titan_uranus

This is simultaneously a sarcastic comment noting the Dogs' and Geelong's losses, and truthful. Don't forget Port is near certain to finish top 4 despite having a 2-5 record against the top 8.

I literally said "Of course, if you have not been able to access Pfizer, that is a different story." If you have chosen not to be vaccinated, you are part of the problem. What is the basis for someone over 60 having "some sort of issue causing them concern getting the AZ"? I submit there isn't one.

Not sure about percentage but they are 7-3 at home and 3-6 away from Perth. But they're 1-2 in their last three home games, including a loss to North and a 10-goal loss to the Dogs. And the win before that was a 5-point win against Richmond.

Sure, on the metric of wins against good sides, we continue to be the front-runner. But we'll have to agree to disagree on Geelong's flag threat rating, They're as big a threat to us as the Dogs are, IMO.

For the same reason that it was silly to assume that Geelong/Sydney would win every game from here, it's also silly to write off a side like Geelong because they lost this week. Geelong's lost two games since the start of May. They're absolutely still a massive threat. We're obviously right in the thick of the contest, the more so if we win tomorrow and can use the last two weeks for top 4 positioning without the risk of falling out.

Fremantle getting blown apart by Brisbane. If they lose, it guarantees that a side will make the 8 with 11 wins (or worse). Might finally be time to end any of this never-ending debate about expanding finals to 10 sides. Do we really need more 11-11 or 10-12 sides playing finals?

Not as much as winning clearances (taking away the Dogs' biggest strength) and getting it inside 50 quickly, putting pressure on their backline. If Peter Wright can kick 7 goals against their backline, TMac/Brown can as well. Do you see us going 3-0 from here? If not, it likely makes no difference to us.

The game today showed a few things. The first is that the Dogs are eminently beatable if they're not dominating the middle. Essendon won clearances 47-31 despite the Dogs fielding Bontempelli, Liberatore, Macrae, Treloar, Hunter, Smith and Dunkley. They kicked I think 5 goals from centre clearances. If the Dogs aren't on top in the middle the rest of their side isn't amazing. The second is that accurate goalkicking is so important. The Dogs had 2 more scoring shots and 21 more inside 50s (60-39) but lost. Essendon's unlikely to go 15.7 every week, kicking set shots from the pockets and 60m out, but they've done it in a game they needed to win. Essendon has GC and Collingwood to come. If they win both they finish 11-11. With their percentage, that means they're close to certain to finish in front of West Coast, Fremantle or St Kilda if they also finish 11-11. Get ready for the Essendon hype train to kick into full gear.

We haven't done anything yet. First we have to win tomorrow. That puts us on top. Then we have to outdo Geelong and the Bulldogs by a game, because we'll only be half a game in front. So, if we beat West Coast tomorrow, and then Adelaide, but lose to Geelong, both Geelong and the Dogs will pass us unless they lose another game (which requires Geelong to lose to St Kilda, or the Dogs to lose to Hawthorn or Port).

It's not black/white. If you are over 60 and you have chosen not to be vaccinated despite all the AZ available, you are part of the problem. If you are over 40 and you have chosen not to be vaccinated despite Pfizer being made available to you nearly three months ago, you are part of the problem. Of course, if you have not been able to access Pfizer, that is a different story. And on the issue of "emergency approval", there is no such thing. See here: https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-were-covid-19-vaccines-rushed-through-approvals-or-given-emergency-use-authorisations-in-australia And on the issue of the safety of the vaccines, there is no real issue. See here: https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-do-we-know-vaccines-won-t-have-long-term-safety-risks-20210803-p58fc7.html Key point on safety is this: if there was a problem, it is highly likely we would know about it by now.

This isn't as good a result for us as people think. If we go 2-1 from here and the Dogs go 2-0, the Dogs will finish above us - even with this loss, we still have to win all three games, and/or the Dogs have to lose to Hawthorn or Port (in Melbourne), for us to finish above them. It's certainly possible (Port's in form, for example), but it's still not that likely. But Essendon's win puts them in pole position to finish in the top 8, particularly if we beat West Coast tomorrow (Essendon has the percentage buffer over all their competitors).

