titan_uranus

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.

His movement has looked off for weeks. You, and others, are letting your pre-conceived bias against him make the news about his potential injury a conspiracy.

I know you think Jones was poor, and he was, but we are not dropping our captain in Round 22 when we are trying to win a game to make finals. It's not happening. Not for PR reasons, not for team spirit/morale reasons, not for unwanted distraction reasons. If that troubles you, then the solution is that Jones shouldn't be captain in 2019, so that we don't have this issue next year.

This is the fourth close loss to a finals contender, and each time I sit back and say "gee we were terrible in parts but we only lost by [insert sub-10 point margin]". Problem is we don't ever seem to fix those bad bits and so the next time we get a crack, we get the exact same result. Surely, at some point, something's going to give and we're going to get it right and win one of these games. Surely?

Some of the umpiring was atrocious today, which is becoming a running theme in 2018 (but hey, let's double the size of the goalsquare because that's what fans want!). Had no impact on the game's result, but frustrates me. A Sydney player handballed it out of a tackle directly over the line but wasn't paid deliberate. A Sydney player takes on two Melbourne players, tackled, drops the ball, but no holding the ball call. Brayshaw's head is nearly taken off but no free. I'm sure there were some bad decisions the other way, too - I only remember the ones against us. It's just frustrating to see so many poor decisions on a near-weekly basis.

Complete and utter rubbish. The star forwards of the game have a reliable set-shot routine that they can bank on and they don't need to second guess. Brown, Kennedy, Riewoldt, Hawkins, Franklin - none of them have a lack of faith in their own routine. Sure, they miss some under pressure, almost any player does, and the pressure of a close game or a strong opponent will do that. But Jesse is mucking around with his technique and has been for weeks, whether it's snapping from 20m out or bending out and trying to hook it back. The mental side is important too, but with Hogan he needs to practice his routine to get that part of the problem under control.

Horrendous game today. In our 8 losses he's only had 20 possessions once (22 against Hawthorn). To me, it feels like he struggles massively against the better sides. The running is important but my concern has been, and remains, that his skills aren't good enough when under pressure and just being able to run isn't enough (Bugg is another example of this). Will, and should, get another game next week as there are others to drop who aren't as important to the side, but if we're going to praise the good bits, we have to be critical of the bad bits with ANB.

If he's not fit enough, we won't play him, don't disagree with you there. Initially I thought you were advocating for resting him to "save" him for finals if we make it, which I did not agree with. Ultimately if he and Melksham are fit enough to play, they come straight back. If they're not, then we don't play them. But we don't hold either of them back in an effort to maximise our chance of winning a final.

It will help. One of Hogan's misses, he ran deliberately out to the right and hooked it left. That's not pressure (like maybe McDonald's misses were). That's a player losing faith in his own kicking routine.

I'm prepared to roll the dice on A-grade talent to try to make the finals than save the A-grade talent and risk missing the finals altogether so that we can keep playing VFL-level players in their place.

We do this plenty. We usually kick it up and under, though, which isn't smart.

Sydney scored 13.9.87. Their season average is 12.9. So they were right around their average, both as to number of scoring shots and total score. We scored 10.18.78. Our season average is 15.13. So we were right around our average scoring shots, but nowhere near our average score. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this inaccuracy is, largely, where the game was lost.

Right now, as a strategic decision but also a business one, we need to prioritise making the finals over winning a final. We need the monkey off the back. Missing the finals this year does not help us one bit for 2019, but making them and realising we're capable of doing it does. So, if Hibberd is borderline fit, we roll the dice and play him. It was a risk. It clearly didn't pay off. Unfortunately we've taken a lot of selection risks this year which have flopped. This is largely due to injuries testing what is quite poor depth (e.g. we played Maynard in Round 1 but wouldn't have needed to if Viney was fit, again today we played Hunt but wouldn't have needed to if Hibberd was fit). At least we took a risk in favour of a player who can change a game if it works (e.g. Hunt) rather than a player who can't help us even at his best (e.g. Maynard in Round 1).

That's not possible. None of the 11-win teams have a better percentage than us and won't haul it down in just one game. So even if we lose next week we will go into Round 23 in the 8, just like last year, in the knowledge that a win against GWS will secure our finals spot.

If the following four things happen, then even if we lose both games we can make it: North lose to Adelaide Port lose to Collingwood Essendon lose to Richmond Port lose to Essendon If those happen, then when we get to our game vs GWS, both Port and Essendon will both have 12 wins (and North beating St Kilda puts them on 12 as well). Barring two blowout losses to WC and GWS, our percentage will keep us in the 8 above Port, Essendon and North and we won't even need to beat GWS. The four results above are not completely out of the question - I don't see Port beating Collingwood or Essendon beating Richmond, for example. I'm not so confident on North losing to Adelaide but it's entirely possible. But tbh I really don't see Port losing at home to Essendon in the final round, with finals to play for. Stranger things have happened, but I don't see it In order to miss with a 13th win: one of Geelong, North and Essendon (the 11-win teams) has to catch us on percentage (only Geelong can realistically do this); and Port has to win both games I don't see both of those happening - I just don't see Port winning both, us winning one and still Geelong catching us on percentage. tl;dr - we just need to win a game.

6 - Harmes 5 - Salem 4 - Brayshaw 3 - Oliver 2 - Frost (I thought he did really well tbh, at no stage did I think Franklin was beating him. When Franklin got on top it was through their slick ball movement and our inability to cut his leads off) 1 - Tyson I've got no idea how you could draw this conclusion from today. I thought he was outstanding and one of the few who stood up at all critical moments. No way. Yes, he kicked three goals. But his inability to compete with Aliir was a huge reason why they got on top. He couldn't beat him one-on-one, he couldn't block or body him, he couldn't get to the contests and he couldn't stop the rebound. I thought he was really, really poor (but yes, the three goals were important).