titan_uranus

Agree. It's almost certainly not going to happen, and that's fine. Pert mentioned how important it was for the club to get its Melbourne-based fans back into stadiums to see us play. I think the club sees the benefit to membership and fan engagement that our good year is having and is going to try to pump that as much as possible rather than trying to muck around, assuming crowds are back in Melbourne at least, in shifting a game up to the NT. I'd love to see that map if anyone knows where I can find it!

The odd thing about Optus is that recently we've only been sent over there to play West Coast. This year will be our fourth H&A game at Optus Stadium, but all of them have been against West Coast (and it's happened each of the last four years consecutively). We haven't travelled to Perth to play Fremantle since 2015. 7 of our last 8 trips to Perth in the H&A season have been to play West Coast. 9 of our last 10 games vs Fremantle have been our home games. It's the reverse of the situation we face with Carlton and Essendon.

My point is that arguing that people can/should avoid the AZ vaccine if they otherwise are eligible for it on the basis that no one has died from COVID in Australia in 2021 is a bad argument. it's a bad argument because COVID cases have been low in 2021 by keeping borders closed and locking down areas when cases do suddenly manifest. That's not a way to live, but it's the only way to live unless either we let COVID run rampant, in which cases deaths will skyrocket, or we vaccinate the population. It's also a bad argument because there have been 3.8M doses of AZ given in Australia, for 60 clotting cases and two deaths. That's a clotting rate of 0.0015%, and a death rate of 0.00005%. There have been no deaths from COVID in part because the number of cases is so low. Remember that overall Australia has had 30,302 cases of COVID in total, for 910 deaths. That's a death rate of 0.03%. So there have been 0 COVID deaths in 2021, but that's because there have been relatively few COVID cases (which improves our chances of treating the ones we do get). That does not mean it's OK to sit around and take ages to vaccinate.

A few other facts: 1.9M people globally have died from COVID in 2021 (more than in all of 2020) Australia's borders are closed Each of Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne and the entire state of Victoria have seen at least one lockdown in 2021.

Is it even feasible for Goschs's Paddock to be "expanded" to become MCG-sized? Is there the space to do that?

I'm glad the Tribunal reached that decision. Taking concussion and head knocks important, but it cannot mean that every concussion or head knock must result in a player being suspended. This was, writ large, the AFL once again prioritising the outcome of an action over the action itself. I am quite confident that if Clark had suffered no injury at all, not a single person would have batted their eyelids at Mackay's actions. The test cannot be "could Mackay have done something differently". The test should only be "were his actions unreasonable given all of the circumstances". The former question starts asking about hypotheticals that bear no reality: sure, Mackay could have decided to let Clark pick the ball up, but in the heat of an actual match on an actual field, is that really what we are saying AFL players should decide?

This year means we have played at GMHBA 16 of the last 20 seasons. Since 2002, the only seasons we haven't gone there were 2007, 2014, 2017 and 2020). And in 2017 we were still drawn to be away to Geelong, but GMHBA was being renovated so the game was at Marvel. We were scheduled to play at GMHBA in 2020 originally too, so if COVID hadn't happened it would be 17 of the last 20 seasons. Which means, since 2002, only twice has the AFL drawn up a fixture and not had us away to Geelong (2007 and 2014).

The club has mentioned the importance, to us, of being unassisted before. For example, in December when we announced our 2020 financial result, the club said "“There is no doubt that we are disappointed to be announcing a loss. However, as a Club, we have made some significant steps in eliminating our debt, and our strong balance sheet enabled us to remain an AFL ‘unassisted Club’. This was important, as it allows us to continue to make independent decisions regarding football and administration strategies"

I'm a fan of the club doing this for us. I think it's great. The home base issue he split into two, the training ground (announcement in the next few weeks) and then the home base (still a while away it seems). The $1.8M loss from the NT and QB games really hurts.

We beat the Dogs six days after losing to Adelaide. Remind me, in your recent post categorising our performances this year, how did you describe those two games?

We play at Marvel roughly the same amount of times per year we play at the Adelaide Oval these days. We beat Richmond at the G, a ground they supposedly dominate at. Our home ground, sure, but theirs too. West Coast has already lost to Essendon at home. Port's lost twice at home too. Geelong would likely have lost at home to Brisbane in Round 2 had the umpire paid the free kick the rest of the world saw. The point remains, though, that we've produced our best football this year against good sides, not bad sides. The 11-2 start does not suggest we're unlikely to win those four games, but because of the loss to Collingwood that's now what everyone seems to think will happen.

Our game doesn't lend itself to reviews of anything other than scores. We have to accept bad decisions are going to be made in the running of a game and we can't expect that for every umpiring mistake the game can stop to review it. Instead, we need to lift the standard of umpiring, and the starting point has to be investment from the AFL into the umpiring division.

