titan_uranus

I agree, Scoop. Without context, it's dangerous to infer anything from that video. If the reality is no one, at all, went to Rivers, that's a problem. But we cannot know that from the footage that's been shown.

I wonder how many of the 22 under 22 squad were picked in the 1st round vs 2nd round vs 3rd round etc. Many of the names I've seen are 1st rounders (most of the GC players, most of the Carlton players). I'm sure there are plenty of non-1st rounders in there but I'd like to know the breakdown before we start criticising our drafting of 2nd/3rd rounders.

Depends how you calculate it. Presumably you are looking at the overall list. But we're not playing many of our older players. The side we fielded last night, for example, had an average age of 24 years 11 months. Was younger than Fremantle's (25 years, 1 month). Brisbane's most recent 22 had an average age of 25 years 1 month (their opponent, Collingwood, was 25 years 10 months). Richmond's most recent 22 was 25 years 6 months, West Coast's was 26 years 1 month, Port Adelaide's 26 years 2 months. Age isn't everything, but we're not playing TMac, Jones, Brown or Jetta, who are all at the top end of our age bracket. We might have 1 or 2 of them on the list next year. Experience (i.e. games played) is another metric. Last night our average games played was 78.9 (Fremantle's was 92.8). Those other clubs' most recent 22: Brisbane 102.8, Richmond 95, West Coast 105.9, Port 113.8. Now, for comparison, our 22 vs Sydney had an average age of 25 years 6 months and average games of 96.6. So that would make us older than Brisbane (but only by 5 months) but younger than the rest, and more experienced than Richmond but not the rest. All of this is to say we're not exactly old/experienced, and we definitely fielded a young and inexperienced side last night. However, I agree that we lack leadership, and IMO our problem is that we rely on our core players to lead us when they are all around the 100-game mark and, Gawn aside, are all 23-26. Not the right age/experience profile for the core leaders. We're too young and too inexperienced. I mean, we hold Petracca to the standard of Dustin Martin. Martin's 4.5 years older and has played 138 games more than Petracca.

One of Demonland's biggest problems is when someone offers some reasons for why our performance might be poor, any of them which are not "the players suck" or "the coach sucks" are dismissed as "excuses". What @Skuit has spoken about in his post are reasons why our performances might have been so poor the last couple of weeks and throughout 2020. They do not necessarily, on their own, explain the extent to which we were poor, but they are reasons to consider all the same.

Players who played any of the three finals who didn't play last night: TMac, OMac, Jones, Lewis, Tyson, Hannan, Frost, Spargo, Jetta Of those, only Lewis, Tyson and Frost aren't on our list any more, and of the rest, only Jones was unavailable for selection last night. The list isn't materially different. I will say this: I am of the view that one player's regression has made more difference than the rest put together. That one player is TMac. Not only has he dropped off his 2018 level, he's gone so far away from it that he's unrecognisable as a player. If he had shed only a little bit of his 2018 form, but was still a 30-40 goal forward (in a 22-game season at least), things would be majorly different IMO. We didn't really have six starting forwards last night because we dropped Fritsch loose behind the ball. But let's go with Weideman, Preuss, ANB, Pickett, Bedford and vandenBerg. Weideman - 1.73, ANB - 0.8, Pickett - 0.5, vandenBerg - 0.1, Preuss - 0, Bedford - 0. That's an overall total of 3.13, 55% of which comes from Weideman. However, Fritsch is 1.29, Hunt is 1.25 and Melksham is 1. Was it? Fyfe played pretty well, 7 clearances I think. Melksham had no impact. I'm not sure it was the right call at all. I agree. It's not enough to explain why we were so bad against both Sydney and Fremantle, but we've had a much tougher run than some other clubs.

Do we really need another thread?

I actually find this interesting. I feel like, win or loss, the club has live tweeted press conferences for years now. Why stop tonight?

