titan_uranus

Hey @Clintosaurus Gold Coast got about 5 free kicks in the last 5 minutes. I assume this is because the Collingwood conspiracy took a break tonight?

Noah Anderson is so [censored] good. Watch this game and tell me again how good our midfield is. An absolute mile off what Gold Coast have.

We were competing for them. We made the final 6 instead of the final 4. It’s worse, but not that much worse. If we’d lost consecutive prelims in 22-23, this board would be saying the exact same thing about Goody: “won a flag then couldn’t even win a single prelim”. @seventyfour is right. Winning flags is hard. It’s frankly insane how many people on here roll out the whole “we should have won multiple flags” line. At the end of this year, at least three of the following will be true: Collingwood will have won 1 flag from 4 seasons under McRae, despite having a stack of talent and a dream fixture Brisbane will have won 1 flag from 7 seasons of finals, despite their incredibly talented list Geelong will have won 1 flag in the last 14 years under Chris Scott, despite being in the Danger/Cameron/Stewart era the Dogs will have won 0 flags in 9 years despite having a list and midfield depth to die for

Playing his role he shouldn’t be mid-table for metres gained. I actually think he’s one of our bigger problems. IMO he’s just coasting through games, not influencing anywhere near the level we need from a half back who should be able to kick.

Chris Fagan is far closer to the “great to have a beer with” style than the “scientist in the basement”. And indeed, I’d suggest that a common link between the best current/recent coaches (McRae, Fagan, Longmire, Hardwick, Scott) is their ability to balance their connection with players with their professional approach to tactics/selection, without ever becoming a “scientist in the basement” who prioritises robotic/cold interactions.

I’m fairly confident this isn’t right.

Doesn’t help us that they’ll have a 9 day break compared to our 6 (this sort of fixturing is surely avoidable and has to stop). But yes, next week has a Carlton win written all over it.

Which one is it? You want us to pick players for the future, or you want us to pick TMac?

As has already been commented, those 23 disposals only gave us 266 metres gained. 11th most for us. He should be higher than that given the position he plays. IMO he’s getting cheap and easy kicks and dishing off cheap and easy kicks. We need our half backs to drive us forward, and I don’t think he’s doing that.

I’d expect Windsor for Sharp, and maybe Campbell for Jefferson. Would still love to see us pull the trigger on dropping Salem. Might happen if we lose this one.

To be clear, what I called out as “silly” was your post in which you said you’d entertain trade calls for anyone on our list other than Gawn and Pickett. Which clearly you yourself agree is silly given in this post you accept that our first and second year players, and maybe Viney, are not to be traded. When I said 3-4 players, I didn’t mean the rest were “untouchable”. I meant 3-4 players with potential value, who might be capable of being traded out to make our list better. IMO that list is Fritsch, Salem, Sparrow and, sadly, Oliver. Petty’s borderline. An example of someone I can’t accept putting on that list is McVee, who’s getting attention in his own thread. He’s precisely the sort of player we need on our list. Trading him for a draft pick doesn’t make us better. And others have disagreed with my “destabilising” comment around being open to calls on everyone. I stand by that. We will never become a “destination club”, or even an attractive one, if we’re prepared to listen to offers on our entire list. How would Trent Rivers, or Kade Chandler, or Jake Bowey feel upon finding out the club was prepared to consider trading them, instead of backing them in as our future and telling rivals to get stuffed)? Our list needs change, but after we delist and move on from the majority of the (scarily large) group of players who don’t appear to be part of the future (Fullarton, Billings, Laurie, Brown, Woewodin, Henderson, Culley, Hore and IMO Spargo), a handful of names up for trade is all we need to achieve significant list turnover in one off-season.

Silly statement. Aside from the fact that we have a number if players we need to build our side around (Turner, Lindsay and Langford) come to mind, a culture of entertaining trades for everyone is a great way to destabilise the club. We have some players to make trading decisions on, for sure, but that list should only have 3-4 names on it.

Of all the potential options on our list to trade out to try to get something back, we’d be insane to release a young player who’s a good kick, can lock down on small forwards, has some pace, and who prior to his injury this summer was dominant for two years. He is the sort of player we need to be bringing into the club, not letting go.

Sure. So has Salem, whilst Sharp’s played more games than I think his form has deserved. Doesn’t mean your earlier post and comments on Lever were fair.

He was dropped in the same week as JVR and Windsor. Fritsch was dropped earlier this year. There are others I’d like to see dropped but he’s not even close to being the “only player made an example of”.

This. What an absolute disgrace of a “story” from Tom Morris.

Presumably a standard Jon Ralph word vomit article?

Don’t know where to put this, and fully expect a @Clintosaurus conspiracy theory post in response, but anyway:

Have a look at this: Monday Cal-culations: The team that doesn't know how to win, next top Don, unsung Tiger's praise In 2021, 2023 and (yes) 2024, we were AFL number 1 for stopping scores per inside 50 entry conceded. We were third in that stat in 2022, as well. This year? 18th. Trying to move the ball faster, coupled with drops in form from May, Lever, McVee and Salem (in particular), has meant that we concede scores far too easily. It would have been expected that we'd drop down from being top 3 in that stat this year, given the attempt to move faster, but to drop all the way to [censored] last, when we were still 1st last year, is an abysmal result. But it doesn't get noticed as much because we keep butchering our set shots on goal.

Agree. Remember too that, with almost everyone available, our Round 1 side had JVR, Jeffo and AJ in it. AJ took the relief ruck, so we never were down to just Jeffo. Laurie has to be a midfielder given the time he spends there at Casey. I don’t think his speed, size or spread will ever allow him to compete at AFL level but we all deserve to see him played before we confirm that.

If the answer is “there isn’t any other option”, all that does is highlight our poor list management. Goodwin keeps telling us in pressers that we need to develop our younger players “the right way”, but that we’re “in a hurry” to improve. How is that going with JVR? Never plays more than about 75% game time, of which a portion is in the ruck, has been dropped a few times, then brought back in without developing a body of form at Casey. How is rucking him, in his 67-75% of time on the ground, helping him learn how to position/lead as a forward, or work with Petty/Jeffo/Melk, etc? We drafted AJ to take second ruck minutes so his injury doesn’t help, but he wasn’t exactly dominating when he was in the side. Is rucking JVR really the next best option for our future? I strongly believe it isn’t, and that some other inferior second ruck option would ultimately be better.

I have serious doubts over Jefferson but none of us can be 100% sure if he’ll make it until we see him get multiple consecutive weeks to have a go at it. The same principle applies to Laurie - I’d rather see him in the side than Sharp, who is contributing next to nothing. I fully expect to see Petty and Spargo replace Jeffo and Tholstrup, though.

Last week we planned for Viney to play forward. Lasted one quarter before we gave up. This week we didn’t even bother. We gave Lindsay 2 centre bounces and otherwise only used Trac, Clarry, Viney and Koz. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that Goody and the FD believe that putting faith in the same core players is the way forward, and that with time our problems will be fixed - eg I expect to see Petty and Spargo back this week, if fit. The “problem”, perversely, is that we outperformed against anyone’s expectation. Who seriously thought the margin would be 13? Or that we’d lead by 28 at any stage? The worst thing we can do between now and Round 1 next year is to assume that with time, our forward half game will resolve itself.

To me it isn’t the result that defines a pass mark but how we play. No pass mark if it’s another limp first quarter. Seeing us waste a stack of inside 50s and have them open us up on transition will rankle me even if it’s a close loss. But show up with consistent effort and an attempt to take decent shots on goal, converting them at least to AFL average, and that will help even if their talent means they win.