titan_uranus

Gold Coast is a league leader for defensive pressure.

This would probably be the best explanation for it. Fractured cheekbone can sound bad and can be horrendous (e.g. James Hird) so maybe they wanted to determine just how bad it was before saying anything and letting MFCSS sink in.

To be honest, same with me. I just have to remind myself that it's a fun, but largely fruitless, exercise. Yes, we should beat Adelaide and North, and if we lose one that's going to be a shocking result...unless by the time we get to North they've won 3 in a row and turned their season around (see, eg, other clubs commenting on playing us a fortnight ago). Anyway, in terms of opportunities to get to 9 wins, they are certainly there in terms of the opponents we have to come, but only if we play the way we played vs GC and Hawthorn.

I think the key in this statistic is "differential". We all know we get a stack of inside 50s. When we're bad, we know we don't score from them. But this stat shows that, in addition to getting it inside our 50, we also restrict our opponents from getting it inside their 50. We've seen our defensive zone holding up really well over the last month. When we limit our turnovers, we are defending the ground much better and, as a result, the ball is spending more time closer to our goal than our opponents. The fact that the other 5 teams in the top 6 for this stat are top sides on the ladder shows that is a common trend amongst strong sides, so there is a foundation there. Of course, it doesn't matter if we can't score (e.g. vs Geelong) or if we turn it over and let our opponent find an easy way home when they go inside 50 (e.g. vs Richmond).

IMO it's too early for us to start looking at the run home and trying to work out finals calculations. For one, we're only one-third through our season. For another, we're looking at two weeks of good form vs a preceding two weeks of poor form. If we play vs Brisbane like we did vs Hawthorn, even if we don't win, I'll start to have enough confidence to say things like "we should be able to beat Adelaide and North" (as well as Fremantle, as that won't be in Perth, and Sydney). But even in 2018, when we were good and we were considered to beat up on bad sides, we still dropped games to St Kilda and Port, neither of whom played finals that year. It's unlikely we're going to get through this year without dropping at least one game to one of those weaker sides.

Leigh Matthews I think. This is peak Demonland. Two weeks ago we were as bad as the Neeld era. Now we're the best side in 50 years. Neither of those are true.

So this means our final six games will be against: Essendon, Fremantle, GWS, St Kilda, Sydney and the Dogs. The Dogs are the best of that bunch currently. We could cop GWS after they turn their form around over the next month. St Kilda always trouble us. But all six games are, at least on what we know right now, winnable (although a 2-4 run is on the cards, or worse, if we don't maintain our form from the last two weeks).

We can, and clearly we have, but this is a very fair counterargument. The breaks going into games are certainly important, particularly with the pressures of this season, but I can't help but feel that getting to base your club in a state/city for 2, 3 or even 4 weeks has particular advantages which will help the players acclimatise, get into some routine and normality, and feel comfortable. We're shuffling all over the place with no two matches at the same venue (Giants, Metricon, Gabba, Adelaide, Blundstone, Gabba). If our fitness is improved and we can rotate players as we go, that will minimise the shortness of breaks and some of the travel concerns, but I still can't help but be frustrated that we appear to be the only club with no period of stability coming up.

One positive is that we get a primetime Thursday night game vs Port Adelaide on FTA, starting at 8.10pm (a bit late but better than not at all). Otherwise on my preliminary glance, we've been shafted compared to other Victorian clubs. We get two games at the Gabba but they're bookends. In between, we go from Queensland to SA, then to Tassie, then back to Queensland. By comparison with other Victorian clubs: Richmond and the Dogs play three games in Queensland (two at Metricon, one at the Gabba) Essendon plays three straight games at Metricon and then its fourth at the Gabba St Kilda plays three games at the Gabba and one at Metricon Carlton and Hawthorn don't leave Perth (obvious downside being they're playing Fremantle and West Coast in Perth with a crowd) North plays in Queensland twice in a row before playing in Hobart twice in a row after leaving Perth Geelong plays three straight games at the Gabba after leaving Perth Collingwood plays at the Gabba twice but sandwiched between those is a trip to Adelaide So as far as I can tell, Collingwood is the only other Victorian side to play in three states during these four rounds. But one of those is Perth, where it will have been set up for a month. For us, we've been in Sydney for two weeks. Now we're off to Queensland for one week, then to Adelaide, then Tassie, then Queensland. No stability at all. Literally every other Victorian club at least gets to stay in the same state for at least two games straight. I'd like to think we'll get moved somewhere for Rounds 13-16, at least, for some stability in the lead up to the final two games (which will be spaced out properly before finals).

