Jump to content

titan_uranus

Life Member
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by titan_uranus

  1. Twitter suggests our game will be played but then the season is shut down until 31 May at the earliest.
  2. I don't think this counts but anyway: We've never won an interstate Round 1 game. We're 0-3 (Sydney at the SCG in 1982, West Coast at Subiaco in 1991, Fremantle at Subiaco in 1998).
  3. I actually think the reaction will differ depending on the premier. If we win it (same deal with a team like St Kilda or even Carlton/North Melbourne), there will be sections of the media/public who will say that it doesn't really count (e.g. we beat sides on the road because there were no crowds, levelled the playing field in favour of small clubs like us etc.). But if, say, RIchmond or Collingwood or West Coast or Geelong wins it, I can see the story being "champion teams find a way despite whatever adversity is thrown at them".
  4. The two big surprises to me are Brown over Weideman and that we're playing a side with all four of ANB, Spargo, Pickett and Bedford all in it. Still, possibly ANB aside I see why they're picked.
  5. Should be a rather different looking 22 than what we were putting on the park last year.
  6. AVB

    titan_uranus replied to Borgzilla's topic in Melbourne Demons
    At the end of 2018, both Kent and AVB had played 35 games in their prior four seasons. Kent played 20 in 2016 but 4, 6 and 5 in 2015, 2017 and 2018. AVB played 14 in each of 2015 and 2016, 0 in 2017 and 57 in 2018. If Kent wanted more than one year then he wanted at least two. So the difference you've cited is an extra year for AVB in circumstances where, going into 2019, they were essentially equally flaky in getting on the park. I suggest AVB is, when fit, better than Kent. As such, I don't see any irrationality in picking him over 3 years over Kent at 2 years. The fact Kent went on to play 13 games in 2019 doesn't mean our decision at the end of 2018 was wrong (hindsight etc.).
  7. What were the questions and his answers?
  8. I have no problem with people refraining from buying memberships because it's a difficult financial decision for them. Breaking it down into "two coffees per week" is not a fair way of looking at it - it's one of many weekly expenses and for some people those two coffees need to go towards a bill or another household expense instead. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with people who have the money and can afford a membership but chose not to buy one because they want to make a statement or something like that. I accept that doing this (i.e. making a statement by not buying a membership) is important for some people but IMO it is counterproductive and unhelpful.
  9. Good stuff. The focus in the meetings on the enjoyment the players got from being -60 in possessions in a low-scoring practice match is good to see IMO. Do you mean the camera angles (with the behind the goals camera from the North game)?
  10. The action should be what is punished, not the outcome. If Viney's tackle was a dangerous tackle, then he deserves punishment. However, the fact that it appears the tackle didn't impact Stratton at all means a fine should be the maximum punishment. Any punishment of Viney will, though, make Crouch's lack of punishment stand out even more.
  11. Don't agree with the OP. I don't need the coach to sit in a presser and explain what we're trying to do, down to a tee or at all. All Goodwin's saying is that we want to have an identifiable brand of football that we, as supporters, will appreciate us applying in all 22 games this year. From what I've seen so far, we're focusing on slower ball movement and picking the right time to play on and move quickly. We also seem to have a more defined back-half structure (the fact we have our first choice players back there might be as big a difference as anything though) and it looks like we're trying to keep forwards in the forward half to ensure someone is leading up at the ball carrier (but from what I've read from those who have seen more than me, this isn't working well enough). I'm a fan of these changes and, when coupled with the addition of Tomlinson/Langdon on the wings and better fitness across the board, we're able to run harder to push back into defence when we inevitably turn it over from what remain sub-par foot skills.
  12. 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).
  13. So is vandenBerg injured?
  14. I have quite enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks, as always, to those who provide reports.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Enjoying this greatly.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.