titan_uranus

I didn't walk away from that thinking Fremantle were awful. I think they played OK enough, but that for once we were on the right side of the pressure and tactical side of things.

I felt like Oliver played a more team-oriented role at stoppage. Just felt like his positioning was set up to maximise the team’s chance and not his own. His pressure stats were up too. But his disposal wasn’t amazing and needs to improve. I also thought Fullarton was ordinary, but he deserves a run at it.

Jeepers, I thought I heard the TV commentators say that this was some sort of record. I must have misheard. Thanks @WheeloRatings

I said a few times yesterday that after putting pressure on the agenda mid-week, our test was delivering on it, first early and then for all four quarters. Now the test is doing it weekly. Not once a month. We’re not the only side who has seemed to need a reason/focus point to fire up - look at Port vs Hawthorn as compared to the rest of their season. But that’s no excuse - Collingwood, Geelong etc bring the required standard almost every week, if they can then we can.

Yep - a patchwork backline (we trained all summer with May, Lever, Petty and McVee, none of whom were available), knowing we had been outscored something like 25 goals to 6 in fourth quarters this year, and against a top 4 contending side with a dynamic forward line and strong midfield. We did incredibly well to hold up IMO, and it came from the thing we could control the most, our effort/pressure.

@WheeloRatings is 134 for CPs a club/AFL record?

I really don't like where some of the Kelli Underwood criticism goes, but I agree with this. Others do it too (e.g. BT) but it's infuriating when commentators don't know the names of players or get them wrong repeatedly.

This might all still be true, but he was asked to play a difficult role today and did it pretty well, don't you think?

May hopefully for Turner. We're in trouble if May's not fit. We can't swing Petty back after today so I don't know whether we go to Adams or we try to get away with Howes playing tall given Richmond's forward line. McVee IMO is straight back. Sharp should make way, although not sure what we do with the sub. Salem, however, on thin ice. Fritsch and JVR stay at Casey IMO. Neither played all that well today. What sort of signal does that send if we dropped Fullarton after one game, a win, to rush one of them back without any VFL form? I wasn't in favour of Fritsch being dropped this week but now that it's happened, we have to follow through.

6 - Pickett 5 - Bowey 4 - Gawn 3 - Petty 2 - Viney 1 - TMac

One of the more remarkable wins I've seen, given the month that preceded it. When Turner went off at half time the script was written - gallant first half but our second half worries and personnel difficulties were going to kill it for us. But if we'd kicked straight early in the fourth I reckon the heat would have gone out of it and we wouldn't have had to hold off their final comeback. Which, at any rate, I thought we did superbly well. Blending our desire to move quickly with smarter short kicks and better forward structure with leads up at the ball carrier worked a treat, but that was all secondary to our pressure and intensity which we kept up for the entire match. We made it our focus and unlike the last month, we actually executed. Can't add any more superlatives to Pickett's game. When he is that focused, he is a top 10 competition player. Petty's a confidence player and that early goal where the ball was delivered to his chest on a simple lead up at FF was the perfect start for him. Gawn and Viney led from the front, whilst Langdon continues to quietly put together a sneaky good year. Rivers found the level he's been missing all year, and as others have said, Tholstrup brings spirit which our last month has been lacking. I still think we have a massive problem with Salem - dinky kicks under no pressure which repeatedly miss targets and expose us on turnover. But that's for another day. A win like this deserves to be savoured. I hope we look back on today as some sort of turning of the page. We need to work out how to extract that pressure and intensity each week, not just when we're at rock bottom. If we can do that, I doubt we'll still be 17th in a month.

What the [censored] is happening

Ripping start. They’ve passed my first test, showing pressure and intensity early, and added scoring to boot. Now the next test - doing it for more than one quarter.

Sound the siren!

Petty forward? So we train all summer to have May, Lever and Petty in defence, and now with May and Lever out we decide to swing Petty forward again? And Turner barely gets a crack at being a forward for us this year and is now going to (presumably) play defence?

