titan_uranus

JKH and Joel Smith shouldn't be playing. Fingers crossed Hibberd is fit. Otherwise, the rest of the improvement needs to come from the players who played tonight.

I don't know if we're allowed to complain about injuries, we had a pretty good year. However, it's probably little to no coincidence that through our 6-game winning streak we largely had a full list to choose from. Since Lever went down we're 2-4 and look demonstrably worse defensively, with OMac regressing from his early-season form. Since Viney went down we've lost consecutive CP and clearance statistics despite being the best side in both. Without Stretch we've given two games to JKH who adds nothing offensively (essentially the complete opposite of Stretch). Geelong had 20 scoring shots from 50 inside 50s, being a 40% scoring rate. That's actually a lot lower than some of our other games this year.

We'd obviously be better off with him in the side, but I feel like we were dominating in CPs and clearances in those first 7 games before Viney came back at the start of the year, too (though i might be wrong). Gawn got beaten today, which shouldn't have happened. I'm sure that's also part of it. You may well be right about being a premiership contender, but for so many reasons we need to make the finals and we have had every opportunity to do that this year. We can't let 2018 just become another 2017.

I think the better way to say this is that our best football is in the top 3-4 clubs' best. But if we keep losing these games, I don't think we can say we are one of the best three or four teams. The best teams don't continually lose these games. I've been watching over and over again. I didn't mind Petracca's barrel. It wasn't clear that he had any easy sideways/backwards kicks to eat up time, plus there was still 1.40 left. It was to the boundary so it was the right option if he didn't have a short easy kick. Frost's mark was great but the kick appalling. JKH's miss was just terrible and reeked to me of panic (a better player would have been a lot calmer with that shot). Then Frost isn't just ball-watching, he runs to chase after the wrong player. The kick comes out and he leaves Hawkins to run to the wing where Jones was already running, leaving Hawkins to make space through the middle. Our high forward press isn't conducive to protecting small leads, though. Only takes one mistake from us and we gift our opponent a score. We should instead have had the press dropped further back - concede the space across our HF line to clog it up closer to Geelong's goal. Edit: Brayshaw also mis-kicks it to JKH when he had Melksham on. JKH should have kicked it, though.

Haven't seen/heard Goodwin's presser but some of the quotes are interesting. He's called out the players for their "clock management" late in the game, he's noted Gawn got beaten by a hack (Stanley), he's conceded we got taught a final quarter lesson, he's noted we got beaten in CPs and clearances (bearing in mind those are not Geelong's strong points). Maybe this loss has gotten to him more than previous ones? Or maybe I'm just reading too much into some Twitter quotes because I can't bring myself to do anything else.

You're right. Can't believe I missed that. Immediately following that, the ball spills to Brayshaw who is driven into the ground, via his back, by Ablett. No free.

Having watched the last two minutes, a number of things stand out: JKH's miss was horrendous. He could have straightened up. Petracca's barrel wasn't terrible. It got a good result, a throw in. Garlett's snap attempt with 50 seconds to go was rubbish, he should have been aiming for 20m out, instead he went for the goal from the pocket and gave the ball back. When Vince spoiled the kick in we should have been able to wrap the ball inside 50 but we failed to do that. Our defensive set-up was too loose, it was man-on-man inside their 50 (someone should have been standing in the hole), Menzel was free, Duncn was able to run past Hawkins (which saved them enough time).

I'm sure I will find the positives in this eventually. But we can't keep losing these games. We can't lose from 29 points up 5 minutes into the last quarter, when our opponent has only scored 8 goals in the first three quarters. We can't keep losing games by undoing three winning quarters of good work with one losing quarter of bad work. We can't keep losing close games when we don't seem to know what we're doing to score a winning goal or hold onto a small lead. We're going to miss the finals on the back of the two Geelong losses. More than the St Kilda or Port losses, these were two games we had no business losing whatsoever. And to not be able to find something within us when they got that run of goals on, to stem the tide, slow it down, against a side who'd already stolen it from us once this year, with everything on the line and our own reputation/pride at stake, is just soul-crushing.

