titan_uranus

I don't get this whole "the Dogs are not tall" thing. Most people look at our best 22 as being the GF team. Which was a team which played the Dogs. It's not like we're coming up against something drastically different. I'm not sure if there is any merit to the idea of going in smaller in the early rounds rather than taller, but that aside I don't see the Dogs' lack of height as being relevant to our best 22.

Incredibly harsh. Gawn works hard, that is true. But so do ANB, Langdon, Lever, Brayshaw, Hibberd, Brown, May, TMac and a host of others. And Gawn has his down games through a season, just like everyone does.

Did I miss this or is this a new announcement? If the latter...isn't it odd that the first we're hearing about this is 4 days before it airs?

Dunstan might bulk it up a bit but otherwise no, we don't have exceptional midfield depth. The players we roll through to relieve Oliver, Petracca and Viney are good but not great (think Harmes, Sparrow, Jordon). The Dogs have significantly more depth (Bontempelli, Macrae, Libba, Treloar, Smith, Dunkley, Hunter). Our best mids are elite, but we go from elite to pedestrian as you go down the list a bit too quickly to warrant the word "exceptional".

Yep Smith may take Rivers' spot and Tomlinson plays Petty's role. They didn't have Bruce in the GF but we went in with May, Lever and Petty so you'd think we'd go a similar level of height for Round 1. I don't know about the Dogs' injury list much but you'd imagine they'll be running a similar forward line, meaning Naughton, Schache and English/Martin, with Hannan and then Bontempelli down there too. Reducing the 50% figure down to 30-40% wins us last night's game with ease. I agree the midfield defensive pressure wasn't up to scratch and was a key contributing factor, but the number of inside 50s Carlton generated should not have resulted in 10.3 to half time.

Liked your whole post @binman but just on selection, it's not Tomlinson v Smith that is my main focus for Round 1 (personally I prefer Tomlinson, which is I will admit in part because I remain yet to be won over by Smith, but that battle isn't going to make or break our backline once May, Salem and Hibberd are brought back in). My main focus is who gets Rivers' spot for Round 1. Didn't really see anything last night to indicate someone is ready to step up into that spot.

The topic is a valid one but the way @Mach5 is going about raising it is p**s poor IMO. If you are aware of specific failures within the club's management, explain what they are. To the rest of us mere members, all we see is increased membership, increased sponsorship, better FTA fixturing and more relevance in both the media and the general footy public. The only example I've seen you put up here is a criticism of sponsorship, which is a topic on which the publicly available evidence suggests we have improved as a result of the flag. Which, to me, makes you 0 from 1 so far. i'm happy to debate how we're going embedding ourselves into the Casey region as well as other areas of Melbourne that might be considered appropriate for us to target, but you've not raised any evidence to suggest we're failing to do that.

The midfield two-way running I saw last week vs North was miles ahead of last night. Intensity often drops in practice matches and it wouldn't surprise me if we planned to go all-in for one match and less so for the other. Assuming that's what happened though, I don't really know why we picked the North game to be the all-in one, but anyway. IMO many are undervaluing the importance of having all of our missing players from one part of the ground. Having one key defender out can be covered (e.g. Smith covering for Hibberd last year, or Tomlinson covering Petty vs North last week) because it's only one stop-gap with a majority of the usual faces around you. But last night we had Lever, who hasn't played competitive football since the GF, and a 9-game 19-year old in Bowey, as the only regulars down back having to help organise a back half that we didn't spend much/any of the pre-season planning to deploy. That is then compounded by the unfortunate reality that some of the second-stringers are too loose (Hunt and Smith), so it sort of spirals a bit. The weak back half meant they were scoring from just under 50% of their inside 50s in the first half (13 scores from 27 inside 50s). Part of that comes from a poor midfield display but I'd back our first choice backline to do better than conceding 50% of the time. I certainly would rather have dominated the game but the result doesn't mean too much to me. I am, though, disappointed that Baker didn't demonstrate much/any improvement and we saw too much bad Hunt and not enough of the 2021 improved version.

