titan_uranus

Fourth. GWS will go to 3rd, we'll pass each of Hawthorn, Collingwood, Port and Sydney on percentage.

Sydney looked better tonight but they were playing an injury-riddled Collingwood who haven't beaten anyone good other than us (and we haven't beaten anyone better than North). And Sydney still only managed 18 scoring shots (Collingwood had 21). I'm still confident we can beat them next week.

Definitely went through the goals. I wonder whether the reviewers thought the question was which side of the post it went through. They made that decision awfully quickly with only one camera angle.

What a ridiculously good round of football so far. F**k off Steve Hocking and let the game do its own thing.

Repeat games against Brisbane, Bulldogs, St Kilda and GC. They're 5-1 with two games to go against that group. To be fair, they've also beaten Hawthorn, Sydney (away), GWS and West Coast, which is a better resume than we've got.

We really need North to drop one of their last three. That will stop them getting to 14 and with the 17.2% gap between us that should mean 13 wins keeps us above them. But we need another team to stay on 13 wins in order to play finals. Geelong is one option, they just need to lose to Hawthorn next week and 13 is their limit (though the percentage gap between them and us is only 8.5% at the moment). Sydney is another - they can only lose once to make it to 14 and they have GWS on the road as one of them. So if they drop one more (and for us to get to 13 that should hopefully be their game against us), they'll also cap out at 13. The problems for us start with North running the table and moving to 14. If that happens, and if Geelong beats Hawthorn next week, the pressure ramps up for us. We'd then need Sydney to flop (losing to Collingwood tonight becomes very useful for us) but we probably also need Sydney to then knock Hawthorn off in the last round. Otherwise we're then starting to hope for Port or Collingwood to fall apart and only win once more out of their last four. Of course, if we just take destiny into our own hands and get to 14 ourselves, none of this matters.

That hurts. That's Brisbane's fifth loss this year by under 10 points.

Agree, but to be fair the WC game will be tougher, especially if we've lost to Sydney, and if we then lose to WC the GWS game will be a pressure-cooker off the charts for us. I don't think we'll see Viney again this season (finals or no finals), but I expect Melksham back next week and Hibberd back for WC. Most likely if we get to 13 we're only going to miss if North or Essendon win all four, or if we drop significant percentage in the two losses. As it stands, if we can hold our percentage at 125%, and if North drop just one game from here, we should be OK. In terms of our percentage, I'm confident we can maintain it - we've only had one loss by more than 10 points since ANZAC Eve (to Collingwood). But a big win this weekend would definitely help.

Our most recent games against weaker sides have not started well: we were losing to the Dogs and St Kilda at Quarter Time whilst we'd put up an error-riddled 2.9 to 2.0 against Fremantle. Before that, we were losing to the Dogs at QT the first game, too. We were only a goal up against Carlton and 3 points up against GC. We've really only had four stand out first quarters - 5.4 to 0.3 against Brisbane, 5.1 to 2.5 against St Kilda, 3.5 to 1.3 on the road against Port, and 7.1 to 3.1 against Adelaide the first time. In other words, I am not expecting us to blow GC off the park in the first quarter. But, on paper, if both sides play their absolute best, we will win this game by 100 points.

Observations: There is nothing wrong with the state of the game. The only reason it has been an "issue" this year is that Carlton, St Kilda and the Bulldogs were over-represented in prime time night football in the first half of the year (by my count, 12 games on Thurs/Fri/Sat night in the first half of the year featured at least one of those three sides). Geelong probably make the finals even if they lose to Hawthorn - they'll thump Fremantle and GC at home and that should mean 13 with a good percentage does it for them. Richmond are beatable at the G, but you have to play four quarters of excellent football to do it. We can all get around, in order, Brisbane, Adelaide, Carlton and Fremantle this weekend - no harm to us in any of those sides winning and their opponents are our direct competitors for ladder spots. I think we want Collingwood to win as it keeps Sydney at bay, but a Sydney win opens up the top 4 again for us (indeed, we'll pass Collingwood if we win tomorrow). I also think we want Essendon to win. I don't rate Essendon's chances of beating both of Richmond at the G and Port at the AO, which means they can beat Hawthorn and still finish on 13 wins with a weak-ish percentage. If Hawthorn lose today, they're still on 11 with games against Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney to come. They could then struggle to get to 13. It's ridiculous how tight 3-9 is on the ladder. I hadn't realised, but Collingwood was in danger of slipping all the way to 9th had Geelong won. Would require each of GWS, Port, Melbourne and Hawthorn to win, and for Sydney to beat them by 50-odd points, but still, it's insane to think that with a month to go the team 3rd on the ladder could drop out of the top 8 within one week.

If you are tall you have to be very good. If you are any height you have to be very good. A pretty meaningless argument. Spargo's 18 and played 11 games. He's shown more than enough in that time to suggest he can emulate what McDonald-Tipungwuti, or Caleb Daniel, or a host of those other players have been capable of.

Something is clearly off with these figures and as poita said above, there's nothing to be gained from comparing them when each club sells different products. The comparison needs to be standardised. Crowd attendances tell quite a different story. We have the 7th highest average home game attendance (in front of Geelong, Hawthorn, Carlton, St Kilda, Sydney), and that's despite two of our home games having been in the NT with under 10,000 each. We're 8th for attendances home/away, too (puts us above Hawthorn, Sydney, Port, St Kilda).

Not a bad extended bench. I'd be leaving the changes to just the one (AVB for Melksham), but I could accept Kent returning for Spargo.

