titan_uranus

IMO it is. I'm at peace with Hogan leaving, but I don't rate May nearly as much as others do and I do not necessarily see May coming into the side as being a net gain over Hogan leaving the side.

I'm not so sure this is guaranteed. We know we will get a harder draw based on 2018 finishing positions, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a tough draw based on 2019 form. As an example, we had Adelaide twice this year which, when the draw was released, looked to be our toughest match-up. Turns out it was two games against a bottom 10 side.

I was pleasantly surprised with his form in those last few games he played. That might be at least in part because my expectations for him were rock-bottom, but still, I think this is a good call.

Sums it up perfectly for me. Clearly many who've posted in this thread didn't read the article, as there are obvious non-MFC related reasons why he might be considering moving to Sydney. I'll be disappointed if he goes, particularly given we invested time into him this year in an effort to entrench him in the best 22, but will completely understand it if it happens.

What a shocking weekend. We lose the prelim, Casey chokes and loses the GF, then Garoppolo does his ACL, then Gawn/Brayshaw underpoll in the Brownlow, then Oliver needs two shoulder surgeries, then the Hogan-to-Fremantle rumours kick off. We've invested so much into Jimmy for 2018 (literally, given the price), to lose an entire season of him working with the offence is surely going to set us back significantly. I don't have much confidence in Beathard pushing us along like Foles did to Philly last year. I don't think our offence is good enough to make a sub-par QB look good. And with our defence...this is going to be a tough year I think.

At the moment we have Greg Denham who has added nothing to the situation (Fremantle want him is his article, in summary), and Jon Ralph saying Hogan is open to it. Ralph is a better journalist than Denham but I'm yet to see anything which actually adds up to a trade being considered by the club and/or by Hogan. I don't want to lose Hogan, I am firmly of the view that if he's not already a star of the competition he will absolutely become one. I don't buy into some of the stuff that people come on here and say about him not being friends with the boys at the club, the only evidence as to his connection to the club is positive every single time. But, if he is considering moving and the club considers that his price this year is worth something of value to us, then I can completely understand making a move now. The key here will be to ensure we get not just value, but something that we really need in our starting 22 for 2019. How useful is a draft pick, whether top 10 or otherwise, when we're a preliminary finalist and should be in flag contention as of next year, when we're losing an established key forward?

The only way this makes sense, if true, is that we're going to play two ruckmen next year. Whilst I like the idea, and neither McDonald nor Weideman are solid options if that's the road we want to go down, the balance of the side is going to be interesting. Can we have Gawn, Preuss, Hogan, TMac and Weideman all in the same 22 (along with Frost/OMac (or any two other key defenders) and Lever)? I'm assuming you were a big advocate for McInerney at the time?

Writing "bombshell" and that he is "set to play" at Fremantle is designed purely to be quoted on Twitter and forums and social media, but what he's actually saying is "Fremantle are interested in Hogan". Wow. Breaking news there. Complete click-bait rubbish, which is classic Greg Denham (a pathetic attempt at a journalist, IMO. Genuinely cannot stand the man).

On the one hand, for him to be playing at the level he was over the last month or two despite having bilateral shoulder issues is incredible. On the other hand, two surgeries which sound serious enough, delaying his start to the pre-season, is not good news at all.

1999 Carlton won five games against the 1999 finalists before the GF (three in the H&A, then two finals). Still better than 2018 Collingwood (one in the H&A, two finals).

Maybe Stretch fills this spot?

Just checking, we have to pick three road teams, right? Assuming so: Packers, Patriots, Bears

What an incredibly disappointing match. Dominant first half, terrible conversion, then disappeared in the second half, pretty much none of the Melbourne-listed players played well, and to top it off Hunt and Garlett were both terrible.

This umpiring is insanely one-sided but we only have ourselves to blame. Game should have been over at half time. Never should have put ourselves in the position where the game could be decided by umpires.

Tom Bugg's kicking is horrendous.

See, for example, that goal. We're finished I think.

No ruckman in the Casey side has hurt us. JKH was good early but has faded.

