titan_uranus

It's still possible for us to host Geelong or Port, be away to Collingwood or Hawthorn at the G, or be on the road to Sydney or GWS. However, we'll know exactly what the win/loss ramification for us are when the ball is bounced as the games that matter (Port v Essendon, Fremantle v Collingwood, Sydney v Hawthorn, Geelong v Gold Coast) will all have been played by then.

We'd be incredibly stupid to rest players who are otherwise fit. We need every chance we can get to improve our MCG game if we want to be successful in finals, and it's possible our first final will be at the G whether we win or lose (it could be that a win gives us Geelong but a loss gives us Hawthorn, for example). The confidence we would get from improving our top 8 record going into our first final in 12 years would be enormous. Hibberd might have tweaked a hamstring but other than that, and assuming no other injuries, I'd give this 22 the chance to build more momentum next week. I do not understand anyone suggesting Weideman isn't a lock for next week. He gave us everything we needed (other than his shanked set shot). He showed strong leading up at the ball and some great marking, he got well involved in play up the field, and he wasn't terrible in the ruck. I was really happy with him. In saying all of this, Kent only played one quarter, ANB played another poor game, Spargo is struggling (he's lucky Garlett and Bugg are no better) and VDB doesn't look fit enough to run out full games. I'm happy to back all four in (especially ANB given his form over the year) but we'd want to see some improvement from some.

Not entirely - if we lose, Geelong could pass us on percentage (they gained 8% from their win over Fremantle so if they do a similar number on GC it's not out of the question). So it's possible we slip to 8th, which would lead to a repeat game against GWS at Spotless (or 100,000 going to the G if Fremantle can beat Collingwood). Nope, that won't do it. Nor will that. Pretty sure this won't either. Port Adelaide is currently +148 in points for/against. We're +505. So that's a 357 point "buffer" we have on them. I think that means, if I'm doing this right, that it's something like 175-point margins in both games.

If we win, we’ll finish 5th and play Geelong (unless they somehow lose to GC and Port replaces them, or Fremantle beat Collingwood and we finish 4th and play Richmond). If we lose, we’ll play the loser of Syd-Haw (if we stay above Geelong on percentage) or GWS (if Geelong pass us on percentage). Unless Fremantle beats Collingwood.

Our record against the top 8: 1-6 Collingwood’s record against the top 8: 1-7. Remind me again which side is the flag contender?

Hibberd early was incredible too - seems he carried a sore hamstring through the second half. Let’s hope he’s OK.

If Collingwood loses to Fremantle, yes.

It feels weird. I’m waiting for the first negative “we haven’t achieved anything yet” or “we shouldn’t be satisfied with just making finals” sort of post. Let’s hope even the most negative posters on here can enjoy this.

The strength we showed when they took the lead is precisely what we have failed to do this year. And against the 2nd placed side on the road, in the heat. A fantastic win.

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.