titan_uranus

Agreed, we're obviously coming off a different and better performance this year compared to last.

We made 5 changes after the Darwin game last year. Vince got suspended and Kent hurt his shoulder, but we then dropped three more players (Pedersen, Wagner and J Smith), bringing largely running players (Watts, Tyson, Viney, Salem, Trengove). I won't be surprised if we see three changes this week.

Last week most results went our way, but so far this round with Geelong, North and Hawthorn winning, it's the opposite. Ideally we need Collingwood and West Coast to win as that gives us a two-game and 30% buffer over Essendon and Adelaide. At this point reducing the number of sides who can take our spot in the 8 is better than sides above us losing and opening up a spot in the top 4 we're not good enough to take. Currently both Collingwood and West Coast are losing, though.

I’d hazard a guess that this wasn’t because we didn’t have options but instead because Freo had one or two extra men, and Viney was trying not to do the usual “long to the goal square pack mark attempt” kick. Agree - couldn’t tell last night on the TV but certainly last week every forward started at least 30m from goal and most then move fowards. No one available to lead up at the kick coming in. Needs to change IMO. If that’s true, I reckon that says a lot about our improved defensive running from last week. To me that suggests we worked harder to get the press moving side to side and up/down the ground when in defence. I’m the same on Stretch - I particularly liked his side steps and evasiveness. As to Frost, I’d like to see how he goes against a side which generates a bit more attack than Fremantle, but good signs first up. Can’t help but agree re: Darwin. I reckon every time a player comments on it they toe the party line, rather than sounding like they genuinely enjoy it.

And the elbow at that only became a thing because Walters took a dive. However, he just looked off tonight. Fresh air kick attempts instead of trying to pick the ball up, a couple of missed passes, and there was at least one other bad free kick against. He's just OK right now, nothing more. There is no way VDB is getting a game after one VFL game in 2.5 years. That's probably right. I still query whether we need Smith in the backline. But we absolutely should not be putting him anywhere near the forward line again given what he showed up there tonight.

6 - Oliver 5 - Brayshaw 4 - Gawn 3 - Salem 2 - Petracca 1 - Fritsch

No they weren't. It was greasy, and our forward line had almost 36 players in it at times. And we can be happy with "he ran and chased". People jump over each other to heap praise on Richmond's small forwards because of their running, chasing, tackling and pressure. We need that from Garlett just as much, if not more (given our other avenues to goal) than we need goals. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater on the topic of accuracy just yet. From 15 games this was only the fifth time we kicked more behinds than goals (and only the second time since Hawthorn in Round 5).

If Smith was surplus to our defensive needs this week then no point playing him next week, so I expect him to be dropped. Not sure who gets his spot, but I think a running player over a tall.

Positives and negatives to take from that. We absolutely dominated them for 95% of the game. We were clinical through the middle, we out-ran them, our press held up, and we clearly tried (although didn't always succeed) to lower our eyes going inside. Oliver was outstanding, Brayshaw great, Petracca improved, and both Stretch and Garlett were welcome additions (Stretch in particular, his side steps were excellent). And our percentage jumped nearly 3%. On the other hand, too many of the same problems were still there. We still press so high that our opponents score too easily in the space out the back. We still don't convert enough of our inside 50 dominance (+50 inside 50s should be a 154 point win, not a 54 point win). We still commit horrendous turnovers (Jetta to Mundy in the first quarter). Good to get the win and the percentage boost, and I think most of our selections worked out for the better, but clearly still plenty to work on. Did you watch the game Moonshadow, or are you just going from the stats? Fremantle's plan was to congest our forward line. There just wasn't room to move. It wasn't like we had oodles of space and Garlett wasn't able or willing to use it. He had little room to move. He ran, chased, tackled and pressured more than he was before he was dropped and certainly more than our forward line was doing the past three weeks. And he gave us another dimension to the forward line.

Agree that the AFL needs to be concerned with millennials and its younger fans in general, but not necessarily to the exclusion of all other demographics. I'm seeing equal proportions of older fans disengaging from the sport due to it not representing what they remember the sport looking like in the 70s, 80s and/or 90s. In fact, being a millennial myself, I have no problem with the state of the game currently and, moreover, I'm confident that the sport will right some of the less appealing modern traits (congestion, scrums) without the need for rule changes. As to the neutrals point, agree. But how does that tie into ratings? Neutrals are likely to only watch prime time games. The current trend in scheduling prime time games is to favour certain clubs over others and to preference big clubs over ideal match ups. We've had too many flops on Friday nights this year and so many of them were avoidable. We shouldn't be seeing Carlton or St Kilda next year and we should instead see more of us (provided we don't continue to fall into a giant hole), Port Adelaide, North Melbourne, GWS, Collingwood (yes, Collingwood) and other sides who showed in 2018 that they are capable of playing watchable football and winning games.

