titan_uranus

The Dogs also jumped 7 spots on the ladder with one win. It's very even through the middle of the ladder. With our game in hand, we're nowhere near as far off the top 8 as it felt after the Richmond loss. In saying that, we're also only percentage off 17th. Again, it's even.

I'd have gone with Brown, but off that extended bench that change makes sense to me.

You'd hope that we get the biggest possible spacing between games to make up for the fact that we don't get a bye and the "bye" that we did get was harmful rather than helpful for us.

I'm not against Brayshaw playing a more half-back/midfielder role. Particularly if it frees up Harmes (who should never be played in the backline again - he showed last night that he is an A-grade talent in the middle and in the forward line) and Salem (we got on top in the second with Salem higher up the ground).

I did too, binman. Brown's a terrible commentator and that was a perfect example. On the OMac/Smith thing, if there is any link between OMac and Lever's improved game last night I suspect it is one of trust. Smith didn't do a terrible job on Riewoldt but I don't think he's trustworthy as a defender. What you see with OMac, whether you like it or not, is what you get. I think that's important for both May and Lever - we have a system in the back half and I would trust OMac to play his role far more than Smith who has a tendency to, Frost-like, run and jump and get distracted too much.

I think any opposition coach would have a plan for our kick-ins. They're not terribly inventive.

I might be wrong, as it's very hard to tell off the TV, but I thought Weideman played a bit deeper than TMac did in the last three weeks. I felt TMac was on his bike getting possessions across the wing or half-back but Weideman was more around the half-forward line. Not sure it would make a difference - surely there is a coaching directive which had May repeatedly, stupidly, kicking to Gawn on the boundary every time. We conceded a goal once where May went there despite having Langdon (I think) free on the other, open, half-back flank). We've been terrible at kick-ins for about 25 years. I also like Hudson. I think he's the best play-by-play commentator going around. And I agree that his comment on Bennell's goal was disappointing to say the least.

Weideman - made us better OMac - made Lever better? Lever - was much better Brayshaw - can do better

Oh dear.

6 - Gawn 5 - Viney 4 - Hannan 3 - Petracca 2 - Langdon 1 - Lever

I wouldn't be dropping him, but he can do more.

If TMac can't play next week I'd be backing in this week's original plan and swapping him for Brown. If we're looking to drop players Melksham is, for the fourth consecutive week, at the top of the list. I expect him to say but I'd be happy to see Jones in that hybrid half-forward/midfield role. Jetta and Brayshaw need to lift.

I reckon we deserved that. And 17 points feels about right. One down on the bench for 2.5 quarters but never felt like we ran out of gas. Clearly tried harder with shorter kicks and fewer play on instances. It's not all there yet unfortunately, with still far too many dumb turnovers. A step in the right direction but we have many more steps to take. Thought Lever was super impressive, really important return to some form. Not sure if Oscar is the reason for that but Oscar's performance was strong too. Weideman did what we wanted - needs confidence and hopefully he got some today. Hannan and vandenBerg were really important and Bennell looked better than he did vs Carlton.

That goal to Ellis was a disgrace of umpiring. It wasn't a push in the back (Ellis diving), it wasn't a high tackle on Rankine either. Still, main issues are ours, not umpiring. Still too many inside 50s which don't go to our advantage and too much time spent in forward half without scoring.

Our defensive zone is holding up really well. The two late goals they got in the second were disappointing though, both caused by too many defenders at the contest (May spoiling Lever the first time). We're obviously trying harder with the shorter kicks and slower play but it's not quite there yet, and still too many inside 50s which aren't going to our advantage. Don't know what game you're watching but they've both been excellent so far.

On balance the changes look good to me. I'm 100% in favour of Weideman and Bennell coming in, I see the logic behind replacing Smith with OMac (OMac plays that role better than Smith and I don't think Smith is a long-term defender), and I can appreciate Jetta replacing Rivers. Hunt wasn't playing well enough to resist being dropped but I'd have gone with Melksham.

Not that this matters too much, but that's not correct. Adelaide's season average is 6.6. Ours is 7.7. Since the re-start they're doing even worse: they average 5 goals per game, we average 7.3 (just saying that out loud is such a downer). Them being in the GC hub might have affected that, but they are unquestionably worse than us in all facets of the game.

I expected this to be satire.

With one exception I agree. The exception to me is gut-running from midfielders. I still see too many instances of Oliver, Brayshaw and Viney lagging behind opposition mids when we're in defensive transition. Otherwise, what others seem to think is a drop in pressure acts or tackles can well be explained by our inability to tie together a defensive zone and a way to move the ball in offence, coupled with far too many turnovers.

Like most of our midfielders, he has been turning it over by foot. Unlike most of our midfielders, he has been running both ways consistently across all four matches and there have been multiple times of him creating space and being ignored/missed by the ball carrier.

That will be part of it, I'm sure. Viney has been doing this for years but repeatedly shows he's not capable of composing himself or scanning the field. But one of the other things Lyon mentioned in that segment is our tactical decision to send an extra up to the stoppage. Someone on here mentioned this in another thread. That leaves a spare defender behind the play, which does not help us (indeed, contributes to our problem of failing to convert from inside 50s). That's on Goodwin. He's made a tactical call to do that (much like he was obsessed in 2018 with sending a loose defender into the backline if our opponent got on a run of goals) and it's not working.

I agree that GC are a bit underrated here, but some context is important. Their three wins were against Adelaide, Fremantle, and the horrendously out of form West Coast. And they were all at home on the Gold Coast. I would definitely say they are favourites against us but I wouldn't be writing us off, or suggesting they should win "comfortably".

You know that the AFL requires teams playing on a Sunday to name an extended squad don't you? It's not an MFC decision.

This is the dumbest thing written in this thread. The HUN article isn't the problem. We have our fair share of supporters who think the trade was a bad idea. Some, like @TheoX here, simply say the trade is bad until we win, in which case presumably it will be good. The most classic of classic hindsight reasoning. It's not like we threw a first round pick in the bin without using it at all. What we did was bring it forward into 2019. That was done in part because we saw ourselves rising up the ladder in 2020, and in part because we thought a first round pick in 2019 was worth more than a first round pick in 2020. Put to one side the fact that we've played 4 games out of 17 this year. In backing us in to improve in 2020, the club did what most people on here want. It set a higher standard for our performance. The alternative was to keep our 2020 first rounder because we were worried of finishing on the bottom again. That sort of attitude is "accepting mediocrity", isn't it?

He's also been talked up on Demonland as a capable forward. In both instances, he has weeks where he looks good and weeks where he goes completely missing. His main issue is consistency and I don't think it matters whether it's back or forward. Personally, if we've spent the past two years working on him as a forward, he should stay a forward, but should only be playing AFL if he's capable of contributing on a weekly basis (same goes for everyone else of course, including Melksham).