titan_uranus

I do love Demonland sometimes. Before last night, the Preuss trade was a disaster. Now, after one game, the Preuss trade is a masterstroke.

I see the CP count was +31 in our favour in the second half, righting the ship after being -11 in the first quarter and even in the second.

Really interested to see the replay and see how he fit into the side. But looks like there's some concern over his shoulder - said in his interview with Jude Bolton after the game that he'd hurt his shoulder, was strapped, and he couldn't raise it in the team song after the game.

Only got to see a bit of the third and the fourth quarter so only a small sample size, but our defensive press was markedly better. More chasing and harrassing in our forward half, a better and tighter zone through the middle, and when Sydney did get through our last line was in a better position to defend. Then I looked at the stat sheet and saw that we won the CPs 153-133 and clearances 44-37. So it looks to me like we got our "one wood" back again (midfield dominance) and the defensive side of the gameplan improved, and that took us back to something which more closely resembled Melbourne of 2018. Let's hope we've learnt something from what we did to get the game on these terms. Looking forward to seeing the replay, not just to see the win but also to see how we turned it around from the first half.

Last year I would have agreed, but this year I don't think our problem is width that much. As in, I don't think we're being broken down defensively because we can't spread wide. IMO if we play like we did in Rounds 1-3 we'll get opened up on any ground, narrow or wide. One possible benefit to the SCG is that its shorter in length. We love pressing up into our forward half and at the SCG I suppose that doesn't leave as much space out the back as it does at the G or at GMHBA, for example. So maybe there's less space behind us to defend and we won't get caught out as much?

I'd be happy to see us try something new or different with Jones. Whether that's half-back, half-forward, a defensive run-with role, or back in the guts, I don't think we can keep sticking with doing what we've tried doing with him for the first three weeks. He's unfortunately been one of our worst players so far this year.

You don't know that. They might appear fitter or "more prepared" (what does that even mean, anyway?). But the worst team we've played is probably better than the best team they've played - St Kilda, Fremantle and the Dogs is not exactly three games of top flight opposition. It's easy to look fit or "prepared" (still don't know what you mean by that, do you just mean "in form"?) when you're winning.

He's always been like this. Last year, we weren't caught out as much with his problems on transition because we didn't turn it over as much (not when we were winning, at least) and we also applied far more defensive pressure up the ground which gave him time. He's always had a tendency to leave his man behind to link up in a chain up to the wing and even half forward. It's a good thing for us when we're on and when we're hitting targets. But, much like our game plan in general, when we're off and we're missing targets it opens us up out the back.

Hopefully that's a sign that he's under consideration for this week. I reckon this is, to borrow a term I can't stand but will use anyway, "fake news". Other than at the initial centre bounce, why is it now harder to zone off? Or do you just mean because of the initial centre bounce leaving us at 6-6-6? There were plenty of games last year where we ran a forward off the back of the square but otherwise had 6 vs 6 in our defensive 50.

I don't care who holds the title of being a "leader" because they're in the leadership group. I care about those who actually assist our younger players when they're out there on game day. Lewis, for all his weaknesses, does that, and right now I think we need his ability to guide the headless chooks we have out there.

This is a fair and reasonable counter-argument. Personally, I don't think we can afford to keep carrying ANB and I think sometimes we have to drop the players who appear to have extra favour with the coaches, if anything as a wake-up call to them or as a signal to the players out of the side that opportunities can arrive. But the reality is that we need improvement from about 19 of the 22 who played vs Essendon if we're going to start winning games.

And a good example of that was the St Kilda loss last year, which was very, very similar to this week's Essendon loss.

IMO Hibberd's biggest problem so far this year has been his kicking. He's missing targets repeatedly. Because of how he plays (which is to take the game on and run off half-back), if he turns it over then he's usually out of position on the rebound. The more he turns it over, the more his opponent will hang back off him and benefit on the rebound. I don't want him to stop running and providing drive, but if he doesn't improve his kicking and start hitting targets then we're going to have a tough time.

You've completely made up the bolded bits of your post.

Sure. The odds are against. But at the end of Round 3 last year Port Adelaide was on top (didn't make finals), Adelaide was 3rd (didn't make finals), Gold Coast was 6th (they won two more games for the rest of the year and finished 17th), Geelong was 12th (1-2, went on to finish 13-9 and make finals) and Collingwood was 14th (1-2, went on to finish 15-7 and was a minute away from winning the flag).

If this week isn't a win, it at least needs to be the Round 3 2006 sort of performance. I want to see a different approach to team defence, I don't want to see the same mistakes being made, I want to see more lowering of the eyes going inside 50, and I want to see us working on our forward press and not being caught too high up the ground (which, tbh, the SCG should help us with).

So Petty missed the second half whilst Preuss didn't play and Stretch only played three quarters. I suppose that puts those three in contention for Thursday? If Stretch pulls up from his game I'd like to see him come in for ANB. Will give us similar output in terms of gut-running, so the onus will be on him to give us more than ANB with the ball.

How can you say that when you haven't seen the 2019 model Lewis? We had about 3 good players during the prelim, not sure why Lewis has to become "a main offender" when pretty much everyone offended that day. He can't do too much worse than some of the current 22 and his on-field leadership is sorely lacking.

Key words there are St Kilda, Fremantle and Bulldogs.

Agreed. It's the same sort of thought process as the "I wish they wouldn't talk at press conferences" one we get whenever we're struggling.

Wonder if the Dogs' win last week was more a product of Hawthorn hitting a wall in the fourth quarter with only two on the bench. Props to GC for getting two wins on the board early, they certainly look a much better side than last year, but the only way they could have had an easier fixture so far than St Kilda, Fremantle and the Dogs would be if they'd had us in there somewhere. Yep, that's it. Everything else has stayed the same. Seriously BBP.

Unders for Kent? He hardly gets on the park and rarely achieved anything in his time here. Unders for Hogan? You couldn't stand him last year. Overs for May? How would you know? He's played one game! You really are something else.

Sorry, I love your passion for the club, but I can't stand it when people change their tune on drafting. This was you on draft day when we drafted Sparrow: And this was you after we took Hore: Please don't make it sound like you thought Sparrow and Hore were bad calls at the time. On the contrary, you liked the look of both.

This is not a pleasant thread to read. But it has to be remembered that we do have another 10 players who are injured and so didn't play at AFL or VFL level. I'd have each of May, Lewis, vandenBerg, Hannan and Lever in the side whilst Garlett, Spargo, J Smith and JKH would have to be thereabouts given the 22 we fielded on Friday night. So yes, we've obviously had a stinker of a day at Casey, but it's not like Casey is reflective of the entirety of our club's depth.

What do you expect "due diligence" or a medical would have picked up that we didn't pick up? He came back from his off-season unfit. We didn't sign him one day before the pre-season started, we signed him weeks prior. Plenty could have changed in that period. We could also have made the decision that he's a talented defender (which he is) and that, fitness issues or not, we backed ourselves and our system in to bring him to the level we and the competition required of him. There are reports which suggest that he trained well enough as to bring his fitness up to the rest of the team's by February.