Caleb Daniel and Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti are shorter than Spargo. Dayne Zorko, Paul Puopolo, Dion Prestia, Willie Rioli, Lewis Taylor, Eddie Betts, Hayden Ballantyne and Jack Lonie, amongst others, are all the same height as him. Allen Christensen, Orazio Fantasia, Jade Gresham, Billy Hartung, Jack Higgins, Rory Laird, Lachie Neale, Tom Papley, Cyril Rioli, Michael Walters and Devon Smith, amongst others, are all just one inch taller than him. Your argument that he is "too short" is completely unfounded.

I'm expecting Hannan to replace Melksham, but I'd probably prefer to give Kent another crack. I liked what he was giving us before he got injured whereas I haven't really been impressed with Hannan's recent form.

There are a number of aspects to our draw which I'd hope to see improve next year based on our improvement this year, and what should be a desire from the AFL to be more even with fixturing. One of those is Friday night games - only one last year and one this year, both against interstate clubs, and this year's game an away game. That hopefully changes. But it's not just Friday nights, it's Saturday nights too. We had four Saturday nights this year but all four were interstate against interstate sides, and three were away games. We haven't had a Saturday night MCG home game since 2015 (vs Sydney) and we haven't had one against a Victorian club since 2014 (vs the Dogs). There's scope to get us into that timeslot too. And then there's the mix of Saturday and Sunday games. There's a reason why clubs don't want Sunday games, but this year we get 11 (and of those, 8 in the 3.20pm timeslot). Only one Saturday afternoon home game all year (vs North) and only one other Saturday afternoon away game (vs the Dogs). I generally agree - I find it easier to go to afternoon games. But playing, say, 7-8 night games per year isn't the end of the world, and is good for the club. We'll still be playing the majority of our games in the day, we're not going to turn into Sydney for example (they play 18 games this year at night or twilight and only 4 in the day).

There's nothing in the MFC article which says the club knew about it as at the second quarter. Melksham could have noticed it, tried to run through it, played the game out, but reported it later. So let's not pot the club just yet. However, given how our recent injuries have been going, I can't help but shake the feeling that this is more serious than the club has stated so far. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and Hibberd, back no earlier than the GWS game. Is that true?

I'd be surprised if we're much above 25,000, to be honest.

No change, unless Hogan genuinely needs a rest or is carrying an injury, in which case the better of Pedersen/Weideman to replace him. No one good enough available to come in to replace Smith, our worst player (by a mile, IMO), until Hibberd is fit (Hunt will need VFL game time first). JKH and Spargo both did enough to hold their spots over the current VFL contenders.

Why is that a "charity draw"? It just means they've had to play their more difficult games already. They've already had their 5 interstate trips, they were forced to have a "home" game against Richmond at the G, and their repeat games were against Richmond, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Sydney and Gold Coast (i.e. four finals contenders plus GC).

Pretty much none of the other results went our way this weekend. Goes to show we can't just sit around hoping other teams lose. Disappointed in Fremantle giving Hawthorn a 3% bump, though. Hoped for more from them given it was at home. Some absolutely massive games next week.

I've now had the chance to watch the full replay and what struck me first and foremost was that the fourth quarter didn't appear nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be based on this thread. We weren't dominated like I thought we would have been, we had opportunities to ice the game (Melksham's miss) but didn't take them, and they largely took theirs. However in trying to defend a lead we drop numbers back and as that's not how we normally play, we lose our ball movement as a result. Last week we tried to keep doing what we'd done and it backfired, this week we tried to do the "done" thing and it nearly backfired. There's a balance somewhere in between that's lacking. As to the first quarter, they were really on for the first 10 minutes and jumped us. But to our credit, from then on, we settled, and settled well. The game was played entirely on our terms from late in the first until three quarter time, and with the game on our term we became increasingly dominant. Our clearance work in the third quarter was stunning, better than the Dogs game two weeks ago, and against an A-grade midfield and ruckman. Oliver and Gawn played brilliantly yet again. Hogan's body was failing him but he buttered up time and time again to bring it to ground or at least make a contest of it. I thought Salem was fantastic all game, I saw improvement in Garlett's positioning and work rate too. We're a much better side when Melksham is in form. Frost makes some awful decisions but his defending is getting better, I think. Back-to-back road trips to two very hostile places and to come out of the second one with a win is, I think, something to be really proud of.

I knew it. You didn't answer the question. I specifically asked you to note something other than the result which you enjoyed, and you avoided it. If we'd lost (assuming you mean from having been 30 points up), I'd have been even more livid than I was last week. I would have lamented the fact that Adelaide scored from 53% of their inside 50s, and our inability to shut the game down and protect a 5-goal lead despite the problem manifesting 7 days prior. But I would also have applauded the things we did well. So far from the win "papering over the cracks" for me, I'm acutely aware of our flaws and the reasons why we're going to do well just to make the finals (forget about top 4 or flags). But I'm capable of seeing those flaws in a win, and I'm capable of seeing positives in a loss. Are you? Again - what about last night's game, other than the result, did you enjoy?

He's always going to give us the same traits: hard running (indeed, he'd be top 3 IMO with Gaff and Scully), 100% effort for 100% of the game, and tackling/defensive pressure. He's also always (I think) going to struggle with the offensive parts of his game. He's not a great kick, he's a worse set shot for goal, and he isn't always the best decision maker. He's kept his spot all year because the positives outweigh the negatives, and so long as he keeps busting a gut to make options, run, tackle, chase and lead the way on the field and off as to work ethic, that will probably remain the case.

Silly way to think. Tuohy kicking last week's goal could be the difference. Or Westhoff's 75m 50m penalty in the fourth, or the mark that wasn't paid to Brayshaw against Port. Luck goes both ways, we've had some for us and some against us.