titan_uranus

For pure attendance reasons, I hope the Carlton and Collingwood games are Saturday 1.45pm or 2.10pm starts, or Sunday 3.20pm starts. For commercial reasons, I'd want at least one to be a Friday or Saturday night, and I'd want Round 23 vs Brisbane to be a Friday night as well. The last time we had a "normal" fixture, in 2019, the final rounds had the following games: Carlton v St Kilda in Round 22 at the G was a Saturday 1.45pm game and drew nearly 52,000 (neither side was in finals contention) Richmond v West Coast in Round 22 at the G was a Sunday 1.10pm game and drew 57,000+ (flag favourite vs reigning premier and 3rd on the ladder) Richmond v Brisbane in Round 23 at the G was a Sunday 3.20pm game and drew 76,000+ (flag favourite vs 1st on the ladder)

We already have one of those forwards, Ben Brown. We can't play two key forwards who disappear for long periods of the game. Ben Brown at least hit the scoreboard on the weekend. Mitch Brown, regrettably, has struggled in both his games so far.

Be as pessimistic now as you want, be as critical of our poor form now as you want, but FFS don't give me this revisionist [censored]. I cannot stand it. We didn't "fluke" the flag. For one, no one has ever fluked a flag and no one ever will, because it's not possible to do so. But regardless, we finished the H&A season 17-1-4 with a percentage of 130.8%, having beaten every side except Collingwood, including Port Adelaide (2nd) away, Geelong (3rd) away, Brisbane (4th) on neutral territory and the Dogs (5th) at Marvel, and we led the league in all relevant defensive metrics throughout the season. We could hardly have been more dominant in 2021. Our finals campaign didn't come from nowhere, it came from a H&A season of hard work and capped off the year.

As always on Demonland, people look for one answer or one issue, when the reality is that things are not that straightforward. I'd suggest the following are all factors: mid-game injuries which throw our balance - May, Petracca and Petty against Fremantle, then Turner, Gawn and Petty against Collingwood; too many issues in our back half - no May, Petty playing half-injured, Lever, Hunt and Rivers all out of form, Hibberd and Salem working back into AFL-level fitness; too many issues with our marking forwards - no TMac, B Brown out of form, M Brown not good enough, Weideman a mix of out of form and/or not good enough; not enough pressure being applied in the forward half, giving our opponent the ease of moving the ball through the corridor; too many turnovers, particularly when trying to deliver the ball inside 50. We fixed some of the above mid-season last year (the last three, for example). But we didn't have to deal with the first two of those issues last year. The two most disappointing features over the losses have been watching a 20+ point lead disappear, too easily, all three times, and our inability to cover our missing players. I'm disappointed that May not playing has been as impactful as it has been, and ditto TMac. I believe we can turn around our issues, because we by and large faced the same issues last year and turned it around. But this time we don't have a soft fixture patch to get going like we did last year (we had GC, West Coast and Adelaide in Rounds 20-22, which led into the Geelong game and finals). We're going to have to find our form pretty quickly against top 8 sides because that's what our fixture presents us. It's not going to be easy, and right now I don't think you can criticise anyone who thinks top 4 is a longshot.

A winning score for us doesn't mean we score heavily. I'm equally interested in whether, without May, we can keep Collingwood to a score we can beat. We failed to do that against Fremantle (94). Sydney only had one fewer scoring shot but were inaccurate and so only scored 73, which is a beatable score even without a forward kicking a bag.

We'd be out-marked repeatedly in our forward line, leading to no crumbing opportunities, and you'd then write Bedford off for failing to impact the game. Meanwhile either Gawn would be rucked into the ground, or we'd be even shorter and less likely to take a forward 50 mark if we moved Jackson into the ruck when resting Gawn.

Don't worry, Geelong can't pass us next week even if we lose - they're 8-4, so the best they can get to is 9-4, we'd be 10-3 with a loss. Brisbane and Fremantle haven't had their byes either, so they can't pass us if we end tonight on top. The only side who could theoretically pass us is Carlton, who are 9-3 having had their bye. They are currently 31.3% behind us though, and play Richmond next week. If we lose, but we don't shed 7% and therefore stay above Brisbane, it's highly likely we finish next week on top. But, as I think Carlton would be favourites to beat Richmond, if we lose today there is every chance at the end of next week the top 4 are all on 10-3. And, given Geelong has West Coast, St Kilda has Essendon and Sydney has Port, there's a fair chance 5-7 on the ladder will all be just one game behind. Which will mean, despite starting 10-0 and having a two game lead on 2nd, we could by the end of next week be one game out of 7th.

We know. As @Demonstone has pointed out, you don't need to say it a million times. FWIW, you also didn't rate Spargo, continually describing him as too small. You got that wrong. I'm not sure if Weid will prove you wrong, but I am sure that you're annoying almost everyone on here by repeatedly saying Weideman won't make it. Those people with short memories recall that after he was dropped for Round 6, and returned in Round 7, he kicked 11 goals in 4 games (up from the 4 goals he'd kicked in the first 5 games).

I agree, but Channel 7 want Thursday night games (heck, they'd have a game every night of the week if they could) and there are only two ways to get the number of them into the season that they want: The AFLPA agree to multiple 5-day breaks; or They are played by teams coming off their bye weeks. The AFL may be able to get the AFLPA to agree to a second 5-day break per year in the upcoming CBA negotiation, but otherwise unless the fixture changes to have two byes, one in April/May and then one later on for example, the byes will always sit in this June window and we'll have Thursday night games in cold early-winter conditions.

