titan_uranus

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.

That's true, but it was 8 weeks ago and if you watch it again you'll see that Geelong really didn't turn up. Since then their only two wins have been vs Gold Coast and North Melbourne, and they took until the fourth quarter to shake both. They also lost to Hawthorn, and wouldn't have been in that contest after quarter time if it wasn't for their ridiculously accurate goal kicking. Every game is a danger game - we either play a good team, and they're a genuinely good chance to beat us, or we play a weak team, and we all freak out because of our latent MFCSS.

All the talk of the Chandler gatorade shower makes me angry for a different reason. The AFL's records will say this was not his first win. He "won" the games he "played" as the medical sub. The notion of crediting players with "playing" when they're an unused medical sub is just so stupid. The rule is this: 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. So it's not a free kick if you have not had prior opportunity (as @Clint Bizkit mentioned) and you make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. The distinction is prior opportunity. If you've had it, you must legally dispose of the ball upon being tackled or it's a free. If you haven't had prior, it's OK to miss the ball with your foot provided you genuinely attempted to kick it. I didn't realise this was being brought up? I mentioned it in the Gameday thread but thought it was just a random thing I'd seen. It shows competitiveness from Carlton which if I were a Blues fan is a major improvement on the Brendan Bolton era, but they're mired in mediocrity at the moment as they keep losing and can't take a step forward against sides above them on the ladder.

Radio, internet and post-game stats led to my earlier post.

Haven't seen the game but a few things I noticed were: Carlton kicked 10.8. That is the fourth consecutive week we've conceded 18 scoring shots, which we also conceded in Rounds 1 and 2. It is the highest amount of scoring shots registered against us all year (the other three games were 13, 15 and 14). The fourth quarter was level. Whilst we didn't win it, we obviously also didn't lose it, meaning we've still only lost one fourth quarter all season. An interesting flip in clearances: this week we were +1 in centre clearances but -16 in stoppage clearances.

Also, since sacking Brendan Bolton in mid-2019, Carlton have lost 20 games. But of those 20 losses, only two have been by more than 5 goals (a 68 point loss to Geelong in the last round of 2019 and a 31 point loss to Hawthorn last year). So they don't always win, but under Teague they rarely get well beaten.

We're playing one of the only sides comparable to us for poor starts: both us and them have only won 3 of 8 first quarters this year (North, Fremantle, Adelaide and St Kilda are the only other sides in the competition less than 4). They're 6 of 8 in third quarters, but only 4 of 8 in fourth quarters (we're 7 of 8 and the only loss was last week to Sydney by a point).

Even if they beat us in two weeks, that won't necessarily mean they are better than us overall, and certainly won't indicate they are in a "class above". I haven't crunched the data but I'm confident in many years the result of some finals is a reverse of the result of those sides' match(es) in the home and away. I mean, last year Richmond lost to St Kilda and Port during the H&A but beat them both in the finals. West Coast beat Collingwood in the H&A by 11 goals but lost the final. I do agree, though, that I think we can get better. I don't think we've put a complete four quarter dominant performance together yet.

As for the results yesterday, Richmond winning obviously hurts, but the Dogs winning IMO isn't a bad result. As some have said, the difference between finishing 1st and 2nd isn't anywhere near as bad as between 2nd and 3rd, particularly when interstate sides such as Brisbane and Port are in the running for the top 4. If we win today, we'll be 3 games and around 15%+ clear of Geelong in third. Indeed, assuming West Coast wins, 3-7 on the ladder will all be 6 win sides. Which I suppose also means if we slip up in the second half of the year, there could be a real glut of sides ready to pass us.

Ridiculous post. Unless Fremantle beats Essendon by 10 goals, the current top 8 will remain the top 8 after today's games. The Dogs have a 3-1 record against the top 8, but one of those wins was Brisbane in Ballarat, in Brisbane's third consecutive week stuck in Victoria. We have a 3-0 record. Hardly "a class above". For comparison, here is every top 8 side's record against the top 8: Dogs: 3-1 Melbourne: 3-0 Geelong: 3-2 Brisbane: 1-3 Port: 1-3 Sydney: 3-1 West Coast: 1-2 Richmond: 1-4 If there's a "class", we sit comfortably in it alongside the Dogs and Geelong. Sydney, interestingly, is standing up in big games more than the rest of the top 8 sides, despite being the side many consider most likely to drop out of the 8 by season's end. Brisbane have won five in a row but Port (at home) is the only side higher than 10th on the ladder they've played in that run. Port have looked good this year but Richmond is the only side higher than 11th on the ladder they've beaten. West Coast have barely played good sides this year, and don't really before the bye (Adelaide, GWS, Essendon, Carlton).