titan_uranus

Goodwin at HT said we needed to be brave with the ball, not boring. Either he didn't tell the players that, or they just were unwilling or incapable of trying it. We didn't appear to even try to move the ball anywhere other than down the wing. Just before the second Walters goal, Gawn took consecutive intercept marks. Both times, the only place he properly looked was the wing. Both times, he kicked to Pickett. Our ball movement plan tonight has been appalling, absolutely appalling.

He said "brave footy club", not "great".

Goodwin just now: we were "boring" (his word) with the football and need to get courageous, and we need to defend to the required level. Let's see whether we've done anything to work on those two things.

Bedford's shown nothing so far to suggest he's capable of AFL level football. But at least he's still a kid playing his second game. vandenBerg's been around more than long enough to have worked on his weaknesses. But already tonight he's dropped it, turned it over, and given away a dumb free kick.

Oh boy. Maybe three good players for us (Langdon, Tomlinson, Oliver). Goodwin's tactical decision to drop Fritsch as a loose defender in the first quarter was awful. Not only did 2019 show all of us that Fritsch isn't a defender, but it meant every time we picked the ball up we were outnumbered forward of centre. Our forwards are pressing too high up. Our small forwards are struggling (Bedford so far looks an absolute mile off). vandenBerg literally turns it over every single time he goes near it. Weideman and Preuss can't take a mark. Gawn's showing his frustrated side: stupid taps and mindless bombs forward. Just nothing happening forward of centre. I don't think the scoring shots discrepancy is indicative of much. They put a bunch of shots up during that 10 minute period in the first quarter when the wind lifted and the rain hit and we couldn't get the ball past the centre. The uncontested marks look bad too but so many of their marks are coming from backwards and sideways kicks that aren't damaging us. Nevertheless, if we don't work out how to move the ball and how to generate something forward of centre, we will lose a second straight game to a bottom 6 side when finals are on the line. Inexcusable.

Ah yes, the old "go past us". Did we "go past" St Kilda when we beat them? Has Sydney "gone past us" despite being in the bottom 4 whilst we will be in the 8 if we win tonight? My view on this is very different. At the end of the season, whoever finishes in the top 8 deserves to play finals. That is, indeed, the entire point of the top 8. It's even more so in a season like this, where everyone plays everyone else once. If we make it on 9 wins, at least two of St Kilda, Collingwood, GWS and the Dogs is going to similarly lose some games over the next two weeks. Whoever finishes the season with the 8th or better record of the 18 clubs will have deserved their finals spot.

Posted this in the other thread, but we can still make it on 9 wins with a loss tonight. Requires the following: We beat GWS and Essendon The Dogs lose one of their last two (Hawthorn and Fremantle) GWS loses to Adelaide St Kilda loses both of its last two games (West Coast and GWS) Collingwood loses both of its last two games (GC and Port). Assumes we then don't have the worst percentage out of GWS, St Kilda, the Dogs and us. If we get to 10, we can still miss if: GWS beats Adelaide and St Kilda St Kilda beats West Coast but loses to GWS Collingwood beats GC and Brisbane The Dogs win both their last two Our percentage is worse than two of GWS, St Kilda and the Dogs Collingwood would finish 6th on 10.5, and then we'd finish 9th or 10th, behind whichever two of those three sides has a better percentage than us.

That was a moment I'll never forget, on a night I'll never forget. Those back to back games, with the build up, the atmosphere, the sound of a 90,000 pro-MFC crowd, exhilarating football, and the wins, were just incredible.

