titan_uranus

I’m seeing a lot of posts like this that have both Tomlinson and Jones out. It’s only one of them - Jones was the sub, not in the 22. If you replace Tomlinson with someone, Jones automatically reverts to the sub and doesn’t free up another spot. And the .1 was so close to a goal that if the goal umpire had called it a goal I’m 99% sure it would have survived a score review.

Correct result. Great news.

Excited? Yes. Absolutely. We’re 7-0 and our best football is clearly flag worthy. But sure as [censored] keeping the lid on. There are 15 games to go and every second game post-bye is on the road and/or against a flag contender.

Can we just ditch the stupid conspiracy theories? He hasn’t copped a week because Collingwood lost, or because someone at Melbourne has incriminating photos of Christian, or because Christian has a vendetta against us. He’s copped a week because the MRO process is horrendously inconsistent and produces unfair results repeatedly due to its poorly designed box ticking exercise, the wide grey areas, Christian’s inability and/or unwillingness to follow precedent, and the fact that these decisions are made by one person, rather than a panel.

@Fat Tony setting the bar at 3.5 goals is silly. I accept your concern about his defensive pressure, and it's a fair one. But is he a "complete defensive liability"? Over his career he averages 8 pressure acts per game. Josh Kennedy averages 8.1. Buddy Franklin averages 7.8. Other forwards: Harry Mackay - 7.4 Hawkins - 7.6 Riewoldt - 9.4 Taylor Walker - 9.6 Naughton - 9.8 Tom Lynch - 10.8 If tackles inside 50 is more your thing, Brown averages 0.6 per game. Naughton is 0.5, Lynch 0.7, Mackay 0.8, Walker 0.9, Hawkins 1.1, Riewoldt 1.1, Franklin 1.2, Kennedy 1.2. Those figures are all pretty tight - are we that phased with half a tackle less per game? Are Mackay and Hawkins "complete defensive liabilities" because they average fewer pressure acts than Brown?

Yep, agree. They've also been building some reasonable form, at least in the context of being an injury hit bottom 4 side. They were a disgrace in the opening three rounds. Since then they were leading Adelaide at three quarter time (back when Adelaide were half decent), they were only two goals behind Geelong deep into time on in the third quarter at Kardinia Park (the same ground where West Coast the following week lost by 97), and they stayed in touch with Fremantle for 2.5 quarters in Perth.They surely have to be half a chance of getting up this Saturday.

A few weeks back Ben Cunnington knocked Rory Laird out, he was taken from the field but returned, and played out the game. The MRO classified that as medium impact, Cunnington appealed to the tribunal, and the tribunal downgraded it to low impact. How much difference is there between the impact on Laird and the impact on Powell?

No, he hasn't. Presumably you'll continue to say this unless and until we win the flag. Which means that, unless we win the flag, you'll be right. Which appears to be your complex. You need to be right, all the time. Agree, but I'm telling myself we had our down week this week, and got away with it. Don't forget Geelong were on most measures on top in general play against Sydney, who struggled to win it at the coal face (-33 in CPs, -3 clearances), allowed Geelong to spread (-68 in UPs, -17 uncontested marks), and let the ball spend a fair amount of time down in Geelong's half (-26 inside 50s). They also kicked very straight so won despite have 8 fewer scoring shots (14.6 to 12.16). Had we won that game, we'd be self-criticising and downplaying that win given those stats.

Dangerfield's actions were deemed "not unreasonable". Here's a screenshot of the lead up: He sees Vlastuin coming, raises his elbow to punch the ball and/or to brace himself. Clip here for context. Here's Fritsch: Clip here for context. He and Powell are running towards each other. He braces to fend off Powell, who will otherwise cannon into him. Yes, he does so in a way that hits him high, but that didn't matter for Dangerfield. So why was what Fritsch did "unreasonable", and what was his alternative?

If you tick the boxes, you get this outcome. But the boxes weren't ticked this way for Dangerfield in the Grand Final. Why? Because "it was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances". Implicitly the same result was reached in the Hawkins and Hipwood incidents earlier this year (I can't find any MRO statement on either of those incidents). So why was Fritsch's incident deemed "unreasonable" when the other three weren't? Each of the other three resulted in worse injuries than Fritsch's, so that can't be it.

And an 8-1-21 record overall.

Does any club? Might be Hunt for us.

Good pick up, thanks.

Did he? This is what he said: "Harrison Petty played a few weeks ago and is ready to play some good AFL footy so that is exciting for us that he will get an opportunity and Tom McDonald, as you saw today, we pushed him back and he performed really strongly," Goodwin said. "Competition for spots is healthy and we will keep picking the team that we think is best for the opposition and the way we want to play." I'm not sure if "he will get an opportunity" means "he'll play next week" given everything else he said.

