titan_uranus

Petracca was interviewed post-game and was asked what had changed since the Port game. He said defence. IMO, it's been noticeable (and was improving prior to the Port game too). We've got far more defensive running from our mids, better pressure in the front half, and our back half structure is so much better and improves every week. I agree on Pickett. I think he's close to ripping a game completely open. He fumbles too much but he's so often in the right spot, he's got a surprisingly good tank for a first year player, and his workrate is spot on. All things I'm sure the FD rate. I just don't get it with Smith. I don't think we can go into a game with Weideman and Smith as our two key forwards. I think it has to be Weideman and TMac, and if not TMac, then Brown, unless/until Jackson is fit. I don't think we can risk putting Smith in as a second tall forward when he's so loose and untrustworthy.

I thought Preuss did well but I don't think we can carry him in the side along with Gawn. The only option would be to use hm in TMac's role but I fear that makes us too slow, particularly against the Dogs who are a smaller and faster side. So, it sucks for Preuss, but if Gawn is ready then that's a direct swap. If Gawn's not 100%, we stay with Preuss. Jones, vandenBerg, Tomlinson, Harmes and Sparrow present some options for changes. We could, for example, bring Rivers into Harmes' spot and put Harmes up into Jones/vandenBerg/Sparrow's spot. Not sure Bennell or Hannan get back into the forward line given the elevated level of connection we had forward of centre today.

Lever made three howler mistakes which stood out but was otherwise strong in his intercepting role. Tomlinson had that one early turnover kick but otherwise wasn't noticed, which is a good thing. Harmes is completely out of place in the backline and really out of form. Agree re: Hibberd, has completely turned his form around from early season. Was deservedly dropped, now is back to being a top 10 contributor. No idea why you'd want Smith in the side after that game? At any rate, they showed him on the TV sitting next to Gawn and he had his thumb wrapped up suggesting an injury maybe?

Let's get the knocks on this one out of the way early: they were two down on the bench, missing some of their absolute best, and on a two-day-shorter break than us. But we did most of the damage in the first half, before their rotations or short break hit them. This wasn't junk time goals like the Adelaide/North wins were in some respect. They were on top in general play for a while and we absorbed it and then hit back when we could. Lever made three big errors but the back six, as a unit, held up well. They had more inside 50s than us. We got Viney back into the side and managed to have all four (Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca) play well. I thought Langdon was exceptional and got some reward for effort with his two goals. Also thought Lockhart and Hibberd were really good. Spargo's second quarter was a nice cameo highlight. But shows that he's a better player than many give him credit for. I'm still not sold on vandenBerg and Jones, though. But we had fewer passengers tonight and we won by 56 when the game wasn't entirely on our terms. Win next week and this is all starting to become real.

6 - Oliver 5 - Langdon 4 - Petracca 3 - Brayshaw 2 - Lockhart 1 - Spargo

Collingwood has the draw so theirs isn't so important. Our is. But tbh the win is far more important.

I'm still not confident. They're two down on the bench off a 4 day break and we generally run games out well. That, plus a 34 point lead, should be enough to calm my nerves. But it's not. That quarter they had more of the ball, more tackles, more CPs, more inside 50s. They should have won that quarter. If they get the first goal, I can see the mental demons pop up for us. First goal crucial.

Agree with this. We should have been 20-30 up at quarter time but we weren't 3 goals better than them in the second. I think you've got that the wrong way around. We had at least three that quarter (high on Viney, high on Oliver, and one in a marking contest late). Plus Collingwood's only had 7 for the match.

He's been excellent for the last month. Two big mistakes tonight to be fair, but hasn't yet undone all the good work he's done the last month.

They've had 7 scoring shots from 20 inside 50s (we've had 14 shots from 20). Our defence is being put under too much pressure from centre bounces. We're doing better when they're trying to rebound from their back half, they're not tearing through us too often. Oliver is starring and Petracca and Brayshaw are playing well, but we definitely need a lift in the middle. Grundy, Adams, Sidebottom and Pendlebury are walking out of the middle too much, and Varcoe and Noble are pacy off half-back.

Umpiring is awful again, but this time we're getting the rub of the green a bit (the free to Viney was correct though, that's not a slide below the knees, that's someone going for the ball harder than his opponent). This is not how I expected this game to play out at all. We do well to kick 10 goals in a normal game but to put 10 on the board against a top 8 side which happens to have the second best defence in the comp (albeit missing Howe and Roughead) is a strong effort. First quarter I felt we should have been further in front. That quarter, oddly, I felt like we didn't play well enough to extend our lead by 3 goals. We're obviously doing incredibly well inside 50 but we're losing clearances and inside 50s are level at 20 apiece. Collingwood look dangerous when Adams, Pendlebury or Sidebottom get near it. 32 points is a really impressive buffer and we look good, but I'm still very much concerned about whether we can keep this up. Loved Spargo's quarter. Oliver is dominating. Petracca does a lot right but is making mistakes. TMac worked his way back into it. Weideman keeps competing, really important for our structure.

We should be further in front. Really should have kicked 4 or 5 goals, Fritsch should have nailed his and the one where TMac had a snap we should have found a goal too. vandenBerg has already turned it over two or three times. TMac genuinely looks done. Petracca's having a poor game so far. Oliver dominant, Brayshaw playing well, defence holding up pretty well.