The things you've identified are massive logistical barriers. If West Coast and Fremantle end up in the same group of 6 as, say, Brisbane and GC, you get those sides criss-crossing the country repeatedly over the last 5 weeks in the run to finals. Or, alternatively, you could get six Victorian clubs in the same group who then get to sit in Victoria for the last 5 weeks of the year. It throws up different forms of inequality. It simply does not solve the problem. Agreed. The AFL loves copying the NFL but funnily enough won't go near the NFL's "less is more" concept. We can't increase to 34, so if we won't reduce to 17 then the only option, IMO, is to have the 5 double-up games allocated so that, over a 2 or 3 or 4 year period you even out as much as is possible (17 isn't a good number for maths, though). There has to be greater transparency. There has to be a policy whereby every club plays every other club at least once home and away in a defined period (every 2 or 3 years, for example). We can't have Melbourne being away to Essendon literally every year, or Hawthorn not going to Brisbane for 10 years. The current model allows for flexibility with double-up games against rivals but the 5 double up games have to be allocated as fairly as possible over time.

So if we miss it's a "massive failure" but if we make it then it's not worth anything? If it's a massive failure to miss them, then it's significant to make them. Their repeat games are against Essendon, Geelong, Sydney, St Kilda and Brisbane. That's three finalists from last year and St Kilda, who many thought was a finals contender this year. It might not have turned out that way but it's hardly "puzzling", they were given repeat games against sides who you would have thought would be strong this year. They also played a significant number of good sides early, which opens up the draw. Meanwhile if you're complaining about our run home, just bear in mind we've only played 4 games all year against sides currently in the top 8. All of our finals competitors have played more than that.

I don't think it would be exaggerating, if they can hold on, to call this one of the biggest upsets this decade.

To be fair, that would be the case even if we didn't have Tyson in the side. IMO, if Tyson is going to have a good game this year, this is a possibility for it. Narrower ground (so less likely to get caught out on the turnover and spread from the opposition), a spot to play pretty much entirely in the guts (the only chance he has of playing a strong four-quarter game), and a slower midfield than others (I don't think Dangerfield, Selwood, Alblett, Duncan, Guthrie and Kelly are as pacy as, say, St Kilda's midfield).

No, it's just that one of us is capable of nuanced thought whilst the other one appears to only see things in BLACK and WHITE.

If you assume Hawthorn beats Carlton, Fremantle and St Kilda (a dangerous assumption given they've lost to Brisbane twice, and the Fremantle game is in Perth), they then only have to win one of Essendon, Geelong and Sydney to get to 13. Right now, I think Hawthorn is likely to get to 13. Geelong is in the same boat, mind you. Say our 12th win is against Geelong (the 11th being against GC). Geelong would then need to win 4 of the last 5. That will require it to win all three GMHBA games (likely) but then win at least one of their two MCG games (Richmond, Hawthorn). Questionable. I suppose what that says is that 12 might be slightly more likely to do it if the 12th win is against Geelong. A Brisbane win this weekend would be enormous for us. The likelihood of Adelaide then beating all of us, Port, GWS (away) and North is surely low.

To answer the OP, I think 12 wins, even with a solid percentage, is unlikely to be enough. However, after the results of last weekend, I think it's a bit more likely than it was. If North and Hawthorn only win 3 games each (which @Bring-Back-Powell has shown isn't exactly impossible), then 12 will be enough for us (unless the even less likely situation occurs in which Adelaide or Essendon win 5 of their last 6 and get to 13). If we finish in the top 8, we deserve to play finals. If we manage to do it with only 12 wins, that will mean clubs like GWS, Hawthorn, North and/or Geelong have all been as bad, or worse, than us over the final 6 rounds. It's unlikely, but if it happens then we deserve to play finals. Couldn't agree less. The top 8 qualify for finals. Ergo, the clubs who finish the home and away season in the top 8 spots on the ladder deserve to play finals. Finishing 8th doesn't make you any more or less deserving than finishing 1st. It obviously means you weren't as good as the team in 1st, but that doesn't mean you don't deserve to play finals. You finished higher than the other 10. For a club that hasn't played finals for an embarrassing 12 years, making them, and getting that monkey off the back, is unquestionably something we should be aiming for, even if we also should be aiming to win the flag.

