big scores with tall forwards. Brisbane won the flag last year with Daniher, Hipwood and Morris, too.

Assuming that we didn't try for these players (I know it didn't seem to come up in the media but that doesn't necessarily mean we didn't try), I suspect there are two big reasons we don't seem to go after these players. The first is the salary cap - I assume we've had TPP issues with the coin we had to shell out in 2020-2023 on Trac, Oliver, Gawn, Pickett, May, Lever and Brayshaw. The second is our draft attitude - we have consistently prioritised obtaining and using first round draft picks where possible. That attitude will hold us in good stead in the medium/long term, now that we have Langford, Lindsay, Windsor and McVee. But it means I suspect that we've reserved our draft capital for only the A-graders (e.g. Houston) or otherwise for the draft. Which is why the 2nd rounder for McAdam stands out like a sore thumb. Also, I was at Marvel last night and if we had taken Jack Darling this board would be losing its mind right now. It shows you how bad we are that he played well against us, because he's utterly finished at AFL level from what I saw last night.

Pot, kettle? FWIW I agree that if Fullarton's stepping up at Casey, it's increasingly harder for Goodwin to ignore him. But perhaps if you want to go into bat for him, you shouldn't dish out needless insults against others. JVR's out of form, no doubt, but playing as a key forward in the MFC forward line in 2025, particularly when your senior coach allows Geelong at GMHBA to have a spare defender, is an incredibly difficult role.

The thing that gets me about this though, is that with Neeld he was powerless to stop it. Whereas on Friday, Goodwin literally chose to deploy a tactic that ruined us. He could have stopped it at any time, but didn't.

What? It's literally the opposite. Everywhere you look, on TV, radio, in print, commentators are constantly talking about how everyone thought we were a finals contender and now it's become clear we're the opposite. The 5-14 run, Trac's body language, Gawn's words last week, Goodwin's pressers and coaching, the Oliver/Viney/Trac midfield conundrum, Rivers going backwards, it's all they're talking about. We are constantly analysed. North Melbourne will be criticised today for being flogged again, and the media will move on.

Seriously? You're asking why Goodwin, a human/father/husband, doesn't just give up and walk away from his income? I'm sure you, like the rest of us, would hate the idea of our players giving up. If you want them to buckle down and work hard, expect the coach to do the same. If the club decides he's no longer the right man for the job, they can sack him. Until then, Goodwin works hard to fix the mess he's contributing to, just like the players.

Do you think Pendlebury has ever been all that fast, or that strong?

Smith is a current board member. He has to be consulted regardless.

Sometimes, yes. On this post though (which happens to be mine), no.

The Houston v Pickett comparison isn’t really to the point. Both bumped, both went high, one got concussed (Pickett - 3 weeks), one didn’t (Houston - 2 weeks). But it’s fair to ask why Archer gets 3 whilst Houston only gets 2.

Has this been discussed on here yet? Incredible disrespect from Holmes. Par for the course from Geelong though. But also - he’s right. Whilst tagging Holmes worked, leaving a spare defender was dumb from the outset and shouldn’t have continued.

I'm not saying this is your intention @Dannyz but some will interpret this as a problem. This is absolutely normal. There are plenty of successful clubs whose CEOs would have no desire at all to leave for any other job, whether at the MFC or elsewhere. Indeed, we're actually doing our job properly if we're asking the best CEOs in the AFL, even if we get immediately rejected. Hopefully this is an indication that we're casting the net well beyond the MFC circles.

We gave Petty an entire season forward and it didn't work. We've spent all summer training him as a defender again. I don't think swinging him forward now is going to work. Stability is valuable, I agree, but there are minimum standards we have to adhere to. Neither Spargo nor Sharp are meeting them.

I reckon Tom McDonald's doing alright. But as @Wells 11 said, this question is redundant right now. We're so far off as a collective, it's not surprising that no one looks any good.

Again, if you want it to, sure. The point I'm making is that his body language can't be interpreted as definitively meaning anything.

Only if you want to interpret it that way. You could equally view it as a guy who wants to commit to this club and so is frustrated that we’re not winning. His passion and energy after his two goals looked genuine and strong. He’s an emotional guy. We’re playing like [censored] right now. It would be more worrying to me if he wasn’t reacting to our form, tbh.

Viney did 12 centre bounces tonight, out of 22. Oliver, Langford and Pickett all did more.

We did the "game plan that suits the players we have". It won't get us anywhere, any time soon. Carlton's trying it now, and are the only side rivalling us for underperformance.

I rarely think we ever lose a match at selection, nor do I buy into the "Goody picks his faves" conspiracy theory. But there's just no way I will be able to stomach seeing Spargo get another game. Not until he goes back to Casey and earns it. Right now he's a slow, possibly overweight, liability with no asset (don't tell me he can kick - that's useless if you can't get the ball in the first place). What the actual flying [censored].