titan_uranus

A lot people are arguing we should return to TMac, Jackson and four mids/smalls as we were running with up to the Richmond game, because our form has diminished since then. I think there's a chicken-egg question with that. Has our form slid because we've inserted Brown/Weideman into the forward line? I'm not convinced, particularly because I think two other metrics have bugged us since Richmond: Viney's been out, reducing our midfield capability (both at clearances and defending on transition), and our forward half pressure game hasn't been at the same level (except for the Sydney game). So I'm not sure that by dropping Weid and not bringing Brown back, we automatically start playing better.

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro They've released significantly more data to the general public this year, and it's largely available here. You can compare players and then see their season or career averages.

IMO Jetta has to be dropped even if Salem's not fit. I know the VFL is on a five-day turnaround but I just don't think we can take Jetta into this game on a fast deck at Marvel against the Dogs and come out alive. The stats don't really back this up too much. At AFL level this season Brown's averaging 5.3 pressure acts per game to Weideman's 6 (i.e. less than one pressure act per game the difference), but importantly Weideman's averaging 3.5 defensive half pressure acts per game to Brown's 1. That's important because it shows Weideman is playing a different role to Brown and getting more ball up the ground away from the forward line. Taking the defensive half pressure acts out, Brown's averaging 4.3 forward half pressure acts per game to Weideman's 2.5 (just under 2 more per game). Tackles is the same. Brown's only laid two tackles in three games but both in the forward 50. Weideman's laid 5 tackles but only 1 in the forward 50. Same with marks: Brown's averaging 3.3 marks per game to Weid's 4, but inside 50 Brown averages 2.3 to Weid's 1. The way both have played this year, Brown offers us something different and IMO stronger in the forward half/50 than what Weideman offers. Having said all that, it doesn't look like Brown played well in the VFL yesterday and I'm not a huge fan of players coming in without earning it (although to counter that counter argument, I don't think Brown should have been dropped in the first place).

Not sure 4-5 more wins gets us top 4. Most years the cut off is a 15-7 record. That's six more wins from here (indeed, a break-even 6-6 record). In some years that hasn't been enough - in 2019 West Coast finished 15-7 but missed the top 4 on percentage and in 2016 the Dogs finished 15-7 but 7th (in 2016 the bottom six were terrible, with Richmond 13th with an 8-14 record and a sub-80% percentage and the five lower sides even worse than that. With the bottom six all sucking, more wins were taken up by the top 12 and in particular the top 6). I'd suggest we'll need five wins, minimum, to be in the running for 4th as that will get us to 14-8. Six wins and 15-7 will make it far more likely, and seven wins and a 16-6 record should guarantee it. Anything beyond that and we start to play off for top 2.

Possibly for the same reason the umpire didn't call holding the ball on Blicavs in the Geelong-Brisbane game. Doedee was nowhere near it. It was blatantly deliberate. There probably wasn't a deflection off Spargo but even if there was, there's no way the umpire saw that live so that can't have been his reason. He likely saw an Adelaide player near the ball and used that as his comfort to not have to pay a free kick against the rampant home crowd with the game on the line.

If anyone needed any more evidence that the MRO system is absolutely broken right now, look no further than this round. Nick Holman being given two weeks for a run-down tackle is the lowest ebb in the history of the MRO. And it happens to come in the same week as Darcy Fogarty throws an elbow into Jake Lever's back, and that gets a fine. Suspending a player for a tackle whilst fining a player for throwing an elbow. Broken. The AFL must fix this shambolic situation immediately.

I think "extremely underwhelming" is hyperbolic but I agree he's not playing his best football and it's costing us right now. He continues to get into the right spots but he's dropping marks far too frequently. Cost us definitely one goal, possibly two, from dropping marks in defensive 50 that when he's in form he does not drop. When things aren't going his way he has a tendency to do some rash stuff. The 50m penalty against him for hitting the ball out of O'Brien's hand was probably a part of that. If he lifts on Friday night that will be huge for our chances of winning (and the converse is also true).

That was in the first quarter, when we'd just kicked three quick goals to open up an 18 point lead. There was a stoppage in the Adelaide forward pocket and Gawn tapped it to the inside right in Rowe's running path. Hard to know if that was Gawn's mistake or someone else's for failing to get to that spot but it didn't look good. Moments later Lever got called for deliberate which gave Rowe his second goal and we'd lost our early lead.

This is absolute classic Demonland.

Nothing went right...except for the things that went right like West Coast, Sydney and Richmond all losing. Wait so now the measurement of success is winning games by 1 or 2 points? Like, if we’d won every game by 10 goals, would that be a fail? FFS what an immeasurably stupid thing to be upset about.

Starting? It's been hurting us all year, really We've had five games with more goals than behinds and five the other way around. We had +7 scoring shots but only a 22 point win. Against St Kilda it was +13 scoring shots but only 19 point margin. Geelong was +10 scoring shots but only +25 points, Carlton was +11 for 26 points and then last night we lost despite having +4 scoring shots. Only once has our opponent had more scoring shots than us and that was Sydney, where our accuracy helped us win. Too many times this year we have let sides off the hook and kept games closer than they needed to be (and gave up percentage) by missing shots.

