titan_uranus

It's an interesting debate. I personally would maybe make one or two changes - I'm not against dropping Brayshaw, and I'm quite in favour of "resting" Viney (i.e. dropping him without having to say it). I'm not sure about giving JKH another go - are we going to give him another contract based on 1-4 games at the end of a dead season? I would, though, stop playing players who have no future - C Wagner looks to be one of those, I'm not sold on J Wagner, and I'm increasingly of the view that ANB now falls into this category. Would rather we keep putting games into Baker, Lockhart and Hore if we can. And you know this how? There's plenty of stuff to get stuck into about the club at the moment. Why do you feel the need to invent some extra tripe to go on top? Lever's not playing well but maybe you could put that into some context, given his long-lay off and having only played four games this year (and the fact that he's only 23).

I have no idea, haven't seen anything, just saw some stats. I'm personally not a fan of Preuss and wouldn't necessarily be advocating for him to come back into the seniors, but I was struck by those numbers as I don't think of Preuss as a high-numbers sort of player.

Just had a quick look at the stats. Preuss has 25 disposals (23 kicks and 2 handballs), plus 7 marks and a goal, all to go with 52 hit outs. Not a bad response to being dropped.

One of our overarching problems all year is a lack of cohesion across the group. Players routinely chopping/changing, positional changes, no consistency anywhere. I understand your frustration and your desire to "shake things up" but I think that has to come from the coaches in some other way, not selection. In saying that, maybe dropping one of our "core" players (e.g. Brayshaw) might be warranted. But I'd be restricting the changes and trying to keep the players that we need to improve out there, as a group.

When Melbourne plays well but doesn't score - we're crap, it doesn't matter how much you dominate general play if you miss/don't score. When our opponent plays well but doesn't score - they were so much better than us, the scoreboard flattered us, we should have lost by 10 goals.

I was at that RIchmond v Port game and this was the most noticeable difference. Riewoldt and Lynch marking it far more often than TMac/Weideman have been, and small forwards making things happen when it hits the ground.

But didn't we lose last night in a different manner? i.e. our opponent had far more inside 50s than us? I'm not saying that's a good thing, and I haven't seen the game either. But surely this was a different sort of loss, and at face value maybe a by-product of some changes to the way we're playing (which clearly didn't work)?

I haven't seen last night's game but even if it was a career worst game from Frost I still wouldn't understand that part of this thread. He's one of maybe three players who have improved this year compared to last year. The Fritsch bit we already know. Whether "necessitated" by injury or not, we kept Fritsch in the backline for too long. He's a forward, or he's in the VFL.

The only clip from the game that I've seen is that free against Petracca in the fourth quarter. Seems like there isn't much point to watching the rest of it. Agreed. We might only have won one or two more games, but there's a clear pattern of fourth quarter fade outs that is hurting us significantly right now. Yes, he is. But he's worse than Lever at everything else associated with football.

Gotta love Demonland. Articles mention we beat out other clubs/leagues to get him and the pessimists start asking whether we've overpaid. I look forward to those posters blaming Burgess as soon as our first injury under his watch strikes. FWIW, I have no idea how good Burgess is, nor how good Misson was supposed to be before we hired him, nor do I know how Misson in particular might have contributed to our bad run of injuries and struggles with running out games this year. If Misson played a role in either of those things then I'm just interested to see what difference, if any, comes next year.

I don't get the hysteria. May is out. We want a KPD to replace him, hence OMac. Lockahrt is out. We want a runner to replace him, hence Baker. Preuss is out. We want a KPF to replace him, hence T Smith. The article says Weideman and Hore are named as emergencies but returning via the VFL for match fitness. I suppose the only point to that is to have them available as genuine "emergencies" if needed, but otherwise the message on both of them is they need a game through the VFL. I'm not really a fan of OMac or of T Smith and would rather not have either of them in the side but in the context of the above, I completely understand why they've been picked.

