titan_uranus

Well all the club's told us is that they were out for COVID reasons. Lever rolled his ankle last week but there's been no suggestion that would have kept him out of last night's game. And there's no reason to believe Viney's injured.

We're going to lose games this year. Yes, plural. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Not only does history tell us it is going to happen, but we're simply not as far in front of the competition as some in the media are sensationally suggesting. We haven't played a side sitting higher than 11th on the ladder. Of the 16 games to come, 12 of them are against the current top 10. The fixture difficulty ramps up from here.

If no injuries, it's really simple: Lever and Viney come in, Smith and Dunstan go out. Harmes finished the game on the bench with a jacket on. If he's injured, and if Dunstan isn't concussed, he might make way for Viney. If both Harmes and Dunstan are unavailable, then we have to get a bit more creative and it might be Bedford who gets a game. But some of the other changes suggested in this thread just aren't going to happen. ANB's not going to be dropped (IMO he wasn't anywhere near as bad as some have said). Jordon's not going to be dropped (those who query Jordon's role in the side are maybe not going to the games because his role is vital). Weideman's not going to be dropped (did enough right to get another game over TMac).

Brayshaw will stay where he is. When Salem returns it will either be for Hunt or for Rivers, and right now it's arguable it'd be for Rivers. But he's not replacing Brayshaw, who would have to replace Jordon, who is best 22 right now.

I can't stand reading the number of posts in here along the lines of "it was ugly" or "we need to play four quarters" or similar. If you were at the game last night you'd have seen that Richmond dropped extra numbers behind the ball. As did GWS. As did Port. This is the approach of teams who don't think they can beat us. Last night Richmond added pretty ferocious pressure early, backed by the loudest crowd against us we've faced in a year, if not more. Despite that, we are still wrestling games onto our terms. We absorbed their hits, limited damage from their momentum, and ended up with the ball camped in our forward half. The game would have looked very different had we nailed the easy shots in the 2nd quarter that we missed, the two main ones being ANB's set shot and Pickett's snap. We kept the door open and with the crowd, they got a look late in the 2nd and capitalised. But the game was played almost entirely otherwise the way we wanted and we know that when we play the way we want, we almost always win. It's April. Salem's played one quarter, Lever's missed four games, Petty's missed three, Rivers looks like he's not fully fit, Brown's missed three games, Petracca's not 100% fit and being tagged relentlessly. And we're 6-0.

Agree re: Fremantle. I can totally understand why the jury would still be out for you (and anyone else) on St Kilda. For me it's line ball. But on your last line, St Kilda played Fremantle in Perth and beat them. That has to be accepted as a strong win now that we see what Fremantle is capable of.

Fremantle's as serious a contender this year as anyone. Right now I'd say the flag is going to be won by one of these clubs: us, Brisbane, Fremantle, Sydney, Geelong and St Kilda. The good news is three of that group barely play on the MCG (Brisbane, Fremantle and St Kilda), whilst Sydney and Geelong only get 3-4 games a year there. The bad news is if we slip up, and we do have a rough fixture (Brisbane away (and home), Fremantle away (and home), Geelong in Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney all still to come), top 2 could prove vital.

When was the last time TMac was dropped in his career? Who knows, maybe it is the wake up call he needs and may spark something in him.

As we're the away side, this is the one game a year where we're in the other change rooms and our cheer squad will be at the Ponsford end. Will that disrupt our usual routines? (tongue in cheek here...) Anyway that aside, we're due to lose a game. It's going to happen soon. If not this week then I can easily see us losing to Hawthorn or St Kilda in the coming fortnight. No Lever, Salem or Viney, and something of an "experiment" running Brown and Weideman for the first time. Will it be tonight? Honestly, whilst it shouldn't be (even with those three missing we're much better than Richmond this year), I won't be surprised.

It's probably worth bearing in mind. Assuming the Suns don't beat Brisbane, a win tomorrow will leave us with six wins against the bottom 8 sides in the comp.

Dogs are 2-4. They haven't left Victoria yet this year. They've still got six interstate trips plus a game in Geelong to come. They still have two games against Geelong and games against us, Brisbane, Sydney, St Kilda and Fremantle. I've had faith in them all year that they'd bounce back but they've got a tough run.

Thought the McHenry miss might have killed them but that kick from Walker was incredible with the wind the factor that it is.

Jeepers the umpires just missed an utterly blatant protected zone 50m against Weightman.

