titan_uranus

There are only three clubs yet to lose a game post-Covid: Port Adelaide (1st), Gold Coast (2nd) and us. A win today will send us as high as 6th, subject to percentage (we're -26 in the points differential so a 26-point win would level our percentage at 100% and that would move us up to at least 9th), but with a game in hand over everyone except Essendon. For all our disappointment at our second half vs Carlton, we're not as far off it as many of us think.

I reckon there are a few teams getting prematurely written off. We're 4 games into a 17 game season. Just under a quarter of the way. West Coast might be 1-3 but they're going to get a run of games at home, with a home crowd, in the second half of the year. Could feasibly pick up form and win a bunch of games in a row. Richmond was 7-6 last year then didn't lose again. This is some of the genuinely dumbest reasoning we see on Demonland all the time. Team X wins. "Team X has passed us, woe us us". Carlton's two wins are by a combined 3 points, and we beat them two weeks ago. Gold Coast has beaten Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast. Two of them in line for bottom 4 finishes, the third one at the complete lowest point of their season. North lost to Sydney last week. St Kilda was non-competitive against Collingwood one week ago. The sort of performance Demonland would rely on for calls to sack the coach.

I don't think you learned/read enough. Maybe he wasn't rested in the intraclub because they weren't sure whether his limit would be 2 games or 3 games before he was due for a rest? Maybe the FD is more concerned with him getting consistent blocks of games in, so they wanted him to play twice in two weeks?

He played the intraclub. The intraclub was the same effort as the Essendon game. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

Agree, subject to the proviso that not everyone is financially able to make a donation (or buy a membership) this year. But, if you are, I dispute your entitlement to call yourself a "supporter" if you deliberately choose to withhold your money. What?! Do you think that is an industry standard? Or even industry possibility? Have you considered that the better coaches (on whatever metric you want to use) might not want to sign a contract where they're at the whim of the board if we finish bottom 4? Which, for some clubs in some years, is not wholly within the coach's control?

Agree entirely. We would ultimately have looked ridiculous given he tested negative again afterwards. We were mature about it, we accepted it was likely going to happen to someone at some point, and we just got on with it.

That may be true, but the question is whether a side with a few genuine talls and then genuine smalls (e.g. Geelong) is better/worse than a side with one genuine tall and then a number of medium-sized forwards (e.g. us). I'm not saying for sure that the former is better than the latter, but average height doesn't necessarily mean we've got the right balance.

I'm surprised, and disappointed, Jackson has been dropped without Brown/Weideman replacing him. I think we're too short in the forward line. Assuming Lockhart takes Jetta's spot, does Hibberd take Harmes' spot and release Harmes to tag Selwood/Dangerfield? You're just in the most negative of negative spirals. The side comes out, you complain that it's bad. We play, you complain about how we play and selection. We make changes the next week, you complain that we're making too many changes. Many of the changes have been previously injured players coming back (e.g. Salem and Jones after Round 1, Hannan, vandenBerg and Lockhart this week).

I'm assuming you're white, Fork 'em? To say "just get over it and move on" is white privilege. It's so easy, but ultimately hurtful and extremely unhelpful, for a white person to tell non-white people to "just get over it".

He's on the bench, actually.

I missed that, but that's certainly positive for him and eases my concerns.

I think it's possible. I don't recall seeing Brayshaw switch to the "main" team in the intraclub like some others did. I reckon he'll get one more match to try to impress. There'll be more than a few players who miss out who will be pushing for his spot if he doesn't perform this week.

All reports suggest the intraclub was played at a strong intensity. The club may have always known that Bennell was going to need to take a week off from time to time to ensure he doesn't get overloaded. See above. I do not understand how this is an issue.

The changes are from Round 2, not Round 3. And he's not named on the interchange bench. Why anyone is surprised at Bennell being managed is beyond me.

