titan_uranus

I'd like to see the pressure acts stat, which I'm sure the FD is big on for both these players. I'm guessing it shows vandenBerg higher than Hannan. I'm not suggesting that's sufficient for him to retain his spot, though. Just a hunch as to what they're basing it off. I think they think Hannan's not doing enough when the ball hits the deck. My main issue is the like-for-likeness of the swap. Obviously Preuss/Jackson and Lockhart/Rivers are like-for-like which leaves Viney for Hannan. IMO, Viney would be better suited to slotting into vandenBerg's role than Hannan's, based on how both played vs North. That issue aside, we've seen some players this year keep their spot despite poor form (vandenBerg, Melksham, Brayshaw and Harmes) whilst others have lost their spot when their form hasn't necessarily warranted (Rivers, ANB, Bennell and arguably OMac and Hannan are the names that spring to mind). Goodwin is stubborn, we know that, and I think he views that former group as best 22 and wants them playing together as much as possible. Maybe the latter group is either not best 22 or might be in 2021 (Rivers/Bennell, for fitness reasons).

Total number of venues played at to Round 17 (it's possible some clubs may see this tally increase by 1 for their Round 18 game, or in the case of Hawthorn/North if they get home games shifted down to Tasmania): Adelaide - 3 Port Adelaide - 3 West Coast - 3 St Kilda - 5 North Melbourne - 5 Fremantle - 5 Bulldogs - 5 (including 8 out of 10 in a row at Metricon) GWS - 6 Richmond - 6 Collingwood - 6 (including either 5 or 6 straight at the Gabba) Brisbane - 6 (all games in Queensland from Round 8-18) Carlton - 7 Sydney - 7 Geelong - 8 Essendon - 8 Hawthorn - 8 (including a home game against Adelaide, in Adelaide!) Melbourne - 9

Hannan didn't do enough to force Goodwin's hand, but I still consider him unlucky to have lost his spot when Jones (no influence since he came back) and vandenBerg (continues to make awful errors) are in the side. Lockhart deserved to come straight back in so I'm OK with Rivers making way on that basis. Viney replacing Hannan will make the most sense if Viney plays more forward than middle. If he plays more middle, he'll be forcing Petracca forward more and/or Brayshaw back onto a wing.

Here are some preliminary thoughts I have: Collingwood doesn't leave the Gabba until the final game, in which they are the home team, so feasibly won't leave the Gabba for the rest of the season; St Kilda play every game except one at the Gabba/Metricon from Rounds 9-17 (and as they are the home side in Round 18, are likely to stay in Queensland for that game). Over the same period we play games at Alice Springs, Cairns and Adelaide, in addition to Gabba/Metricon.

Did anyone get behind the paywall to read this: https://twitter.com/superfooty/status/1294061172933767168?s=20 Edit: thought that would embed, sorry. Text says "Simon Goodwin is frustrated by speculation over the future of Angus Brayshaw but the hard nut is set to be pushed out of the centre square again against Collingwood"

I'm glad we've gone with Preuss to replace Jackson. Put TMac in Jackson's role and see if he can at least give us the same level of contest that Jackson was. Meanwhile Preuss has to make sure he's not letting Grundy dictate the hit outs, and has to stay with him around the ground. Grundy's been off, badly, the last few games bu if he returns to form, he could easily be the difference.

Long run I don't think Essendon can compete for a finals spot. They've got too many games to come against the strong sides and I'm not convinced, at all, they can win enough of them to get to 10. And yes, I was hinting at Round 23 2017. This isn't as important given it's not a clear cut of "win and in", but it's still the most important game we've played this year.

A win doesn't guarantee us a spot in the 8 - if Essendon beat St Kilda they'll take it and we'll stay 9th (with GWS 10th). Doesn't change the fact that this game for us this weekend is huge. Hmmm. When was the last time we had such a massive game with a lot riding on it against Collingwood...?

GWS is missing Greene and Davis, but yes, with Sydney missing Franklin, Kennedy and Heeney, this is a major upset.

GWS losing is obviously good for us in the short term: we beat Collingwood, we pass GWS. But it's a reminder that we can't just assume we're going to bank the Fremantle and Sydney wins.

GWS looks like us at our worst. Tonnes of inside 50s but cannot score, and conceding far too easily out the back. Sydney winning is a great result for us if we are genuine about our finals chances.

Possibly, where costs were allocated at normal capacity levels. Maybe not, if we can reduce costs given we know only a limited number of people can attend.

My preference is for Preuss to come in and play 1st ruck, with TMac playing the second tall forward role. There should be 1-2 other changes around the ground (e.g. Viney/Lockhart/OMac may come in, vandenBerg/Harmes/Tomlinson may go out) but it's the way we structurally respond to not having Jackson or Gawn that is critical IMO.

The optimistic outlook says that, not only do we get reasonable vaccine progress, but we continue to learn from new outbreaks and get better at suppressing outbreaks where needed. If we can get 20,000 people into Optus Stadium by July 2020, I'm optimistic we can get a similar amount, if not more, into the MCG by March 2021.

It stinks in general, but the least of the options. To maintain our structure as much as possible, it should be Preuss.