We look absolutely cooked. Really ruing our inability to kick straight when we dominated the first half. Garlett and Vince missed absolute sitters early. Umpiring is incredibly one-sided but we're also getting beaten in the contest which is where we were dominant early.

The main reason we didn't drop Tyson is, I suspect, we didn't want to move Fritsch from the backline to the middle for a preliminary final after he'd been playing in the backline for a couple of months. Ideally, we never would have played Fritsch in the backline, Vince or Hunt would have been in better form and would have had that spot, and Fritsch would have spent the year playing forward/wing.

At least two of our five repeat games next year will be against Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood, Hawthorn and GWS. Could potentially be good financially, if we get home games against those three big Victorian clubs. And no more than one of our five repeat games will be against Carlton, Gold Coast, Brisbane, St Kilda, Fremantle and the Dogs. That could also potentially be good financially, as it lowers the likelihood of home games against a bunch of low-drawing sides.

Well I spoke with a number of non-Melbourne supporters today who said "but you were so good before the prelim, you'll be dangerous next year". So there. Some people will remember only the prelim, some will remember more. But the truth is that we stood up on the big stage for a month straight.

It was 14 scoring shots to 7 at HT but only a three goal lead. We should have been up by 6-7 goals before Box Hill's inevitable fightback, which is now on. Petty and Keilty were stunning in the first half but they've been negated in the third quarter. Some of the Melbourne-listed players are really struggling - most disappointingly, Hunt and Garlett, the two I was hoping to star the most.

I think this has to be acknowledged. Take Collingwood as a counter point. After Round 7, they only left Melbourne three times (Gold Coast in Round 15, Sydney in Round 20, Fremantle in Round 23). By comparison, we left Melbourne seven times in the same period. Granted, two of those are our own fault (NT games). Also, only once in that period did we play consecutive games at the same venue - Rounds 20 and 21 at the G vs GC and Sydney. We were on the move a lot in the latter two-thirds of our fixture. We went to the NT twice, Adelaide twice, Geelong and Perth. The week off helped us refresh, but then to have two finals and back that up with a trip to Perth with a side as young as ours surely took its toll physically. I think the above, about our fixture/travel, will have played a role in our tackle count being low. I also think West Coast's marking game meant we simply couldn't tackle as much as we would have liked. The uncontested marks came a lot from their superior work rate which, again, will have in part come from our fatigue. That's not the only reason, though. Our heads dropped with all those first quarter turnovers and that didn't help. Their mids were also just so much stronger than ours (Redden, Shuey, Yeo and Sheed are all older and stronger than Oliver, Brayshaw, Harmes and even Viney).

Sometimes I feel like Demonland doesn't give opponents enough credit. Saying we lost yesterday because of our game plan is effectively saying "we'd have won with a better game plan", which completely disrespects West Coast. We lost yesterday because West Coast were so good that we weren't able to compete with them in critical areas - contested ball and marking. They beat us at the contest and they beat us in the air, and that's pretty much that when it comes to trying to win games of football. I loved Weideman's first two finals but he was nowhere yesterday, Hogan's reliability for marks on the wing and across half-forward will assist us, as will Lever's ability to break up opposition possession chains (we just couldn't stop them yesterday).

I think we'd have been a better side this year with Garlett at his absolute best, as well if Hunt had taken the next step rather than gone backwards. The development we put into Spargo and Fritsch will hold us in good stead going forward but what Garlett and Hunt are capable of bringing to our side is what we often find ourselves to be lacking when we struggle. Not the only two things to work on, though. I'd also love to see Kent become a regular but his body has to be a concern. I'm not sure we can ask for us to be undefeated against the bottom 10 every season. Yes, Collingwood did it, and we should always be aiming to win games against sides below us (and the bottom 10 should all be below us next year...!), but most sides don't get through the year without one poor loss. If we had to target one home and away season problem, IMO it would be the close losses - 0-5 in games decided by under two goals is where we lost our top 4 spot, I think. My hope is that the Adelaide and West Coast wins and the two finals wins have helped us learn how to win close games and how to win in front of big crowds, so hopefully next year when we're in close games we are able to do better than a 0% success rate.