titan_uranus

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).

Out: Hunt (drop even if injured), Pedersen, Spargo/Garlett In: Hibberd, Melksham, Hannan/Kent Assuming Hibberd and Melksham are both fit, the first two changes seem obvious to me. We need to drop one of Spargo/Garlett (leaning towards Spargo at the moment, not because Garlett was any better but because Garlett's upside exceeds Spargo's at this point) and I'd try whichever of Kent/Hannan the FD thinks is best-placed to make an impact. If we want to drop a fourth I'd drop JKH, who's reached his AFL ceiling and it just isn't good enough. Bring in both Hannan and Kent. Leave the other of Spargo/Garlett in as we need a crumbing forward. ANB was useless but we have to back in our core players, of which he is one, and put the onus on them to improve.

Infuriating. Not just because of what is on the line for us in terms of finals. But because we lost the same way we always do. +17 inside 50s and +6 scoring shots should be a 20+ point win. Being up two men on the bench for 2.5 quarters (Hunt sat out most of the last quarter with a rolled ankle) should make that 30+ points. Inexcusable number of passengers: Pedersen, Spargo, Garlett, Hunt, ANB and JKH all had little to no impact on the game. VDB kicked three goals but for 90% of the game was not just poor, but was a main reason for our struggles through his complete inability to compete with Aliir. Hogan and TMac missed critical shots at critical times. Jones was inept (though credit to him for his fourth quarter workrate). We continued to kick the ball to poor places. We continued to play one off the back of the square which only resulted in them mopping up inside 50 after inside 50. And we killed our own momentum by missing easy set shots. When Gawn doesn't dominate in the middle, we don't get anything from the one off the back of the square. We stopped doing it in the fourth and looked a little better with our ball movement. ANB is a real problem. Too often goes to water when the pressure goes up but our game requires his input. We're clearly struggling to cover Viney, Lever, Melksham and Hibberd. Fingers crossed the latter two come back next week. The door is still open for us given North and Port's losses. We will finish next week in the 8 unless we lose by 100 and Geelong wins by 100. But if we lose and then need to beat GWS in the last game to make the finals, I do not like our chances at all.

I don't think there's anyone who isn't in the same camp as you. The difference is that some are interested in what happens in the event we don't win all three, and how that (and other results) impacts on our finish.

Are you really that surprised that after 12 years of not playing finals at all, some of us can't help but focus on actually making the top 8 this year?

If we win three, then we finish third (second if Brisbane upsets West Coast in the final round). If we win two, it looks like we'll finish somewhere in the 4-6 region, I think. If we win one, it's probably something like 6-9, depending on other results. If we don't win another game, we'll finish 9-11.

This just sucks in every way.

They had 0 on the bench by the end of last week, and they're down to 1 right now. Kelly's was a concussion in a tackle, Shaw's a collision knee injury. Can't do much about those from a fitness/conditioning perspective. It's just such bad luck to keep getting them all in the same year.

I'm of the view that the insurance we get from the Port loss is more valuable than the prospect of finishing 2nd. I believe we can win all three but I don't think that's likely. So I'm more than happy to have Port lose - as has been said, if we beat Sydney tomorrow and Collingwood beats Port next week, then we should (barring BBP's nightmares coming true) have both Geelong and Port covered with our percentage, and that means we play finals (even if North wins out). Meanwhile tonight's games were exciting 20 minutes ago when Brisbane and Adelaide were both leading. Now Adelaide's down by 18 and Brisbane's down by 21.

Seems to me like Smith/Vince get replaced with Pedersen/Hunt, in a like-for-like swap. I'm not sold on Pedersen but I wasn't sold on Smith either so I feel like we're not going backwards in that area, if anything we're just not going forwards. Hunt at his best is a major improvement on Vince, the query is whether we see Hunt's best or we see the Hunt we got earlier this year who wasn't playing near AFL level. Not really. Rohan's been rubbish all year.

Geelong's only won two games all year by more than 60 and one of those was a 61 point win. They only beat Carlton by 28 points at Geelong earlier in the year, the week after we beat them by 100. I'm not so sure Geelong is just going to romp to two consecutive 100-point wins. And that doesn't take into account the points advantage we get in your scenario from beating Sydney. And you're assuming Sydney beats GWS and Hawthorn to get to 14. Now that Geelong has lost, if we win tomorrow the probabilities are firmly in our favour.

Not sure if this is relevant, but Sydney has played its last eight games on the same two grounds - the SCG and Etihad - neither of which much resemble the MCG in size.

The answer I think comes from a few things. We take more shots than most sids from in front of the goals. That's in part due to how we focus on moving the ball and where we usually aim to take marks (which is also a weakness of ours, in that when we're off we're repeatedly belting it forward to the same spot, 20-30m out directly in front). We also have a selfless-ness about us, where players in the pockets are looking to square it up or pass it off to find someone better placed. Sometimes that comes back to bite us, though. And I suppose otherwise part of it is skill. Even though we cringe at some basic misses (Petracca and ANB are culprits here), we're obviously more talented than a side like St Kilda and so we nail kicks more often than they do.