That's awful news about Jackson on a number of levels. There are a number of options, all of which stink: Brown replaces Jackson, TMac stays 1st ruck and we use Weideman/Brown/Tomlinson as the relief rucks; Preuss replaces Jackson and plays 1st ruck, with TMac taking Jackson's spot in the forward line and relief ruck; OMac replaces Jackson and takes Tomlinson's defensive spot, Tomlinson then takes TMac's spot in the ruck and TMac takes Jackson's spot. Whatever we do, I want us to try to maintain our forward structure first and foremost. Collingwood set up very well behind the ball. We can't try our luck with replacing Jackson with a mid/small forward and leaving Weideman as the sole key forward. Whether it's Brown or TMac, someone has to play as the second tall forward.

Certainly I don't think I'm getting ahead of myself by talking about our finals chances or formline. More that I'm looking at other teams' runs home which are irrelevant if we don't win. But casting my eye over the ladder, it feels like the only sides with a realistic chance of falling out of the 8 are St Kilda, GWS and Collingwood, and the best-placed sides to take a spot, other than us, are Essendon and the Dogs. We literally play every single one of those clubs. Essentially means that if we make finals, we will have done so by beating our competitors for a spot. We won't be sneaking in based on beating lower-ranked sides in the final month.

Which, when reflecting on the Geelong and Brisbane losses, could easily be the story of our entire 2020 season.

Obviously the biggest factor in us making finals is us. On current form our best chance of getting to 10 wins would be to beat Collingwood, the Dogs and Essendon (in addition to Fremantle and Sydney, meaning we lose to both GWS and St Kilda). Winning those five in particular helps our chances quite a bit. Essendon would then need to win 5 of its other 6 (which is Port, West Coast, Richmond, Geelong and Hawthorn - I'm happy to say they won't get 5 of them). The Dogs would then need to win all 5 of their other matches (Adelaide, Fremantle, Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast), and then would have to pass us on percentage. Collingwood would need to win 4 of its other 5 (North, Brisbane, Carlton, GC, Port - would mean they have to beat one of Brisbane/Port to pass us). So this week is huge for us - if we drop it, even though we could still get to 10, Collingwood would get to 10.5 just by beating North, Carlton and GC, so we'd likely be done trying to catch them. I'm getting way too far ahead of myself.

They've beaten Adelaide, Fremantle, Sydney, North and Collingwood. Still yet to play Port, West Coast, Richmond and Geelong. If we're worried about making the top 8, we should be more worried about the 8 sides currently in it, or the Dogs (who have 5 wins and are still yet to play Adelaide, North, Hawthorn and Fremantle.

If it were Melbourne we'd be livid. He clearly didn't have the distance and in trying to overkick it hooked it. Needed to take 10-20 seconds off but then ensure it at least reached the goalsquare. King should have kicked his earlier shot though. In terms of our competition with Essendon for a finals spot, that's a bad result given we had them covered by 20%. But it's a good result in our competition with Gold Coast, given they're closer to us on percentage. Essendon still have to play Port, Richmond, West Coast and Geelong, along with St Kilda, Hawthorn and us. If they lose the four harder games, they'd have to win the other three just to get to 8.5 wins. I'm not sure they can win any of those harder four, and indeed I'm not even sure they can compete with St Kilda.

Huh?

I can find reports suggesting he had a sore knee after the Adelaide game. None from before. Yes he said he put his hand up to play. What he also said was that the club took medical advice. You may well have a good source to suggest he was told to sit out and he chose not to. But I don't, and you didn't mention that last post. Based on what I've read, I'm comfortable with what happened. If it turns out he was told to sit out and decided not to, that's different, but again, not a reason to complain about the PCL.

@Lord Nev how we do know he went into the Adelaide game with "an already sore knee"? PCL injuries are ruck/contact injuries, are they not? If so, how does McHenry's turd-esque blocks off the ball have anything to do with it? From what I can see, the medical evidence prior to the Adelaide game suggested playing was unlikely to make the injury any worse, so they chose to play him. He then copped a completely unrelated knee injury. Linking the decision to the knee injury isn't right, IMO. I'm with @DeeSpencer on this one. And as to your allegation that it was a captain's call, I'm not sure I agree. His quote: “Between me, you and everyone else that’s watching the coverage, I did sort tear something up in my shoulder region,” Gawn told Fox Footy post-game. “So I had to sort of be careful and get as much advice as possible. “We went to different people and got Darren Burgess (to) call all over the world trying to find people that have had the injury. “It came to a decision that I could probably play. I trained relatively well on the day before the game and I was able to get out there. “The first half, it did take me a while. At times I thought: ‘Why did I put my hand up?’ But I was able to get into it towards the end.” I assume you're leaning on the "why did I put my hand up" bit? Do you think that the club wouldn't have asked Gawn for his input as to whether he felt fit to play? Based on those quotes, I think it's clear that the club took medical advice on the nature of the injury, and included Gawn's own views in making a decision. I'm not sure you've got enough to suggest Gawn made some sort of captain's call that overrode some advice to do otherwise.

Essendon probably wish they hadn't delisted him given their injuries. I'm surprised he didn't get a game when we were struggling during the Geelong/Richmond period, but I'm not sure kicking goals in a sub-VFL-level reserves game is a sign he should be playing seniors.