That's not entirely true. Whilst the Dogs' win last night makes it harder, we can still make it if we lose tonight. Requires the following: We beat GWS and Essendon The Dogs lose one of their last two (Hawthorn and Fremantle) GWS loses to Adelaide St Kilda loses both of its last two games (West Coast and GWS) Collingwood loses both of its last two games (GC and Port). We would then finish on 9, as would St Kilda, the Dogs and GWS. Percentage would separate us through 6-9 on the ladder. If Carlton were to win out, it would also finish on 9 and would join the percentage battle. Because there are three spots available, we can actually afford for a maximum of two of the above situations to not play out. On the probabilities, the least likely is GWS losing to Adelaide. But then we can only afford one more the above to not happen or we won't make it - so, for example, if Collingwood beats Gold Coast we then need the Dogs to drop a game, or vice versa.

This has been fairly covered in a number of other threads. Papley was loose a number of times and although didn't kick goals, set up others. We also saw our defence over-focusing on him, leaving other Swans free. Smith wasn't the sole reason Papley didn't score a goal, he might not even have been the dominant reason. Your main support for him is his athleticism. That's not enough. And it's not Jetta I'd replace him with, it's Lockhart. So what are your solutions, @poita? Play OMac? You're a fan of his, are you? Where are the missing 1-2 midfielders we haven't picked? Bearing in mind Brayshaw, Sparrow, Jordan and Harmes are all injured. And who's the key forward making the case for selection? We pick TMac, you say he's "horribly out of form". We pick Brown, you say "we've resorted to playing an Essendon reject". We pick neither, you complain we didn't pick one. Indeed, as usual, all you do is complain.

What, so you think Gil has gone to Fremantle and told them to lose? In a year of wild conspiracy theories, this is right up there.

Last chance saloon. Must win tonight if we want to make finals. There's not likely to be a lot to learn from a win tonight. If we do win, it will probably mean either some top shelf performances from our A-graders, or some surprising performances from our additions. Getting fired up after a pathetic loss happens frequently enough, so I don't think there will be anything long-term to take away from a win. A loss tells us a lot though. If we've packed it in, if we've given up, if we can't turn around our form against another bottom 6 club, if we look lifeless, skill-less, no lessons learnt, if Melksham and Fritsch don't tackle, if vandenBerg gives away free kicks and doesn't get the ball - a loss has the potential to tell us a lot. Win tonight and I'll care a lot more about the GWS game on Saturday.

That's fine. Some might argue West Coast today was undermanned, but I'm sure the Dogs will get credit for the win. Point is, most sides aren't winning a heap of games against the current top 8, so we're not that far off the mark in that respect. Where we are far off the mark, IMO, is the ongoing pattern of dropping games where our workrate/intensity is below acceptable levels. Doesn't happen to other sides with the same sort of regularity as it does to us.

Jason Bennett is also good, but never gets used by Channel 7. The worst thing about Richo is that he's everywhere. He's hopeless and ubiquitous. There aren't many good commentators at the moment. Papalia gets very few games. Hudson's the best Fox has to offer but he gets a bit over the top at times (and his comment about us celebrating a GF win when Bennell kicked his first goal for vs GC was pathetic). BT's OK when he focuses on just calling the game as he sees it but when he veers off into hyperbole he's intolerable. Bruce just pads out his slow commentary with rhetorical questions. Hamish McLachlan has a job based on his name but can't call football to save himself. Commetti was 10 times the commentator anyone on TV now currently is. Sandy Roberts' final few years on Fox were excruciatingly bad.

We were missing a few in that game. Who were the Dogs missing tonight? And our game was in Perth with a crowd. And as to the second line - how many wins do our competitors have this year against a "full strength premiership contender"? I'd suggest it's an equally valid argument to say the overly negative on here (which you seem to be) could find an asterisk to put against any win we have against anyone.

Technically it does, as it's another side who could finish higher than us even if we get to 10. Practically, if we win all three we shouldn't lose 8% to the Dogs, so you're pretty much right, but it would have been preferable on all counts for the Dogs to have lost tonight. Still, if we get to 9 and miss out, the Sydney loss will be the number 1 reason we missed, and the Geelong and Brisbane losses will rank higher than the Dogs' win over West Coast.

