titan_uranus

Make no mistake, this is an enormous game for us. If we win, and assuming West Coast hang onto their lead and beat Carlton, we'll move to 9th on the ladder. We'll be within either 2 or 6 points of Collingwood by the time we play them next weekend, and we'll be in front of the Dogs with a game in hand over them, and they're our following opponent. If we lose then, depending on other results, we could be back in the bottom 4 again. I have no confidence. I haven't been confident going into a game against North for 15 years. They're distinctly average this year, dragging their opponents down to their level where possible. The Dogs and Richmond were able to rise above it and showed North up for what they are: rubbish. But many other sides this year have found themselves scrapping around (Hawthorn, Essendon, Carlton). Let's hope we're capable of the former, not the latter. I'm concerned about TMac being in the side at all: I hope we play him as the number 1 ruck so that we can keep as much of our structure from last week. Swapping him with Jackson will be disastrous IMO.

I don't agree. Max taking the high road and focusing on football is just what I want. I don't want our players stooping to the level of the gutless, cowardly, inept Crows. Or any other club who does that. I want us focusing on football. If we start focusing on the scum of the football earth, as the Adelaide Crows are fast becoming, we'll lose focus on what we need to be doing: winning. Raise it with the umpires. Have the club (Goodwin/Mahony/Bartlett, whoever) raise the issue publicly (tick to Goodwin) and privately with the AFL (hope that's been done forcefully). If it happens again, get louder. The more focus we put on it off the field, the less likely an opposition coach or player will be to try it again, IMO. If anything, I'd have liked some other players getting stuck into McHenry, Walker, Lynch and whoever else was so pathetic as to think that was a reasonable tactic to employ, but always within the boundaries of the game, to avoid giving away free kicks. But I'm absolutely behind Max taking the high road. Agree with this entirely. As I said, scum of the football earth. I hope they go winless and their only talented players desert them. I also hope that next year, within the boundaries of the game, we make McHenry earn every touch he gets.

TMac named as 1st ruck. We'll see if that eventuates. If it does, I can't see it working. If it doesn't, I can't see it working. Either way, I can't see it working. IMO, should have been Preuss. I'm going to be crossing my fingers for a late change. Pickett/Hannan for ANB/Viney makes sense. Rivers for Lockhart does as well. I'm disappointed for Lockhart, thought he was doing well. I'd love Spargo to give us more than Bennell did vs Adelaide, but I'm sure this is as much about fitness/fresh legs as anything. Pressure's on Spargo to hold his spot for the Collingwood game. Tomlinson is named on the wing, interestingly.

In: Hannan, TMac, Pickett, Rivers, Spargo Out: Gawn, Viney, ANB, Lockhart, Bennell

Spargo's in!

Well done to Jackson. He is our first Rising Star nominee since... Oscar McDonald in Round 21, 2016.

This is one of the single worst takes I've ever seen on Demonland, and that's saying something.

My point is that you, of all people, shouldn't be arguing that another poster has prematurely written a player off (which is what you did re: TMac).

Absolutely agree. That metric looks only at opponent. Doesn't look at venue, or shortness of breaks, or anything like that, and it gives teams the same "difficulty" rating for each opponent (i.e. Collingwood are rated as being as "difficult" an opponent to us as they will be to Adelaide, despite Adelaide being 0-10 and us 4-5).

Certainly another option, but I'm not sure they'll want to swing Tomlinson forward after one week resetting him in the backline. Gawn's loss isn't the hit outs, although when the opponent is Goldstein the loss in the ruck contest may hurt. It's everything else he does that somehow seems to get underrated by some on Demonland. He is an elite runner and covers the ground as well as anyone on our list. He's an elite mark, he positions himself perfectly, and he takes hits when necessary in marking contests. We don't have a replacement who can do 50% of what Gawn offers us, let alone 100%. But my vote is for Preuss so that we maintain our structure and balance as much as we can. Rather than moving Jackson or Tomlinson around or playing TMac when he's not in form or fit. At least some people wait to drop off players until they've shown they're in terrible form. You, on the other hand, wrote Spargo off because of the number of centimetres listed next to his name.

A drop in numbers was to be expected after 2019 was so bad. To drop by that amount is disappointing though. I remain strongly of the view that if you can financially afford a membership but choose not to as some sort of "protest" against the club, you are doing the club more harm than good.