There's no shirking the obvious - this is a massive game for us. We know we haven't beaten anyone better than North. We know we haven't won the "big" games we've played this year. And we also know that if we win this game, and we end up two games and percentage clear of Geelong, our path to finals gets significantly easier, whilst if we lose it, our path remains tricky and with an enormous question mark hovering over it. They don't have a decent ruckman so hopefully Gawn can get on top and help our midfield beat theirs. If we can get enough ball inside 50, and our press can hold up on a narrow ground (which should be precisely what we want), then we can definitely win this game. The pressure will be enormous, though, so it remains to be seen how we cope.

How does the severity of Hibberd's injury affect our chances of winning this week? He's not playing either way.

Also 2015, North Melbourne v Richmond. Richmond won by 41 points in Round 23 at Etihad, but one week later North knocked them out in the EF for the third year in a row at the G. Was the year which brought in the week off before finals given North had rested a stack of players.

His kicking hasn't been as good this year but his two-way running, his bursts from the backline, his man-on-man strength and his zoning are impossible to replace with one player. I suspect we'll play Smith or Wagner in his role but whether it's one of them, or Harmes, or Fritsch, it's a major downgrade and right at the wrong time of the year. Absolutely medicine/science-free rubbish, @praha. Do you have any medical or scientific knowledge to link Lever's ACL injury to playing in 22-degree warmth the week prior? Or Viney's sore toe to playing humidity? Or a quad pulled 1.5 weeks afterwards, in which time Hibberd had played another complete game? Where Goodwin refers to "look at our grounds", he could quite easily (and IMO much more likely) be referring to the firmness of the turf we train on. I reckon you've completely lost it with this one.

When the only reason people want you to be picked is because you have "mongrel", you're clearly not that much chop. IMO Bugg's weaknesses (terrible skills, no confidence when we're attacking) outweigh his strengths (strong two-way running, good defensive pressure, the aforementioned "mongrel"). Of course, if he is able to improve his skills and become a better player when we're attacking, those strengths he's already displayed become even more valuable (and we know the FD loves two-way running and defensive pressure). So whilst I'm not prepared to say he's got no hope at all, right now he's not best 22, nor do I think he's that close to it. How can you possibly say this given AVB hasn't played for two years? Are you rating his 2016 form compared to his 2015 form? How is that relevant to what AVB might be capable of now? Your negativity seriously knows no bounds.

Who'd have thought one of the game's biggest on-field fl0gs would be a [censored] off the field too.

They lost Gray just before half time when they were already losing. Not sure how much difference they would have made, to be honest. Meanwhile West Coast lost Naitanui in the second quarter and beat Collingwood by six goals. Fremantle are so bad that Port Adelaide ought to have found a way to get it done.

The longer the break after the Perth game, the better, but I'm not sure commercially a Monday night game will work. It is GWS after all. And the concern will be that it's scheduled weeks out, something goes wrong with one of the sides, the game has little to no meaning, and then no one shows up. I'm expecting this to be a Sunday 1.10pm or 3.20pm game.

Viney didn't play so are you saying Tyson instead of Weideman to replace Hannan? Otherwise who do we drop in addition to Hannan? At any rate, I'm not sure about playing Weideman. The forward line balance feels much better since we went smaller and given we're prone to running TMac up on the wing at times anyway, we may as well make that stint a ruck stint and keep some pace in the side.

If we finish in the top 8 then we're good enough by definition. But a quick look at the ladder and some mathematics indicates we're not going to finish 8th or higher unless we win at least two, and likely three, of Geelong, Adelaide, WC, Sydney and GWS.