titan_uranus

The three things I'm most pleased to read are the positive comments over Langdon/Tomlinson, the way in which the back six are working together as a unit, and our fitness in running out games. We all know why we need proper two-way running through the middle of the ground. I'd prefer all of our back six to be good kicks but IMO it's more important that they are working together as a unit to deny opposition scoring attempts. It seems that is starting to come together (May mentioned it in a post-match interview, talking about him and Lever working out what each other are doing). Hopefully being fitter will see us run over the top of sides but even if not, if it just gives us the confidence to think that we're always capable of fighting back then that's a positive. Looks like we're starting to develop competition for key spots as well (e.g. Lockhart and eventually RIvers vs Hibberd, Pickett vs Spargo vs ANB vs Hunt (I suppose), Jackson vs Weideman vs Brown).

So is vandenBerg injured?

I have quite enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks, as always, to those who provide reports.

I understand why we're trying it, and I can see the logic behind it, but I have a gut feeling it isn't going to work.

Really happy with this. The no leadership group thing is probably inconsequential other than the statement Mahony made about it - that it's up to the whole group to inspire leadership, not to an appointed few. If that's the messaging that's actually being put to the players, and To Hell and Back suggests it is, then I'm all in favour.

Enjoying this greatly.

My view is this is the best call for the club. I don't agree with @jnrmac all that often but it is important to remember that Viney can show leadership without being captain. My view has always been that he is a poor captain. There is more to leadership than putting your body on the line (not that I've ever once considered Gawn to lack that capability) and I've always had the impression Viney's just not suited to captaincy.

Having not seen the game, I'm pleased to read mostly positive comments. As with any pre-season game, I can't help but query how much it means for the season proper but I listened to vandenBerg's interview and he mentioned that we know that it's important for us to start instilling values for the home/away season now, so I'd like to think today was a sign of what we're hoping to show in Round 1. Love hearing that Lever and Langdon played well.

I'm surprised at the strength of the squad we've named given the injuries we've had. I never follow pre-seasons closely so I'm not particularly qualified to comment, but I'm nevertheless surprised Hunt can't get in the squad for our opening pre-season match.

I'd say this is an average-to-bad call. Richmond were crap in 2016. I'd say this is a better call. It's been said by other posters but Richmond's percentage in 2016 was 79.5 and ours in 2019 was 78.6. Very similar despite the 8 win vs 5 win differential. Your point about us being within a goal 12 times at 3QT for a 5-7 record is also important. In saying all this, all I take from Geelong 2006 or Hawthorn 2009 or Richmond 2016 is that it's possible to climb, fall and climb again. The fact they did it is an example that it's possible, but neither a blueprint for us nor a guarantee it will happen.

Really enjoyed episode 2. It's easy to enjoy of course, given the focus is obviously on how good things are during the pre-season. No coincidence that of the weeks and weeks of pep talks Burgess will have given, they've included one which refers to how we're doing better than our 2018/19 pre-season. Having said that, it's vitally important, obviously relevant, and incredibly satisfying to see the changes he's brought in and how they are playing out. Like others, I was quietly impressed with Burgess saying "we" were bad in 2019 when he wasn't involved with the club. Also quietly surprised/impressed with Goodwin briefly mentioning we stuffed things up in 2019. Gawn's leadership is also obvious from these videos.

We scored 10.18 against Sydney. If you're going to write off the 91 we scored against Collingwood because we were accurate you don't get to include the Sydney score despite its inaccuracy. You're seeing too much 2019 in our 2018. We had 2019 problems (inside 50 inefficiency) but we made it work in 2018 in a way that stood up most of the time.

So you'd kept up with social media enough to know they were overseas, but not enough to know what they were doing overseas? You've copped it from a few, but FWIW I don't agree at all with your attitude towards players not being back at training early. There are a whole host of other issues that go beyond setting examples or getting the best out of themselves. Whether it's mental health, family, other fitness issues, perception from within the club. A whole host of things you, and the rest of us, have no idea about. There's only a couple of months a year where the players aren't obligated to be within the AFL/MFC bubble. I love that Gawn and Harmes and TMac and others have come back early, but just because it works for them doesn't mean it should work for everyone.

I continue to dispute the proposition that the AFL is consistently more entertaining when the scores are high. A game where both sides score over 100 might be entertaining, but it sure as hell might not. Games with high scores routinely involve poor/non-existent defence. Melbourne v Essendon this year is a perfect example. That game was hardly a spectacle. Scoring is what broadcasters want, but IMO the league is better off with whatever ensures an even competition with fewer blow outs and more tense finishes. That will regularly mean stronger defences and lower scores, and we should be fine with that.

