titan_uranus

The same people who said we weren’t a chance before the game are complaining that we’re not further in front. Classic Demonland. IMo there’s plenty going right but clearly room to improve. Some critical misses late in the second (Petracca getting too close to the man on the mark was a shocker). But they really lifted in that quarter, they’re a huge second quarter side, and we didn’t just hold them but we won the quarter too. And one of their goals was the worst free kick you’ll ever see.

I believe now this works as follows: If we win both we finish 5th (4th if Fremantle upsets Collingwood) and we host Geelong (unless they somehow lose to GC) If we win one but lose the other we'lll likely finish 8th. If our win is against WC then we'll play GWS, if our win is against GWS then we'll play the loser of Sydney-Hawthorn If we lose both but scrape into the finals (requires North to lose a game and Port to lose to Essendon), then we finish 8th and we get GWS unless Fremantle beats Collingwood, in which case we'd get Collingwood.

GWS are beatable. But not by us if we're under the immense mental pressure of needing a win to make finals. Today is huge.

I tend to agree. Given we have Gawn and the way we play with him in the 22, our other ruck spots on the list should be taken by ready-to-go players. There's no point having developing beanpoles taking senior list spots when they're not good enough to play Gawn's role if he can't play. Otherwise, draft new ruckmen when they've had 4-5 years playing VFL/SANFL/WAFL/etc.

If we win both games from here, we likely finish 5th or 6th (depending on results in the GWS-Sydney and Sydney-Hawthorn games). We can still make the top 4 (for those still playing that game) - we need us to win both, Sydney to beat GWS but lose to Hawthorn, and then either Hawthorn loses to St Kilda or Collingwood loses to Fremantle so that we can pass them on 14 wins with our percentage. That means we can theoretically still finish as high as 3rd. If we win just one game, we'll likely finish 6th-8th (depending largely on what happens with Geelong's percentage and then the results of the GWS-Sydney and Sydney-Hawthorn games). If we lose both games, we'll finish 8th if Port lose to Essendon and North lose one game. We'll finish 9th if only one of things happens (i.e. if Port wins or if North wins both). We'll finish 10th if neither of those things happens (i.e. Port wins and North wins both).

Crisis averted, @DemonHauntedWorld

Port are out of the 8 after that loss. So that means Collingwood will likely finish the year with just the one win against the top 8 (either against us, or Port, or North, depending on who takes the last spot). Their repeat games were Richmond, Essendon, Carlton, Brisbane, Fremantle. Ours were Geelong, Adelaide, Bulldogs, St Kilda, Gold Coast. So we both got one good side (Richmond/Geelong), one middle-of-the-road side (Essendon/Adelaide), and three duds in our repeat games. But we're the side with the "easy draw", whilst they're the side who are flag contenders. (We deserve to have the spotlight on us for not being able to win games against the top 8, I just can't stand the way the same spotlight never goes on Collingwood).

Your worst nightmares are gone, @Bring-Back-Powell.

Geelong's now up to 125.6%, that's a jump of 8% or so. However, it is also now irrelevant given Port's loss. Port can't catch us from 109.6%, nor can North from 109.1%. So, if we get to 13, we make finals. If we can't win another game, Geelong were going to pass us anyway and our battle comes down to Port and North - we need North to lose one game and we need Essendon to beat Port. Geelong's percentage may well pass ours, but it will only be relevant if we get to 13 (in which case it just affects final positions in the bottom half of the top 8). Not on percentage - they're on 109.1%, we're on 130.5%. If we win one more game they can't pass us (ditto Port).

If we get 13 Geelong is the only team who can pass us, and given Port are going to lose to Collingwood no one else can. With Port's loss, if we get to 13 we cannot miss the finals.

I like the changes. The questionable ones are whether Kent/Hannan are better than JKH/Garlett. Personally I'd have only made one of those changes, but I understand why both were made at a time when our forward pressure has to be excellent if we want to win. The remaining changes (Weid for Hogan, Melksham for Pedersen, Hibberd for Hunt) all make perfect sense. I can see our forward line kicking a decent score, but it won't matter unless we pressure their defenders incessantly for four quarters or else their ball movement will lead to them outscoring whatever we put on the board.

Agree, but of course none of that matters if we win, as none of those clubs (other than Port) will be able to pass us (unless Geelong win both their games by 120 points). But yes, if we lose, we really, really need Richmond, Collingwood and Adelaide to win.

From the extended bench Melksham is the only certainty. I don't see the need for Pedersen given we're replacing Hogan with Weideman, so I'd drop Pedersen. That's then Weid, Melksham and Hibberd for Hunt, Hogan and Pedersen and the balance feels right. I doubt we'll see any more than three changes but I'd be inclined to add a fourth and drop JKH for Kent.

Not necessarily, as the figures are average median games played, as opposed to average mean/average.

On the topic of experience:

No Hawks, no Cats, only two Giants and two Power.

