titan_uranus

We were 7-0 with the forward line we used on the weekend before the game. The question is whether there is a causal link between the two. Did those 7 previous wins happen because of our small forward line? I'm increasingly of the view that they were not all brought about by reason of us being small up forward: in other words, had we played Brown or Weideman in those games we still would have won some/all of them. Our ball use going inside 50 was poor but it's chicken-egg - how many times did we bomb it to the goalsquare because we had to stop and wait for TMac/Gawn/Fritsch/Jackson to get back, because they had had to run up the ground to make the play and there was no one else left inside 50 to move it more quickly? How many times did we kick it neatly but the target was ANB, Spargo or Pickett, because we were undersized? That isn't to say that Brown in = win, because as you say our stoppage work was terrible, but there is a completely valid argument that we need another marking forward. By the way, I'd argue our "best" wins were vs the Bulldogs and Brisbane - in both those games we went in with Weid alongside TMac. So I'd argue we've been at our best with two tall forwards (plus Fritsch and Jackson).

I'm not arguing that they're not a good side. I'm arguing that we can still beat them when we play them again. I've been saying for weeks that us dropping games to bottom 10 sides doesn't make us a pretender or incapable of making/winning finals, it jeopardises our shot at a flag because of ladder position. But the prediction we're going to finish 5th comes off the back of assumptions that we'll most/all of the Port, Bulldogs, West Coast and Geelong games. Our form this year suggests that is unlikely.

Hunt might be quick and Bowey might be a half-back but those IMO aren't good enough reasons to make a change to our core back six. We don't have the time to try throwing Bowey into our backline with the challenging opponents we have in the hope he can gel with the others. There are other ways we can re-jig our forward half that don't involve disrupting the back half. Whether it's including Brown, or swapping one of Spargo/ANB/Harmes/Sparrow for someone like Melksham, or rotating Pickett further up the ground, or using Gawn more at FF (and ensuring that those who are running inside 50 like Hunt was on Saturday recognise his presence and kick it to him), there are options to work with.

Agree. The centre clearance issue IMO is one of momentum. By being beaten in there so regularly, we couldn't generate any momentum against GWS. We'd kick a goal but then immediately give GWS a sniff by conceding the next centre clearance. We're good at generating scoring chains from our back half but we're better when the ball is locked into our forward half and it's too hard to keep the ball where we want it if our opponent wins the clearances as often as GWS did.

We don't actually "need" to win, but a win will make it much, much easier. Which one is it? Are we inconsistent or have we stopped? And as to your forward line query, who were the 2016 Dogs' threats up forward? Tom Boyd? Tory Dickson? Clay Smith? Jake Stringer?

There is a huge difference between 1st and 2nd, depending on how confident you are of winning the QF. The loser of 1v4 gets the winner of 5v8. But the loser of 2v3 gets the winner of 6v7. So, if you finish 1st but lose the QF, you'll almost certainly end up with a semi final against 5th. If we're in the top 4, 5th is going to be Port or Geelong you'd think, but not Sydney, West Coast, GWS, Richmond or any of the weaker sides. Point being, it's not disastrous to finish 2nd or 3rd this year. Win, you're into a prelim. Lose, and you'll host a semi against someone outside the top 5, which to date have been the 5 best sides in it this year.

People have suggested Petty and Hunt forward. We won't fix our problems by creating more. Hunt's most consistent football in years has been in the backline this year. He's a game removed from one of his better performances on AMT. He stays right where he's been all year. Ditto Petty, for whom we don't have a good replacement anyway (don't tell me Majak Daw can play his role, he hasn't played FB for Casey all year).

We're not pretenders. Pretenders don't get to 12-3 with wins over the three best sides in it (Bulldogs, Brisbane, Geelong), and a record of 5-1 against the top 8 and 8-1 against the top 12. Pretenders are sides who inflate their W-L record with wins against lowly sides but struggle to back that up against good sides. Like, for example, Port Adelaide (1-4 against the top 8). Losing games doesn't automatically mean we're a "pretender".

Sure. Doesn't mean we can't beat them. We already have.

This is precisely what we must not do. We are where we are because we have developed understanding of roles and of each other. Losing doesn't mean starting again. Daw isn't going to solve our forward problems, he's been playing ruck at Casey. Smith's playing defence at Casey. This much change will make us worse. Selection goal this week is a few strategic personnel changes but the far more important goal is to ensure the 19-20 other blokes who hold their spot improve on the mistakes they were making. This is rubbish, utter rubbish. We're generating plenty of ball inside 50, we're indeed generating enough scoring shots. This isn't a problem of us not being able or willing to move the ball forward (a comparison is Collingwood, a side which actively prefers slow and sideways movement). This is a problem of us falling down at the final two hurdles - finding a suitable target inside 50, and straight kicking for goal.