Changes from the proposed Round 3 side: Smith takes Jetta's spot in the 18, putting Jetta on the extended bench vandenBerg takes Brayshaw's spot in the 18, putting Brayshaw on the extended bench Hannan moves from the bench into the starting 18 Bennell moves from starting 18 to being dropped Lockhart takes Bennell's spot in the 22

I expect only one of Lockhart/Jetta to get a spot. Could be in for a surprise here. I don't expect to see Hibberd. I also expect Jackson and Pickett to play. I'm therefore guessing we'll see a bench of Jackson, PIckett, Lockhart/Jetta and Brayshaw. ANB, Hibberd, Jones and Lockhart/Jetta to miss.

Hannan and vandenBerg are guaranteed starters in the 18. One takes Bennell's spot, there's at least one more to be dropped. Could yet be Jones, on the extended bench.

In: Hannan, vandenBerg, Hibberd, Pickett, Lockhart Out: Bennell (omitted) Edit: the team's changes are from Round 2, not from the intraclub. So Jones is still in.

No it wasn't. The next bit about being "not far off May and every bit as good as Lever as an AFL footballer" is also not something I can agree with.

Updating the tally of interstate games for Victorian clubs to end of Round 7: St Kilda - 0 (just Marvel and the MCG for their first seven games) Carlton - 1 (plus Geelong) North Melbourne - 1 Essendon - 1 Richmond - 1 Bulldogs - 1 Hawthorn - 1 (plus Geelong) Geelong - 2 Collingwood - 2 Melbourne - 3 And on the home/away ledger: Essendon - 5-2 Carlton - 4-3 Collingwood - 4-3 Geelong - 4-3 (one home game in Perth) North - 4-3 St Kilda - 4-3 Hawthorn - 3-4 Richmond - 3-4 Bulldogs - 3-4 Melbourne - 2-5 Based on the above, you would have to think that Essendon, Carlton, St Kilda and North are all ripe to be sent to hubs in the second half of the year (minimal interstate travel so far, and all having already had a decent number of home games in their home state).

At the end of Round 6, this is the tally of interstate games for Victorian clubs: St Kilda - 0 (just Marvel and the MCG for their first six games) Carlton - 0 (but they did go to Geelong) North Melbourne - 1 Essendon - 1 Richmond - 1 Geelong - 1 Collingwood - 1 Bulldogs - 1 Hawthorn - 1 (plus Geelong) Melbourne - 3 And on the home/away ledger, we'll be 1-5. Richmond will be 2-4, all other Victorian clubs will be either 3-3 or 4-2. So this should, in theory, mean that in the last 11 games of the year, other Victorian clubs should be doing the heavy lifting in terms of interstate trips. And we should be getting a good slate of home games (hopefully at the MCG) too, given we need to have either 7 or 8 of our last 11 as home games.

Why are so many people angry that we're not playing the game tomorrow? Why do we need/want to play so soon? For one, as has been mentioned by others, it's not set in stone that our game will need to be crammed mid-week at some point. There is the potential for byes, staggered rounds and other positive tests to create gaps anyway. But assuming it is going to have to be played midweek, why does it have to be this week? Why not aim for a situation in which the AFL gets us to play on a Thursday night, Friday night or Saturday afternoon, then back up to a Wednesday vs Essendon, then back up to the following Sunday or Monday night? Space out our games as much as possible, with notice to us, so we can prepare (rather than putting all 40 of our fit players into a match on a Sunday).

I'm not an NBA fan but I'm with you 100%. The lack of crowds might make some games "easier" but so many other aspects of this season are harder on the players. Whoever wins it this year will be able to build self-confidence into what will hopefully be a "normal" 2021 season. There will be better sponsorship opportunities, better fixturing opportunities, exposure in a media which needs something to talk about. There are a number of reasons why there is plenty to play for this year, if we can get a full season in.

Assuming no one else is allowed in or out of Casey Fields and our players don't go anywhere in Casey other than Casey Fields, we'd be OK wouldn't we? Might have problems if any players live in Casey (or any of the other affected LGAs, for that matter), though.

No, not at all. I'm merely saying that of all the players to stuff up the protected zone rule, the one who did hasn't played at AFL level for 2.5 years (i.e. it's not that big of a deal).