I'm not sure why everyone's so quick to say Port, West Coast, the Dogs and Geelong are going to be likely losses whilst GWS, Hawthorn, GC and Adelaide are likely wins. We're 5-0 against the top 8 and our best games this year have all been against the best sides in it. Meanwhile I think it's beyond argument that our worst performances this year have been against poor sides. I think it's just as likely we drop one of the GWS, Hawthorn, GC and Adelaide games as it is that we sweep them. Similarly, I think we're going to be good chances of winning at least one, and likely more, of Port, West Coast, the Dogs and Geelong.

There were a number of startling decisions that I recall going against us. One was a block on Lever in the goalsquare allowing Cameron to take a mark. I thought the rule was that you can't block in a marking contest unless you're contesting it. Mihocek (or whoever it was) clearly had no intention of marking it. May clearly got first hands on that Cameron grab. There was one blatant instance of a Collingwood player running through the protected zone, but they haven't been paying that much all year. The Sparrrow one was interesting - he was tackled and it came out of his hands in a non-legal way, but then he still got his boot to it eventually. I feel like the umpire blew the whistle before seeing the full result. A mistake, I think.

Good to see our 11-2 start hasn't dented your hyperbolic criticism skills.

$500,000-$900,000 according to The Age: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/7000-fans-from-geelong-region-allowed-to-attend-cats-v-bulldogs-20210616-p581e3.html Interestingly Chris Scott also says the club wasn't consulted with about moving the game, and then the article goes on to say the club wasn't actually given the option to move the game interstate. Bear in mind that there is also no evidence or suggestion that we were given the option to keep Queen's Birthday at the MCG: I wonder whether in both instances the AFL has simply dictated a result.

The key, though, is who we beat vs who we don't beat in these final 9 games. If we beat all of Port Adelaide, West Coast, the Dogs and Geelong, and finish top 4, but drop a few games to the lesser sides, I suspect we'll still have a degree of confidence that in our first final we'll be able to win. Conversely, if we go 7-2 but we drop the games to Geelong and the Dogs for example, we might not have that same confidence. Generally though I agree, 11-2 is a great platform but history suggests form in the run home is more important than form in the first half of the year.

Interestingly, if you take out the Dogs' beltings of St Kilda (by 111) and North (by 128), their average score in their remaining games comes down to 87.4. I agree with you, but I think it's a bit dangerous to refer to the Geelong game: they didn't have Cameron, Rohan or Dangerfield that day.

Gee first olisik clogs up the board, now Half Forward Flank is back? From memory he was going on during last year's trade period about Brown prioritising money or other off-field, hence why he turned his back on North and whatever contract they'd offered him.

Pickett's goal accuracy this year is 39.2%. Oliver's is 30%. Meanwhile TMac's is 63.6% and Fritsch is 60.5%.

I presume you mean at Casey? There's a 0% chance he starts playing in our backline after having never played defence.

Nope. And neither does Collingwood, given he's fit but not playing. Actually, that's not correct: Look, I'm with you on the uncomfortable part of the loss. The Collingwood side who played yesterday was not the 2018 GF team or the dominant 2018-20 Pies side. We can't keep losing games to weak sides.

Some key metrics (averages) to compare B Brown's three game stint against Weideman's five game stint: Disposals: B Brown 8.3, Weideman 8.0 Marks: B Brown 3.3, Weideman 3.2 Contested marks: B Brown 1.0, Weideman 1.0 Goals: B Brown 1.7, Weideman 0.6 Shots on goal: B Brown 3.0, Weideman 2.0 Goal accuracy: B Brown 55.6%, Weideman, 30% Score involvements: B Brown 4.3, Weideman 3.2 Goal assists: B Brown 0.3, Weideman 0.4 Tackles: B Brown 0.7, Weideman 1.8 Tackles inside 50: B Brown 0.7, Weideman 0.4 Pressure acts: B Brown 5.3, Weideman 6.2 Forward half pressure acts: B Brown 4.3, Weideman 3.4 Bear in mind B Brown's games were against North, Sydney and Carlton, whereas Weideman's games have been against Carlton, Adelaide, Bulldogs, Brisbane and Collingwood. IMO, the stats show that Weideman does more defensively but that's generally further up the ground (his pressure acts and tackles are higher than Brown's but not in the forward half or inside 50). Otherwise on all other metrics Brown did more in his time in the seniors than Weid has, and the critical one is that Brown's good for an entire goal a game more than Weid. However, neither group of numbers sets the world on fire.

Zero new cases today. Hopefully an announcement tomorrow of restrictions further easing as of Friday, increasing the chances of a crowd at the G for our (away) game vs Essendon the following weekend.

Not sure Greenwood is best 22 for them, and who cares who they don't have from previous years. But yes, I agree with your overall point. This was attitude/work rate from us more than anything. Collingwood are a bottom 4 side for a reason.