Problem is they got the first one (ladder position last year) wrong. It says we finished 3rd last year but we finished 4th overall (losing prelim but Richmond were higher on the ladder so finish 3rd), or 5th on H&A ladder position (which is the position the articles gives Fremantle for 2015, when it finished top of the ladder).

Far out praha. In your previous post you said that it's not arguable that 2019 is an aberration. You absolutely are manipulating stats and history to suit your argument. I'm not just talking W-L, either. You're the one who started the embarrassing records thread in (IIRC) 2015. Over the 2015-2018 period we struck almost every single one of those records off the book (except, yes, the big one). We grew our membership, we gained stability and at least a degree of professionalism off-field, we continue to sign up our young A-grade (or possible A-grade) players and we've attracted at least some good talent from other clubs. This year has been shocking in almost all respects, but until we see what 2020 brings I do not agree with your assessment that it's not possible this year was an aberration, and I do not agree with your argument that 2018 being the only season of finals since 2006 indicates it was an aberration given the above context. I can tell you that it's certainly not the latter. I enjoy reading your contributions when you talk about football. The two posts you went on to quote were from last year. Forgive me if I either can't recall them or didn't see them at the time. Unfortunately the overwhelming attitude that comes from you is swipes at people, like the below post, and adoption of a "holier than thou" attitude. It's annoying mainly because your thoughts on the club are interesting, engaging and well-reasoned. But it feels like 95% of your posts are sassy one-liners. I think the phrase "happy-go-luckies" is as objectionable as the phrase "wrist-slashers". Just because I'm less pessimistic than some people doesn't mean I'm "happy" with 2019, nor that I think we're all good to go for 2020. My view on our forward half inefficiency is that it's strongly dependent on two key things: lack of marking forwards (meaning our kicks inside 50 aren't getting retained through a mark) and lack of defensive pressure when the ball too often hits the ground (meaning those dropped marks then slingshot straight back out of our forward line). As to the former, I think we've been badly hurt by TMac's lack of form and I think Goodwin waited too long hoping he'd come good. A similar issue with Weideman. We've then put faith in Hannan to get back to 2018 levels of output and he hasn't either, whether that's a fitness issue or not. We've also been hurt, I suspect, with J Smith's injury - it looked over the pre-season like we were planning on him playing a third tall role and then that couldn't eventuate. Getting Fritsch into the forward line was done too late but really should be a standard selection from Goodwin (i.e. it's either forward or the VFL for Fritsch). As to pressure, we've been badly let down by Spargo and Garlett when each have been in the side and I'm not sure we've done enough to fix that problem. In terms of preparing for 2020 I want to see us focus on these two things. I want to see a forward line that gets better at marking the ball, with players on proper leads at the ball carrier providing options to our mids (who need to subsequently hit those targets). And I want to see small forwards willing and able to create more opportunities when the ball hits the deck. IMO, even a relatively small improvement in that area will improve our overall form significantly. It will increase shots on goal, increase the percentage of the game spent in our forward half, and decrease the number of pressure-free rebound 50s that our opponents get, which in turn decreases the pressure on our defence (although the acquisition of May, the reintegration of Lever, the improvement of Frost and the removal of OMac from the backline are helping there anyway).

Pot kettle? When was the last time you went into depth about anything? Huh? If we've got one thing going for us it's our effort. Collingwood's injuries have made them play worse than they could, which is sort of what's happened to us. Collingwood's done a better job of it though, but I don't subscribe to the argument that because one club is capable of adjusting to injuries then all clubs should be able to. However, I also don't subscribe to the argument that we can put our 2019 down to injuries and nothing else. Based on the football we're playing. There isn't that much between us and the sides above us. Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. It's been argued by a number of posters in this thread, convincingly, fairly and with reason and statistics. You just don't like it. It's possible that 2018 was the peak of our growth. It's also possible that 2019 is an aberration. Both are arguable. Based on the four previous years of linear growth, I'm more than happy to back in the latter argument against yours. But of course, we won't know for sure until we see 2020.

