titan_uranus

Watched the last two minutes just now. I'd have passed out watching it live.

Nup, this is the first time we've ever beaten them twice in the same season. It's only the third time we've won consecutive games against them, too (first time since 1999).

I haven't been able to see the game yet, but I was checking on my phone and when we went from 30 points up to 14 points up with 10 minutes left, I completely lost all confidence. I'm sure there were parts of the fourth which stank and we probably made similar errors to last week, but to hold on and actually get it done, on the road, with the extreme pressure that this game put on us just to stay in the finals hunt, is immense. Adelaide is a good team. Their last two home games were wins against West Coast and Geelong, and they had most of their best players back.

Last week aside, are there any other games we've failed to put the foot down? We've smashed all the bad sides, repeatedly blowing the lead out late, and in the other losses we've either been trying to catch up (Geelong, St Kilda, Port, even Richmond) or just not in it (Hawthorn, Collingwood). We have many lessons to learn, but not sure that is one of them.

I agree with the long bomb problem. But I don't agree that the solution is to take Hogan out and put him at CHB where he's never played. We still need to markedly improve how we move the ball inside 50 and how we generate scoring shots. If Oliver's not 100% fit he shouldn't play.

I quoted bobby1554's post, what's that got to do with you? lol I'm not against moving Hogan around the ground if he's struggling to make an impact in the forward line. But we already do this, by throwing him into the middle (often at times when we rest Oliver or Petracca forward). I don't see the need to put him at CHB where he's never played, when we've already got tall defenders down there who don't have the ability to play anywhere else. I also would prefer we improve the way we deliver the ball into our forward line so that either Hogan's not always being double/triple teamed, or that we're scoring regardless (i.e. if he's taking an extra defender and that lets TMac off the chain, that may well benefit the team). In other words, I don't agree with bobby1554's plan to permanently play our best midfielder as a forward and our best forward as a defender without replacements for either and without a play for what that does to the backline.

The points you raised were: starting the season with 9 out of 11 games in Victoria; only having 5 interstate games; getting 14 games at the MCG. Why should winning the premiership affect any of those? In fact, shouldn't winning the flag mean a better fixture given what should, rightly, be the reward for strong performance? The MCG is their home ground, so they get 10 games there at a minimum (given the AFL shafts the MCG tenants with Etihad home games). The other 4 are because other sides want home games against them. Indeed, I'm sure you'd agree that we would want to play Richmond in a home game next year. Richmond has 10 (one at Etihad), Collingwood 9 (two at Etihad), we have 9 (two games sold to NT, none at Etihad) Hawthorn has 6 (one at Etihad, four games sold to Tasmania). Then Etihad tenants - Carlton has 5 and Essendon has 4 (with both playing the rest at Eithad). It appears that if we reduced our NT arrangement down to one per year, that 10th Victorian home game would be played at Etihad. If we brought both back, though, it's not clear whether we'd get the 11th game at the G (Richmond does, but Collingwood doesn't, so I'm not sure how it would work). One of the big problems is that Essendon and, in particular, Carlton (given Carlton get home games against Port and WC at the G, whereas Essendon's are against the bigger Melbourne clubs and exceed Etihad's capacity) get permission to play games at the G when they made the decision to go to Etihad. They're both Etihad clubs. By granting them home games at the G, it forces the actual MCG clubs (us, Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn) to play home games where we don't want them at Etihad to meet the AFL's contractual minimum. Both are required to play home games at Etihad, indeed Collingwood has two. As to their away games at the G, everyone wants to play home games against them, including us. I'm sure you, like MSFebey, want to see home games against big Victorian clubs on our 2019 fixture. We won both NT games and both of the games the following week. Are you sure there's an impact? We only have to play three games at Etihad this year. That's the lowest we've ever had, I think. But I agree re: Kardinia Park (equality demands that everyone should have to play there), 3.20pm games (but that won't stop any time soon given Channel 7 demand having the game lead into the news) and Thursday nights (does anyone actually like them?).

I don't think Sydney is a tall forward line. Their forward line right now is nothing to be scared of, either. They hardly generate a competitive number of scoring shots. Adelaide and WC though, agreed.

So your plan is to take our leading goalkicker and put him at CHB where we already have OMac and Frost, then replace him with our best midfielder against a side with a midfield which includes Sloane, Crouch and Gibbs, whilst Viney sits on the sidelines. And you implore us to "tackle to hurt", as if that was our problem last week. Thank heavens you're not the coach.

Our result is obviously most important, but wins to the Dogs, St Kilda and Fremantle (vs Hawthorn) are all huge for us. If we win and Collingwood lose to Richmond, then we'll be a game off third. We'll go past Sydney (and will have a 15-20% buffer on them, too) and we'll remain a game and percentage clear of Essendon (and North, if they win). We could also move up further if GWS or Port lose. In the ridiculous fantasy dream world, we win and each of GWS, Port, Hawthorn, Geelong and North lose. Then we're in the top 4 and we're a game and percentage clear of 9th with 4 games left. Probably somewhere around 0.0000000001% If we lose, we'll be level on points with Essendon and Adelaide (and North, if they win). We'll drop below Geelong and Hawthorn assuming they win, and be out of the 8 if both win. The impact of just one game is insanely high.