This sentence makes no sense. Winning a premiership doesn't all of a sudden turn Kade Chandler or Toby Bedford into tall marking forwards. We all know where we stand with our tall forwards. B Brown and M Brown are playing but neither is in any sort of AFL-level form, TMac is injured, and Weideman is considered by the FD to be less deserving of a spot in the side than the Browns. There's no one else. Daw's not a forward. Joel Smith is injured but even if he wasn't, he's a defender now. Tomlinson's a defender. Last week we lost in no small part because of Sydney's intercept marking. We can't afford to go in small and be repeatedly out-marked in our forward line because of the way we move the ball (i.e. we focus on repeat entires and time in forward half, so even if we don't mark it it has to come to ground and become a stoppage). At the moment the FD is playing the two it thinks are least out of form. We have to back them in to get it done at AFL level, because we can't afford to send them all to Casey at once.

Honestly, you swing into full-blown pessimism faster than anyone. Oscar Allen is a talented but largely unproven player. Luke Jackson went a long way to winning us a Grand Final.

Not to be rude but mods, do we need another thread on this? There's already the Low Attendance thread for discussing these exact issues.

Yeah. We know. FFS.

Hunt can be considered unlucky. B Brown and M Brown can be considered lucky, you'd have to say.

This is a terrible reason IMO. We spent decades playing non-competitive football, but now after one magical year, we all set the bar at 2021 form and won’t accept anything less? Meanwhile yes only three scores above 100 but another four in the 90s. That’s 7 of 12 games where we’ve scored 90+ (and an 8th game where we scored 87). This is not good enough. We are winning, we are top of the ladder, and we are a legitimate flag contender this year. Those three things will not always be the case. We have generational talent who won’t be there forever. FFS, on Saturday night our captain, who may possibly end his career as the greatest ruckman of all time, played stunning football the likes of which maost other talls cannot reproduce. This reason for not attending is bullsh*t.

There is crucial information about what happened missing from the story so far - who else was there, how long had May been drinking for, did anyone have the chance to notice and call it out, how much did he drink, etc On the face of it, and assuming he was drinking when the club’s rules say he wasn’t allowed to, suspending him is the correct call. Yes it punishes the team. That’s part of why it’s the correct call. If it had been a fringe player, it wouldn’t punish the team and therefore would be easier to stomach, but that means senior players can get away with things. I am keen to learn the full story before saying anything further though.

Personnel no, but game plan? Richmond used the same game plan for four years. Hawthorn used the same game plan for four years. There's not a single thing wrong with Goodwin backing in our strengths. They won us 17 games in a row for a reason. Personnel-wise, we've got too many players out of form and we do need some change, but we've been persisting with a new side all year - Hunt and Brayshaw in the backline, Smith too until injured, Jordon on a wing, ANB more time up the ground and Petracca more time forward. We've changed more than your post suggests.

Isn't Optus Stadium a very similar size to the MCG?

See the thing is, Brown does deserve to be dropped, but I'm just not sure Weid deserves to be recalled. Goodwin's comments on Weid in the presser suggest he's not particularly enamoured with Weid's form either. Reality is that we currently have no in-form fit tall forward on our list. Whoever gets a game next week, whether it's B Brown, M Brown or Weid, is getting a game more out of necessity than out of form or "deserving" it.

Petracca was ill, and put his hand up as being fit to play last week. What did the club do wrong there? Goodwin was directly asked if Brown's fit last night and responded with a simple "yes". There's no other evidence or even rumour to suggest he's injured, so maybe his poor form is just that, poor form. Not sure there's really an issue here right now.

I get you don't rate Weideman, and personally I don't think he's shown very much this year either, but Brown was being repeatedly outmarked last night. So you're not really on great ground going down that road right now.

I thought I did OK with my almost-live-post attempt! Goodwin's comments about Weideman really stood out to me, more than anything. Incredibly blunt.

There's no evidence of this "loading" thing. There is inside mail on here all the time, but not one post from someone professing to know for sure that the training loads have increased. I suppose we may never know for sure, and if we get better as the year goes on we may look back and confirm the suspicion now, but in the absence of good evidence/mail on it, I'm hardly inclined to accept it just because we happen to look a bit tired right now. I mean, we had a few ill players last week and this week brought in five new players, three of whom were coming back from injury and three of whom hadn't played at the top level for a long time (M Brown, Salem, Tomlinson). Coupled with a physically intense match, perhaps that explains the perceived slowdown?

Not sure about the frees. It didn't feel like we were giving away frees for in the back or holding the man too much. We seemed to be giving them away for getting caught with it or in marking contests. And as you know, I also don't agree that them kicking straight would have ended the game in their favour. The third quarter had the same logic but the other way around - we kick straight there, we may have had the game done at 3/4 time.

Well it's not that simple of course - the Browns had bigger and better defenders on them most of the time, as did Gawn when he was forward. Fritsch is able to get off the leash for that reason sometimes. But also, simply put, Fritsch is better than the Browns right now. He's in better form, he's holding his marks better, he's got enough pace to get away from his opponent but enough strength to not drop it in a contest. As for the crumbers, part of the problem was we were being outmarked in our forward 50. Can't put pressure on them when they're marking it. In the fourth quarter we were crying out for the ball to hit the deck if we couldn't grab it, but we kept getting outmarked. Coaches routinely talk about the importance of bringing the ball to ground. B and M Brown last night failed in that regard.