Yes I was at the game. If your summary of it is “we never gave a yelp” then I’m not interested in your analysis. We did most things right all game, but made the same small category of errors. You talk as if we have fallen apart but the reality is yesterday was a poor stoppage performance with missed set shots. Most of the rest of what makes us a good side was still there, including the defensive work and ability to transition the ball from the back half to a position to score from. If yesterday is the sole determinative factor for the rest of the season then sure, we’re stuffed. Bur it isn’t. Yes. We were screaming out for a marking option forward of centre.

Well, we’ve put ourselves in this situation by not picking Brown after he kicked 5. Now he has this weird “did he play” game and the angst sets in further. IMO it can’t be Weid next week. We gave that an extended crack and it didn’t work.

How does vandenBerg fix our midfield problem? Who does he replace and what does he bring that the player he's replacing doesn't? And can we carry someone who can't kick when one of our biggest current problems is poor kicking forward of centre?

Well good for you. I don't. We're 12-3. We may be in a form slump right now but if you want to give the season up, feel free. I sure as [censored] hope the players and coaches have more resilience than you.

I'd watch the game before criticising Jackson, or at least look deeper into the stats. Jackson attended 35 ruck contests. Gawn attended 36 (Mumford, by contrast, 56). Jackson spent a lot of time in the middle and up the ground. He wasn't the forward line problem today, at all.

So Brisbane thump Adelaide and now they're 6.2% in front of us, but a game behind. We're 6.3% in front of Port before they play Hawthorn tonight. Next week Brisbane plays St Kilda and Geelong plays Carlton. You'd expect that if we lose to Port, we'll either be 4th on percentage over Port, or 5th.

More than anything i want to see Brown do well, as I want the FD's hand to be forced. Weid playing well will help but I'm not sure Weid is the answer right now. Given the way our forward line's going, would be a good game for Chandler, Bedford and Melksham to play well in.

If Joel Smith starts getting games you'll know our season is done. FFS, there is no way at all we drop Petty for Joel Smith.

Some of the rest of your post I agree with (e.g. the comments on Petracca, Harmes and Viney). But this I don't agree with at all. The "real defensive based game style" we've been playing the last few weeks is the same one we played all season. The difference today was a thrashing in stoppages, which meant we couldn't maintain time in our forward half (which is what Goodwin wants more than anything) and bad play forward of centre - turnovers and missed shots on goal. You're talking as if we couldn't even get it forward of centre. The slide from our form to the 11-1 point is not nearly as big as you're suggesting.

This isn't correct, at all. GWS didn't "work us out". Lever and May both took 5 intercept marks (for comparison, Davis took 4 and Haynes 3). GWS didn't "work out" how to break down our defence. They scored 9.10.64, their second lowest score for the season and fourth lowest number of scoring shots. 19 scoring shots against is right about our average, too. This wasn't lost because they "worked out" how to break down our defence, this was lost because we couldn't get our hands on the ball in the middle and we couldn't kick goals from the time we did spend in our forward half.

The pressure acts stat is now up on the AFL website. Viney again leading the way for us with 24. Pickett third for us with 21. ANB 15, but Spargo only 8. Spargo also had 0 tackles inside 50 (Viney had 2, Harmes, Pickett, ANB and Gawn had 1 each). ANB 4 score involvements, Pickett 3, Spargo 2. These are some key metrics that I'd suggest the FD will be looking closely at for our small forwards and, I think, spell trouble for Spargo.

It seems to me that no one likes TNF as a spectacle to go to. People who like it seem to like having footy on the TV on a Thursday night. That's precisely why TNF exists, and precisely why I hate it. If Friday night ratings/crowds are down, maybe stop with the 7.50pm starting time and bring it forward to 7.20pm.

I'd forgotten about that Greene free kick until now. That hurt us so badly, given how the game played out. We were leading at that stage (albeit just by 1 point) but had been doing most of the attacking and had been holding him, and the other GWS forwards, out pretty well.

This is exactly what we shouldn't do. Bringing in Bowey and vandenBerg in the same week when neither has played seniors all year cannot, and won't, happen. It's disruptive in parts of the ground where we don't need to disrupt anything. I'm not suggesting the four you've mentioned played well enough to avoid being in discussions for the outs, but they won't all go, nor should they.

There was a passage of play where they encroached in the protected zone after two of our marks twice in a row without a 50. There was another, which I think you're referring to here, where Brayshaw was at CHB and Daniels came up out of nowhere in his way. A clear 50 not paid. The Mumford one was a disgrace. Anyway, as I said, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it but that's probably a refreshingly good thing.