titan_uranus

This game looks over. Sydney's next four are Port (away), West Coast, the Dogs (away) and GWS (away). They only have three games left for the season at the SCG (given they had one flipped to last week). If they drop those four games, they'll be 8-9. They'll likely win at least one, but this will hurt their top 4 chances.

Would be huge if Hawthorn gets this win. Well to be fair to them, they'e already played six top 8 sides, but yes, after this week they only have two more to come.

You're 100% right, but regrettably it's not exactly how Demonland works though, is it. May was a disaster of a trade decision about two weeks into the 2019 season. At that time Lever was worse.

They beat West Coast the week before Sydney by 97 points and the week after Sydney they beat RIchmond by 11 goals on the MCG. I'm not sure if Geelong would have beat us today, but I know for sure they wouldn't have found it that easy to score in the fourth quarter. Yeah Hawkins is a repeat offender. I'd say Geelong, Richmond and Brisbane. I don't know if Port can match the best teams (they're 1-4 against top 8 sides). Jury's out on the Dogs IMO. But IMO Geelong is the main threat.

Possibly, but how much game time is he getting when the VFL isn't playing and how valuable is it? Last week was maybe justifiable on this ground but we know there's a real chance TMac won't play this week which means a much higher chance of getting a game. Surely if we think B Brown is better, we'd be taking him up to Sydney?

In Geelong though - entirely possible given they're in front of Melbourne on the easing of restrictions. 10 players over 30 in that side though, but many of them have missed games this year so they're not going to all be playing a full season.

Since we beat them Geelong's only lost once and that was to Sydney when they copped a shocking umpiring call late and could/should have won. They still have 5 games at GMHBA. That gets them to 14 wins before their remaining games (although one of the GMHBA games is next week vs the Dogs). Their away games include North, Fremantle and Carlton, so that's 17 wins. They're a big threat to us, and for the flag.

Another Geelong inside 50 where they have three free players. If this were Carlton, the football world would be frothing at the thought of sacking the coach. Inexcusable from a side allegedly in contention for the top 4.

There were FOUR free Geelong players in their forward 50. FOUR. This is bottom 4 defence from Port.

Port kicked all three of those early fourth quarter goals from free kicks. False economy. Port's defence is abysmal, every time Geelong go forward there are loose Cats everywhere. This is pretty much Geelong's best 22 on the park, they're now only missing Cam Guthrie and (arguably) Miers. Hate on them all you want, they are a massive threat. They're only two games behind us and we play them in the last round, so if we lose that we only have one game over them for the rest of the season.

As was the case last week, M Brown is in front of B Brown at the moment, which is really quite interesting. Jackson, Melksham, Rivers and Sparrow are on the bench and therefore in line to be dropped for Langdon. So will be one of Melksham and Sparrow. I know who I'd prefer to be dropped of those two.

Jeepers @Engorged Onion you're clearly a fan of what the Dogs are doing if you've got them only losing one match out of Geelong (in Geelong), West Coast (in Perth), Sydney, us (at the MCG) and Port Adelaide! Having said that, there's not a huge difference between finishing 1st or 2nd, but there is a massive difference between finishing 2nd or 3rd when two of the next three best sides are Brisbane and Port.

M Brown was an emergency last week but B Brown wasn't. With no VFL game since then, will be interesting to see if that changes.

We really do all need to acknowledge that we are having an exceptionally good run on the injury front so far. I'm sure a significant part of that is luck. But I wonder whether any part of it is reward for fitness/planning/training/etc.? Like, for example, are we minimising/avoiding soft tissue injuries by being fitter and by implementing a better medical programme than other clubs? I have no idea and not sure anyone would, just thinking out loud.

I think the AFL is going to want flexibility, but it won't be easy. Unless the Saturday night games qualify to be flexed, you really only get four options (you can't move a Sunday game). If you're moving Saturday night games you're then adjusting a second prime time match and making more difficulty for fans who might plan around that night game. It also won't always work each week - see, for example, this Friday night, which is Sydney v Hawthorn. But there just aren't any other good games other than Port v Geelong on Thursday night.

The article discusses "total averages" for both Rounds 11 and 12 further down. I think what they've done is add up the average viewer figures for all of the games.

