titan_uranus

Wow. "Thick heads" for those of us who are unsure about whether Jones is best 22? Horrendous position for you to take on what is an interesting but difficult subject. FWIW, my view is that Jones was poor last night and we should be able to get better value in his role from Harmes, or even ANB. Jones isn't offering a whole lot. The OP cited a goal assist. That's one thing. All match. And regrettably, it doesn't outweigh Jones' turnovers, which happen every week. Now, in saying all of that, I would LOVE for Jones to make it to 300. It would be a testament to his durability, persistence and hard work for him to have played through the 2006-2020 period. He captained us, he stood up for us when we needed it, he fought for us when we were down. All of those traits mean that, if it happens, it would be a wonderful moment to savour. But suggesting, as @Queanbeyan Demon does, that we'll rip our culture apart by not letting him get there, is not a good argument. Did St Kilda's culture fall apart when Hayes didn't get to 300? Or the Dogs with Matty Boyd? Will we forever be banned from pointing to Jones' poster on the wall and using him as a role model example just because he played 290-something games rather than 300? What if we play him, miss the finals or lose a final in which he plays poorly, and then people reflect and think "remember Jones playing X game in 2020 when they didn't play Bennell/ANB/Harmes/whoever"? I'd love it to happen, but for it to happen Jones has to be best 22. If he's not, and the FD drop him, IMO that is a completely justifiable call.

Yep this is the 9-win scenario. St Kilda and the Dogs could very, very easily finish on 9. A lot depends on whether the Giants have turned a corner and are back, or if it was just a one-off against a flat Freo. If it's the former, the Giants will finish above us given their soft draw. Collingwood have to beat one of Port or Brisbane to get to 9.5 (assuming they beat GC). They won't get many of their stars back for the Brisbane game next week, but they traditionally play well against Brisbane. If they lose that, they'll have to beat Port in the final round to get to 9.5. No guarantee there.

IMO the players we need to be pushing up the ground more are Hannan and Melksham. Hannan's a good mark and helps with our scoring chains when he gets up the ground. Melksham's kicking is vital to breaking down good zones. Spargo and Pickett (and players who come in to play that smaller role) I'm happy to see stay a bit deeper, both feeding off the contests created by Weideman/Brown/Gawn/etc. and pressuring their ball carriers in our forward 50. Either way, we need more from our forwards as it's not sustainable to rely on Petracca dominance like last night.

Membrey could have had 3 though. Missed one shot and there was another where he was in space but the kick missed him, IIRC. But that's not the part of the game that Oscar struggles with. It's everything else. He looked to have gained composure and confidence in transition early this year but that's all gone. He's back to looking lost, wanting to get rid of it whenever he gets a handball receive, and being pushed under/past the ball. His kicking is usually good but even that wasn't a lock for him last night with one awful turnover that stands out. I'm also not sure OMac is responsible for May and Lever's improved form. May and Lever have been building all year and our whole-team defence was top-notch in all the games OMac didn't play the last month other than the Dogs. In saying all that, I accept there is a structural benefit to playing him. But I don't think he played well last night and I disagree with the notion that criticism of him is misguided.

I accept that both Fritsch and Melksham need to up their pressure games, but it's hardly like all of the small/mid forwards are keeping Fritsch out. vandenBerg, Hannan and Jones were all poor/ineffectual last night. You can't tell me we don't have room for Fritsch given their respective performances (both last night and across the year). The more so given Fritsch hits the scoreboard.

Collingwood still have to play Brisbane and Port. If they lose both, their ceiling is 9.5 wins (beating Carlton and GC). Carlton still have to play Sydney, Adelaide, GWS and Brisbane. If they beat Collingwood and then the former two, they'll have 9 wins. And then two other games to shoot at to get to 10. In other words, very much like us. IMO, a Collingwood win for us is the best overall result. Makes it very difficult for Carlton to make finals whilst we can still pass Collingwood if we get to 10. West Coast have a game in hand on the top 4 and don't play any of them again this year (Richmond plays Geelong). If Geelong beats Richmond, 4th is very much still in the Eagles' grasp. Could also happen if Brisbane or Geelong trip up with their easier games. So it's not a fait accompli that 8th nets you a trip to Perth.

Sometimes that's the hallmark of a good side. Winning when both key players (Brayshaw had no impact, Gawn was down on his best, Viney had to tag and Oliver had little impact to three quarter time) and fringe players (take your pick of our forwards) are having bad games can be a sign that overall systems are holding up. We certainly cannot rest on our laurels when it comes to our forward line, but we still converted a high percentage of our inside 50s, so it's not all doom and gloom in the forward half.

