titan_uranus

PS: did anyone else notice this comment in the (yuck) Damien Barrett sliding doors column today: https://www.afl.com.au/news/498678/if-essendon-needs-another-quick-half-time-laugh-then IF ... Viney is considering options and Brayshaw, too, gets another offer he needs to deeply consider .. THEN ... the Dees will have even more massive problems added to those which have already ruined another season of football.

First and foremost, there's no evidence or suggestion that this is club-led. This appears to be Viney-led: he's a free agent and he appears to be considering his options. Having said that, the fact he's even considering leaving means that the relationship between him and the club could be better. Emotionally, I want him to say, without question. He's Melbourne and the thought of him playing somewhere else is difficult to accept. Putting that to one side, I think this is a tough debate to have. I think there are arguments on both sides. In Viney's favour, his effort is unquestionable and the same, regrettably, cannot be said for all our players. He has shown previously that he is capable of lifting the side on his back and taking us with him, and he has real talent both in stoppages and the forward line. However, one of our biggest flaws is the way in which we move the ball forward, and Viney has consistently struggled to change the way he moves the ball. He is a repeat offender at kicking without looking and making poor choices by foot. He has also struggled to curtail some of his natural instincts to take the tackler on when he should instead be releasing the ball. That's not all his fault of course, as some of it comes down to coaching, but IMO the reality is Viney is not the complete package and has flaws. Ultimately as an RFA Viney gets more power than we do here. If he has a good deal somewhere else and he wants a change of scenery, and if another club is fronting up a big contract, the risk we have is that in matching that contract we keep someone who isn't 100% committed and we have to spend a lot of salary cap on him. If, instead, letting him go nets us a first round draft pick, there is a reasonable argument that it's the best result for everyone.

Thanks. As I suspected it's complete garbage. FWIW, if we know TMac's issues are fitness/injury, I'm all for re-starting him at FF in 2021. Getting him back to his 2018 level will change us more than any other single player could IMO.

It's now in the three dots in the top right of your post.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that if that was us, not St Kilda, you would be saying the opposite. They just got beaten by a West Coast side missing Shuey, Yeo, Sheed, Redden, Cripps, Hutchings and Jetta. And with McGovern, one of their best 5 players, off by HT. And that was West Coast's fifth game in 18 days (St Kilda's third game in that block). You would be scathing of us if that was us who had lost that game. Yes this is a factor. St Kilda have lost their last three by only 2, 3 and 15, so they haven't shed much percentage. We do have two games to make up the 50-odd point differential, and in this scenario they have to lose again. So it's not out of the realms of possibility. But if we miss out on percentage, we'll all have great fun reflecting on not just losing to Sydney and Fremantle, but losing by 21 and 14 points respectively (maybe even that final-second goal to Patrick vs Fremantle will haunt us?)

And elite players. When they fell behind, it was Kennedy, Naitanui and Kelly who dragged them back in. We saw vs St Kilda the difference Petracca and May made. But neither was at the same level in either Cairns game and it showed.

The first result goes our way. Next up is us. If we lose, it's all over. But, if we win, we then turn our attention to 3.35pm Sunday when Hawthorn plays the Dogs in Adelaide. The Dogs' first game outside of Queensland since Round 10. And indeed their second of only two games at all played outside of Queensland since leaving Victoria. How ridiculous. And then Monday night closes out with Collingwood vs Gold Coast.

Could anyone other than West Coast? That was an incredible win. It was in part driven by the fact that St Kilda are barely any better than us. But they looked cooked early in the fourth and with McGovern off for the entire second half, they still someone kicked the last three goals of the game. A warning sign to the other four teams in the top 5 IMO.

Not necessarily. I haven't done the maths but percentage is only relevant here if we are passing St Kilda. We're already 6% in front of the Dogs and to take their spot we have two win twice and they have to lose at least once. I'm sure it's mathematically possible for that to happen and we still concede 6% to them, but it's not likely. Agree with this. Big focus on the touch, no focus at all on the pass that was blatantly sub-15m. Err, surely our losses to Sydney and Fremantle were the major set backs? As @sue said above, if we finish 8th and the Dogs miss out, we'll have deserved the spot more than them. I mean, if it happens, it will require the Dogs to lose to Hawthorn or Fremantle. Which will be at least one loss to a bad side, the very thing we're upset about us doing.

I'm not sure that fatigue is a factor in any of our losses except, maybe, the Port loss. I'm someone who has raised the fixture issue though. I think there is more likely than not to be an impact to our overall performance from the constant moving from venue to venue on a weekly basis. One of our problems is consistency. There is none. Another is cohesion. Again, there is none. We don't adjust to different conditions well, we don't adjust to wider grounds well. Maybe our season could have panned out differently if we'd had 8 games at Metricon like some other clubs did, or we had fewer grounds to learn to play on? Maybe the focus on rehab, travel, adjusting, flying, bussing, etc. could, in different circumstances have been time spent on game plans, tactics, etc? I have no idea. It's all maybes, as we'll never know. Although we do know that Geelong had a similarly difficult fixture and had seemingly no issues with any of this. But I think the fixture we've had this year provides more issues to consider than simply fatigue.