Their respective runs home: Dogs: Geelong (in Geelong), West Coast (in Perth), North, Sydney, Gold Coast, Adelaide, us, Essendon, Hawthorn, Port Geelong: Port (in Adelaide), Dogs, Brisbane (in Brisbane), Essendon, Carlton, Fremantle (in Perth), Richmond, North, GWS, St Kilda, us Port: Geelong, Gold Coast, Sydney, Hawthorn, us, St Kilda, Collingwood, GWS (away), Adelaide, Carlton, Dogs Brisbane: North, Geelong, Adelaide, St Kilda, Richmond (away), Hawthorn, Gold Coast, Fremantle (in Perth), Collingwood, West Coast. So Brisbane has only three games left against the current top 8, Port has four, Geelong and the Dogs both have five. We have four (Port and West Coast away, Geelong in Geelong and the Dogs). Brisbane's run home is very favourable, with most of its road games being easy (Richmond is its only away game against a top 8 side). Our fate is very much in our hands. The more of those games against the Dogs, Port and Geelong that we win, the harder it gets for them to find the wins elsewhere to pass us. But we're only two games in front of them all, so if we drop those games, we open the door for any slip ups (e.g. losing to West Coast in Perth).

That's a fair argument. I've had a look at some of the arguable second-banana forwards: Hipwood/Daniher (don't know which one is "first" or "second"), Jeremy Cameron, Tom Lynch and Jack Darling. Here are some of their stats for comparison: Score involvements (Weid 4.0): Hipwood 5.4, Daniher 6.2, Cameron 7.5, Lynch 6.5, Darling 6.5 Shots on goal (Weid 2.5): Hipwood 3.6, Daniher 3.5, Cameron 5.0, Lynch 4.3, Darling 4.0 Goal assists (Weid 0.5): Hipwood 0.4, Daniher 0.5, Cameron 0.5, Lynch 1.0, Darling 0.8. Marks (Weid 4.0): Hipwood 5.5, Daniher 5.2, Cameron 4.0, Lynch 5.2, Darling 6.1 Contested marks (Weid 1.3): Hipwood 1.3, Daniher 1.4, Cameron 0.5, Lynch 2.0, Darling 2.2 Pressure Acts (Weid 7.3): Hipwood 7.8, Daniher 7.6, Cameron 6.8, Lynch 11.4, Darling 12.8 So clearly Weid is closer to the mark with this bunch of forwards than the ones I compared him to yesterday (Mackay, Walker, Kennedy, Hawkins, Riewoldt, Franklin, Ben King, TMac), which makes sense and indicates your argument is a good one. But his numbers are either last or second last when compared to these five forwards on all these metrics which IMO suggests we can get more out of the second KPF than we're currently getting out of Weid. It's not a massive gap, so it's bridgeable, but I want to see him bridge it sooner rather than later.

I looked into this a couple of weeks back. Most years 15-7 gets you top 4 (West Coast in 2019 and the Dogs in 2016 were exceptions). So that's a 4-6 record from here to finish top 4. As to top 2, in the last three completed seasons a 16-6 record gets you 2nd if you have a good percentage. Here is the top 3 in the last 10 full length seasons: 2019 - Geelong 16-6, Brisbane 16-6, Richmond 16-6 2018 - Richmond 18-4, West Coast 16-6, Collingwood 15-7 2017 - Adelaide 15-6-1, Geelong 15-6-1, Richmond 15-7 2016 - Sydney 17-5, Geelong 17-5, Hawthorn 17-5 2015 - Fremantle 17-5, West Coast 16-5-1, Hawthorn 16-6 2014 - Sydney 17-5, Hawthorn 17-5, Geelong 17-5 2013 - Hawthorn 19-3, Geelong 18-4, Fremantle 16-5-1 2012 - Hawthorn 17-5, Adelaide 17-5, Sydney 16-6 2011 - Collingwood 20-2, Geelong 19-3, Hawthorn 18-4 2010 - Collingwood 17-4-1, Geelong 17-5, St Kilda 15-6-1 You can see that in 8 of the 10 seasons, 17-5 gets you into 2nd. Hawthorn in 2016, Geelong in 2014 and Hawthorn in 2011 are the only times a side has had that record or better and missed. And 2013 and 2011 are the only two years in which 2nd had a better record than 16-6. Based on that, if we go 5-5 from here and don't shed too much percentage, we're a small chance to finish top 2, but if we go 6-4 from here we're a near-certainty.