Odd that J Smith was an emergency until yesterday and now Hibberd's replaced him. Injury to Smith? More concern that Salem will be a late out and Hibberd is.a closer replacement? I'm OK with Melksham getting Viney's spot, but he sure as [censored] will want to play well. If he lifts to 2018 levels he could really improve our forward half efficiency. If he plays at 2019-21 Melksham levels, we're screwed. It's not that bad recently, actually. We've lost the last three, one of which was the disastrous prelim. But the other two were a Friday night in 2019 where we led at three quarter time (and should have led by more, but Garlett ran into an open goal and missed), and Round 1 last year, where we got jumped early but then matched them with 7.5 each after quarter time (and that was a weird game as it was played after the announcement of the season suspension). Prior to the prelim we won back-to-back games in Perth, and the one before that in 2016 was a six point loss, again where we led a three quarter time. And in the middle of all that, we also played a reasonable game against them at Alice Springs in 2019 - again, a game in which we led at three quarter time.

The Sydney win is enormous for us. We only need to win one more game for the season to ensure we finish top 4. I'd dearly love for it to be tomorrow, so that we don't have to take that pressure into next week vs Adelaide, a game with "danger" written all over it (albeit I reckon Adelaide spent their last emotional tickets on the Showdown last night). Not sure I can barrack for Essendon today. For one, a loss pretty much rules them out of finals, but a win puts them in pole position. For another, a loss to the Dogs opens the door to Port finishing top 2, which could mean our first final is on the road.

Actually in my mind I was thinking about the Bulldogs game, not sure why I referenced the Hawthorn game (two consecutive MCG games in front of no crowd, they all blend together I guess). And yes, against the Bulldogs I thought the wet football made us even more fumbly than we are otherwise at times prone to be.

Still some doubt over TMac: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demon-mcdonald-in-race-to-be-fit-for-monday-night-clash-20210806-p58ghb.html

It was wet vs North Melbourne too, another home game they lost. But it did hurt vs Hawthorn just three weeks ago.

My concern is that WA opens the border, Victorians head over to Perth, but a subsequent outbreak means WA says "if you've been in Vic in the last 14 days you go into quarantine" or similar.

I would agree with this if I had more confidence in our ability to bring our best football in the wet. But having seen how we've played of late in wet weather, whilst West Coast certainly might be impacted, I'm equally worried we will be too.

The last 48 hours has certainly stripped me of any confidence or excitement about finals being played in Melbourne. It will be hard for Victorians to get into WA with the confidence that they won't be subjected to 14 days of quarantine even once they're already there. Ultimately I'm sure the AFL doesn't care who is in the crowd provided they can play finals in front of a crowd. If that means 50,000 WA people sit in a GF played between Melbourne and Geelong for example, I doubt the AFL will care.

Salem's all good, we're all good, it's fine. I just can't stomach the thought of seeing Smith flying up unnecessarily in front of May, Lever and Petty repeatedly.

Meanwhile West Coast has made a big statement by dropping Xavier O'Neill and putting Waterman, Hutchings, Rotham and West on their extended bench... But seriously, if Vardy plays (and I think there's a fair chance he will, to provide ruck support for Naitanui who will blow up after 15 minutes of trying to follow Gawn and Jackson around the ground), I hope we're into him from the first bounce. For whatever reason I cannot and won't forget him mocking Gawn after Ryan took mark of the year on his head in 2019. Also means no Barrass, Ryan or Shuey for West Coast this week.

I'd go Jordon for Viney and vandenBerg the sub. But it wouldn't be ridiculous to try Melksham in Viney's role, with a greater portion of time spent in the forward line. Weideman the late call up if TMac doesn't make it. J Smith named just to frustrate me.

Oh come on Nasher, it was hardly laughable to question whether he had a good game last week. Just because you disagree doesn't make it a ridiculous suggestion.

Anyone else's MCFSS got them irrationally worried about how much of a bake West Coast is copping in the media this week (e.g. Yeo talking about his dad calling him up to point out how bad he was) and the potential for it to spark them against us?

If that video was taken in Perth (and it looks like it, as the training facilities don't look like our usual ones in Melbourne), then Weideman is over there, you can see him in the footage (same with Chandler, Sparrow, Hibberd, Daw, Melksham, vandenBerg and Smith).