titan_uranus

Yes that's right, we need more context. But we know this week that Oliver had 20, Viney 17 and Petracca 16. So we know that Brayshaw was used in a proportionately high amount of centre bounces. I'd love to see the same figures for the North and Adelaide games.

Essendon are garbage. They've got Hawthorn, us, and the top 4 in their remaining fixture. The would have to improve tenfold to make the finals from here with that fixture. St Kilda, the Dogs, GWS, Collingwood and us are battling for the three spots at 5-8. St Kilda the clear frontrunner given they'll be 8-4 after today, but they still have to play us, Brisbane, West Coast and GWS. Carlton a smoky to challenge.

On the one hand, Adelaide are appalling so the Dogs look better than maybe they really are. On the other hand, our recent form is a result of beating Adelaide and North. The Dogs have a quality midfield (Bont, Macrae, Libba, Dunkley, Hunter) and with Naughton up forward (and likely Bruce to return next week) we will be in trouble if we don't match them, at the least, in clearances.

I want the Dogs to lose as many games as possible, but if they lose today you can imagine the heat (external and internal) that will be put on them to rebound vs us. So, if they're going to win, a close win where they play poorly but feel relieved to have won might be the best result. It appears this is correct, the distinction being whether the free is as the player kicked the ball (in which case it's not downfield, it's at the spot of the free) or if it is after the player kicked it (in which case it's downfield). The issue, though, is rule says that the free is taken "where the football is at the time". When Brayshaw hit him, the ball had gone maybe halfway to where it ended up. It hadn't yet gone OOF. So, technically, this rule says the ball should have been returned to somewhere around the 80m mark. IMO, the rule in this situation should be that Docherty gets the ball back to repeat his kick. His kick wasn't affected by Brayshaw, so he stuffed it up himself, but the free kick undoes that mistake.

Spargo's sideways kick on half-forward which was a turnover and resulted in a Collingwood goal was bad as well. However, Lever and Spargo played their roles generally very well. I'm still not convinced on Harmes but he's part of our back six and our back six is playing well as a unit. @A F with this many centre bounce attendances I think the FD has clearly made the change. I'm excited to see us continue trying this over the next few weeks. I hope and think it is going to work.

No. It's not happening. Honestly, I reckon we're more likely to finish bottom 4 than top 4.

Agree re: the manner of the win. I think that might be the most pleasing aspect of the performance. We won by 10 goals despite not dominating in the ruck, in CPs, in clearances and inside 50s (I presume also we didn't dominate time in forward half). Hopefully the players are now feeling confident in our ability to compete even when we're not on top in our "one wood" areas. Also agree re: Lever. The 2-3 errors he made were bad and noticeable but overall the way he, May, Hibberd, Salem and Lockhart are setting up behind the ball is a key reason why, the Port game aside, we've been tough to score against since we left VIctoria. Interesting. Would love to know the figures for Petracca, Viney and Oliver for comparison's sake. @A F - do you think 73% is about right for Brayshaw? Last night gives me confidence we can get the balance right with the four of them.

I agree on our consistency. The Adelaide and North games were hard to get a read on because of how poor they both were. Today, we were on top of Collingwood from the outset. Wasn't just us running over the top late. We were strong from the start. The Port game is the only bad game we've played since the Richmond game, and neither the Richmond nor Geelong games were terrible. However, the fact that we failed to pick up either of the Geelong or Brisbane games means we don't have much choice but to back this up again vs the Dogs and likely again the week after vs St Kilda. If we go 0-2, we'll then need to win all four of our final games to get to 10 wins. If we can even go 1-1 the next fortnight, that then lets us go 3-1 in the final four to make it to 10 and play finals. These are two big tests for us. The Dogs might make me seem silly tomorrow when they play Adelaide but IMO they're better than their recent formline suggests. When they get going they're hard to stop. And we all know we stink against St Kilda when they're average, let alone when they're in the top 4.

Debate raging on Twitter right now about whether the free should have been downfield or not. The kick went OOF so Carlton wasn't in possession of it when the free was committed. I'm not sure, but I think the ball should have gone back to Docherty. The free wasn't there, and the downfield may have been an error as well. Could have huge ramifications for the finals run home for both Fremantle and Carlton.

Carlton's win moves them up to 11th, just one win behind us (but 23%). Their run home is GC, Collingwood, GWS, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane. Makes this Friday night's GC v Carlton game huge, although GC will be going in off a 4-day break compared to Carlton's 6. If Carlton win that, they'll be 6-6 with a flagging Collingwood, possibly done GWS, then two bottom four sides. Don't panic...but Carlton's season is far from done.

You'd be spewing if you're a Fremantle supporter. Taberner rightly called for deliberate. Then what appears to be a TERRIBLE downfield free for late contact. Then Newnes nails it from 50 on the boundary after the siren.

Tonight was our first look at a proper balance of Oliver, Viney, Petracca and Brayshaw. It worked, IMO. Evidence to support the argument that our best 22 can feature all four. Might be telling that we went with Petracca in the forward line and the other three in the middle for the opening bounce.

As a testament to our defence: we've only conceded double-digit goals three times all year (West Coast, Richmond, Port). Gold Coast scored 9.9, highest score other in our remaining six games is 7.11 (Carlton and Brisbane).

Did it in 2018 - beat Gold Coast by 69, Carlton by 109 and Adelaide by 91 in consecutive weeks as part of our six-game winning streak.

No. Why do people keep suggesting this? He hasn't played defence for 3+ years.

IMO we're not finishing any higher than 6th. The 5 sides we lost to will finish 1-5. Don't see us passing any of them.

You severely underrate Treloar. And Roughead, who is 12093 times better than Dunn. Still, no excuses for any side, as there weren't for us last year.

Thought he was excellent tonight. Slipped a lot. That was about the only thing I could criticise about his game.

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.