titan_uranus

Essendon is one of the weakest finals sides the AFL has ever seen: there's a reason we talk about 12-10 being the mark for finalists, it's not common at all for 11-11 to be enough. It's no surprise they couldn't compete today for more than a half. The Dogs didn't play well but had the easy draw. I can't see them getting near Brisbane next week.

I'll spew if Greene gets anything less than Viney. If Viney wrestling with Collins, albeit admittedly taking it too far, is a worse "look for the game" than a player beelining and shouldering an umpire, the game is [censored].

What I have been thinking about today is not so much our A-graders, who are clearly leading us, but the roles that others have signed up to take, and played so well last night. Players like Viney, Harmes and Brayshaw, who have all over the last three years been pushed out of their preferred inside mid position, been moved around, looked unlikely fits in our best 22 - all of them played their role so well last night. And players like Spargo, ANB, Sparrow, Petty, Brown - none of them have reached the AA heights of our superstars but all keep putting in the right effort week after week.

Textbook definition of a [censored] bloke. Just a disgrace of a human on the field, and with his comments about Sandy Hook, off field too. The sooner he is consigned to the scrap heap of the AFL universe, the better.

Langdon's copped a bit for this. A few St Kilda players have said they're surprised and a number of people on Twitter have posted references to a speech Langdon gave at a Fremantle awards night where he praised Lyon. To the point where Langdon got in touch with Lyon today to apologise. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2021-ed-langdon-comments-about-ross-lyon-yelling-at-players-next-carlton-coach-former-fremantle-player-melbourne-news/news-story/9d49503c0fcf1fdc2eb15f447a5657c4

This game is probably the least relevant of the four, as I don't see either of these sides beating Brisbane, in Brisbane, on a six-day break. Brisbane only lost at home once this year and that was in March. Having said that, there are great stories either way. Essendon lose and, well, that's the story. Bulldogs lose and you'd be hard pressed to find a side sit in the top 2 for as long as the Dogs did but not even make week 2 of the finals.

This is such a cop-out and IMO serves to show the double-standards on here towards Smith (i.e. he gets treated differently to others). You're talking like Cameron is invincible and tears up everyone he plays. He doesn't, or he'd be kicking 5 goals every week. I doubt there's anyone else on our list who could have spent as much time on Cameron last night as Smith did and come away with anything other than a lambasting.

The ridiculous argument some have offered that Stevic steps out of the way and there's minimal to no contact looks to be blown up by this angle.

Agree entirely. There is a groundswell of support for this in the media. Might end up with two byes through the year, one at around Round 7-8 and one at around 15-16 or something, but they 100% need to get rid of the pre-finals bye. Kane Cornes on radio yesterday morning said that if you have done well enough in the first 21 games to be in a position to rest players in the final game because it won't affect your ladder position, then that's a credit to you. I agree entirely. Have a compromised Round 23 and an uncompromised finals series, not the other way around.

Sydney were I think the next best side after us in terms of W-L record against the top 8, so IMO it's huge that they're out. GWS is in form but Greene said post-match he hasn't felt that cooked before in a while and they'll be on a six-day break into their semi final vs Geelong. I'd expect Geelong to win and be our PF opponent. We shouldn't forget we were 44 points down to them a week ago and they were leading us at the final siren. Tuohy might be back for that game, too.

I believe that in seasons with no pre-finals bye, the winners of the QFs are 28-4 in prelims...

I don't think so, no. Based on my admittedly rudimentary review of the footage, looks to me like Smith was on him from the start and was on him for two of his three first quarter goals.

You want to bring Weideman back in for a prelim when he hasn't played since Queen's Birthday? No way. It's not happening barring injury. Melksham at least has been in the seniors at some point in the last 3 months.

He may well have given a free away there that wasn't paid - fair chance he grabbed his jumper. I felt at the time we were lucky not to get a free against. Have to say, I loved Fritsch getting the front on contact free from Andrews early in the fourth and then Harmes doing something kinda similar to Robinson and they didn't get a free. That was pretty lucky for us, and I loved every second of it.

As I said above, if this game-changing footage shows that the only contact was with his hand, then all that does is reduce the suspension from 6+ weeks to 2-4. He should be suspended for his actions. The way he remonstrated with, walked in a direct beeline towards, and either actually or nearly walked through him with his shoulder, should be considered blatantly inappropriate.

I'm not singling you out Mel, but honestly, it's amazing how some people perceive certain players. Almost anyone else on our list gives up at least 4 goals to Cameron and they're harangued on here. Joel Smith does it and he gets praised. Cameron was threatening every time he went near it. He'd have kicked more than 5 if Brisbane had had more of the ball in their forward half.

You're comparing what Greene did to this?

Are you saying he didn't touch him at all? If the contact was less than it first looked, all that means is a 6+ week suspension can be reduced to 2-4. Acting in that manner towards an umpire is disgraceful.

Show me said footage. It shouldn't matter. He walks directly into Stevic's path, Stevic is stationary. He's acting in a completely inappropriate way towards an umpire. If what Viney did was a "bad look for the game" and was worthy of two weeks, so is this.

Yep I was surprised. But he's had 13 clearances and 581 metres gained so he wasn't totally ineffectual.

I said I believed Smith went to Cameron at the first bounce and I was surprised the boundary rider said Salem was on him. I've now gone back and taken a look at the footage and I can't see Salem on Cameron for any of his three early goals, but I can see Smith on him for two of them. Are you sure you saw Salem running with Cameron? It just doesn't make sense to me.

This is the contest before Cameron's third goal. Neither Smith (right, next to Berry) or Salem (with ball) are on Cameron (off to the left somewhere). Hard to know who was supposed to be on him here.

Cameron's second goal. Smith's on him again.

This is Cameron's first goal. Smith's on him but goes up into the contest.

Can anyone who was at the ground tell us if Salem or Smith was on Cameron at the start of the game?