This is all about our pressure for me. I don't think we're any chance of winning (upsets do happen, but we don't match up against Fremantle well at all), but in a week where Goodwin's put the heat on us for being "easy to play against", we sure as [censored] better come out and do our best to make it hard for Fremantle. A low pressure rating will speak volumes today.

We're -15 in inside 50s. I'm not sure this is the day for forwards?

Adam Simpson was the comparison provided - had the same clause, which led to West Coast keeping him through 2023 and for 16 rounds in 2024 before finally parting ways. Also compared with Ratten and Dew, who had 6 month payout clauses. You're reading the "heavily scrutinised" bit into the report though. I'd be keen to know what other clubs have with their coaches - Ratten and Dew were unproven, Simpson was a premiership winning coach like Goodwin. If the likes of Fagan, Chris Scott, McRae, Clarkson and Hardwick have full payout clauses too, then we're just victims of the senior coaching market.

Final teams have been named and Pickett's still in there?

I'm certainly not taking @Macca 's side of the argument here, that it's 100% the players (although I think Macca doesn't actually believe that but is taking the devil's advocate approach to counter those who say it's 100% Goodwin - for the record, neither argument is correct. Our current predicament is partly due to poor coaching, partly due to players not taking responsibility for their own form/fitness/recovery/etc., partly due to a lack of leadership at the Board/CEO level, partly due to list management - it's multi-factorial). But the bolded really drives me nuts. You're not the only one to do it, but it seems like whenever someone in 2025 wants to argue that Goodwin's struggling and maybe even should be sacked, we get "he wasn't even that good in 2021". It's unfair revisionism. In 2021 we went 17-1-4 with a percentage of 130.8%, 5th for points for and 1st for points against. The "big dip midyear" you mentioned was a period where we went 4-1-4, where the four losses included losses to GWS (semi finalist) and the Dogs (grand finalist). The same period included wins over the Dogs, Brisbane (semi finalist) and Port Adelaide away (preliminary finalist). We were the best side through all of 2021. It was a dominant season. There's also an insane amount of "it wasn't Goodwin, it was the assistants/Burgess". Just like our current predicament, 2021 was the result of everyone being at the top of their game. That doesn't mean Goodwin didn't do an excellent job, nor does it mean he doesn't deserve credit for coaching us to the flag. He does. Cutting down his achievements in 2021 is unnecessary to also be correct in saying that we are putrid in 2025 and that Goodwin's coaching has not been good this year, or last, or even the year before.

This is a big part of it. Goodwin called it out this week. It's almost my sole focus tomorrow. If we're not "on", and early, that will say a lot IMO.

I'm not trying to defend Goodwin overall, but this argument can be very flawed: Sydney last year finished 1st and made the GF. They lost in Round 3 to Richmond who went 2-21. GWS in 2023 made a prelim (lost by a point). They lost in Round 2 to West Coast, who went 3-20 that year, and didn't get within 40 points of a side other than North Melbourne until Round 16. Collingwood in 2022 made a prelim (lost by a point). They lost in Round 4 to West Coast, who went 2-20 that year and lost the 7 games immediately following that win by an average losing margin of 80 points. I don't know if we'll be in danger of losing the fixture if we get one bad crowd, but the general point is correct. Each year the AFL is under increasing pressure to get Carlton and Essendon more games at the G, but so long as there is a minimum number of games that have to be held at Marvel, that means someone else has to make up the Marvel numbers. We've been given a Marvel home game this year after not having had one for years. It will become 2, or 3, if we continue to draw small crowds. Hence why it's so important for all of us who can go tomorrow, to go.

So Petty takes Treacy, but who plays on Amiss? Are we expecting Adams to be a late in? Or Turner to play back, leaving Fullarton on MFC debut to lead our forward line with no JVR or Fritsch to help?

Geelong might have something to say about that. Already have wins over Fremantle and Adelaide, and if they beat Hawthorn on Monday that will probably be the best suite of defeated opponents anyone has. With their two losses by a combined 16 points.