And we've still retained ANB and Smith (who shouldn't be in anyone's best 22). And we've retained Fritsch and Melksham, both of whom are on ice thinner than paper. I mean, it's not like we didn't have seven options for players to drop. It's not surprising but, as I said, it is a sign we're struggling.

That was the Dogs' 8th game at Metricon this year (although to be fair it was West Coast's 5th). We'll finish the year with no more than 3 games at any one venue. I keep banging on about this but it's a relevant factor.

The Sydney loss wasn't just a lack of skill, there were workrate issues on display. The main reason I'm furious at the Sydney loss is that from the start our intensity/workrate were off. Just like the Port game. Except we've got two wins over the current top 8, with an opportunity to win a third before the season's done. Two wins over the current top 8 is the same number that the Dogs, St Kilda, Collingwood and even Richmond have. Indeed, no one has more than three wins over the current top 8 except Brisbane (five).

Not really a fair comment in a 17-game season. Just means the Dogs have had to play the good sides already and the Saints haven't. Yes it does. The 9-win scenario assumed Collingwood and GWS finished 6th and 7th. It was then us, St Kilda and the Dogs fighting for 8th and if we all finished on 9 wins we'd win out on percentage (so went the theory). It's now possible that everything could line up for that but we miss out because the Dogs get a 10th win - we beat Fremantle and GWS (but lose to Essendon), GWS beats St Kilda and Carlton but loses to us, St Kilda loses both games, Collingwood beats GC, Dogs win both games. We miss out (assuming we pass St Kilda on percentage, which was always going to be necessary for us to make it on 9 wins). Had the Dogs lost, we'd have made it. Still, if we win all three we're near-guaranteed to make it (to miss, one of the Dogs and GWS is going to need to make up the 6-8% to catch us on percentage).

I reckon Brown's stiff to lose his spot to Preuss, who's not a forward and didn't show anything last year outside of a half of football vs Sydney the first time to suggest he can fit alongside Gawn. Is there something up with Lockhart? Injury or discipline or something? How he's not getting a game right now is utterly beyond me, the more so given Smith held his spot. Forward line abysmal but the usual scapegoats cop it (Spargo and Brown) whilst Melksham and Fritsch hold their spots. Happy to see Bedford and Baker get a game, great to see Hibberd back, but on the whole these changes show we're struggling with form, fitness and cohesion. At this stage of the year, that's troubling.

Important, sure. But in order to tackle your opponent has to have the ball. Pressure has to stay on when we have it and when the ball is in dispute, too.

To be fair, if you look at the top 10 (i.e. the top 8, us and the Dogs), there have only been three losses by that group to the bottom 6 in any recent time: our loss to Sydney (Round 15), GWS' loss to Sydney (Round 12) and Collingwood's loss to Fremantle (Round 9). Every single other side in the current top 10 has won every other game against the bottom 6 since, I think, Round 6. So it is rare.

The bolded bit is completely, utterly, wrong. There is so much more to pressure than tackles. Having said that, we're 17th for average tackle differential at -4.5 (only Carlton, North and Adelaide are worse than -1.7). That, couple that with the fact that we're only 11th for average disposal differential at -3.6, concerns me. It's one thing to be 18th for average tackles, but if we consistently played in high-possession/low-tackle games, our average differential would be closer to 0. That it's so far away from 0 to have us 17th shows that we're getting outworked too frequently in that metric. Interestingly though, we're 6th for average 1%'ers differential, at 1.8. I don't have a definition of 1%'ers so I don't know what they include, but they likely include spoils, smothers, blocks, shepherds, those sorts of things. So we're doing some of those pressure-related things well.

I've seen enough from Smith to feel confident in saying he's not a footballer at all. He's an athlete. No football brain. A bit like Frost in that regard - doesn't stick to structures, can't control his urge to run and jump. Looks great when he does good things because of that athleticism, but on the whole just won't work whether forward or back.