I haven't had the chance to go into the rest of the post but this stood out to me so I went back and checked. Geelong the first time tackles were 72-45 in our favour. Hawthorn was 74-113 against Richmond 79-78 our favour Collingwood 68-71 their favour Port 88-99 their favour Geelong the second time 79-65 our favour Sydney 69-77 their favour There's only one terrible performance there, we otherwise win the tackle count or we lose by a small margin (and in the case of Port we laid 88 anyway, it was an incredibly high-pressure game). There is no doubt we have a weakness that good sides exploit - drop a man or two back, wait for us to turn it over in our forward line, and score against our open defensive half. We need to improve. But that is not inconsistent with arguing that the gameplan itself works. We've been in every game this year bar three (and of those, we dominated parts of the Hawthorn and Richmond games).

You have literally zero ability to say he "clearly had a significant injury during the game" unless you are Hogan, and you told the club "guys I have a significant injury" but the club said "lol no you don't get back out there", or you're a doctor and you're able to explain how Hogan reporting mild foot soreness equates to "significant injury during the game".

Hibberd and Melksham replace Hogan and Hunt. But that requires Pedersen to play forward and relief ruck. He's been playing back for Casey all year so I don't think we're about to throw him forward in a must-win game. There's no point having Weideman on the list if we don't play him when we need a key forward. I'd bring him in for Pedersen who doesn't have a match up with Hibberd coming back. Then there's only the question of whether we retain all of Spargo, Garlett and JKH or whether one is dropped for Kent or Hannan. Given we're already making a minimum of two changes, possibly not.

I reckon these two points (luck and injuries) are bigger factors than we're letting ourselves believe. Yes, Collingwood and GWS have longer injury lists than us, but adding in the time TMac missed at the start of the year, we've still had a significant portion of the year with 4-5 of our best 22 not playing, and with the added negative that these players are leaders and hold experience. When we're losing close games, this must be having an effect. And as to luck, no one on here really wants to talk about it but I think it's a factor too. We're hitting the post dead in front whilst Sydney get a shot from 50m to bounce like a Warne leg break through for a goal, or Hawkins makes every shot he takes, etc. Before anyone jumps down my throat, these are not the only two things which cause us to be where we are right now (e.g. our injuries wouldn't be so damaging if our depth was better, and half of the luck issue is our own poor skill). But I don't think they're wholly irrelevant, either.

Jones has to take some of the blame for two consecutive flame outs and a third being on the cards. But we're not dropping him and continually saying things like "we need to make tough decisions" doesn't change that. Chicken or egg? And we've only had two recent losses, and yes in both games he was poor. But 22 disposals, 9 marks, 2 goals against Richmond. That was the week after 24 disposals, 3 marks and a goal vs Hawthorn. 3 goals in Round 1 vs Geelong. 3.2 and 5 tackles against St Kilda. His form in the first half of the year was better than his second half, but that's not solely because of him. Disposal count so far is: 15, 14, 16, 14, 14. 1 goal in those five games. But a tackle count of 8, 4, 2, 4, 5. I'm not a fan but I suspect that tackle count, a few recent wins, and a lack of obvious replacements at Casey have kept him in the side. The Heeney MOTY was a classic example. Hogan on a lead but Pedersen miskicks it so poorly that he has to stop to try to contend for it, Heeney's trailing him and won't be able to do anything if the ball is kicked to Hogan's advantage but instead gets to jump all over him and look like a star. Our inside 50 kicking has been woeful all year, with players like Melksham, Oliver and Salem standing out for being obvious exceptions.

There are four possibilities: W-W, W-L, L-W and L-L. I can see an argument for all four: Backs to the wall, pressure on us all week, we galvanise in a road trip (we've been doing that all year) and beat a WC side that actually isn't in great form. With finals locked in, the mental pressure is released and the shackles fall off, seeing us romp home against GWS See above re: West Coast, but we get ahead of ourselves knowing we've made finals and flop We get done by West Coast this week. However, by the time we get to our Round 23 game Port has lost to Collingwood and Essendon and North lost to Adelaide, which means we're locked in to the top 8 whether or not we beat GWS. The pressure therefore falls away and we romp home against GWS. We get done by West Coast, Port wins a game and/or North beats Adelaide, meaning we know that we have to beat GWS to qualify. We lose, obviously. The probability of Geelong winning consecutive games by 100 points, us not gaining percentage despite a win (we don't win close games, we lose closes games or we win by a bunch), and Port beating Collingwood and Essendon is very low, IMO. I don't see that scenario occurring. I think the scenario of us making it on 12 wins is more likely than the scenario of us missing on 13 wins. I reckon they'll be itching to test themselves on the MCG, where they haven't played since Round 2, before the finals start.

I started reading the OP thinking "of all the things that went wrong yesterday, this is what you started a thread about?" Then I saw who started the thread, and it all made sense.

Adelaide did some sort of gruelling camp this off-season and are going to miss the finals with a list that took them to the GF last year. Can someone explain to me how the camp would have made any difference at all?

Agreed. That's 18 out of 20 games this year in which we've had more than enough of the general play to be able to kick a winning score but in six of those games (one-third), we've failed to capitalise and/or simultaneously conceded too easily. Largely, yes. But the problem is also kicking winning scores against good sides. Yesterday we held Sydney to their season average score. We generated far more inside 50s and scoring shots but failed to turn those two statistics into a winning score. Compare that with the St Kilda game, for example, when St Kilda well exceeded their season average score whilst we scored 100+, which is our average.