I've seen this 10kg thing a lot. Is there any evidence at all to support it? Is there anyone on Demonland who claims to have a source who has said this? Or is it just a rumour with no real base to it?

Would have said the same about Adelaide beating GWS, surely? Jeepers, I reckon this is a bit harsh. They're 5-1-9 with a percentage of 96.7% with a number of close losses in which they were either the equal of their opponent or the better side (e.g. the Dogs, St Kilda and Essendon games). They're not the only club to have been well beaten by Brisbane, either. Had even one of those close games gone in GC's favour they'd be just a draw behind us and Carlton. They're a mid-table side, not that much worse than us, and on their day are completely capable of beating Collinwood.

Not what I meant. I was responding to someone who said his problem was "half-hearted efforts". It's not a question of talent. It's a question of his ability to produce AFL-level football right now. Whether that's a prolonged form slump or injury/fitness, and it could well be the latter, the reality is he's not currently able to produce good enough football. But that's not for want of trying.

Google suggests yes, but it's certainly not clear. If anyone has the AFL Prospectus, I believe all stats are defined in there.

I tend to agree. We neither need, nor want, the president to comment every time we lose. I don't think that's a smart or helpful way for the president/board to deal with the club. That's not to say Bartlett or the board shouldn't be putting pressure on internally and/or reviewing all operations. Just that it doesn't need to be done publicly every time something goes wrong.

The big knock on Walsh all year has been his kicking. Turns it over so much (he had two chances to give Carlton a shot to beat us in Round 2, for one example). In saying that, apparently he hasn't missed a game since he debuted in Round 1 last year. Great effort for a 19-year old. Justifying being picked number 1.

Fair enough. I won't be mad if Baker gets dropped. vandenBerg's only played 10 games this year - most of the rest have played 15 or 16 (not Pickett). But the main point is this: Cripps, Fyfe, Oliver and Petracca are all impacting games to a level that is so far above vandenBerg that the free kick against stat doesn't matter. vandenBerg doesn't impact the game anywhere near to the level they do, which means then when he gives up free kicks it hurts more.

I don't think it's fair to suggest that the fixture is the sole, or even dominant, reason we're struggling. I do, though, think it's a factor that weighs on us when things aren't going well. Geelong have coped much better and are showing that when you're in form and confident, you can ride out this sort of fixture. I think it's possible we are showing that if you're slightly off, lacking confidence and form, the fixture could compound those issues significantly. I also think that, although the numbers are close, the extra four-day break, combined with having no bye in either of the two compressed periods, is quite significant. Not sure about that. Assume that in Round 17 we win, St Kilda loses, Collingwood wins and the Dogs win. You'd then have Collingwood 6th on 9.5, St Kilda 7th on 9, the Dogs 8th on 9, us 9th on 8 and GWS 10th on 8. GWS would still only be a game behind St Kilda (in 7th) and with the chance to beat them in the last round, take the four points and do percentage damage, theoretically. GWS plays St Kilda in Round 18 before every game other than North Melbourne v West Coast, so they won't know for sure if their season is done (as, even in the above circumstances, they'll still need the Dogs and us to lose our Round 18 matches). So, if they have the sort of attitude we seem to lack, they could come out and beat St Kilda and then wait to see what we and the Dogs do afterwards.

This adds to the data I was looking at on the fixture - in addition to league-leading flights and kms covered, we had the equal most four day breaks, the most states/territories played in, the most venues played in, the least number of consecutive games in the one place, and no more than 3 games all year at any one venue.

On our pre-Sydney form, we should win both. On our Sydney/Fremantle form, we will lose both. Yep it was a terrible free and if it happened to us Demonland would have exploded if he'd kicked the goal.

Current state of play: Optimism If we win both games, then we make finals provided any one of the following happens: Collingwood loses to Gold Coast and Port St Kilda loses to West Coast and GWS (and we bridge the 7% gap between them and us) The Dogs lose to either Hawthorn or Fremantle If all three of these happen, we can still finish as high as 6th. Pessimism If we lose both games, then we can finish as low as 13th if: Carlton beats Adelaide Fremantle beats North Melbourne and the Dogs, or only one of them but bridges the 18% gap between us If we finish in the top 8, by definition we deserve to play finals.

That was Sydney's only score from the 3 minute mark of the third quarter onwards. Losing to them last week is an absolute disgrace.

I'm not optimistic about us winning our last two at all. I'm barely optimistic about us winning even one of them. But, if we do win our last two, Carlton won't be passing us. The pessimistic outlook would suggest this: we lose our last two, Carlton beats Adelaide, Fremantle beats North, and we end up 13th.

If we win our last two, Carlton can only pass us by winning their last two and making up 9% on us.

No worries. From memory you were very happy about vandenBerg giving Mihocek concussion, as if that was some sort of achievement on a football field. FWIW, I love vandenBerg's attitude to football. But as I said before, our biggest problem is our inability to execute basic football skills, and vandenBerg is a prime offender when it comes to turnovers.