titan_uranus

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.

Final team announced. In: Hibberd Out: Hunt, vandenBerg So no Weideman.

Meanwhile Greene getting a week just tops off the shambles that is the MRO/Tribunal system. Dangerfield in the 2020 GF - not suspended Astbury in Round 1 - not suspended Daniher in Round 1 - not suspended Hawkins on May - not suspended Fritsch vs North - not suspended Shuey on Mills - not suspended Buddy Franklin - not suspended Greene - suspended for a week If your argument against Greene is "if you're going to raise your arm/elbow you suffer the consequences if you hit someone in the head", all of the above players should have received a week. Don't tell me "oh but some of those guys were fined". If you want evidence that fines don't operate as deterrent, look no further than Selwood, who has been fined three times already this year.

You want our club to get in the media and pot Yeo? Have you ever seen a club mount a campaign against a player from another club?

If two big enough clubs make it into an Adelaide or Perth GF, [censored] the general public, tickets should be allocated to the two clubs' members 50/50% and only opened up more broadly if/when the clubs don't use them all up. Make this the fans' GF.

Yep, agree. I'm sure this data exists, but I've never seen it made available publicly. Separate to any discussion about bias/the Bulldogs, I'd be keen to know what sorts of errors we are making more often than other clubs. That's my point: they may well be, and if they are, it stands to reason they'd get more free kicks. Tackling properly is a skill, like kicking and marking. It isn't silly at all to suggest one side might do it better than another, and that should be borne out in a higher free kick count.

Also, how quiet is this teams thread? Surely a sign that Demonalnders have breathed a sigh of relief knowing we can't slip out of the top 4?

So the four ins join Jackson, vandenBerg, Jordon and Sparrow on the bench. Jackson's not going anywhere so vandenBerg, Jordon and Sparrow are likely to be the candidates to make way for Weideman, which IMO is the move we should make, get back to our preferred forward line mix ready for TMac's return. I'd go Weid for vandenBerg along with Hibberd for Hunt, with one of Jordon/Sparrow the sub.

You can't clearly see anything from that photo, certainly not any more "clearly" than whatever was visible in the Viney footage. Be that as it may, without video footage it's hard to compare the two.

I don't think this is fair. For starters, the flights to/from Queensland aren't relevant - he didn't have the back problem until the GC match on the Sunday. We had to fly to Perth the next day so unless his back was so obviously bad that it couldn't possibly have recovered in a week, why wouldn't we take him over and do his rehab over there? Sounds very hindsight-y to be now arguing that, because it still isn't right, we never should have taken him over.

Yes but Hibberd also flew to Perth, so it's not as if he's far away from the 22 either.

Agree. Cannot require vaccination for entry given that Victorians under the age of 39 have barely had an opportunity to get one dose of anything, and given AZ is all that's been available, won't have had the opportunity to get two doses prior to the GF.

We're 0-1-3. Lost to Richmond and Geelong last year, then this year drew with Hawthorn and lost to the Dogs. We're 3-0 in crowdless games at Marvel (beat Carlton last year, Bulldogs and GC this year). And we're 0-1 in crowdless games at Perth Stadium (Round 1 loss to West Coast last year).

He said "we're hopeful, probably not optimistic, but hopeful" that he'll play this week. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/998840/injury-report-hunt-sidelined

It's one thing to say you'll be disappointed with not being able to be at the GF this year if we make it. Disappointed is an understatement for the majority of us who, like you, have followed this club for decades on end, going to game after game, belting after belting, hoping one day for us to become relevant. But it's another thing to say this, which despite your later protestations, is the equivalent of saying you'd prefer us not make the GF this year so you can go next year. It should be blindingly obvious to any Melbourne supporter that this might be our one and only shot. The comparison isn't interstate GF in 2021 vs home GF in 2022, it's interstate GF in 2021 vs no GF ever in your lifetime.

Hibberd has enough pace. Bedford is a forward. We're not about to start experimenting by throwing a small forward into our backline. Hibberd's been part of our backline for most of the season. He can, and will, slot into Hunt's role fine. He won't be as good but he'll be good enough and better than any other option.

There is a significant amount of talk in here about bias and conspiracies and favourability etc. I'd be really interested in as deep an analysis of free kick counts as possible. Why do the Dogs and Eagles, for example, get so many more than their opponents, and why does Richmond concede so many? The two main times a free kick is awarded are tackles and marking contests. As to tackles, most free kicks go to the player with the ball (holding the man, push in the back, high contact, tripping, dangerous tackle) as the tackler only has one option (holding the ball). Similarly in a marking contest we know that the player in front is going to get free kicks for holds, pushes in the back or high contact a lot more than the player behind. Is it really that fanciful to wonder whether the Dogs get more free kicks because, for example, they're first to the ball more often than their opponent, and therefore get more free kicks from bad tackles? Or that their key position players hold front position more often and therefore get free kicks more than other clubs? Similarly with Richmond they've regularly played with aggression in their era of dominance and have pushed the envelope, giving away professional free kicks where needed as well. Is it that surprising then that they concede more frees than they get? I have no data on any of this but it's a topic that is missing from this thread, which focuses solely on incompetence, bias and corruption.

Such bad luck for Hunt. He was one of 12 (I think) players to have played every game to this point, wasn't he? We can cover him I think (Hibberd), but hopefully our season progresses long enough for him to be able to push to get back into the 22.

Well step 1 is to avoid playing them in Adelaide in the first final. That means we either need to win both games, or Port needs to lose one. If we go 2-0, we'll finish 1st. We'll then host Port Adelaide, if they lose to the Dogs in Round 23, or Geelong, if Port beats the Bulldogs (assuming Port, the Dogs and Geelong all win next week). If we go 1-1 and they beat the Dogs and go 2-0, there is a strong chance they finish 2nd and we finish 3rd, which is the worst result we can get at this point I think.

I posted yesterday that we beat West Coast despite May, Lever and Gawn combining for three intercept marks. So hopefully even if Adelaide do go the small forward line and chaos ball option, we've learnt how to adapt. As to the wooden spoon, unfortunately North is 1.5 games behind Adelaide, so North would have to beat Sydney this week for their final round game to be a spoon play off.

Those numbers are definitely more positive than negative. The negative, though, is 5 of the 20 cases are still under investigation as to whether/how they're linked.