Regrettably seems my mail was correct. If we didn't take Preuss with us to Adelaide, despite knowing Gawn was in danger of not being able to play either/both games, that's horrendous IMO. What's worse is it means TMac will get back in, presumably with Jackson playing Gawn's role and TMac playing Jackson's. Disastrous result: Jackson might not be fit enough to play 1st ruck, and his opponent is a top 5 ruckman this season, and TMac's horribly out of form. Fingers crossed we have Preuss available and we can put him in Gawn's spot. Structurally much better result. Viney out should mean Brayshaw and Harmes spend more time in the middle. I'd put Harmes on Higgins and bring Rivers in to play Harmes' defensive role. Jetta to replace Lockhart if Lockhart's injured. Pickett for ANB, maybe Hannan for Benell too, so could see 4-5 changes.

Champion Data has updated its future fixture rankings. We've had the third hardest fixture to date (in terms of opponents played) and continue to have the easiest remaining fixture: https://twitter.com/championdata/status/1291936545163763713?s=20

No we'll be playing three games in that time, not four. There are 18 rounds. Every club has a bye during one of them. Ours was in Round 3. That means for every other round we play one game. It will be the same from here to the end of the season for West Coast, Fremantle, Carlton and Hawthorn, all of whom have their bye this round and therefore are also 9-game teams like us. There is prejudice to us, and that's that our bye was in Round 3, a completely useless time to have it given the long break between Rounds 1 and 2. Whereas all other clubs get a week off during the compressed fixture to rest. But we're not going to have to play an extra game on top of the rest.

I reckon 99% of North supporters will be confident about this week. I would be too, if I were them. They've only lost to us once in the last 14 years. They play a pretty poor quality of football but have really only put in two absolute shockers: vs the Dogs in Round 5 (kicking only 5 goals) and vs Richmond in Round 7 (only 2 goals). In three of their last four games they've pushed Essendon and Carlton, and belted Adelaide. That form line reads like a mid-table side more so than a cellar dweller, although I'd be concerned that they're yet to play Port, Brisbane, West Coast and Geelong. Countering that, they've only played at 4 venues in their first 10 matches (Marvel, Giants, Metricon, Gabba) and they haven't left Queensland since the Victorian exodus in the first week of July. Conversely, we've played at 7 venues in our first 9 games, and in the same time that they've been based in Queensland, we've played in three different states.

I don't disagree. Suggesting Richmond stuffed up has a significant element of hindsight to it. The point I'm making is that all clubs make "tough decisions" and sometimes the players they let go end up doing better elsewhere. It's not just us.

The game in hand thing is starting to become less important. With Carlton, Hawthorn, Fremantle and West Coast having a bye this weekend, we no longer have a game in hand over any of them. In terms of ladder position, the North game is critical. Will be our 5th win and that would help us level out with GC, Essendon and the Dogs (assuming Essendon loses to GWS, then GC beats Essendon and the Dogs lose to Brisbane). If that all happens, our subsequent fortnight becomes huge for our season if we have any desire to play finals: Collingwood and the Dogs will be thereabouts in that lower half of the top 8. Lose to North and none of this really matters of course.

I don't know, sorry. I don't even know what the injury is.

I agree that we should be refraining from calling ANB a "destroyer" or anything similar. I would suggest that any anger/vitriol should be directed towards players like Tom Lynch (both of them), for off-the-ball strikes. Part of the problem is the HTB rule. The OTT focus on it recently has led to players feeling compelled to dispose of it. So Hamill felt like he had to get boot to ball and his focus was on disposing of it, not protecting himself. ANB didn't need to drag him to ground, or spin him, and that's where the issue will be IMO. If you're pinning someone's arm, that's fine, but you then have to be mindful that they may not be able to protect their head if you choose to take them to ground.

I have it on reasonable authority that Gawn and Viney won't play this week due to injury. I also understand a couple of others are carrying injuries and may not get up in time. Take this with whatever grain of salt you'd like.

Just a reminder to those on here who think we're the only club to let good players go (if you still subscribe to that theory). Richmond let Butler go and kept Rioli, who's struggling to get a game.

Agree with this too. I think ANB should be suspended (and Burgoyne should have been too), but when we talk about "needing to stamp these things out", what Lynch did needs stamping out far more than ANB.

Agre 100%. Hearing Eddie, King and Brereton last night going on about how important it is to stamp out taunting but then seeing "stars" like Lynch get away with dog acts like that is ridiculous.

I'm biased because I absolutely detest St Kilda, but I reckon they're the worst top 2 side I've ever seen. They rely on goals out the back, extreme accuracy (which history says doesn't last) and unforced errors from their opponents. Sure, credit to them for winning and likely going 7-3 after tonight, but I reckon they're going to get found out later in the year.

Isn't the key difference here that Hamill spent the entire game on the bench with concussion, whereas Burgoyne's two targets weren't injured? In other words, yet again, the AFL is focusing on the outcome not the action. IMO the failure isn't ANB being suspended - don't pin someone's arm and then sling them into the ground. The failure is Burgoyne escaping without suspension, twice.