titan_uranus

Brisbane now just 1.8% behind the Dogs. If they beat West Coast next week and the Dogs lose to Port, there is every chance the Dogs miss the top 4. That would be ridiculous for a side that has been in the top 2 on the ladder since Round 3. Having said that, Port hasn't beaten a side in the top 4 all year, and they've barely beaten anyone in the top 8.

Carlton no chance from here. St Kilda only 2 points behind but getting belted in general play. But if they can hold on, and we win tomorrow, we're locked into top 2. Conversely, if Geelong wins, and Port beats the Dogs, we'll be playing next week to avoid having to go to Adelaide for the first final. It is huge.

If results go expect this round (Geelong, Port and we all win), then next week is huge: if Port beats the Dogs next Friday night, we'll need to beat Geelong to avoid going to Adelaide for the first final.

Ouch.

Jack Riewoldt just 3 touches. "Look out if you're playing us" lol.

Tonight's game is a great example of what I was saying above. Richmond are -4 in free kicks tonight. They've given away a stack of off the ball, or late hit, or undisciplined, free kicks tonight. It's not a conspiracy or anti-Richmond bias, it's just a side which infringes on the rules a lot.

The Richmond fawning in the commentary box is disgusting. Noticeably though, Daisy doesn't get involved in it. It's all BT, Brayshaw and Leppa.

They still haven't made the finals yet, either. They need to win next week, otherwise they run the risk of Essendon passing them with two wins (could theoretically also be passed by St Kilda or Fremantle but they're far less likely to win both games).

Channel 7 going on and on about Richmond's inexperience:

GWS with this win will likely finish 7th. That means they likely play Sydney in the first final (Brisbane would have to lose to Collingwood or West Coast for Sydney to pass them), and then the winner gets the loser of 2 v 3. So if we win both games and finish 1st, we'll avoid that semi.

Richmond are witches hats out there. GWS was excellent last week vs Geelong but hard to read much into this.

To be fair, if you're a Richmond fan, does it matter? You've had a great run, three flags and an era to always remember. Now let's hope they completely fall apart and spend years wallowing down the ladder.

Remember when people were complaining about "we gave up Hogan/pick 6/Ben King for May"? Ah dear.

Certainly if there's no pre-finals bye, one of my concerns about resting players (missing every second week for five weeks potentially, through to the prelim) isn't a concern anymore.

If there's no pre-finals bye, does that mean a Sunday final in week 1? Or three finals on the Saturday? If not, they'll have to do a Thursday night, but that won't work unless Bulldogs v Port is a repeat match up in the first final and they're both on a six-day break. Otherwise they'll be sending at least one, if not two, sides into that game off a five-day break. From our perspective we'll have already had two consecutive six-day breaks so you'd hope we're on the Saturday in week 1, so that we don't have a third straight six-day break.

Tom Browne at half time was "reporting" (by his standards anyway) that he thinks the AFL is going to scrap the pre-finals bye. Imagine if we get the Friday night final in week 1. Three consecutive six-day breaks. Surely not.

That's not the rule at all.

This might have been fair to say in Round 1. But it's Round 22. No excuses. Stand on the mark, don't move. It's not hard.

This is seriously a poor comment.

GWS is missing Greene, Green, Coniglio, Davis, Daniels, Finlayson, Hill and Reid (along with some season-ending injuries to Flynn, Keeffe and Buckley). They could be a handful come finals. If they beat Carlton next week that puts them in prime position for 7th and potentially a final vs Sydney, the best draw possible for them. They look good, but I'm sure a lot of it is due to Richmond being just absolutely pathetic.

That may be absolutely right, rjay, but the way he's played in the backline in previous years does not lend any confidence that he'd be capable of playing in our backline at AFL level. It may be that in training this year he has developed a level of predictability and maturity in his play, so that he isn't always flying at every contest and peeling off his man at precisely the wrong moment. If that's the case, and he's capable of slotting into a defensive position if we have a player out, then that's all well and good. But based on what he's shown at AFL level previously, I don't think it's unfair for some of us to suggest he might be better suited to the forward line.

It's one of those very rare weeks where the top 9 on the ladder play the bottom 9 on the ladder.

@Lord Nev @WalkingCivilWarI reckon @Macca was referring to the Dean Margetts thread.

I have to say I'm surprised. We know we want to play TMac, Brown and Jackson in the finals, but despite TMac being unavailable we're preparing for finals with a different looking forward line. I accept Weideman may not be in form, but structurally I would have thought we want to keep rolling with the two key forwards (without wet weather anyway) for as much of the season as possible. Of course, rewarding the players who went over to Perth and got the W last week isn't a bad outcome.

Interesting decision. I'm all for depth. We haven't had injuries this year and if the club thinks Smith is capable of filling a gap in the forward line, or (shudder) the back line, then fair enough. But I'm not a fan and I'm not convinced he's good enough to play AFL level football with any consistency. Certainly not in the backline, where his Frost-like unpredictability goes against everything we've strived for this year. No dice. Emergency, along with Bedford, vandenBerg and Weideman.