titan_uranus

I think we're starting to see teams' true colours. GC is 3-1 but they've probably had the softest opening month so far (St Kilda, Fremantle, the Dogs and Carlton). St Kilda is 3-1 but they've beaten GC, Essendon when they hit rock bottom (and still nearly lost) and Hawthorn with a stack of injuries and only two on the bench. Port Adelaide couldn't beat a Richmond side missing the big four plus other A-grade talent. Adelaide is probably just a mid-table side. The Dogs are just a mid-table side (at best). Fremantle is just a mid-table side (at best). GWS, Geelong and West Coast are standing out, whilst Richmond has already knocked off two of its five road trips, will slowly start getting everyone back except Rance, and finishes the year with seven straight MCG games. Watch out. I'd like to say we showed in the Sydney game that we're a threat to push up the ladder, but I'm not convinced. Why is scoring so important (by the way, two sides scored 100, with a further two sides scoring over 90)? Our game vs Essendon, which was two 100+ scores, had no defence from either side to speak of. Hardly any intensity around the contest. GWS vs Geelong was a cracking game showing strong skills and determination from both sides, with a score of 79-75. Scoring doesn't necessarily mean good, or exciting, football. The debate needs to be framed around the spectacle, not the score.

The level of intensity and application Essendon showed against us was at least double what they showed against St Kilda. That was little to do with St Kilda being better than us (which was also true), it was more about how Essendon attacked the contest or generally cared about the game. In the first half of their game, Essendon was non-existent. St Kilda were playing a below-VFL level side. They've beaten a developing young side in GC by 1 point, an Essendon side which played the worst half of footy anyone will play this year whilst struggling to hold them off, and they beat Hawthorn by a kick despite the Hawks having at least 6 injuries and only 2 on the bench for a half. If we're talking their 3-1 record alone, I'm not worried in the slightest. It's not their W-L record which is the thing we should be worried about. St Kilda play a style of game which, when they're on, is our achilles heel. They'll use the space on the G, they'll bring pace, and if we leave too much space behind our press then they'll find it easier to score than they have in the opening four rounds. This is not going to be easy for us, but St Kilda is not a good side.

Massive reality check for Brisbane, getting absolutely pumped by Essendon. We might have given Essendon the opportunity to wake up from what could have been a season-ending slumber.

I like reading positive posts about Garlett. Presumably North isn't much chop, though?

These sorts of post really frustrate me. Do you know anything about Docherty's injury, or his fitness, or his rehab, or Carlton's medical team? Do you have any idea at all about how his rehab would have gone, if all else was equal, at our club? Does him running laps at four months post-ACL mean he's going to make some sort of remarkable recovery? Or are you just posting garbage?

I think the three big benefits we get from playing Preuss are: Better structure - he isn't going to roam up the ground like TMac or Weideman are so we keep him deep. That's good for keeping defenders deep (e.g. Aliir) but also good for our attacks as we don't have all our forwards being sucked up the ground Gawn benefits - I'm sure it's a good thing for Gawn that Preuss can take some of the load off him, but it also allows Gawn to sit outside the forward 50 when we're attacking, which makes our forward press a little stronger Physicality - TMac and Weideman aren't particularly imposing forwards, but having Preuss down there gives us a different physical look. It's a very small sample size so far, but I was encouraged by what I saw and I'd like to see more of it.

Actually I think it was "how re-hard they have to work".

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.