A message from Gary Pert sent out to members today included this: I hope you enjoyed watching our gutsy win against Brisbane on Friday night. The team are really starting to deliver on their promise to members of a more consistent on-field effort. Ideally the game would have been played in Alice Springs, however once the Northern Territory border closure was activated we worked extremely hard with the AFL to secure GIANTS Stadium as an alternative venue to allow the match to continue. This venue change allowed us to remain in the primetime Friday night time slot, so that our supporters all around Australia could watch and enjoy the exciting clash. Furthermore, by moving the game to Sydney it also gave 3,500 of our NSW supporters the opportunity to attend the game live, which was terrific. While small in numbers, the Dees supporters were vocal and passionate, especially in the last half which was noted by the players who appreciated the energy at such a crucial stage of the game. On Friday, the Club also agreed to move the Queen’s Birthday blockbuster from the MCG to the SCG. It was a tough call as the MCG is our home, but again the Queen’s Birthday blockbuster has been built on the back of big crowds and the rivalry of two of Melbourne’s most passionate and traditional clubs. Our decision to relocate the game was due to the fact that we did not want our game postponed or played without crowds and therefore without atmosphere. A key part of the decision, was to ensure our Melbourne based supporters could enjoy the huge event broadcast with the atmosphere of a live crowd. From a live crowd perspective, we hope to be represented by over 10,000 of our NSW Dees supporters who we trust will inspire the team to twelve wins for the season. I hope all supporters can appreciate that while moving these games, the club has been trying to balance the two key priorities of our supporter game day experience and our commercial returns. The first priority is ensuring we can give our supporters access to the games both via broadcast or stadium attendance. The second, is minimising the financial loss to the club of over $1.8 million which has occurred as a result of this recent border closure and the Victorian lockdown.

But they kicked 8 goals against Port, and for 2.5 quarters just two goals. They seem to really only be competitive against better sides by playing ultra-defensive/dour football. As to cruising from start to finish, I agree. I feel like the "cruisiest" game we've had all year is probably the Dogs.

To be fair, Hooker is having a reasonable year for an old man and Stringer's still playing his one good game a month. @Nelo www.footywire.com

The argument for the prosecution rests. The defence, though, would argue: He didn't kick the goals. This isn't a development year, so why are we interested in missed opportunities as opposed to actual production? He didn't take the marks. Ditto. The two goals kicked by those to whom he directly handballed are indeed great, but this season that's above his overall average goal assists figure of 0.5, which is half of many good forwards (Walker 1.1, Kennedy 1.0, Hawkins 1.0, TMac 1.0) and still below others (Riewoldt 0.8, Franklin 0.6) (albeit it is above Naughton and Mackay on 0.3 each) The missed goals could, if kicked, make his stat line look better, but the AFL tracks shots on goal to account for this and his season average shots on goal is 2.5, which is nowhere compared to the best forwards (Mackay 5.5, Walker 5.9, Naughton 5.3, Kennedy 4.1, Hawkins 4.8, Riewoldt 4.7, Franklin 4.5, Ben King 4.5) Another statistical measure of involvement as a forward is score involvements - it's not perfect because it requires a disposal, knock-on, hit out to advantage or kick-in (i.e. not a marking contest), but on that metric Weideman averages 4 score involvements per game, which is again below his rivals (Walker 9.3, Hawkins 8.2, Naughton 7.7, TMac 6.6, Riewoldt 6.2, Kennedy 6.2, Mackay 6.3, Ben King 5.5, Franklin 6.0). FWIW I am comfortable if Weideman keeps playing, but I'd be equally comfortable making the switch to Brown.

Why is the SCG a problem for us? Why are we going to struggle defending less space? If the Dogs couldn't switch around our zone at Marvel, how will Collingwood? I don't think Collingwood were competitive against Geelong at all. Geelong had a stack of first choice players missing and put the cue in the rack halfway through the third. Late junk time goals does not equal competitiveness. Against Geelong Collingwood kicked one goal in three quarters. Against Port they kicked the first four goals and then only four more, two of which were in the last 5 minutes of the game. Against Sydney they kicked four of the first five goals but then only one more. The point is that in their three recent games against top 8 sides they haven't really been all that competitive, but they did start well vs Sydney and Port, an achilles heel of ours. I can certainly see us being a few goals down early and the Gameday thread being all kinds of negative, but beating Adelaide doesn't all of a sudden mean Collingwood's fixed their scoring issues.

Old + inexperienced is IMO the worst possible combination for a side that is mid-table. 8 of their 23 on the weekend were aged 27+ (Hooker, Zaharakis, Phillips, Ambrose, Heppell, AMT, Stewart and Stringer). For comparison, 5 of our 22 on the weekend were aged 27+ (Hibberd, Melksham, Gawn, May, TMac).