titan_uranus

If we lose to GWS but somehow Geelong doesn’t pass us on percentage, we’ll finish 7th and play the loser of Sydney-Hawthorn. If we beat GWS we’ll finish 5th, or if we lose and Geelong pass us and we finish 8th, if we win our first final we get the loser of Richmond v the winner of Syd-Haw. So I suppose it depends on whether you see us beating GWS or not.

It feels like we've barely played GWS of late. We played them in Round 1 2016, then once last year, and now Round 23 this year. So that's once in nearly three full seasons. In the same period (i.e. from Round 2 2016 until now) GWS has played Sydney seven times. Not particularly relevant/important, but just another of those AFL fixturing quirks.

Apologies for not having logged onto the site earlier, my bad. I should be logged on permanently to notice when you call someone out for adding "nothing of value" despite that poster actually providing evidence (which was at worst just a counter-argument)? Also exhibits don't get closed, cases do. But regardless, it's not closed. It's just a debate - you say the blood rule is being over-policed but can't provide any examples, AoB says it's not but Dr Larkins would disagree. Interesting debate, but there still aren't any examples provided by anyone (was Gawn sent off against Geelong unfairly? I'm not sure, I can't recall off the top of my head whether he was actively bleeding or not)

We only got 23,000-odd to the GC game three weeks back, with glorious weather too. Adding in the bump from making finals and the fact that this game is between two finalists, rather than against a basket case, and I'd like to see 35,000, but would still be happy with anything above 30,000 TBH.

I like the sentiment but for reasons expressed above I place almost no stock whatsoever in those figures.

He literally referred to the actual rule to back up his argument that the rule is precisely what some on here were asking for. In response, you made a broad-brushed assertion that it was being over-policed and when asked to provide examples, you cited an article in which Mike Sheahan (a journalist) loosely referred to a conversation he'd had with Dr Larkins, without any quotes from Dr Larkins himself. You may as well have said you'd had a chat with the doctor yourself.

Disagree. It means a lot. It isn't a substitute for winning a final, or making a GF, or winning a flag. No one who has enjoyed the last 48 hours would suggest otherwise. But for those of us who have supported the club for the past 12 years, where we "enjoyed" winning 2 games per year, to make the finals and to cast aside the past 12 years of being laughed at means a whole lot.

I suppose that means he's always right then?

Wasn't sure where else to put this, but going into the last game we're outright first on the "Quarters Won" ladder: Melbourne - 57 West Coast - 56 Richmond - 54 Collingwood - 52 GWS - 48 Geelong - 48 Hawthorn - 45 Sydney - 45

A bit of a stupid thing to say (non-human behaviours, wtf Judd). You try not making finals for 12 years and being called mentally weak and playing in front of 55,824 supporters all of whom are booing every time you go near it. Having said that, if we lose next week and/or we lose the first final, I anticipate there will be certain posters on here (some of whom are conspicuously absent at the moment) who reference our celebrations yesterday as a reason for the loss.

And Bernie.

All three did some great things, and Hannan in particular stood up at critical moments (although he did fluff that easy shot in the fourth which opened the door for WC a little bit). But there is also considerable room for improvement in all three (plus Spargo, ANB (when we play good sides) and Petracca). That's six half-forward-esque players, all of whom are contributing in bits and bobs but all who can do more. That goes both ways - we have considerable room to improve, but if we carry them all into the GWS game or the first final and they all struggle, that's a solid portion of the side.

We had VIney, Lever and Hogan out, and Hibberd was at times running around on one leg - that's four of our 10 best players - yet we still scored 108 in the heat on the road against the 2nd best side in the competition. Relax a bit. Agreed (obviously no Kennedy and no Darling helps with that of course). There was a point when Vardy looked like he was going to start to become a problem for Oscar but to Oscar's, and the team's, credit that didn't happen.

The one who wasn't BT (Mark Readings? Sounded like Jason Bennett at first) was good. Bartel is also good I think. BT kept getting Rioli, Ryan and Jetta mixed up.

Get used to it. Hopefully, now that we've made finals and we've looked good in almost every prime time game we've played this year, and we're the highest scoring side from 2018, we should find ourselves playing more prime time games in 2019.

6 - Harmes 5 - Gawn 4 - Melksham 3 - Oliver 2 - Hannan 1 - Jetta

It's been said a bit but I thought it appropriate to give a shout out to Lewis and Jones - both stood up when necessary in the fourth, I thought.

It's still possible for us to host Geelong or Port, be away to Collingwood or Hawthorn at the G, or be on the road to Sydney or GWS. However, we'll know exactly what the win/loss ramification for us are when the ball is bounced as the games that matter (Port v Essendon, Fremantle v Collingwood, Sydney v Hawthorn, Geelong v Gold Coast) will all have been played by then.

We'd be incredibly stupid to rest players who are otherwise fit. We need every chance we can get to improve our MCG game if we want to be successful in finals, and it's possible our first final will be at the G whether we win or lose (it could be that a win gives us Geelong but a loss gives us Hawthorn, for example). The confidence we would get from improving our top 8 record going into our first final in 12 years would be enormous. Hibberd might have tweaked a hamstring but other than that, and assuming no other injuries, I'd give this 22 the chance to build more momentum next week. I do not understand anyone suggesting Weideman isn't a lock for next week. He gave us everything we needed (other than his shanked set shot). He showed strong leading up at the ball and some great marking, he got well involved in play up the field, and he wasn't terrible in the ruck. I was really happy with him. In saying all of this, Kent only played one quarter, ANB played another poor game, Spargo is struggling (he's lucky Garlett and Bugg are no better) and VDB doesn't look fit enough to run out full games. I'm happy to back all four in (especially ANB given his form over the year) but we'd want to see some improvement from some.

Not entirely - if we lose, Geelong could pass us on percentage (they gained 8% from their win over Fremantle so if they do a similar number on GC it's not out of the question). So it's possible we slip to 8th, which would lead to a repeat game against GWS at Spotless (or 100,000 going to the G if Fremantle can beat Collingwood). Nope, that won't do it. Nor will that. Pretty sure this won't either. Port Adelaide is currently +148 in points for/against. We're +505. So that's a 357 point "buffer" we have on them. I think that means, if I'm doing this right, that it's something like 175-point margins in both games.

If we win, we’ll finish 5th and play Geelong (unless they somehow lose to GC and Port replaces them, or Fremantle beat Collingwood and we finish 4th and play Richmond). If we lose, we’ll play the loser of Syd-Haw (if we stay above Geelong on percentage) or GWS (if Geelong pass us on percentage). Unless Fremantle beats Collingwood.

Our record against the top 8: 1-6 Collingwood’s record against the top 8: 1-7. Remind me again which side is the flag contender?

Hibberd early was incredible too - seems he carried a sore hamstring through the second half. Let’s hope he’s OK.

If Collingwood loses to Fremantle, yes.

It feels weird. I’m waiting for the first negative “we haven’t achieved anything yet” or “we shouldn’t be satisfied with just making finals” sort of post. Let’s hope even the most negative posters on here can enjoy this.