titan_uranus

6 - Oliver 5 - Salem 4 - Garlett 3 - Jones 2 - Brayshaw 1 - Hogan

Dog act from Gaff. Just as with Bugg, deserves to be taken to the cleaners for this. Pathetic and disgusting. Hope Brayshaw is OK. Sounds at this stage like a broken jaw and broken teeth. Another perfect example of why a red card/send off system is a good idea.

Tom McCartin maybe? 192cm.

If Melksham is fit I'd bring him in for Smith and play Fritsch more in defence (we've had him down there and he's looked right at home). If Melksham's not fit then I think Wagner is the best option we have. I wouldn't be going with Hunt after just one VFL game, and I don't think Pedersen is the right sort of player against Sydney's forward line. I don't expect more than one change but if Melksham is fit but the FD wants someone else to play in Smith's role, then I'd drop JKH to make room for Melksham and then Wagner replaces Smith.

The game went the opposite of how I thought it would. I expected a crappy, low scoring first quarter followed by us pulling our socks up in the second and third. Instead, we played breathtaking football (even accounting for the low quality of the opposition) for the first 30 minutes and then took the foot off the pedal considerably. Some of the second and third quarters was just terrible from us. Too many turnovers but, worse, too many forward 50 forays breaking down at half forward (our biggest problem). That's nitpicking a bit but we should still be looking at how we can improve even when we win by 96. Thought Salem was outstanding today. Every time he goes near it I feel comfortable. A much harder edge has developed in his game. I was also impressed with Garlett's work rate - much better two-way running and he got involved a lot more as a result. I'm not sold on JKH and if we didn't have the injuries we do have, I wouldn't be playing him. I thought VDB was just OK, nothing special. Should get at least another game and another crack to get up to AFL speed but he's another who wouldn't be playing if we didn't have injuries. Terrible luck for Smith. I thought he showed something today, more than previous weeks. A lot more dash and a willingness to get involved in the offensive part of the game. Just awful to see him do the other shoulder. Really looking forward to Sydney. They can't score outside of Franklin and I think we match them well in the middle. But the pressure is right on us now and with Sydney's experienced heads also under pressure, it should be a ripper.

That truly was a terrible 50m penalty, though. But yes, evens up for the one paid to Westhoff against us.

I'd love to see a dominant first quarter, blowing them off the park. I'm expecting to see a skill-error filled first quarter with a small lead, followed by much stronger second and third quarters.

I don't agree that players around the ball equates to "bad look". But assuming that to be the case, I don't agree with the argument that the AFL has to change rules to fix it. We're already starting to see teams spread out across the field ever so slightly more than was the case at the start of the year. I'm confident the game will take care of itself whilst also providing exciting finishes. Doesn't the reverse also hold true? Just because some of the games this year have been low-scoring and/or congested with lots of stoppages, that doesn't necessarily mean the game is in a "bad condition", does it? I just do not agree that there is any sort of major problem associated with stoppages or congestion. I don't agree that it's a problem in the first place, but even if I did, I also wouldn't agree that rule changes are necessary to stop congestion/stoppages from occurring. I'd be in favour of fixing/removing the aforementioned dysfunctional rules, and to the extent they reduce congestion then so be it. But I'm against changing the way the game is played fundamentally (e.g. 6-6-6 or a larger goal square) specifically to combat those "issues". Isn't the idea that each club sends one person up and if the club stuffs it up and more than one person goes up, it's a free against? The overwhelming majority of the time it's obvious who the ruckmen are.

Can't agree with this. Firstly, the loser of 2v3 gets the winner of 6v7, not 5v8. Secondly, you have no idea who will finish 6/7 - could equally be Port. Thirdly, if Collingwood fails to make the top 4 and slumps to the bottom half of the eight, it will solidify what people are thinking about them already, which is that their injuries are catching up with them. Fourthly, if we finish 5th we could easily cop a trip to Port, West Coast or GWS in the second week of the finals, how is that a good thing? Fifthly, it it happens we'll have beaten Sydney, West Coast in Perth and GWS in consecutive weeks, then get a rest. Why wouldn't we be able to back that up with another strong performance in the first final?

Do you mean "aesthetic" things, or dysfunctional things? As to the dysfunctional, I agree - score reviews, protected zone, ruck nominations, the sliding tackle free, the holding the ball rule, all of that needs to be addressed. As to the "look of the game", though, I don't agree one bit.

It's not clear, though, and that's the problem. It's just not clear enough whether it hit the post or not. The goal umpire said it didn't and without obvious evidence that it did, he was in the best position of anyone to call it. The lesson to be learnt, yet again, is that the technology needs to be miles better than the sub-standard and inconsistent garbage that the AFL masquerades as a review system. But never mind that, let's get huge goal squares and 6-6-6 in because the game is in dire straits!

Fourth. GWS will go to 3rd, we'll pass each of Hawthorn, Collingwood, Port and Sydney on percentage.

Sydney looked better tonight but they were playing an injury-riddled Collingwood who haven't beaten anyone good other than us (and we haven't beaten anyone better than North). And Sydney still only managed 18 scoring shots (Collingwood had 21). I'm still confident we can beat them next week.

Definitely went through the goals. I wonder whether the reviewers thought the question was which side of the post it went through. They made that decision awfully quickly with only one camera angle.

What a ridiculously good round of football so far. F**k off Steve Hocking and let the game do its own thing.

