titan_uranus

Geelong's brought Z Guthrie in for Parfitt. Their emergencies are Higgins, Fort, Simpson and Dahlhaus.

Hibberd in, Smith out. Emergencies are Jones, Melksham, Jordon and Chandler.

I don't think you can reasonably say he kicked it. In the heat of that very difficult moment, if what he did is considered a free kick, a defender has almost no viable opportunity to contest that ball.

Much as you might expect this to be the case, it isn't true. Geelong won 14 of 22 fourth quarters in the H&A season. That was one more than us. They are actually slow starters, only winning 9 first quarters in the H&A season (we won 13).

49ers, Packers, Ravens

That wasn't a free kick for deliberate and I'm glad as [censored] it wasn't paid. You'd have felt the same way if it was us, not the Dogs. The worst one of the late decisions was to not penalise Dale for holding the ball when he dragged it in and made no attempt to get rid of it. Blatantly HTB. Led to the Bailey Smith goal.

Regardless of your views on TMac's form, he's not getting dropped for M Brown or Weideman. Neither of them have had VFL matches to press a case to replace a player for poor form. Even if you consider that playing TMac is a risk due to perceived poor form, it's a significantly bigger risk to swap him out for a prelim for someone who has either played one game, and that was back in Round 5, or a player who has played 5 games, the last of which was three months ago in Round 13. If we want the tall, TMac has the spot. If we want a mid, Melksham had the spot in Rounds 21 and 22 and could get that spot back. Yes, Goodwin dropped Fritsch for Smith in 2018. That was, in my view, a bad call and I doubt he'll be repeating it again with anything as left-field as that.

Rotten luck for Smith. Really only two options to replace him, Hibberd or Hunt. Jetta hasn't played since Round 10 whilst Daw, Lockhart and Hore haven't played at all this year. Given Geelong's forward line, Hibberd is really the only option. Have to trust him to go with either Cameron or Rohan.

Another point to add to the mix when considering what Round 23 says about the prelim. When Geelong hit 44 points up, the scoreline was 11.2.68 to 3.6.24. So that was 13 scoring shots to 9. Four more scoring shots does not often equate to a 44 point lead. But it did that night. So much of what they did in the second quarter just...worked. We were off, sure, but they could not have capitalised any more. They didn't miss a shot on goal, the ball bounced the right way (literally, for the Cameron goal in the goalsquare), frees went their way both in terms of what was paid and what wasn't (e.g. Dangerfield running very close to the limit, if not beyond, twice in succession). I'd argue that, 9 times out of 10 (or more), Geelong wouldn't get up to a 44 point lead with the amount of time we spent "off".

The entire list is in Perth and training at the moment. Having the whole squad means we got to run an intraclub on the weekend.

There is absolutely no way we will, or should, play Majak Daw this week. He was always a break glass in case of emergency list addition. There is no emergency.

Israel is only at 60% double vaccinated coverage, though. They hit 50% double vaccinated in March but have plateaued significantly since then.

Just posted in another thread that without the pre-finals bye, from 2000-2015 only four sides lost the QF but then won the prelim (i.e. a 28-4 record). They were two threepeat sides (Brisbane in 2003 and Hawthorn in 2015), and then Sydney and West Coast in 2005 and 2006 respectively, after beating each other in close QFs.

Yep. Prior to the pre-finals bye, the QF winners are 28-4 in prelims. The four losers are: Fremantle in 2015 - beaten by the threepeat Hawks Adelaide in 2006 - beaten by West Coast, who had lost their QF by a point to Sydney during the peak Sydney-West Coast rivalry era St Kilda in 2005 - beaten by Sydney, who had lost their QF to West Coast by four points during the peak Sydney-West Coast rivalry era Sydney in 2003 - beaten by the threepeat Brisbane A bit of a trend there. The only four sides from 2000-2015 to lose the QF but make the Grand Final were either three-peat sides or lost their QF by a tiny margin as part of an amazing rivalry. 2021 Geelong does not fall into either of those buckets. (Note that all four of these sides went on to win the flag, though...)

I should say I didn't suggest it because I'm worried about Bowey, or that I think he doesn't deserve his spot in the 22. It's more that I worry that if we need to mix things up Hibberd and Smith can be flexible and take Rohan or Cameron or Miers or Close. Bowey doesn't give us that flexibility as much. It's not a massive concern - I think Geelong will be going in too tall and I think that plays into our hands already. Provided we bring the same level of defensive pressure in the forward and middle thirds of the ground as we've done all year, that's as much a part of how we stop them scoring as the individuals in the back six are.