If that's true, surely he won't be playing this weekend? Will that open the door for TMac to return?

True, but the point remains that just because a player is taken by Clarkson/Hawthorn, that doesn't Clarkson is some sort of genius who "sees something" that the rest of us don't.

Yep. I'm all for the positivity, it's justified (will be even more so if we beat Brisbane), but as is often the case on Demonland, it's gone from one extreme to the other. Quite ridiculous how 10 days ago the major themes on here were sacking Goodwin, calling for board-level change, and bemoaning our trade pick with North as a disaster. Now it's finals and Friday night footy in our fixture.

You can add Jack Fitzpatrick to that list of recruitment fails as well. So when people say we made a mistake in trading Frost because Clarkson sees something in him, I vom. Hawthorn, like every other club in the league, makes decisions which don't work out (and boy are they enjoyable to watch play out).

I think this is critical. There were more wide shots on the TV yesterday and we seemed to keep at least one, sometimes two or three, forwards deeper. It means we regularly have forwards leading up at the ball carrier when we're on half-back or the wing. In order for it to work, it requires us to have someone able to compete on the wings, hence why playing two tall forwards helps (bring Weid up to the wing to contest, leave Jackson deep for a target inside 50, or vice versa, including Fritsch).

I don't feel comfortable dropping Jackson for TMac. Having said that, we won't beat Brisbane if we can't compete inside 50 in the air (just as we couldn't beat West Coast in Round 1 without having competition in the air for McGovern et al). Maybe TMac in for Melksham or vandenBerg, but I don't think that works well. I'm inclined to say we go in unchanged (unless we're worried about aerobic fitness for a cram of games and need to rest some players to keep them going). People are calling for Lockhart to make way but did he play on Wingard? If so, as Wingard only had 10 touches (yes, 2 goals, but IMO no real impact on the game outside that), I think that was a job well done. I also think Lockhart is our only option for Charlie Cameron, other than Smith but I just can't stomach bringing Smith in and dealing with his erraticness against a top 4 side.

If we played Essendon and beat them this week, we'd be in the eight. We're not far off the bottom 4, but we're just as close to the top 8 IMO. Gold Coast are currently 6th, and were in the 8 when we beat them last week.

Agree with this. I reckon there's a fair chance we only released Hogan for pick 6 once we knew that GC would trade us May (+ KK) for 6. In other words, we really traded Hogan for May + KK. And even if we did trade May (+ KK) for 6, it was a justified call at the time, and isn't even in the top 10 reasons for our poor early-2020 form.

This from the poster who declared one of our trades was a disaster until we start winning. Sounds to me like you don't really know what you're talking about. Weightman has what it takes to be excellent. So does Pickett.

Poor old Lever misses out. Don't agree on Jetta, thought he was pretty good today. Like the rest though.

First time we've won all four quarters since Round 23 2018 vs GWS.

6 - Gawn 5 - Petracca 4 - Oliver 3 - Viney 2 - Langdon 1 - Weideman OMac, Lever, May all deserve credit for their work together as a unit.

Obviously our best game since the 2018 SF. We won all four quarters. We weathered their initial storm, then we weathered their early third quarter pressure. Weideman growing with confidence (would have loved him to kick that final goal). IMO a clear tick for the two tall forwards gameplan. Gawn unbelievable, Petracca likewise. Our defensive zone is clearly working: sides are struggling to score against us provided we don't turn it over. OMac, Lever and May all worked well together again, can't deny that trio is working well. Langdon has been great all year and the more we learn how to use his gut running and space-saving on the wing, the better we get. I haven't enjoyed footy this much since 2018. Hawthorn might be a bottom 4 side this year but we outplayed them like a finals side should.

@Whispering_Jack and @dazzledavey36 I don't mean to make fun of you but the example is here. Until Gunston's late goal we were above Carlton on the ladder, with a game in hand. Have we now "gone right past" GWS?

How about having a player leading in the first place? Petracca gets it at a stoppage and has Fritsch on a lead. Fritsch gets it and Weideman has stayed deep enough to give him room to lead into. This wasn't there at all earlier this year.

I feel better after that goal.