titan_uranus

Geelong's only won two games all year by more than 60 and one of those was a 61 point win. They only beat Carlton by 28 points at Geelong earlier in the year, the week after we beat them by 100. I'm not so sure Geelong is just going to romp to two consecutive 100-point wins. And that doesn't take into account the points advantage we get in your scenario from beating Sydney. And you're assuming Sydney beats GWS and Hawthorn to get to 14. Now that Geelong has lost, if we win tomorrow the probabilities are firmly in our favour.

Not sure if this is relevant, but Sydney has played its last eight games on the same two grounds - the SCG and Etihad - neither of which much resemble the MCG in size.

The answer I think comes from a few things. We take more shots than most sids from in front of the goals. That's in part due to how we focus on moving the ball and where we usually aim to take marks (which is also a weakness of ours, in that when we're off we're repeatedly belting it forward to the same spot, 20-30m out directly in front). We also have a selfless-ness about us, where players in the pockets are looking to square it up or pass it off to find someone better placed. Sometimes that comes back to bite us, though. And I suppose otherwise part of it is skill. Even though we cringe at some basic misses (Petracca and ANB are culprits here), we're obviously more talented than a side like St Kilda and so we nail kicks more often than they do.

I'm sceptical about what the clubs says about Gawn's injury and, to be honest, given our recent track record I think I'm justified in being sceptical. The messaging at the time of an injury always seems to play it down and take the best case scenario approach and with Hibberd, Viney and now Melksham, each time it's been worse than the initial messaging suggested. So I am not convinced that just because Goodwin said he'll play that Gawn will actually play. Regardless, it's almost impossible to work out what the final team is going to be, as there are so many permutations available. I can see either of Kent or Hannan coming in to play forward and using Fritsch more defensive. I can see Pedersen or Hunt getting Smith's spot as a direct swap. I can see Kent or Hannan getting JKH's spot or Hunt/Pedersen getting Vince's spot. I think we'll minimise the changes and I think we'll bring in either Kent or Hunt to replace Smith with no other change. If Gawn doesn't play, though, I think we'll give Pedersen the first ruck role, as a reward for his efforts at Casey.

We've scored 94 and 98 against Geelong, one of the best defensive sides in the league. 123 against North who only conceded 100 twice in their first 14 games (the other being to Port Adelaide) and who didn't concede more than 70 against anyone else in their first five games (which included a game against Hawthorn). 90 against Adelaide, in Adelaide. Other sides to score 90+ there against Adelaide? Collingwood, GWS, Geelong and Port Adelaide. We've scored over 90 in every game this year except Hawthorn, Richmond and Port Adelaide. And every side gets to play Carlton, GC, St Kilda and the Dogs. Some get to play them twice, like us. Yes, we've had probaly one or two more games against those sides than most of our competitors (not North). But we're regularly putting up high scores, and others aren't. And Sydney lost to GC, GWS drew with St Kilda, Geelong lost to the Dogs. If Geelong beats Hawthorn, then Hawthorn has to beat Sydney to get to 14 wins. If they don't, they finish on 13 which is what we'd finish on with one win, and no one's catching our percentage. It's been canvassed in earlier posts, but quite a few things have to occur for us to miss on 13 wins with our percentage, and I wouldn't call it probable.

McVeigh and Jack played against Collingwood and if Collingwood had a key defender to play on Buddy Sydney would have lost. Plus both of them are past it. Rohan and Hannebery were both woefully out of form before their injuries and they're going to rush Hannebery back into the seniors on their own admission because they're lacking leadership (which is covering for the truth, which is their kids are faltering). Sydney deserves respect, but in context.

I'm in favour of it, but I agree with those who are concerned about how the AFL would implement it. It can be done through video review, and only incidents which force players from the field for the rest of the game in contention for a red card. So it would be used exceptionally rarely. But, in cases like Gaff or Bugg, if you hit someone and they can't take any further part in the game, why should your team get the benefit of an extra rotation? Have that player sit the game out on the bench, leaving it 18v18 on the field and 21v21 including benches. Whether the AFL could make that work is a legitimate concern, though.

Not fussed about Hannebery or Rohan. Both were stinking it up before their respective injuries. Hannebery hasn't had time to heal his body, the Swans have admitted they're going to effectively rush him back into the seniors because they want him there and not playing NEAFL.

I believe it was our best first quarter since 1972 and our fourth best ever.

The strangeness of this season is evident in my thoughts on this week's game. I feel that if we win, we're every chance to run the table and win all three. But I simultaneously feel like if we lose, we're every chance to lose all three. If we win, we'll have won 5 out of 6, we'll have released significant pressure in beating a finals contender and a side we haven't beaten in 7 years, and we'll also be nearly-locked in for finals. I can see us taking that confidence, and without the ongoing pressure to qualify for finals, going to Perth and knocking off a Naitanui/Gaff/Kennedy-less West Coast. If we do that, I can see us taking that momentum through to GWS. If we lose, we'll slip down to the bottom of the 8. We'll be level with North and probably Geelong (i.e. only % out of 10th). We won't have confirmed our finals spot and then the trip to Perth suddenly takes on huge meaning: lose it, and we'll be doing the whole "need to win Round 23" thing again. I just have so much riding on this week's game. I wouldn't be calling any of this "probable", though. If Geelong wins all three, Hawthorn has to beat Sydney. But if Hawthorn beats Sydney, Sydney has to beat us and GWS (at Spotless). Alternatively if Port wins two they have to beat at least one of West Coast and Collingwood at the G. I think it's far more likely that at least two of the above fail (whether that's Hawthorn losing two, or Port losing two, or Sydney losing two, or North losing one). For us to miss on 13, pretty much every 8-point game has to go against us.

