titan_uranus

If they lose tonight they can still make it but would have to win all three and get in on 9.5 If they win they will jump up into 8th tonight.

Is this weekly article really that accurate as to who we choose to bring in?

This is just before @Clint Bizkit's screenshot Raises both arms, as if he's trying to block Kent from kicking. Which led me to panic, even if he was able to follow Steele.

He's clearly trying to impact Kent's kick though, hence why I freaked out at the time.

Remind me again why we got fined $500,000?

If Essendon beats West Coast, things will get bad for two reasons: Essendon will be challenging for finals Essendon supporters will come even further out of the woodwork Away from Perth, no Kennedy, no Cripps...who knows.

This is fair, and I agree. But what we can aim for, and what we need, is consistency defensively as well as output offensively. It's important for us to be able to win games off the back of defence, but where we can get better is to take this level of defence and then ensure that the players we've got in those mid/small forward roles are hurting our opponent the other way.

The other issue with weekly nominations is that if there is no objectively good performance in a round, someone nevertheless has to get the nomination. Conversely, you might get two stellar games in the same round, but can only nominate one of them.

Greene did get a fine. Still, the system is broken. Lynch and Greene receiving nothing but fines for blatant, non-football dog acts, is a joke. Both should have been suspended to remind the league that punching players and smacking their heads into the turf is not what you should be doing.

Adelaide Oval? Traeger Park? We struggled at Metricon vs the Dogs. Not sure of its dimensions but if it's wide, we probably won't want to play there if there are narrower grounds available.

Viney gets very, very, close to the protected zone on Kent's kick. I freaked out, I must admit.

Not sure about his comparison to ANB. Averages 9.7 disposals a game to ANB's 9.3. ANB averages 1 goal a game to Kent's 0.9, and 2.3 tackles per game to Kent's 2.0. ANB has higher disposal efficiency and fewer turnovers, but Kent has more metres gained and inside 50s. Looks relatively even to me. Statistically Kent's got Hannan covered, but I'm not sure that's an argument in favour of Kent. As to Frost, why? Do you see him slotting into our side as a running player? We tried him in the OMac/Tomlinson role as the third defender - if this year has taught me anything, it's that we strived for, and succeeded with, reliability in the backline. Frost was not reliable.

I wish people would cut out this argument. If we restricted commentary to those who had "played the position at an elite level of competition", Demonland wouldn't exist. @Cheesy D. Pun was fairly, and rightfully, pointing out that there may be a lot Pickett is doing that you simply cannot see on TV.

I'm assuming you're happy with the win, @old dee?

For St Kilda to get to 10 they have to beat one of West Coast or GWS (whilst beating Hawthorn). If they beat GWS, that means GWS has to win its other three games (Carlton, Adelaide, and us). That means we have to beat Essendon as well as Fremantle/Sydney. Whilst that's all possible, I think it's more likely that GWS will beat St Kilda, meaning the Saints finish on 9 wins. I also think the Dogs will finish on 9 wins too (beating Hawthorn and Fremantle but losing to West Coast). At this point I see Collingwood getting to 9.5 (beating GC), St Kilda and the Dogs getting to 9, and GWS getting to 10 without beating us. I also see Essendon losing at least two of its final four, meaning it will finish on 8.5 at most. If all that is correct, then if we beat both Fremantle and Sydney, we'll also be on 9, and will just need to rely on percentage to finish above St Kilda and the Dogs and take 8th spot. We're currently 11.6% in front of the Dogs but 1.6% behind St Kilda. So that's a scenario in which we could finish on 9 wins and make it (need to bridge the 1.6% gap to St Kilda). But that leaves both the GWS and Essendon games as losses - win either of those and we're in for sure in this scenario.

In theory Watts at his best could find a spot in our best 22, but his best is probably well past him now. Tyson's career looks done, and those two games Dunn played a couple of weeks ago suggest he should have retired at the end of last year. You know Hawthorn's in the bottom 4 right?

I expect us to lose to GWS as well. But then again, I expected us to lose to St Kilda. You're right about Collingwood - they just need to beat GC to get to 9.5 and that should be enough.

Whoops, St Kilda should actually be 11th on 2-3.

Formline for each club's last five games (i.e. ignoring byes. Also ignores percentages because I don't have that data right here, and might well mean we're not 2nd...): Geelong - 5-0 Melbourne - 4-1 Richmond - 4-1 West Coast - 4-1 Brisbane - 4-1 Port Adelaide - 4-1 Collingwood - 4-1 St Kilda - 3-2 GWS - 3-2 Fremantle - 3-2 Bulldogs - 2-3 Carlton - 2-3 Gold Coast - 1-1-3 Essendon - 1-1-3 Hawthorn - 1-4 Sydney - 1-4 North Melbourne - 0-5 Adelaide - 0-5

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.