titan_uranus

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.

I didn't think Baker was horrendous. I thought Bedford was a mile off and should be dropped, but I'm not against keeping Baker in. I think the most important change to make is replacing Preuss with TMac or Brown.

Absolutely watched the game. Saw vandenBerg turn it over almost every time he got it in the first half. I'm genuinely sick of the argument that he should stay in the side because of his "combative spirit". Our biggest problem isn't "combative spirit", it's our inability to execute the basic fundamentals, and vandenBerg is a repeat offender. Bad kick, fumbly, gives away free kicks.

Now that the fixture has been finalised, I thought I'd collate some data on the fixture. This is very subjective and designed to maximise my argument that we've had one of the most unhelpful fixtures in 2020. I've looked at 4-day breaks, the number of different venues played at, the number of states/territories played in, the maximum number of games played at any one venue, and the number of games played at the same place as the previous week. On each one of these metrics, we are the league's worst. Without exception. We had the equal most four-day breaks. We played at the most venues, across the most states/territories. Every other club played at least four games at at least one venue this year: for us, the maximum is the 3 games we'll play at Metricon and the Gabba. And only three times this year did we play consecutive games in the same place (matched by Port and Sydney). Before anyone starts: I do not believe our fixture is the reason we've struggled and are likely (albeit not certain) to miss finals. I do not believe the fixture is the reason we have no discernible game plan, or that TMac has regressed, or that we can't work out where to play Harmes, or why we dropped Fritsch into the backline inexplicably. I am simply putting this here to discuss the fact that we've really had a sh*t time of it fixture-wise this year. When you see North Melbourne and the Dogs get almost half their entire season at one venue, or Sydney get through both compressed fixture periods without a single four-day break, or Collingwood getting to stay in Brisbane for so many weeks in a row, it makes you think how the AFL had so much flexibility to make this fixture as even as possible, yet didn't. 4-day breaks Number of venues Number of States & Territories Max number of games any one venue Games played at same venue as previous game Adelaide 1 3 2 10 (Adelaide) 5 Brisbane 3 5 3 9 (Gabba) 7 Carlton 1 7 4 4 (Metricon, Gabba) 5 Collingwood 2 6 5 7 (Gabba) 8 Essendon 1 7 5 6 (Metricon) 5 Fremantle 1 5 3 7 (Perth) 9 Geelong 2 8 5 4 (Metricon) 5 Gold Coast 2 7 5 9 (Metricon) 7 GWS 1 6 4 6 (Giants) 7 Hawthorn 1 8 5 5 (Adelaide) 7 Melbourne 3 9 6 3 (Metricon, Gabba) 3 North Melbourne 2 5 4 8 (Metricon) 6 Port Adelaide 1 3 2 7 (Adelaide) 3 Richmond 1 7 5 6 (Metricon) 5 St Kilda 2 6 4 6 (Gabba) 6 Sydney 0 7 5 4 (SCG) 3 West Coast 2 3 2 7 (Perth) 6 Western Bulldogs 0 6 4 8 (Metricon) 8

Correct, if we win both of our last two games then any of the above three scenarios sees us make finals. The St Kilda scenario requires us to make up 7% on St Kilda. Given we'll be winning twice and they'll be losing twice from here, that is probably not that much of a stretch. The other two don't rely on percentage but obviously require upsets. The only relevant game to be played before we play GWS is St Kilda v West Coast on Thursday night. If St Kilda win that, we'll know we're down to only two of these options being available. But, in what I think is good news, we'll still have the Dogs and Collingwood games unplayed when it's our turn, so we won't know for sure. Means we can't get ahead of ourselves and hopefully helps us focus.

For those still playing at home, a GWS loss is a big thing for any sliver of a finals chance we still have. If we beat them next week we'll be near-guaranteed to finish above them (subject to percentage). If they then beat St Kilda in the final round, and St Kilda lose to West Coast, all three of us (i.e. St Kilda, GWS and us) will finish on 9 wins. If our percentage catches St Kilda's and stays in front of GWS', we then play finals (doesn't matter what Collingwood and the Dogs do from there). Yes that's all far-fetched. About as far-fetched as GWS losing to Adelaide.

Well, at least it's not Cairns. But, it will mean that we changed venue every week for the final 7 weeks, and only played consecutive games at the same venue three times all year (MCG Rounds 4-5, Giants Stadium Rounds 6-7, Adelaide Oval Rounds 10-11).

The only immediately obvious move I'd make would be to drop Preuss for one of TMac and Brown. Maybe we go with TMac to see if his time out of the side has motivated him and he can find some form. I remain of the view that Melksham should be dropped but that almost certainly won't happen. I'm all for playing kids but Bedford was so poor last night I'm not sure we're setting the right standards by playing him. But I'd absolutely keep Baker, Pickett and Rivers in the side. If Hore's fit, I'd consider giving him a game in Hibberd's spot if Hibberd is sore. I'm not sold, at all, on vandenBerg or ANB. Would be more than happy for Bennell to get one of their spots.

IMO, Goodwin's decision to put him behind the ball was as moronic a coaching call as any Goodwin has made. The idea to even drop a player behind the ball is a bad idea from the start - how much more evidence has Goodwin needed over 2017-20 to see that we struggle to score when we're outnumbered forward of centre? He then picks a player he spent two-thirds of 2019 playing in defence, to no avail. Who happens to be our leading goalscorer this year. And then, whatever message was sent to Fritsch didn't work, as Fritsch was showing no intensity, wasn't zoning off well, wasn't in any particularly useful position on the ground, and had no impact. In a long, long list of decisions made by Goodwin that I have disagreed with (one other was last night: using Melksham as a tagger on Fyfe), this one is right up there.

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.