I'm sceptical about what the clubs says about Gawn's injury and, to be honest, given our recent track record I think I'm justified in being sceptical. The messaging at the time of an injury always seems to play it down and take the best case scenario approach and with Hibberd, Viney and now Melksham, each time it's been worse than the initial messaging suggested. So I am not convinced that just because Goodwin said he'll play that Gawn will actually play. Regardless, it's almost impossible to work out what the final team is going to be, as there are so many permutations available. I can see either of Kent or Hannan coming in to play forward and using Fritsch more defensive. I can see Pedersen or Hunt getting Smith's spot as a direct swap. I can see Kent or Hannan getting JKH's spot or Hunt/Pedersen getting Vince's spot. I think we'll minimise the changes and I think we'll bring in either Kent or Hunt to replace Smith with no other change. If Gawn doesn't play, though, I think we'll give Pedersen the first ruck role, as a reward for his efforts at Casey.

We've scored 94 and 98 against Geelong, one of the best defensive sides in the league. 123 against North who only conceded 100 twice in their first 14 games (the other being to Port Adelaide) and who didn't concede more than 70 against anyone else in their first five games (which included a game against Hawthorn). 90 against Adelaide, in Adelaide. Other sides to score 90+ there against Adelaide? Collingwood, GWS, Geelong and Port Adelaide. We've scored over 90 in every game this year except Hawthorn, Richmond and Port Adelaide. And every side gets to play Carlton, GC, St Kilda and the Dogs. Some get to play them twice, like us. Yes, we've had probaly one or two more games against those sides than most of our competitors (not North). But we're regularly putting up high scores, and others aren't. And Sydney lost to GC, GWS drew with St Kilda, Geelong lost to the Dogs. If Geelong beats Hawthorn, then Hawthorn has to beat Sydney to get to 14 wins. If they don't, they finish on 13 which is what we'd finish on with one win, and no one's catching our percentage. It's been canvassed in earlier posts, but quite a few things have to occur for us to miss on 13 wins with our percentage, and I wouldn't call it probable.

McVeigh and Jack played against Collingwood and if Collingwood had a key defender to play on Buddy Sydney would have lost. Plus both of them are past it. Rohan and Hannebery were both woefully out of form before their injuries and they're going to rush Hannebery back into the seniors on their own admission because they're lacking leadership (which is covering for the truth, which is their kids are faltering). Sydney deserves respect, but in context.

I'm in favour of it, but I agree with those who are concerned about how the AFL would implement it. It can be done through video review, and only incidents which force players from the field for the rest of the game in contention for a red card. So it would be used exceptionally rarely. But, in cases like Gaff or Bugg, if you hit someone and they can't take any further part in the game, why should your team get the benefit of an extra rotation? Have that player sit the game out on the bench, leaving it 18v18 on the field and 21v21 including benches. Whether the AFL could make that work is a legitimate concern, though.

Not fussed about Hannebery or Rohan. Both were stinking it up before their respective injuries. Hannebery hasn't had time to heal his body, the Swans have admitted they're going to effectively rush him back into the seniors because they want him there and not playing NEAFL.

I believe it was our best first quarter since 1972 and our fourth best ever.

The strangeness of this season is evident in my thoughts on this week's game. I feel that if we win, we're every chance to run the table and win all three. But I simultaneously feel like if we lose, we're every chance to lose all three. If we win, we'll have won 5 out of 6, we'll have released significant pressure in beating a finals contender and a side we haven't beaten in 7 years, and we'll also be nearly-locked in for finals. I can see us taking that confidence, and without the ongoing pressure to qualify for finals, going to Perth and knocking off a Naitanui/Gaff/Kennedy-less West Coast. If we do that, I can see us taking that momentum through to GWS. If we lose, we'll slip down to the bottom of the 8. We'll be level with North and probably Geelong (i.e. only % out of 10th). We won't have confirmed our finals spot and then the trip to Perth suddenly takes on huge meaning: lose it, and we'll be doing the whole "need to win Round 23" thing again. I just have so much riding on this week's game. I wouldn't be calling any of this "probable", though. If Geelong wins all three, Hawthorn has to beat Sydney. But if Hawthorn beats Sydney, Sydney has to beat us and GWS (at Spotless). Alternatively if Port wins two they have to beat at least one of West Coast and Collingwood at the G. I think it's far more likely that at least two of the above fail (whether that's Hawthorn losing two, or Port losing two, or Sydney losing two, or North losing one). For us to miss on 13, pretty much every 8-point game has to go against us.

Should get 7. That way, even if West Coast play four finals, he can't get back this year.

He's looking straight at him before he does it. Spare me.

It just cannot be less than the 6 weeks Bugg got. There is no aspect of it that is "better" than what Bugg did. So that's the starting point.

Sitting in the members it felt and looked like it was going to be well above 25,000. So it was disappointing to hear it was only 23,072. If we get that weather again next week I'd hope for at least 10,000 more for a Sydney game.