Four games this year we've kicked 3+ goals in the first quarter (Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn, Adelaide). I believe we've only won 3 of our 10 first quarters so far, which is bad.

6.

Huge game for the club. I have no confidence, I expect a loss.

Nice work, @Lucifer's Hero. Richmond's draw means they probably only need 3 wins, will put them on 9.5 and that will put them above any 9-win side no matter what percentage. At any rate, I see them winning 4 of their last 6. Essendon's draw means their low percentage doesn't matter any more, but as you say, good luck to them finding 4 wins in that bunch. The season really is in our hands though, given who we play. If we make it even to 9 wins, we'll have had to beat at least two sides who are competing with us for their 9th or 10th wins. The percentage we built in the Hawthorn/Adelaide/North games, after losing so much to Port, could be important too, if we get a bunch of sides finishing on 9 instead.

Yes, his toughness is a good thing. But don't we get the same sort of attitude from Viney, Gawn, Oliver, May and Hibberd, for starters? Like, vandenBerg isn't unique in our 22 for being tough.

Nope. On current form, Oliver gets first dibs on midfield minutes, whether we like Brayshaw or not. IMO it's Petracca and Viney who should be sharing midfield minutes with Brayshaw, with the former two spending increased minutes in the forward line to make up for it, and Brayshaw's other minutes either on a wing or on the bench. I'm somewhat comforted to read that it was click bait! I hope we trial a set up that sees Brayshaw spending more time in the middle with Viney in the side. We need to know how it looks. If it doesn't work (either because of Brayshaw or because of Viney), then we need to know. And if it does work...well, that will be good.

Well, a lot of the crisis-deeming comes from us. And we do it every year, and sometimes more than once. However, there is a point to be made: every club has lost at least one game by 30+ points (bear in mind shorter quarters). The Port loss is our only such loss for the year. Indeed, 14 of the 18 clubs have lost one of their last four games by 30+ points (the four exceptions are Geelong, Gold Coast, West Coast and Richmond). If Tomlinson had kicked that goal, we'd have a win over a top 4 side, we'd be 8th on the ladder and playing for a temporary spot in the top 4, and we'd have a significant degree more credibility. But we didn't, so we're not, and we don't.

I'd like to see the pressure acts stat, which I'm sure the FD is big on for both these players. I'm guessing it shows vandenBerg higher than Hannan. I'm not suggesting that's sufficient for him to retain his spot, though. Just a hunch as to what they're basing it off. I think they think Hannan's not doing enough when the ball hits the deck. My main issue is the like-for-likeness of the swap. Obviously Preuss/Jackson and Lockhart/Rivers are like-for-like which leaves Viney for Hannan. IMO, Viney would be better suited to slotting into vandenBerg's role than Hannan's, based on how both played vs North. That issue aside, we've seen some players this year keep their spot despite poor form (vandenBerg, Melksham, Brayshaw and Harmes) whilst others have lost their spot when their form hasn't necessarily warranted (Rivers, ANB, Bennell and arguably OMac and Hannan are the names that spring to mind). Goodwin is stubborn, we know that, and I think he views that former group as best 22 and wants them playing together as much as possible. Maybe the latter group is either not best 22 or might be in 2021 (Rivers/Bennell, for fitness reasons).

Total number of venues played at to Round 17 (it's possible some clubs may see this tally increase by 1 for their Round 18 game, or in the case of Hawthorn/North if they get home games shifted down to Tasmania): Adelaide - 3 Port Adelaide - 3 West Coast - 3 St Kilda - 5 North Melbourne - 5 Fremantle - 5 Bulldogs - 5 (including 8 out of 10 in a row at Metricon) GWS - 6 Richmond - 6 Collingwood - 6 (including either 5 or 6 straight at the Gabba) Brisbane - 6 (all games in Queensland from Round 8-18) Carlton - 7 Sydney - 7 Geelong - 8 Essendon - 8 Hawthorn - 8 (including a home game against Adelaide, in Adelaide!) Melbourne - 9

Hannan didn't do enough to force Goodwin's hand, but I still consider him unlucky to have lost his spot when Jones (no influence since he came back) and vandenBerg (continues to make awful errors) are in the side. Lockhart deserved to come straight back in so I'm OK with Rivers making way on that basis. Viney replacing Hannan will make the most sense if Viney plays more forward than middle. If he plays more middle, he'll be forcing Petracca forward more and/or Brayshaw back onto a wing.

Here are some preliminary thoughts I have: Collingwood doesn't leave the Gabba until the final game, in which they are the home team, so feasibly won't leave the Gabba for the rest of the season; St Kilda play every game except one at the Gabba/Metricon from Rounds 9-17 (and as they are the home side in Round 18, are likely to stay in Queensland for that game). Over the same period we play games at Alice Springs, Cairns and Adelaide, in addition to Gabba/Metricon.

Did anyone get behind the paywall to read this: https://twitter.com/superfooty/status/1294061172933767168?s=20 Edit: thought that would embed, sorry. Text says "Simon Goodwin is frustrated by speculation over the future of Angus Brayshaw but the hard nut is set to be pushed out of the centre square again against Collingwood"

I'm glad we've gone with Preuss to replace Jackson. Put TMac in Jackson's role and see if he can at least give us the same level of contest that Jackson was. Meanwhile Preuss has to make sure he's not letting Grundy dictate the hit outs, and has to stay with him around the ground. Grundy's been off, badly, the last few games bu if he returns to form, he could easily be the difference.