Across their careers Dunstan averages 0.4 goals per game to Viney's 0.3.

Well, there it is. TMac loses his spot to Brown (but really, he lost it to Weideman). As for Dunstan getting Viney's spot, makes sense and is precisely why we got Dunstan in as depth. Hope he does well, but you'd think he'd have to be utterly dominant to avoid not making way for Viney the following week. I reckon Smith over Tomlinson for Lever's spot makes sense. Tomlinson's in more direct competition with Petty and May, being the defenders who stay further back and get more of the "power" forwards. Smith covers Lever's intercepting role better.

Why? What I was suggesting might happen is that Jackson is going to be declared out in the final team tonight, which would then mean Brown came in for him. No, it doesn't make sense (if Jackson were unfit why not just declare so last night), but it's still an option.

I agree. TMac down back in Round 1 was a necessity because we lost Salem mid-match. But we have Smith and Tomlinson ready to play, both of whom are fit and better defenders than TMac right now. Why would we force a square peg into a round hole by trying to make TMac a defender when we have Smith and Tomlinson who've already played a tall defender role (and well, too) in 2022? It's possible we want to use Smith to replace Brayshaw, so that Brayshaw and/or Jordon can make up Viney's minutes in the middle. But even if we did that, we should still be playing Tomlinson over TMac as a key defender. There are only two realistic options IMO. The first honours the "rule" that the 18 picked are the starting 18, with emergencies to come from the extended bench. Honouring that "rule", I wonder whether Jackson may be out injured. That would mean Weideman/TMac stay in to play Jackson's role. The second option is that the starting 18 is prone to change and one of TMac/Weideman will actually be dropped. As an aside, what is Melksham doing in the squad? Hasn't he been in zero form to speak of all year?

I strongly doubt we're doing that. Since settling on a forward line of Brown/TMac/Fritsch plus a resting ruck at times and then the smalls, we're 13-1-1.

The last paragraph I agree with. Problem is, I also agree with @Macca and others who say we do not want or need more grey areas in our laws of the game. So I understand why the AFL may prefer to just say "anything at all is a 50m penalty". Of the examples shown over the weekend, the Hewett and Holman ones should have been penalised, but the Andrews and Mitchell ones should not have been - the former two involved the player staring at, and walking towards, the umpire with their arms out, the latter two were just two players almost shrugging their shoulders. Yes, it's more grey area, but ultimately I think I'd be more comfortable with the "arms out" action being considered in context.

I am very, very torn on this. I am 100% supportive of both the need to drastically improve the way umpires are treated by players, and the basic concept of legislating to make it happen. But a blanket rule that says “arms out is 50” just doesn’t fit. Are we saying that in no circumstances, ever, should a footy player raise his/her arms in response to a free? if they do it whilst mouthing off (eg Clarry this weekend, from reports), fine, pay 50. If they do it whilst walking towards the umpire as if to intimidate, pay 50 (eg Holman and Hewett this weekend). But if they’re doing it in the context of a lack of understanding of a decision, in downtime (eg Andrews and Mitchell), that IMO is not dissent nor behaviour we need to eradicate. It’s a player trying to understand a decision.

That is clearly something in our favour but unless you see Essendon, Port and/or GWS rebounding and making finals this year, those wins aren't going to be as strong as wins over Brisbane or Fremantle (both of whom we play twice), for example. FWIW I see GWS pushing for the lower half of the 8, and I think Port will get much better than the currently are, but Essendon might be a lost cause.

The latter is the knock on us, and it won't be answered until either Round 7 (if Hawthorn hold their spot in the 8) or otherwise Round 8 when we play St Kilda. Geelong are 3-2, but they've already played three top 8 sides and 9th as well. Their repeat games include Port Adelaide, North and West Coast - you can almost lock in six wins right there, and certainly the three home games as they're all at GMHBA. They also have the Dogs and St Kilda twice, but again the two home games are at GMHBA. They have Fremantle, also at GMHBA, and are yet to play Adelaide, GWS and Richmond, all mid-table sides (at best). This loss hurts Geelong, sure, but they've probably already had the hardest part of their fixture.

Love seeing Geelong lose, but why does it have to be Hawthorn? I don't want to see Hawthorn anywhere near the finals for years. But right now each of Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney sit inside the top 8.

This doesn't appear to have aged well...

The last paragraph I can't agree with. We're playing great footy to watch. The third quarter yesterday was as good football as you could ask to see. The first half was actually a strong and gripping contest.