There is merit to the argument that no AFL game should be played at a ground that doesn't have a goal line camera. Goodwin has said this and said it again last night. But that issue aside, there are no other issues with this. The reason we have an "umpire's call" system with score reviews is to ensure the goal umpire still has a role to play. In this instance, he made a decision that it was a goal. He was the only person on the ground who could have known. Let's back that call in and celebrate what IMO should be goal of the week and is every bit a good as any other goal this year given the importance of the situation. PS: agree with all those who say it was a mark AND a free kick to Petracca.

I just watched it too and it was clearly 15 metres. Umpired called it almost the second it came off the boot. Could have cost us the game. Watching that clip though is another example of how absolutely incredible Langdon is. His gut running at that stage of the game is enormous. Repeatedly available in the back pocket, back flank and wing to make options and help out.

Oliver - critical last quarter May - another AA performane Viney - tagging role worked vandenBerg - having no impact Jones - unfortunately played terribly Melbourne - won despite passengers.

What do you mean? He was in the box for the first half. Was he forced to go to the bench the second half? I thought he just chose to, and if he did, then credit to him if it made a difference.

Yes, we just brought 6 new players in. Do we need to send another 8 players out straight away?

Won't get nominated this week, might not get nominated all year, but is shaping up to be a mainstay of our best 22.

I think it's fair to say the top 5 are locked in and spots 6-8 are up for grabs, with seven teams in contention (St Kilda, Collingwood, GWS, Melbourne, Bulldogs, Carlton, Essendon). 10 should be enough, which means the next two games are huge for us. Win them both and we're in the box seat from there. If we drop either of the next two, we'll have partly undone the hard work we did to beat St Kilda. But because the final two games are against our competitors, if we win even one of them, and finish on 9 wins, we can still make it. GWS right now looks to be our toughest opponent left. I'm concerned they are going to find form and make a big charge for the finals. Who knows if yesterday was the start of that charge or just a one-off

We're a side that is building form as a group when we've struggled to get any continuity into our 22. We can't afford to chop and change the side as much as having 8 players in/out in one week. There's no need to rest players for Rounds 17 and 18, and/or finals, if we don't win Rounds 15 and 16. 4 changes, maybe 5, will be enough to rotate the bottom half of the squad and find fresher legs for some tired expendable legs. Otherwise, we have to back our fitness in.

I don't think Jones adds enough and I think Harmes should be given the chance to play that role. I'd bring Fritsch back for either Hannan or vandenBerg. If we can cope against Sydney without OMac, I'd drop him. I'd bring Lockhart in for him. If Hibberd's injured, we may retain OMac though. We've had seven day breaks two weeks in a row now. We've rotated players already, with six changes this week. The most likely players to be tired are the A-graders who aren't going anywhere. I wouldn't be making lots of changes, I'd be focusing instead on just those changes that obviously improve us. I thought Brown was good and Wagner just OK. Happy for both to get another game. My point was more that if anyone had posted on here pre-season that we'd be in the running for finals with a side in Round 15 featuring all of J Wagner, C Wagner, Brown and ANB (possibly Spargo too!), you'd have been called insane. When will it end?

Again, Tomlinson was better than you're ever prepared to give him credit for. Defended his part of the ground well, and then gave us options coming out of defence. Also thought he put his head over the ball more than in other weeks. Brown I thought was just OK. Can't see how he was any worse than TMac so I'd be keeping him in. You're joking re: Fritsch, right?

Probably sums up the feeling of about 90% of Demonland.

Agree, but they did have 16 more inside 50s than us. The defenders held up repeatedly when St Kilda were mindlessly bombing it in (which was happening in part because they couldn't get through the zone). The defence is what was missing from last week. We couldn't stop the Dogs' run, but we stopped the Saints' brilliantly.

vandenBerg, Hannan, Jones and Pickett laid 3 tackles between them. I love vandenBerg's intent but if he's not tackling, I'm just not sure why he's playing. I'd like to see the pressure act stat (does anyone know if it's available anywhere), as I'm sure the FD look at it, and it might be what keeps Pickett in the side.

Can you imagine if we recalled ANB and C Wagner, whilst retaining J Wagner and playing Brown?

We just can't win, can we. FWIW, I don't agree.

Pot...kettle...black? I'm not insinuating anything, just sharing the footage. We sung the song vs Carlton in Round 2 without a bunch of players in the circle, including Gawn, in his first win as captain. There could very well be absolutely nothing in it.

This is the Viney footage (apparently he's not visible in the team song either):

He's not the only one who finds it interesting (to put it mildly) that you almost never post after a win but clog the board up with repetitive guff after losses. Really? Was this brought up somewhere?