It’s a good rule change. It will be applied too strictly in Round 1, but the answer isn’t to whinge about it but to adapt to it. -62 disposals, - 3 CPs, -14 clearances, -8 tackles. Pre-season or not, we won’t be winning many games of football this year with those figures.

I reckon this game is teaching us all a few things. First, a reminder about the importance of a healthy list. At no stage last year did we go into a game with 5 first choice defenders missing. Having one or two second rung players filling in is fine (eg Smith in the late Rounds and early finals last year) but when you need them to all work together with only Lever there to marshall, it shouldn’t surprise that it isn’t going to work as well. Carlton scored from 48% of their inside 50s (we had more, surprise surprise). Secondly, goal kicking accuracy. 12.3 vs 5.6. We lost games last year because we didn’t convert. Third, we are nothing without workrate. Last week vs North I saw an entire side working like they did in the finals. If we’re not at that level tonight, that will explain why we’re behind. And fourth, tonight is a more real game than last week (too many read too much into a genuine scratch match) but it’s also not a real game. Remember, we got belted by the Dogs in this game last year.

I don't envisage us playing a single game this year with all of May, Lever, Petty and Tomlinson. IMO, it's one of Petty and Tomlinson for the third tall.

Based on the first 7 rounds last year one could argue that Tomlinson would be a premiership player if not for his ACL. I think Smith and Tomlinson are both in the category of key defenders. I suspect the FD will be looking to pick whoever is best overall. I wonder whether Smith's intercepting role yesterday was increased due to Lever's absence? Would he have the same licence if Lever was in the side?

This is so unimportant...but...I really don't like the lighter blue Zurich logo. Much preferred the previous version which blended into the blue on the body of the jumper.

On Brown, I saw a highlight video of Chandler's goal from the middle of the field. Was that Brown sprinting into the goalsquare chasing after it? If so...seems a far bit faster/more agile than last year?

I know it's only a practice match but belting North Melbourne is always a fun event. Hopefully Salem is OK? Otherwise sounds like we got everything we'd have wanted from this match.

I could not agree more (although I don't know if I knew that the word "risible" existed before this post. Thank you for introducing me to it). It may not be "hate", but you don't really get why people find this list of players a bit on the nose? Look at @Demonstone's post above for starters. Their system results in Jeremy Finlayson being ranked "elite" in the key forward group but Harry Mackay and Jeremy Cameron not. Finlayson couldn't hold his spot in the GWS best 22 last year and was dropped for the last month. "Elite"? Their system results in Dylan Moore and Sam Switowski being ranked "elite" in the general forward group but Charlie Cameron, Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Michael Walters not. Jack Steele had an incredible 2021 but somehow went backwards in the rankings? The point is this: whatever Champion Data is measuring, they're way off the mark to the point that these rankings are pointless.

There might be a player who fits a need we have more, but I agree with those who said Liam Jurrah.

Nah Smith was on Cameron from the start and was responsible for a number of his goals.

I noticed that too, and my initial thought is I don't like it. However, unlike @DeeSpencer I love the gold AFL logo. A reminder throughout this season of our 2021 achievement.

This is a weirdly comforting reminder that, no matter that we're reigning premiers, this is still Demonland.

Bengals 28 v Chiefs 31 49ers 24 v Rams 21

Usually from November to February the only Demonland threads I visit are the NFL and cricket ones. This year's been a touch different...

One of the greatest games of all time to end what surely is the greatest weekend of NFL games, ever? There's no doubt the main reason the Bills lost is giving up a FG in 13 seconds. But... This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of the current OT rules. For Allen not to get to touch the ball after the game he had is just not how that game should have ended. Both defences were stuffed which meant too much rested on who won the coin toss. It shouldn't be that way.

I have no idea who will play in Round 1, which is far too far way to contemplate (injuries, form etc.). But I know what I want, which is for the premiership 23 to be the 23 we pick. Just to break that record. Edit: to be clear, what I actually want is for us to pick the best 23 when Round 1 comes, so if that's not the premiership 23 then such is life. But the romantic in me would love it.

Bengals 17 Titans 27 49ers 14 Packers 35 Rams 28 Buccaneers 30 Bills 28 Chiefs 24