titan_uranus

First time we've won all four quarters since Round 23 2018 vs GWS.

6 - Gawn 5 - Petracca 4 - Oliver 3 - Viney 2 - Langdon 1 - Weideman OMac, Lever, May all deserve credit for their work together as a unit.

Obviously our best game since the 2018 SF. We won all four quarters. We weathered their initial storm, then we weathered their early third quarter pressure. Weideman growing with confidence (would have loved him to kick that final goal). IMO a clear tick for the two tall forwards gameplan. Gawn unbelievable, Petracca likewise. Our defensive zone is clearly working: sides are struggling to score against us provided we don't turn it over. OMac, Lever and May all worked well together again, can't deny that trio is working well. Langdon has been great all year and the more we learn how to use his gut running and space-saving on the wing, the better we get. I haven't enjoyed footy this much since 2018. Hawthorn might be a bottom 4 side this year but we outplayed them like a finals side should.

@Whispering_Jack and @dazzledavey36 I don't mean to make fun of you but the example is here. Until Gunston's late goal we were above Carlton on the ladder, with a game in hand. Have we now "gone right past" GWS?

How about having a player leading in the first place? Petracca gets it at a stoppage and has Fritsch on a lead. Fritsch gets it and Weideman has stayed deep enough to give him room to lead into. This wasn't there at all earlier this year.

I feel better after that goal.

We're slacking off here. Might be MFCSS but there's still 7 minutes left...

To have them lift considerably and kick the first two, but for us to end the quarter 42 in front, is a sign that IMO is just as important as the second quarter. We want our leaders to lead. Gawn, May and Lever have all been strong today, and it's showing.

Precisely what we were worrying about. They're in front in disposals and tackles, they're moving it faster, and we're turning it over more. Massive danger signs.

Agreed, but smarter ball movement and better forward structure also important.

Would hope the players aren't getting ahead of themselves as we are! We coughed up a 42 point lead to Carlton and we know we're prone to goalless quarters and lapses in our play.

Lever in his HT interview mentioned that we have to keep playing to win, rather than playing to not lose. Surely thinking about the Carlton second half. Let's hope we've learned some lessons from that game.

Our defensive zone clearly holding up: each of OMac, Lever and May have taken intercept marks and ended scoring chains. Gawn utterly dominant. Petracca going to another level. Jackson looks markedly better than his first game. Bennell keeping involved. Pickett getting some reward for effort. Weideman competing in the air, so important for us. Midfield doing well at CPs and clearances. +20 CPs, +5 CMs, +4 marks inside 50, +5 clearances, +6 tackles (despite being +31 in disposals), and +18 inside 50s. Could argue we should be more than 5 goals in front but I'll take it. We can improve, still, on our inside 50s and we're still turning it over a bit through the middle, but compare our turnover rate today to the Richmond game.

We're +10 in CPs, +3 in contested marks, and we've had 8 tackles inside 50 to their 1. But it's 12 inside 50s to 4. They've scored 1.2 from their 4 inside 50s (75% scoring efficiency), we've scored 3.2 from our 12 (42%).

Worrying first 5 minutes, strong final 10 minutes. From TV it looks like we've again set up well behind the ball. Their goal was from a turnover and one of their missed kicks was from Smith's run through the middle. Other than that, they're struggling to move the ball. We look good when it hits the deck in our forward 50 and we've got key players getting their hands on it. Petracca looks excellent. Hannan, Fritsch and Pickett all causing headaches for them.

If we're any good (today will tell us a bit about that), then I agree with you. We'll still have games this year vs Adelaide, North, Sydney and Fremantle. I hate the phrase "gone past us". Interestingly, if we win today, we'll have as many wins as Carlton, with a game in hand, and if we win by roughly 46 points, we'll pass Carlton on the ladder (with that game in hand). Yes, we could also lose and stay in the bottom 4, but the idea that Carlton has "gone right past us" is a bit silly IMO.

Goodwin just said in his pre-match interview that we're expecting Hawthorn to play faster today. Let's hope he's right and they don't go the Geelong-style slow chip kick game. Not sure of relevance. We're 13th for marks per game (higher than our opponent today).

The Dogs also jumped 7 spots on the ladder with one win. It's very even through the middle of the ladder. With our game in hand, we're nowhere near as far off the top 8 as it felt after the Richmond loss. In saying that, we're also only percentage off 17th. Again, it's even.

I'd have gone with Brown, but off that extended bench that change makes sense to me.

You'd hope that we get the biggest possible spacing between games to make up for the fact that we don't get a bye and the "bye" that we did get was harmful rather than helpful for us.

I'm not against Brayshaw playing a more half-back/midfielder role. Particularly if it frees up Harmes (who should never be played in the backline again - he showed last night that he is an A-grade talent in the middle and in the forward line) and Salem (we got on top in the second with Salem higher up the ground).

I did too, binman. Brown's a terrible commentator and that was a perfect example. On the OMac/Smith thing, if there is any link between OMac and Lever's improved game last night I suspect it is one of trust. Smith didn't do a terrible job on Riewoldt but I don't think he's trustworthy as a defender. What you see with OMac, whether you like it or not, is what you get. I think that's important for both May and Lever - we have a system in the back half and I would trust OMac to play his role far more than Smith who has a tendency to, Frost-like, run and jump and get distracted too much.

I think any opposition coach would have a plan for our kick-ins. They're not terribly inventive.

I might be wrong, as it's very hard to tell off the TV, but I thought Weideman played a bit deeper than TMac did in the last three weeks. I felt TMac was on his bike getting possessions across the wing or half-back but Weideman was more around the half-forward line. Not sure it would make a difference - surely there is a coaching directive which had May repeatedly, stupidly, kicking to Gawn on the boundary every time. We conceded a goal once where May went there despite having Langdon (I think) free on the other, open, half-back flank). We've been terrible at kick-ins for about 25 years. I also like Hudson. I think he's the best play-by-play commentator going around. And I agree that his comment on Bennell's goal was disappointing to say the least.

Weideman - made us better OMac - made Lever better? Lever - was much better Brayshaw - can do better