Yes but under Chris Scott, since the 2011 flag they're 1-4 in prelims.

I just saw the grab of Selwood's post-game interview from On the Couch, where he smugly (literally with a smile on his face) told the camera that they didn't care about their loss to Port because they'd won 11 straight in the middle of the season (which wasn't true, it was 11 from 12). [censored] if we lose on Friday it's going to be so hard to stomach.

Maybe we'll bring Hibberd in for Bowey, allowing May, Petty and Smith to take Hawkins, Cameron and Ratugolea, Hibberd goes to Rohan, and that lets Lever run free? Rivers and Salem with Clark/Miers? Does Hibberd allow a bit more flexibility than Bowey for a taller Geelong forward line?

You couldn't have asked for a better run in than Port. I expect them to take care of the Dogs easily enough. Just hope we can join them on GF day.

You can't see what COVID's got to do with it? When he signed his 5 year contract no one foresaw border closures. They may well have planned on starting a family three years back, but they may also have not. Not everyone plans their entire life around children, no matter what previous generations might have done. Regardless, the situation three years ago is completely different to what it is now and if it turns out that being separated from family in WA is hitting them hard, that should be completely understandable to everyone. Having said that, he's had a five year contract and been paid accordingly, and Brisbane has framed a list around him, so I'd understand if they want to take a relatively hard stance, but Neale's position is completely understandable.

Well this week we know we can break the 21 year drought of winning a prelim final/making a Grand Final. We can also beat a side for the third time in one season, which will be the first time we've done that I believe since we beat Carlton three times in 1988.

Hawkins is amazing but I'll be pretty surprised if May gets beaten like that again. I'll be far more surprised if Gawn lets Stanley get on top early like he did in Round 23, and I'll be even more surprised if our mids don't at least break even. At least we know from Round 23 that even if we're behind at half time, the game won't be over. And we know Geelong can lose from good positions: their last two seasons have ended with them building up a half time lead and then watching it disintegrate.

it's been a while since Geelong beat a good side. I'd argue they haven't done it since Round 14 when they beat the Dogs (with a kick after the siren, at GMHBA).

I think someone looked at the numbers and noticed that the Dogs aren't 1st for free kicks for, they're mid-table, but the reason their differential is so high is that they have a seriously low number of free kicks against. So the whole "ducking for frees" thing isn't the issue. They're not sucking umpires in to pay frees to them. If you're playing in front, you can't push your opponent in the back or get them high in a marking contest. The Dogs play in front a lot. If you're first to the ball, you can only be penalised for HTB, but the player second to the ball can be penalised for a whole host of things. The Dogs are regularly first to the ball. These are, I think, the two principal reasons they give away fewer free kicks than their opponents. I don't have any data to back it up, but then again no one has any proof of conspiracies, bias or corruption.

Geelong is a strong side no doubt, but don't get too worried about it. If Scott's so smart and tactical, he would have learnt something about their ball movement from when we beat them the first time this year. But they played the precise same way again in Round 23. I also expect we'll have learnt plenty about the bad parts of Round 23. We won't be seeing them waltz out the front of repeated centre stoppages, and without that Geelong didn't look like scoring in Round 23. I'm not sure about their "phenomenal" finals record under Scott, either. They're 7-14 since the 2011 flag. They've only won more than one final in a season once (last year). They've had some seriously non-competitive losses, too: this year vs Port, their 2018 EF loss to us, they had two 50+ finals losses in 2017, the 2016 prelim where they were 7 goals behind Sydney at quarter time, the straight sets 2014 finals exit. Personnel-wise, Tuohy is a huge inclusion for them, but don't forget they lost O'Connor, a handy defender. Duncan's looked cooked in both of his games back so far, whilst Higgins is dropped, not injured, and just can't get a game (same with Dahlhaus). Look, Geelong are dangerous no doubt. They were clearly one of the four best sides in it this year and for all our amazing football this year we finished 1.5 wins in front of them, needing a kick after the siren to beat them in Round 23 after having been 44 points down. But there's a lot of MFCSS in our thinking that we're in trouble. We shouldn't feel that way. They should feel that way. They made the GF last year and took their squad and added Cameron, Smith and Higgins to it. They went all in for a 2021 flag. The pressure is squarely on them.