In 2018 we averaged 40,695 to our 11 home games. And that included Alice Springs (6,989) and Darwin (8,689). Because we were playing well we got big crowds to ANZAC Eve (77,071) and Queen's Birthday (83,518), as well as the Sydney game late (51,424) and GWS in the final round (37,285). Both Sydney and GWS were Sunday 3.20pm games as well. Sure, I'd prefer it if we had home games against Hawthorn and Essendon, and I'd like it if we had West Coast, Adelaide or Brisbane in our interstate quota instead of GC, GWS and Fremantle, but 2018 shows that if we play well the crowds will come.

Interstate trips: Hawthorn - 9 (but four are home games in Launceston) North - 8 (but three are home games in Hobart) (plus Geelong) Melbourne - 7 (but one is Alice Springs) (plus Geelong) Essendon - 6 Richmond - 6 Geelong - 6 St Kilda - 6 (including China) (plus Geelong) Bulldogs - 5 (plus Geelong) Carlton - 5 Collingwood - 5

If we're any good next year, and we need to be, then we can get plenty of exposure from: the away Friday night game vs Brisbane the Saturday twilight game away to Geelong the three game MCG stretch of Sydney, Collingwood and Carlton in Rounds 20-22. Remember, in Round 21 2017 we drew 53,115 to our 1.10pm Sunday home game against St Kilda at the G. Both sides were pushing for finals.

Some other inexplicable quirks: Including next year, only 1 of our last 11 games against Adelaide has been at the MCG (2016). That does include four home games in the NT though. We haven't played Brisbane twice in a year since 2013. Next year is only our third home game against Carlton since 2008 - 11 of the last 13 games we've played have been their home game. Next year's away game against Essendon will make it 14 of the last 16 games between us as their home game. We haven't played Essendon twice in a season since 2005. We haven't played GWS at Giants Stadium since 2014.

2014. Including our 2020 game there, it will be 10 of the last 13 home and away games between the clubs at Kardinia Park. One of the other three games was Geelong's 2017 home game against us at Marvel, too. So of our last 13 home and away games vs Geelong, they've been the home side 11 times. 2014 also the last season we didn't play St Kilda twice. They want home games against Victorian sides down there. The AFL won't send Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn or Richmond down there. The Dogs, North and St Kilda are all being sent down there next year as well as us. Carlton avoids it next year but has been there the last two seasons. Until the AFL sends the four bigger clubs down there, we're going to keep getting sent there.

We do open with West Coast (away), GWS and Richmond within the first six weeks, along with a second road trip (but to the Gold Coast). But the period between ANZAC Eve and Queen's Birthday (Essendon, Port, Adelaide, the Dogs, Hawthorn, all at the G except Adelaide in Alice Springs) is nice. It is always foolhardy, though, to look at opponents in October and forecast difficulty in the following year. No doubt some sides who did well in 2019 will fall back and some who struggled will improve.

There's some good and some bad here. A six-day break from our Round 1 Sunday afternoon Perth game into a home game against GWS is going to be tough. A five-day break from our Bulldogs home game into the Hawthorn Friday night game is also tough. Lucky to get three Friday nights IMO. Getting the away Friday night vs Hawthorn is nice. Did well on the repeat games - Gold Coast, Fremantle, St Kilda and Adelaide is a pretty good slate. Of our 10 MCG home games we only have five against Victorian clubs and of those two are St Kilda and the Dogs. But again, hard to complain after 2019. Only one game at Marvel all year is a surprise. But we have 7 interstate games plus Geelong which is no surprise at all.

I haven't been this excited about a potential acquisition in a long time. It could be a complete bust. He might pull his calf in the summer, or his first game. Who knows. But I want us to be the club that takes the gamble.

Can't complain about going interstate in Round 1. Gets one road trip out of the way early at the very least.

ANZAC Eve happens to be a Friday so I expect that to be a home game and our only Friday night game for the year. I expect to see more Sunday games (we only had 5 in 2019, four of which were in a row. In 2018 we had 11 and most years before 2019 were closer to 11 than 5). We'll also see fewer FTA games. I wouldn't mind seeing us get a home game at the G against West Coast (we haven't played them at the G since 2014). Assuming we go to Perth I wouldn't mind the game being against Fremantle rather than West Coast (we haven't played Fremantle in Perth since 2015). I also expect to see 10 MCG home games, given that is what Pert said would be happening. Hawthorn wants bigger clubs in Tasmania. I wouldn't be surprised if we get sent down there. Agree. I thought I read last year that the AFL/MFC acknowledged that we'd be away in both games in 2019 and from then on we'd alternate. Can't find that now though so I might be wrong. I'd like to see us stay away on Queen's Birthday and get the ANZAC Eve home game. Agree with this too. We've had a charmed run but if I were any of the other Victorian clubs I'd be questioning why we continue to get to play in Melbourne in Round 1.

This is quite disrespectful, @Nasher. Mung beans are actually really nice.