titan_uranus

There are a number of aspects to our draw which I'd hope to see improve next year based on our improvement this year, and what should be a desire from the AFL to be more even with fixturing. One of those is Friday night games - only one last year and one this year, both against interstate clubs, and this year's game an away game. That hopefully changes. But it's not just Friday nights, it's Saturday nights too. We had four Saturday nights this year but all four were interstate against interstate sides, and three were away games. We haven't had a Saturday night MCG home game since 2015 (vs Sydney) and we haven't had one against a Victorian club since 2014 (vs the Dogs). There's scope to get us into that timeslot too. And then there's the mix of Saturday and Sunday games. There's a reason why clubs don't want Sunday games, but this year we get 11 (and of those, 8 in the 3.20pm timeslot). Only one Saturday afternoon home game all year (vs North) and only one other Saturday afternoon away game (vs the Dogs). I generally agree - I find it easier to go to afternoon games. But playing, say, 7-8 night games per year isn't the end of the world, and is good for the club. We'll still be playing the majority of our games in the day, we're not going to turn into Sydney for example (they play 18 games this year at night or twilight and only 4 in the day).

There's nothing in the MFC article which says the club knew about it as at the second quarter. Melksham could have noticed it, tried to run through it, played the game out, but reported it later. So let's not pot the club just yet. However, given how our recent injuries have been going, I can't help but shake the feeling that this is more serious than the club has stated so far. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and Hibberd, back no earlier than the GWS game. Is that true?

I'd be surprised if we're much above 25,000, to be honest.

No change, unless Hogan genuinely needs a rest or is carrying an injury, in which case the better of Pedersen/Weideman to replace him. No one good enough available to come in to replace Smith, our worst player (by a mile, IMO), until Hibberd is fit (Hunt will need VFL game time first). JKH and Spargo both did enough to hold their spots over the current VFL contenders.

Why is that a "charity draw"? It just means they've had to play their more difficult games already. They've already had their 5 interstate trips, they were forced to have a "home" game against Richmond at the G, and their repeat games were against Richmond, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Sydney and Gold Coast (i.e. four finals contenders plus GC).

Pretty much none of the other results went our way this weekend. Goes to show we can't just sit around hoping other teams lose. Disappointed in Fremantle giving Hawthorn a 3% bump, though. Hoped for more from them given it was at home. Some absolutely massive games next week.

I've now had the chance to watch the full replay and what struck me first and foremost was that the fourth quarter didn't appear nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be based on this thread. We weren't dominated like I thought we would have been, we had opportunities to ice the game (Melksham's miss) but didn't take them, and they largely took theirs. However in trying to defend a lead we drop numbers back and as that's not how we normally play, we lose our ball movement as a result. Last week we tried to keep doing what we'd done and it backfired, this week we tried to do the "done" thing and it nearly backfired. There's a balance somewhere in between that's lacking. As to the first quarter, they were really on for the first 10 minutes and jumped us. But to our credit, from then on, we settled, and settled well. The game was played entirely on our terms from late in the first until three quarter time, and with the game on our term we became increasingly dominant. Our clearance work in the third quarter was stunning, better than the Dogs game two weeks ago, and against an A-grade midfield and ruckman. Oliver and Gawn played brilliantly yet again. Hogan's body was failing him but he buttered up time and time again to bring it to ground or at least make a contest of it. I thought Salem was fantastic all game, I saw improvement in Garlett's positioning and work rate too. We're a much better side when Melksham is in form. Frost makes some awful decisions but his defending is getting better, I think. Back-to-back road trips to two very hostile places and to come out of the second one with a win is, I think, something to be really proud of.

I knew it. You didn't answer the question. I specifically asked you to note something other than the result which you enjoyed, and you avoided it. If we'd lost (assuming you mean from having been 30 points up), I'd have been even more livid than I was last week. I would have lamented the fact that Adelaide scored from 53% of their inside 50s, and our inability to shut the game down and protect a 5-goal lead despite the problem manifesting 7 days prior. But I would also have applauded the things we did well. So far from the win "papering over the cracks" for me, I'm acutely aware of our flaws and the reasons why we're going to do well just to make the finals (forget about top 4 or flags). But I'm capable of seeing those flaws in a win, and I'm capable of seeing positives in a loss. Are you? Again - what about last night's game, other than the result, did you enjoy?

He's always going to give us the same traits: hard running (indeed, he'd be top 3 IMO with Gaff and Scully), 100% effort for 100% of the game, and tackling/defensive pressure. He's also always (I think) going to struggle with the offensive parts of his game. He's not a great kick, he's a worse set shot for goal, and he isn't always the best decision maker. He's kept his spot all year because the positives outweigh the negatives, and so long as he keeps busting a gut to make options, run, tackle, chase and lead the way on the field and off as to work ethic, that will probably remain the case.

Silly way to think. Tuohy kicking last week's goal could be the difference. Or Westhoff's 75m 50m penalty in the fourth, or the mark that wasn't paid to Brayshaw against Port. Luck goes both ways, we've had some for us and some against us.

Yes I did. Your posts don't exactly read like you're happy, do they? I don't understand why you would come on here and only post about the 10 shots against in the last quarter, given the magnitude of the win otherwise. What aspects of the game, other than the result, did you enjoy?

Yes, I think if we can beat GC and Sydney then it's going to be hard for us to miss. If we lose to Sydney it's still possible for us to get in on 12 wins, assuming we hold our percentage. But much less likely.

If this is all you can think about after a win like that, then what's the point? The fact that people are celebrating our win and posting happy thoughts doesn't necessarily mean those same people think we've got the flag sewn up. They might, of course, but it's also completely possible to come on here and say "great win" whilst acknowledging we need to improve a host of things.

Indeed!

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.