As has been mentioned, we've finished a round on top of the ladder for the first time since Round 18, 2004. Next up, Sydney at the G: we haven't beaten them there since 2010. We drew in 2011 and have lost 7 straight since then.

You can't say it was unintentional but then argue he should be suspended unless you also think Hawkins and Hipwood should have been suspended. If it's unintentional then the consequence was an accident, as it was with Hawkins and Hipwood and was the core reasoning both got off. But we know consistency and the following of precedents is not the MRO's strong suit.

IMO the path we take will depend on whether Fritsch gets suspended. If he does, I suspect TMac will stay forward. Too much change to the forward line. In that event, Petty comes in for Tomlinson. If he doesn't get suspended, then the question is whether we feel comfortable with TMac in defence. I'm very, very unsure about it. But I can see why they'll want to do it, as it opens a spot for Weideman without having to drop someone. Sparrow should replace Baker. Should never have played Baker today, he was terrible and just isn't improving. Go back to what has been working for us with Brayshaw on the non-Langdon wing predominantly, and get Sparrow into Viney's role whilst Viney's out. Jones probably deserves to return to the 22 but that means someone else has to come out. Could be ANB, who was poor. Could be Melksham, but his 18 pressure acts are probably what the FD wants to see so I'd be surprised.

6.- Fritsch 5 - Jackson 4 - Pickett 3 - Langdon 2 - Salem 1 - Jordon

Appalling first half characterised by the Melbourne of old - lack of workrate and low percentage attempts to move the ball. Happily, we only needed two quarters to outscore them by 8 goals. Undoubtedly, it is a good sign to win games when we're nowhere near our best and today we were nowhere near our best. Tomlinson going down is a disaster for us. I was surprised to see TMac get sent down there and I'm not sure I like it. He's not really a defender anymore and I don't know if May and Lever can trust him like they trust Tomlinson. However, it does allow us to being Weideman back. Melksham's getting a lot of focus again. I personally thought he was poor, again. I know his pressure acts were high and I'm sure that is what the FD are looking at, and will likely mean he's playing his role the way they want. I'll accept that if true, but watching him I can't stand his half-hearted tackle attempts and his inability to get out of tackles. Baker was terrible though. I have no idea why we played him. If we knew Viney was a risk of not playing, it's unfathomable to me that we didn't play Sparrow. Sparrow's done nothing wrong iMO with the chances he's had and is a perfect replacement for Viney, as far as like-for-like goes. I actually liked Brown's game. He clearly wasn't at his best but he gave us so many options all day, he just wasn't sticking those marks. But he did enough to kick two and was a centimetre away from three (if the goal umpire had called it a goal I reckon on a score review it would have stayed a goal). I'm confident that as he keeps playing he gels more with the mids, finds his feet and his hands, and settles in. All of that aside, we're now 7-0, we're a game clear on top, we're two games and 29% clear of 3rd and we're three games and 31% clear of 5th. No matter how disappointed you are with elements of our game today, banking these wins when we're not at our best is huge for us. We're going to drop games, with Viney and Tomlinson out and Fritsch possibly suspended I expect us to drop one of the Sydney-Carlton-Adelaide games, so getting these wins is critical.

I'll watch the replay later but thankfully I didn't spend the game in the Gameday thread. Our percentage was 150% before this game. Today we scored 147% of North's score. Like a cricketer's average, today's percentage drags the overall percentage down.

I'm not watching and I don't want to follow the game via this thread as I've learnt over the years it's always extremely negative. But a quick look at the score and stats tells me all I really need to know. North's only kicked two scores higher than this in their first six games, and it's only half time. They've won both quarters despite having only won six quarters across their first six games. They have the top five possession getters and 8 of the top 11. They're on top in CPs and clearances, they're +21 in uncontested marks, they're +7 in inside 50s, and they've taken 9 marks inside 50 to our 2. This screams workrate. Not winning it inside, not stopping them spreading it outside, therefore not getting it in our forward half. Again, I haven't watched a second of footage, but I'm sure this is Cairns 2020-esque.

Really? Where? If we knew midweek why didn’t we keep Sparrow free? Surely he’s more deserving of a seniors spot than Baker? If not Sparrow then Chandler? We’ve tried hard all year to keep players in similar roles. If our plan is to move Brayshaw or Melksham into Viney’s role, I’m surprised. Sparrow fills Viney’a spot well IMO. Meanwhile the MFCSS is settling in well right now...

It’s hard not to have this concern. Rationally I know the evidence of us in 2021 says we shouldn’t be worried but we’re not far enough removed from the Cairns disasters of last year for me to be relaxed.

Even better!

Wait until we lose a game and then people will say it’s us.