The way Sydney is playing, we are every chance to beat them in a fortnight. Tomorrow night is huge for us, now. A clear opportunity to win the next three is open to us if we apply ourselves.

A reminder that we're not the only club who gets bad umpiring decisions. That non-call of holding the ball on Zak Jones was absolute garbage. I'd be livid if I were an Essendon supporter. Also a reminder that the free kick count at the end of the day doesn't always show unfairness or bias as it doesn't show the missed calls.

I think if we win our prospects are better than 40%. We'd likely then only need to beat GC and then one of the last three. I'd like to think we can go 1-2 through the final three games. The frustration for mine will be when we miss, it will be by a small margin yet again, and another year in which we have clearly obvious games we should (not could) have won (Geelong x 2 being the two main ones). It's amazing that we've only had to play the 7 members of the other top 8 4 times in the first 17 games. Of course, Collingwood have only had one more game than us and their only win was against us. Yet they're premiership contenders and we're pretenders. Actually, we can make the finals without improving that record. Beat Adelaide this week (currently out of the 8), beat GC, and by the time we play Sydney they could be out of the 8 (lose tonight and to Collingwood next week). Beat them too and we get to 13 without any of those wins being against the current top 8.

This game is win-win but also lose-lose. Win-win: an Essendon loss rules them out of finals (the chance of them winning all three of Hawthorn, Richmond and Port (away) is too low IMO), a Sydney loss keeps them sliding and another option for a team to fall below us in the run home (and, if we want to dream a bit, keeps the top 4 door a bit ajar). Lose-lose: an Essendon win draws them level with us on wins if we lose (we were at one stage 3 games in front of them on the ladder), a Sydney win rights their ship and makes the chance of them dropping out a bit less likely.

So from the Alice Springs game: Melbourne In: J Smith, JKH, Tyson, Garlett, Frost Out: Hibberd, Hannan, Lever, Viney, T Smith Adelaide In: Walker, Sloane, Keath, Cheney, Seedsman, Murphy, McGovern, Knight Out: Hartigan, Gibson, Ellis-Yolmen, Douglas, Fogarty, Poholke, Mackay, Doedee We have three AA players missing and their replacements aren't exactly setting the world on fire at the moment. They lose Douglas and Doedee but get back Walker, Sloane, McGovern, Seedsman and Knight. Shows how many fringe players they had in their side in that game. No doubt this is a much stronger Adelaide side than the one we faced last time.

He'll play forward I think. And I'm not sure what the plan is. Joel Smith, I suppose? Maybe J Smith to Jenkins and Oscar to McGovern. Yes he is. One of the game's most over-rated players. Joe the goose goals are his specialty. Not sure how this thread turned into yet another OMac debate, though.

If Collingwood beat Richmond then full credit to them. But their record against the top 8 is only marginally better than ours. 1-4 (1-5 when you add in Geelong), and the only win is against us and we're 0-4 (0-6 including Geelong). The last time they played a top 8 side they got beaten by West Coast, a man down in rotations for over a half, by 6 goals at home. I'm just not yet convinced Collingwood is as good as their record or ladder position suggest.

For anyone who queries the impact of Lewis on the group, have a listen to this week's Inside Melbourne podcast and listen to what Brayshaw says about him.

We had 9 of our first 11 games in Victoria. We would have 17 out of 22 games in Victoria if we didn't sell two home games to the NT. Our MCG count is lower (11), but we might get one back if we didn't sell two home games to the NT, plus Richmond get 4 away games at the G because clubs want to play them there. One of the many reasons it's important for us to finish strong and make the finals is to keep a positive aura around us and get more clubs wanting to play us in their home games at the G.

I see you asked this because you think by trading Hogan we could get a defender, and you think we need a defender because we're too easy to score against. Not only do I disagree completely with the suggestion we should trade Hogan (the first half of this season he was in AA form and if your expectations are that a 23 KPF should be at AA level every single week then your expectations are out of whack), I disagree with the notion that we need to get a defender. Our defensive problems are not down to OMac or a key defender, they are down to our team's defence.

As far as I'm concerned a mini elimination final for us. If we don't win this, our chance of making the finals becomes so much smaller. The ridiculous thing about the season is that a win keeps our top 4 chances alive.

As positive a news story we could get in a week like this, I think. OMac is the only player of note out of contract at the end of this year and only Hogan and Salem, I believe, at the end of next year. The rest of our best players are all signed up to the end of 2020 or beyond, which is excellent list management IMO.

Suppose we should play Filipovic while we're at it? And remind me again what your thoughts are on us having given JKH a go to see what he was like?

I still think Ablett quite clearly pushed Brayshaw in the back when Brayshaw went in to get it in that last 30 seconds. We've seen tackles like that get called for pushes in the back repeatedly in the last few weeks. Ablett didn't even try to roll him over like Salem did when he got pinged last week against the Dogs. Nothing is as bad as the protected zone 50m penalty against Harmes, though.

The GC game is too early for it to unravel and really hurt. Watch us go into the GWS game needing a win to make finals...