We've been over this in one of the many other threads in which you post your grandiose statement about how bad things actually are. We got better every year from 2014 to 2018. Averaging out our ladder position over that time is unrealistic, unfair and hides that truth.

As @La Dee-vina Comedia said, it's really only meaningless if you don't want to put any stock in it. Of course, you're right about context, but that sort of makes my point. At the moment we have four years of improvement I'm more than happy to see what 2020 brings. If we're playing like this in the opening month or two next year, that will provide sufficient "context" to see that this season was more than just an aberration. But without that context, I'm happy to back us on the available evidence, which at this stage is four years of improvement.

Following on from @Lucifer's Hero's earlier post looking at what we're doing and where we've changed our game, from watching us post-bye it certainly feels to me like we are trying to play differently, with less playing on at all costs, more kick-mark and trying to be less reliant on winning CPs and stoppages. These are things I've been wanting to see us do and I feel we've been doing them since the Fremantle game, so I think it's fair to say they're deliberate changes at coaching and playing level to try to change our game plan. We still have forward half issues but those are to an extent understandable with a few key forward players missing. Massive work still needs to be done in that area though.

We were the highest scoring side last year and that was the case even in the games Hogan didn't play (i.e. with the same forward line as we have this year). Four previous seasons of W-L improvement is a more relevant "trend".

Opening the season 1-5 with four beltings, unfitness, further injuries, and our gameplan being repeatedly unpacked and taken to pieces is where this season went to water. 4-7 since then but if you ranked our 12 losses, my view is that the worst five were the first five. We've made mid-season changes to the coaches, to the players (e.g. Jones, Lewis, Brayshaw, Fritsch), and to the game plan (more kick-mark, less play on, less reliance on stoppages). We're getting our first choice back six playing together. It's not there yet, but I think we can get it there and with a good off-season, some key list changes, and a focus on this modified game plan, 2020 can be significantly different to 2019.

That's (at least?) the third time this year we've lost despite leading at three quarter time (WC twice, Adelaide). The disappointment is that taking just one or two of those chances and going on to win would give us some of the confidence we are clearly lacking. Would obviously also have us out of the bottom 2. We're not as far off the top 8 as a 5-12 record and 17th place on the ladder would suggest. The problem is, neither are most other sides. It's an even comp, and we've made so many mistakes that 16 other sides have been able to muster a better record. Still too many turnovers, still too many players taking the wrong option in the forward half, still too many easy shots on goal being missed, still too many defenders who haven't played with each another enough. Preuss and ANB should be in the VFL (Preuss seems to be the opposite of a whipping boy - getting plaudits for doing absolutely zero on the back of the fact that, what, he's got a big body?). Fritsch is a forward, I hope we keep it that way. I remain confident that we're not as far off turning this around as many others think, but I'm increasingly frustrated at the same mistakes being shown each week.

I hope the people who got stuck into May at various times this year (particularly the pub beer moment), or whinged about the Hogan-May trade, read this article and reflect on their positions.

IMO, the severity of our crash (i.e. our ladder position) doesn't align with our overall form/performances. Since ANZAC Eve we're 4-6 and those 6 losses included Adelaide, West Coast, Brisbane and the Dogs (i.e. games that we had the lead for significant periods of time). Our season was shot early (and I'm not trying to pin that all to injuries/the pre-season), but over the last 10 weeks my view is that our form has been mid-table average, not bottom-2 rubbish. Just my opinion, others will disagree.

What a thread.

Just out of interest, what were you expecting?

I was at the Richmond game today. A few things I noticed that stand out when watching sides other than us: Their forwards held marks so much more often than ours do. Whether it was across half-back when trying to clear their defensive 50, or in the forward 50 when it was congested, they had Lynch and Riewoldt (amongst others) actually clunking marks They also generally kept one or two forwards deep, generally having someone forward of the play all the time and allowing them to have someone leading up at the ball carrier With those leads and marking forwards, even when the ball wasn't marked when it hit the ground there was immediate pressure through the middle Their mids, when getting their hands on the ball, took a couple of steps from the contest before kicking