It's pretty much a lose-lose game. If we win, we'll either struggle (fail), or it'll be a ho-hum performance (fail), or we'll smash them, in which case it will be either "where was that last week" or "flat track bullies/pretenders" again.

I think 5 with our percentage should be enough. Still, for us to get those 5 requires us to beat at least two of Geelong (away), Adelaide (away), West Coast (away), Sydney and GWS. And that assumes we beat Fremantle and the Dogs in the next two weeks. Drop either of those and we have to find a third win from the five games above.

Geelong losing to the Dogs but then beating the Swans on a 6 day break is so...Geelong.

That was an absolute shocker. The protected zone 50 rule really needs to be overhauled/removed.

Daisy Pearce is hands down the best thing about this coverage. She actually does her job as a boundary rider by informing us of players coming off injured (idiots like Ling, Richardson and Watson just tell us what we've already seen). She also provides good insight and asks good questions in interviews. Agreed. Other than in games against us, of course, we need Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Port and (vomit) Collingwood to win as many games as possible, taking wins off our rivals for the final three spots in the 8. Also need some more upsets from the bottom 6. Brisbane getting an upset win over Adelaide or North at home, or Fremantle beating Hawthorn at home, would be useful.

How is that our best case scenario? If we make it from here (and I'm with you that it's looking unlikely), we're almost certainly going to have to beat Geelong in Geelong, Adelaide in Adelaide, West Coast in Perth or Sydney. Get a win (or two) out of those in our run home and our form would have to be alright.

You opened yourself up for this. This was you after we beat Gold Coast in Alice Springs last year:

People lament a lot more than just his goal-kicking accuracy. He's hesitant with the ball, he makes critical mistakes, so when you add that inaccuracy in, you have a small forward who blows up our scoring chains either by turning it over or missing. I will say though that his strengths are in running, tackling and pressure, so if we continue to struggle with the defensive side of things then I wouldn't be surprised to see him get another chance soon. I'm not a fan of Frost, nor of Stretch. Frost will turn it over or get caught holding the ball, and Stretch may well struggle with the contested side of the game. But I'm content to accept that those things will happen and back them in to fix us up in areas we know we need to be fixed in (run, carry, pace). Agree re: Tyson - he plays as an inside midfielder playing a high proportion of his game time in the middle four, or he doesn't play at all.

Because they have to say something! We've been over this. The coaches and the players do not have a choice, they are required to speak to the media. Your ideal for "nothing or next to nothing" is unachievable. It cannot, and therefore will never, happen. So instead of complaining that it's "all talk" every time Goodwin or a player makes a comment, let's accept that they have no choice but to do it and get back to discussing our form and the side.

Good selections IMO. Obviously looked to add pace and running and made the right calls on Hannan, Petty and Tyson. I'd be surprised if Frost plays forward; if he does that will be four consecutive changes in four weeks (Pedersen, T Smith, Weideman, Frost) in that third tall/second ruck spot. Chopping and changing that spot as much as we are isn't going to help the forward line much I don't think. Stretch hasn't played a good AFL game in a long time. FIngers crossed with his recent VFL form that this is his chance. I question how easy it is for a small forward to dominate at VFL level. Regardless, he had 7 tackles last week and his defensive pressure was the reason he was dropped in the first place. Surely it will be Frost (if he's actually playing forward) or TMac otherwise? Agree that we need to learn to lower our eyes and have more purpose to our inside 50 kick, but having small forwards should, if we play well, spread the forward line out and not have 4 players leaping at the same ball, which might help indirectly (not to mention some crumbing from the less effective kicks inside to help us score anyway). We'll find something.

Here we go again, just like the thread about Lewis on AFL360. Every time some posts "I'm sick of all the talk" or "you don't see words on the scoreboard", I want to punch the computer screen. People post as if the coaches and players have a choice and call the press conference themselves, like they're inviting the media to their house or something. It's almost the complete opposite. They're speaking because they are required to.

No doubt about that. The stats are doing a good job of showing the pros and cons of the style Goodwin has us playing - when we are on, we score heavily and the ball hardly goes into our opponent's forward 50. But when we're off, teams use the space we deliberately leave out the back to their advantage and find it too easy to score when they do get it inside their 50. When we think about how to improve our defence overall, the debate has to be much broader than simply looking at the back six.

That's not an answer. Covering ground is one thing, and ANB absolutely excels at it. Having an impact wherever you go, though, is another. Right now, ANB's getting all over the ground but having little impact doing it. He's been picked all year on the back of his running and we get that from him every week, but to be a better side we can't carry players who can only do one or two things well. We need ANB to offer us more than just gut running.

Presumably our inside 50 count against is much lower than 2017 too, @Skuit?

FFS. What exactly do you expect of him? He was asked the question, he answered it, and thankfully enough he answered it honestly. Do you think anyone in the club genuinely believes that by saying things, they happen, without having to actually do something about it?