Should get 7. That way, even if West Coast play four finals, he can't get back this year.

He's looking straight at him before he does it. Spare me.

It just cannot be less than the 6 weeks Bugg got. There is no aspect of it that is "better" than what Bugg did. So that's the starting point.

Sitting in the members it felt and looked like it was going to be well above 25,000. So it was disappointing to hear it was only 23,072. If we get that weather again next week I'd hope for at least 10,000 more for a Sydney game.

6 - Oliver 5 - Salem 4 - Garlett 3 - Jones 2 - Brayshaw 1 - Hogan

Dog act from Gaff. Just as with Bugg, deserves to be taken to the cleaners for this. Pathetic and disgusting. Hope Brayshaw is OK. Sounds at this stage like a broken jaw and broken teeth. Another perfect example of why a red card/send off system is a good idea.

Tom McCartin maybe? 192cm.

If Melksham is fit I'd bring him in for Smith and play Fritsch more in defence (we've had him down there and he's looked right at home). If Melksham's not fit then I think Wagner is the best option we have. I wouldn't be going with Hunt after just one VFL game, and I don't think Pedersen is the right sort of player against Sydney's forward line. I don't expect more than one change but if Melksham is fit but the FD wants someone else to play in Smith's role, then I'd drop JKH to make room for Melksham and then Wagner replaces Smith.

The game went the opposite of how I thought it would. I expected a crappy, low scoring first quarter followed by us pulling our socks up in the second and third. Instead, we played breathtaking football (even accounting for the low quality of the opposition) for the first 30 minutes and then took the foot off the pedal considerably. Some of the second and third quarters was just terrible from us. Too many turnovers but, worse, too many forward 50 forays breaking down at half forward (our biggest problem). That's nitpicking a bit but we should still be looking at how we can improve even when we win by 96. Thought Salem was outstanding today. Every time he goes near it I feel comfortable. A much harder edge has developed in his game. I was also impressed with Garlett's work rate - much better two-way running and he got involved a lot more as a result. I'm not sold on JKH and if we didn't have the injuries we do have, I wouldn't be playing him. I thought VDB was just OK, nothing special. Should get at least another game and another crack to get up to AFL speed but he's another who wouldn't be playing if we didn't have injuries. Terrible luck for Smith. I thought he showed something today, more than previous weeks. A lot more dash and a willingness to get involved in the offensive part of the game. Just awful to see him do the other shoulder. Really looking forward to Sydney. They can't score outside of Franklin and I think we match them well in the middle. But the pressure is right on us now and with Sydney's experienced heads also under pressure, it should be a ripper.

That truly was a terrible 50m penalty, though. But yes, evens up for the one paid to Westhoff against us.

I'd love to see a dominant first quarter, blowing them off the park. I'm expecting to see a skill-error filled first quarter with a small lead, followed by much stronger second and third quarters.

I don't agree that players around the ball equates to "bad look". But assuming that to be the case, I don't agree with the argument that the AFL has to change rules to fix it. We're already starting to see teams spread out across the field ever so slightly more than was the case at the start of the year. I'm confident the game will take care of itself whilst also providing exciting finishes. Doesn't the reverse also hold true? Just because some of the games this year have been low-scoring and/or congested with lots of stoppages, that doesn't necessarily mean the game is in a "bad condition", does it? I just do not agree that there is any sort of major problem associated with stoppages or congestion. I don't agree that it's a problem in the first place, but even if I did, I also wouldn't agree that rule changes are necessary to stop congestion/stoppages from occurring. I'd be in favour of fixing/removing the aforementioned dysfunctional rules, and to the extent they reduce congestion then so be it. But I'm against changing the way the game is played fundamentally (e.g. 6-6-6 or a larger goal square) specifically to combat those "issues". Isn't the idea that each club sends one person up and if the club stuffs it up and more than one person goes up, it's a free against? The overwhelming majority of the time it's obvious who the ruckmen are.

Can't agree with this. Firstly, the loser of 2v3 gets the winner of 6v7, not 5v8. Secondly, you have no idea who will finish 6/7 - could equally be Port. Thirdly, if Collingwood fails to make the top 4 and slumps to the bottom half of the eight, it will solidify what people are thinking about them already, which is that their injuries are catching up with them. Fourthly, if we finish 5th we could easily cop a trip to Port, West Coast or GWS in the second week of the finals, how is that a good thing? Fifthly, it it happens we'll have beaten Sydney, West Coast in Perth and GWS in consecutive weeks, then get a rest. Why wouldn't we be able to back that up with another strong performance in the first final?

Do you mean "aesthetic" things, or dysfunctional things? As to the dysfunctional, I agree - score reviews, protected zone, ruck nominations, the sliding tackle free, the holding the ball rule, all of that needs to be addressed. As to the "look of the game", though, I don't agree one bit.

It's not clear, though, and that's the problem. It's just not clear enough whether it hit the post or not. The goal umpire said it didn't and without obvious evidence that it did, he was in the best position of anyone to call it. The lesson to be learnt, yet again, is that the technology needs to be miles better than the sub-standard and inconsistent garbage that the AFL masquerades as a review system. But never mind that, let's get huge goal squares and 6-6-6 in because the game is in dire straits!