Agree with the tinkering, but not sure about the preferred. I still think TMac, Brown, Jackson and one of Fritsch/Melksham can work. There's a lack of reliability in Fritsch and Jackson's value is higher in the midfield/ruck than forward. So if Fritsch has a bad game, that forward line is really just TMac and the smalls. For whatever Brown's cons are, one of his pros is he is a constant threat. It's hard for the opposition to ignore him - he's a good mark and as an accurate kick he can't be left alone if he leads wide. I thought our mix in the Sydney game was OK (TMac, Brown, Jackson, Fritsch and the smalls, no Melksham, no Weid), and I'd like to see it again.

Without delving into the stats, I don't think it's any coincidence that we've had a relatively flat month since Richmond and over that same period Viney's been out.

Yep. Last year Richmond lost twice to non-finalists: Hawthorn (bottom 4) and GWS. In 2019 they dropped three in a row mid-season including to two non-finalists in North Melbourne and Adelaide. In 2018 West Coast lost three games to non-finalists (Essendon, Adelaide, North Melbourne). In 2016 the Dogs lost twice to non-finalists (St Kilda and Fremantle, although from memory that final round match vs Fremantle was a dead rubber). Even the mighty 2015 Hawks lost three games to non-finalists. It happens. Good sides lose to bad sides. We all looked at that game last night and saw we were playing poor football. But we still had a three goal lead with 7 minutes to go and at that point had conceded 18 scoring shots, which is the most anyone's scored against us (again our opponent was accurate and more than us - game could have been over at that point at 12.6 to 14.10 if say TMac had kicked his easy set shot in the 2nd quarter and they'd missed even one of their tough kicks). We didn't handle the final 7 minutes well but then three bad umpiring non-calls all went against us, and we still nearly won it and lost by a single point. None of this is to say we're going to canter it in for the rest of the season, but similarly we don't all need to panic because we lost to a likely non-finalist.

It’s probably three bad umpiring calls in the last 90 seconds. I’ll need to see it again but I reckon Pickett was pushed in the back trying to take that final mark. Sometimes you need a bit of luck - any one of those final three calls goes the other way and we at least draw, if not win.

In the raw aftermath my current view is Jetta, Melksham and Weid out, Salem, Viney/Sparrow and B Brown in. Jetta must go, Salem if fit but if not then someone else. We can’t play both of Melksham and Fritsch because both are too inconsistent with forward pressure. I’d drop Melksham and replace with Viney if fit, if not Sparrow. If Viney is fit then I’m interested in looking to make room for Sparrow anyway. He plays a pressure game forward of centre. Maybe Jordon or Harmes makes way. And I’d replace Weideman with B Brown. I wasn’t comfortable with that call this week and I’d like to see Brown stretch the Dogs defence on a fast track.

No we don’t. If we play like we did vs Richmond we can win for sure. We haven’t brought that level of forward half pressure since that game.

It’s understandable that there’s so much negativity. Losing brings out that feel of dread that the wins have been suppressing. But until we play and win finals and a flag, we’ll all have that inner dread. Losing by a point when you’re 16 up in time on is also tough to stomach, no matter who the opponent is. The non call on the deliberate was horrendous and clearly should have been paid, but as has been said we shouldn’t have needed a goal to win with 30 seconds left. The key stat IMO is that they scored from 45% of their inside 50s. We’d kept every other side under 40%. The reasons for that are varied. No Salem hurts. We’ve been struggling to defend stoppages since Viney went out. May was off. Jetta was poor. Hunt was off. But they also moved the ball very quickly and that put pressure on us. The Dogs will do the same next week so you’d hope we’ve learned something from today. Season-wise the loss doesn’t change anything. There is no reasonable way you can be disappointed with a 9-1 record. We can make top 4 even if we drop the next two, but our chances will be much higher if we go 1-1 at least.

Hopefully they draw inspiration from the North game where we struggled through the first half but rebounded strongly after half time. We haven’t looked this incapable of stopping a side’s ball movement in a long while.

We ended with a 5-24 record at AAMI and didn't win there after the famous 2001 win. We're now 6-4 at Adelaide Oval (albeit one of those wins was vs North last year).

I'm happy to give Weid another go and because Jackson is in, someone had to make way. Pressure's on Weid to hold that spot though. Same with Melksham, with Viney yet to return.

Whilst I'm concerned about stoppages, I'm probably equally concerned about transition scores from our turnovers. If we don't pressure through the forward half and middle, with their midfield they are the most likely side in the comp to be able to generate scoring chains through our defence. If we bring the level of pressure we brought vs Richmond, then our advantage is clearly an aerial one, and IMO at both ends of the ground. Naughton is good but so are May and Lever, and Bruce IMO can be quelled. But first we need to beat Adelaide.

In: Jackson (and Melksham) Out: Brown, Chandler Emergencies: Sparrow, Chandler, Jetta, Brown

Brown dropped

IMO this is the biggest beat up in AFL in a long time. The St Kilda v Geelong game had three umpires who, together, completely stuffed it up. That doesn't mean the rule is broken. I read some say that getting rid of prior opportunity will mean more taps and knock ons, which apparently will then open the game up more. Think about what that is going to look like. The game will turn into a mismash of players not actually taking possession. Fewer possessions, fewer kicks and handpasses, because of the ever-present risk that the moment you seize the ball, if you are tackled you give a free kick to your opponent (the danger of which increases in this world because they can stop, re-set, and then play a keepings off kick-mark game to avoid being tackled). The solution is not to remove prior opportunity. The solution is to better understand the rule as it currently stands, and to improve the consistency with which the rule is enforced, which can be done through investment into how the game is officiated.