titan_uranus

What makes me think it is that they just won a final playing that forward line, having lost two straight games to finalists (us Round 23, Port first final) trying the smaller forward line. Who replaces Ratugolea if they want to revert back to the forward line that lost them those games? They dropped Dahlhaus because he's out of form. Higgins couldn't even get a medi-sub gig this week. I know you missed their Fremantle win there this year but remember how after Round 23 Scott said it didn't matter because they were playing in Adelaide regardless? He's a master of spin. Whether it's to project positivity on his players, or he's delusional, or whatever else, I don't read anything into it. There's no way Geelong didn't care about playing Brisbane at the Adelaide Oval as compared to Port, and so I put no stock into him saying they like Optus.

Yep I'll give it another crack.

Geelong are likely to go with the extra tall in Ratugolea, but that isn't necessarily that bad for us. That will encourage them to kick it long and high to make marking contests, which is the sort of ball movement we love to defend. The height of their forward line might mean Smith holds his spot, and could mean Hibberd replaces Bowey for positional flexibility - both he and Smith have the ability to stand players like Rohan but to run off them.

Meanwhile Brisbane over the last three years have finished top 4 three times for a 1-5 record in finals (all bar one of those finals have been at the Gabba) and two straight sets exits.

Umpires [censored] the bed late. That wasn't a mark to Bont, clearly second to the ball. That shouldn't have been a free kick against McCarthy, jostling like that in the forward line happens all the time. And was that really a block free kick against McInerney? (meanwhile Zac Bailey might have ran too far for his goal at the end...)

Yep, full strength minus Stewart (and Parfitt going down early). Plus had the extra day break, and didn't exactly exert themselves last week whereas GWS played a hugely intense game vs Sydney. My MFCSS is also strong right now, but objectively there are plenty of reasons we can/should be confident.

Their 22 tonight is definitely better than the 22 they fielded against us in Round 23. However, we had their measure for most of that Round 23 game. I wouldn't bet on Gawn getting beaten by Stanley a second time in three weeks, nor would I bet on our mids putting in 20 minutes of genuinely absent football to let Geelong walk the ball out of stoppages. I'm also hopeful that Geelong will be feeling the pinch having played this week and not having had a rest for a few months. Hopefully we'll be fresh and focused.

This is rubbish, propaganda driven by Geelong people. The only time they "had us covered" was the 20 minute patch in the second quarter where they dominated stoppages and kicked 6 goals. If anyone had anyone covered the rest of the game, it was us covering them. And they didn't rest anyone. Dangerfield was (allegedly) sick and spent time on the bench in the fourth but that was it. Why do people have to minimise our win?

Are you serious? There's no meaningful difference between 13 days and 15 days off. They're obviously going to give Geelong and the Dogs/Lions winner 7 days each rather than give Geelong 8 days but Dogs/Lions 6 days. And Port gets the "lower ranked" finals team in the prelim because they already had to beat the higher ranked finals team in their QF. Are you seriously complaining about this?

Yep.

It's only really dawning on me now that next week is either going be the sweetest night of most of our lives, or one of the worst nights of most of our lives.

GWS put Geelong under serious pressure in this last quarter by moving the ball quickly. Had Geelong on the ropes but a dodgy free kick in the goal square followed by two awful clanger kick turnovers killed their chances. Geelong are still dangerous though. Huge test for us next week. They won't be as bad as they were last week vs Port.

If you asked people before the season if they'd take a prelim appearance, I suspect the majority would have said yes. It would be hard not to have said yes, coming off two seasons not even in the finals. Making a prelim qualifies for "going deep into finals", so it's pretty hard to top it other than by winning a flag. As is clear, we have demonstrated significant improvement in almost all facets of our game, as well as in what we do off-field. However, given what's happened this year, there's no doubt many of us will be disappointed if we don't win it this year. There are no guarantees in football: the Dogs had one run at it in 2016, happened to grab it, and then didn't win a final for 5 more years. We've had an incredibly good run with injuries this year which may not be the case ever again. And we finished 1st having only lost 4 times all year. If we don't win it now, many will argue if we'll ever win it (although, to be fair, we missed a number of home games and/or home games with crowds, and have to play a prelim on neutral territory). Demonland will be a very interesting place if we lose the PF or the GF this year, that's for sure.

Dogs are being seriously over-rated based on a win vs one of the weakest finals sides (an 11-11 Essendon whose late season form came from beating the bottom 5) in recent memory. And they're on a six-day break against Brisbane's seven-day break, travelling interstate to play Brisbane at the Gabba, where the Lions haven't lost since Round 1 (10-game wining streak) and have won 29 of their last 34 games, and where the Dogs have lost 7 of their last 8. I expect a Brisbane win. I also expect a Geelong win, but if a side were to go out in straight sets it would be a side carrying 11 players over the age of 30 who haven't had a break in 3 months.

September brings out the best in Demonland.

Except when we lose, in which case the podcast is apparently a distraction which should be canned so that he can focus on football... (Tongue slightly in cheek here).

Write Geelong off at your own peril. Yes, they're out of form, but they are still a seriously dangerous proposition when they get it right: see, for example, the second quarter 10 days ago.

The AFL or a player can appeal a Tribunal decision on one of four grounds: Error of law Decision of Tribunal was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have reached it Classification of offence by Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate Sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate The AFL would be appealing under ground 4, that the sanction was manifestly inadequate. Greene is entitled to appeal, and if he wants to get off he'd have to argue that the Tribunal either made an error of law, or its decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached it. If there had been an error of law, I reckon we'd have heard about it by now (and GWS wouldn't have immediately said they won't appeal), and I don't think anyone could argue the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal could reasonably have reached it. tl;dr - I don't think there's much risk to the AFL of Greene winning an appeal.

Correct verdict, penalty the absolute bare minimum but IMO too light. The AFL has a lot of work to do with its MRO/Tribunal process for 2022. Greene, like Selwood, is a brilliant example of why repeated fines do nothing to deter behaviour.

All valid points to debate, except the one about the second quarter IMO. Was it really Smith who kept him to one possession and a point in the second quarter? In that quarter inside 50s were 18-9 in our favour and the ball spent significant periods in our forward half. Do you recall Cameron being on the end of a chain of possession and Smith beating him? I don't (which isn't to say it didn't happen, just that I don't recall it happening).

This is a valid debate. It does not mean what Greene did is any less worthy of suspension, though.

The intent point is very important. Under the AFL Guidelines, he can only be suspended if the contact was intentional. Careless, unreasonable or accidental contact with an umpire just nets you a fine. If he gets off, the AFL needs to take a good look at its Guidelines (which, I've said a million times this year, are broken). He says he had no subjective intention of contacting Stevic. If the Tribunal agrees with that (remember, they didn't agree with Viney's evidence a month back), the AFL has to show that the contact was disrespectful, demonstrative, forceful or aggressive, because the Guidelines say that if it's one of those things, it's deemed to be intentional.

I know, and I disagree with the strategy. I understand what his legal team is doing. The charge is making intentional contact. He says he didn't actually intend to make contact. That's not necessarily relevant, because the AFL Guidelines say contact that is disrespectful, demonstrative, forceful or aggressive is deemed to be intentional. So his argument is that his contact was none of those four things. The problem I see with his argument is that I think it's unlikely he convinces the Tribunal that his actions weren't disrespectful or demonstrative. I think they were comfortably both of those things. If this action is neither disrespectful nor demonstrative, what the [censored] was it?

He's pleaded not guilty. Not the strategy I would have taken, but OK.

We're not playing kids because they are the "bright future". We're two wins away from a flag. We're playing them because they're in our best 22 right now.