Repeat games against Brisbane, Bulldogs, St Kilda and GC. They're 5-1 with two games to go against that group. To be fair, they've also beaten Hawthorn, Sydney (away), GWS and West Coast, which is a better resume than we've got.

We really need North to drop one of their last three. That will stop them getting to 14 and with the 17.2% gap between us that should mean 13 wins keeps us above them. But we need another team to stay on 13 wins in order to play finals. Geelong is one option, they just need to lose to Hawthorn next week and 13 is their limit (though the percentage gap between them and us is only 8.5% at the moment). Sydney is another - they can only lose once to make it to 14 and they have GWS on the road as one of them. So if they drop one more (and for us to get to 13 that should hopefully be their game against us), they'll also cap out at 13. The problems for us start with North running the table and moving to 14. If that happens, and if Geelong beats Hawthorn next week, the pressure ramps up for us. We'd then need Sydney to flop (losing to Collingwood tonight becomes very useful for us) but we probably also need Sydney to then knock Hawthorn off in the last round. Otherwise we're then starting to hope for Port or Collingwood to fall apart and only win once more out of their last four. Of course, if we just take destiny into our own hands and get to 14 ourselves, none of this matters.

That hurts. That's Brisbane's fifth loss this year by under 10 points.

Agree, but to be fair the WC game will be tougher, especially if we've lost to Sydney, and if we then lose to WC the GWS game will be a pressure-cooker off the charts for us. I don't think we'll see Viney again this season (finals or no finals), but I expect Melksham back next week and Hibberd back for WC. Most likely if we get to 13 we're only going to miss if North or Essendon win all four, or if we drop significant percentage in the two losses. As it stands, if we can hold our percentage at 125%, and if North drop just one game from here, we should be OK. In terms of our percentage, I'm confident we can maintain it - we've only had one loss by more than 10 points since ANZAC Eve (to Collingwood). But a big win this weekend would definitely help.

Our most recent games against weaker sides have not started well: we were losing to the Dogs and St Kilda at Quarter Time whilst we'd put up an error-riddled 2.9 to 2.0 against Fremantle. Before that, we were losing to the Dogs at QT the first game, too. We were only a goal up against Carlton and 3 points up against GC. We've really only had four stand out first quarters - 5.4 to 0.3 against Brisbane, 5.1 to 2.5 against St Kilda, 3.5 to 1.3 on the road against Port, and 7.1 to 3.1 against Adelaide the first time. In other words, I am not expecting us to blow GC off the park in the first quarter. But, on paper, if both sides play their absolute best, we will win this game by 100 points.

Observations: There is nothing wrong with the state of the game. The only reason it has been an "issue" this year is that Carlton, St Kilda and the Bulldogs were over-represented in prime time night football in the first half of the year (by my count, 12 games on Thurs/Fri/Sat night in the first half of the year featured at least one of those three sides). Geelong probably make the finals even if they lose to Hawthorn - they'll thump Fremantle and GC at home and that should mean 13 with a good percentage does it for them. Richmond are beatable at the G, but you have to play four quarters of excellent football to do it. We can all get around, in order, Brisbane, Adelaide, Carlton and Fremantle this weekend - no harm to us in any of those sides winning and their opponents are our direct competitors for ladder spots. I think we want Collingwood to win as it keeps Sydney at bay, but a Sydney win opens up the top 4 again for us (indeed, we'll pass Collingwood if we win tomorrow). I also think we want Essendon to win. I don't rate Essendon's chances of beating both of Richmond at the G and Port at the AO, which means they can beat Hawthorn and still finish on 13 wins with a weak-ish percentage. If Hawthorn lose today, they're still on 11 with games against Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney to come. They could then struggle to get to 13. It's ridiculous how tight 3-9 is on the ladder. I hadn't realised, but Collingwood was in danger of slipping all the way to 9th had Geelong won. Would require each of GWS, Port, Melbourne and Hawthorn to win, and for Sydney to beat them by 50-odd points, but still, it's insane to think that with a month to go the team 3rd on the ladder could drop out of the top 8 within one week.

If you are tall you have to be very good. If you are any height you have to be very good. A pretty meaningless argument. Spargo's 18 and played 11 games. He's shown more than enough in that time to suggest he can emulate what McDonald-Tipungwuti, or Caleb Daniel, or a host of those other players have been capable of.

Something is clearly off with these figures and as poita said above, there's nothing to be gained from comparing them when each club sells different products. The comparison needs to be standardised. Crowd attendances tell quite a different story. We have the 7th highest average home game attendance (in front of Geelong, Hawthorn, Carlton, St Kilda, Sydney), and that's despite two of our home games having been in the NT with under 10,000 each. We're 8th for attendances home/away, too (puts us above Hawthorn, Sydney, Port, St Kilda).

Not a bad extended bench. I'd be leaving the changes to just the one (AVB for Melksham), but I could accept Kent returning for Spargo.

Caleb Daniel and Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti are shorter than Spargo. Dayne Zorko, Paul Puopolo, Dion Prestia, Willie Rioli, Lewis Taylor, Eddie Betts, Hayden Ballantyne and Jack Lonie, amongst others, are all the same height as him. Allen Christensen, Orazio Fantasia, Jade Gresham, Billy Hartung, Jack Higgins, Rory Laird, Lachie Neale, Tom Papley, Cyril Rioli, Michael Walters and Devon Smith, amongst others, are all just one inch taller than him. Your argument that he is "too short" is completely unfounded.