titan_uranus

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.

If we finish 3rd or 4th, but the top 2 are the Dogs and Geelong, it won't matter so much. Almost 0% chance of a Geelong v Melbourne QF being played at GMHBA, and even if a Dogs v Melbourne QF is played at Marvel, we play Marvel well enough. My main concern is missing the top 4 altogether, which we will put in jeopardy if we keep losing games to bottom 10 sides. Having said all that, my preference is a Dogs win. Geelong scare me more than the Dogs, so the more games Geelong lose, the better IMO. Same principle for the West Coast v Richmond game.

Not an unreasonable post: I'm one of those fans who thinks the criticism of Gawn is usually too harsh but I didn't like his game yesterday, particularly given the vanilla-ness of his opponent. One issue I do have with your post is the double reference to Collingwood missing players. They were actually missing only three of their best 22: Adams, Grundy and Howe. Good players all of them, obviously, but this wasn't a decimated Pies outfit. Doesn't really change much but still.

Did we? I'm not sure that for this round the AFL gave us the MCG as an option. It wasn't explicit in the press releases or reporting in the same way it was today with the Geelong game. When I said 25,000 I meant the crowd. I have no idea what they make from it but it sure as hell isn't the $1.5M we've lost from our two games.

Whilst I agree with the second line, I can't agree at all with the first. Fritsch had 18 pressure acts for the game (our 5th highest), and TMac was one behind on 17. Weideman had 2. Both TMac and Fritsch worked hard to try to make something happen both up the ground and inside 50. All three struggled to get involved aerially but Weid was the only one who then failed to do anything to follow that up.

Hugely different circumstances. We've just lost our NT sponsored game and then an MCG Queen's Birthday crowd. They stand to lose...what...25,000 at GMHBA against the Dogs? And how are the two clubs going financially? We may be unassisted but we also rely on that sold game to the NT to get there. You're not comparing apples with apples. Sure. I should have said "contributed to costing us the game". IMO, the shortness of the ground did not help us set up and did not allow us to exploit our traits as much as a bigger ground would have.

It's hard to see why we'd do that: the main financial damage to our season has already been done. Unless we chose to play that game at Giants Stadium or Manuka, we won't pull a crowd to that game and hence it won't help us. Very different to playing Collingwood, a big club with a big fanbase in NSW.