No I don't. I disagree with you a lot because I, like many others on here, find most of what you post to either be stupid, wrong, hypocritical or unnecessarily inflammatory. In this instance, Bedford showed the same amount of speed as Baker, Hunt and Pickett. Speed is nice but doesn't make a good footballer on its own (Sam Blease a perfect example). He didn't put on any more pressure than the aforementioned players. He "almost snagged a couple despite poor teammates around him" - sounds like Pickett, who is someone you have a thread and ongoing posting vendetta against. Bedford was pushed off the ball, didn't stick his tackles, didn't look composed with ball in hand, and had no overall impact on the game. Like I said before, he wasn't the only one like that, but there was nothing he showed tonight that would suggest he is currently ready for AFL football, nor that he's going to make it.

I'm loathe to criticise Gawn because he's one of the few players who goes above and beyond off the track and has the credits in the bank to prove it. But he has a temperament problem IMO. When things aren't going well, he starts thumping the ball from stoppages or trying dinky behind his head taps with no plan. He's also emblematic of the very problem we're trying to fix with ball movement. He repeatedly doesn't look where he kicks, he repeatedly kicks wide and high, and he repeatedly targets small players rather than talls. Like I said, I'm loathe to criticise. His gut running, intercept marking, chasing, and (not tonight, but generally) ability below his knees are all elite. He's so much more than a hit out ruckman and he's proven that for years.

When in attack we kept kicking the ball wide and into the pockets. When trying to bring the ball out of defence we kept kicking wide and to small players. We didn't appear to do what Gibson said we were going to do pre-game. We didn't appear to do what Goodwin said we were going to do at HT (be brave). I thought the St Kilda win could be a defining moment for us. For the first time in a long time, Goodwin had out-coached his opposition. He came up with a plan, we stuck to it, and it worked. It is so incredibly difficult to understand how, over the next two games, we've looked so absolutely devoid of a plan and of confidence.

Smith, ANB, Hunt, Preuss, Baker, Bedford - not AFL standard Pickett - not fixing mistakes Weideman - coaching not helping Melksham - not a tagger May - not a forward Gawn - inadequate, ineffective leadership Petracca, Oliver, Viney - no midfield support Goodwin - poor coaching, again.

Because you post so much rubbish I have no idea if you mean this or not. You probably do. Bedford was probably our worst tonight and that's saying something. At no stage did he do anything to suggest he's got a future at AFL level. He's not the core problem (coaching, lack of game plan, wholehearted lack of effort and poor leadership), nor was he alone (add Smith, Baker, ANB, Hunt and Preuss to the list) but he's symptomatic of the problem. He's getting games when he's nowhere near good enough.

This is an excellent comment.

6 - Oliver 5 - Petracca 4 - Viney 3 - Fritsch 2 - Langdon 1 - Rivers Can't give a vote to Gawn for his contribution to our terrible ball movement and his temper-tantrum throwing.

Playing Preuss as a forward is insanely dumb. I had hoped we'd see him get a long run in the ruck to send Gawn forward. Nope. Playing Fritsch as a loose defender failed throughout 2019. Ruined our first quarter and robbed us of a rare marking target forward of centre. We had no cohesion through our team, which makes sense given we had 7 new players compared to last week. I know some were calling for fresh legs but that wasn't the way to do it. Our zone was too high. Our ball movement was too wide. We overhandballed for probably the 45th time under Goodwin. Gawn lost his composure, which happens far too frequently when we're struggling. We had no midfield support to ease the pressure on Oliver and Petracca. We have to continually rob Peter to pay Paul by throwing May forward, exposing Smith who isn't an AFL footballer. The same problems continue to manifest.

As low as it gets. The final five minutes shows two things: we weren't doing what we should have been doing for 3.5 quarters, and we had energy in the tank. For that sort of ball movement and effort to only show up right at the end says a lot to me. There are serious problems within our club. I fear that sacking Goodwin may be the only way to fix them.

Smith 2 disposals, 0 marks, 1 tackle. Hibberd 4 disposals, 0 marks, 0 tackles. Bedford 4 disposals, 1 tackle. PIckett 5 disposals, 1 tackle. Hunt 6 disposals, 0 tackles.

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.