titan_uranus

What's the bet the MRP decides Martin's strike was of insufficient force and he doesn't cop a week?

Sydney, Port, Richmond, West Coast, Essendon and the Dogs all won this week, which doesn't help us. St Kilda losing does, though, and they are a good chance of losing their next two as well, and falling to 9-9. Beating Port will make a huge difference to our finals chances.

Haven't seen anything other than the highlights (which for some stupid reason don't include Hunt's torp). It seems that, from the stats and the comments from some on here, we competed well in the middle and at the contest but lacked class and finish when going inside 50, resulting in too many turnovers and easy transition for Adelaide. Given we we playing off our fourth 6-day break in 5 weeks, and we were missing Jones, Viney, Salem, Watts and Tyson, and had a stack of NQRs and players returning from long backs in the side to replace them, the above description of the game makes perfect sense to me. Granted, I haven't seen the mistakes of players like Frost, Melksham, OMac and Kent that are being discussed but surely the circumstances make the performance at least understandable. No doubt for mine the most disappointing thing is Vince surely getting suspended for that elbow on Betts. Absolute rubbish from him. Terrible season and I'm not convinced he's best 22 right now. Getting Watts, Tyson and maybe Viney back next week is going to help considerably. If we lost to Port we have to bank the North, St Kilda, Brisbane and Collingwood games to make finals and given our recent form against North and St Kilda, I don't like the prospect of doing that. A win against Port takes a huge amount of pressure off us.

Having the 4th highest average attendance is huge, IMO. It doesn't matter whether it's home or away that is driving that (our away games are obviously helping given we're 7th for average home attendance) - we get the 4th most people at the ground watching us play and that is exposure that is relevant to sponsorship and to the AFL when determining which clubs draw crowds. The fact we're 7th for home crowds despite having had the Alice Springs game is also pleading, I think. We still get more people to our home games than the Perth clubs, the Dogs, Geelong, Sydney, Hawthorn and St Kilda (as well as the Sydney clubs, the Queensland clubs and North, but those are less surprising). Edit: by way of interesting comparison (and a sign of the growth since PJ took over) - in 2013 the club played in front of 24,974 on average. This year we average playing in front of 42,070. That's a 68% increase. Edit 2: even last year we were only playing in front of 30,977 on average.

I'd prefer to see what happens this year before making a call on the impact of the week off before finals. If the two teams who get the week off into the prelims then both lose their prelims, I'll support the argument that the week off before finals is diluting the benefit of finishing top 4. Until then, last year was an aberration.

Where, exactly? (Sorry, I know this isn't a Forum Help thread).

Indeed, but that of course assumes we beat North, as well as Brisbane and Collingwood. I can see an argument which says we beat one of Adelaide or GWS but still manage to lose to North. I'd like to see us win one of the Adelaide/Port games to take the pressure off the North game - if we lose both, we'll be on a 2 game losing streak and will have lost 3 from 4 going into that game, we'll be slipping down the ladder (if not already out of the 8) and the pressure will be right on us to win. Maybe that will spur us on to beat the Roos though.

We are as likely, if not more, to miss the finals altogether than make the top 4. I'm confident, though, that so long as we finish in the top 8 we can do damage. We can win a final from 8th, even if we are on the road (6-1 away from the G this year and 3-0 interstate so far).

We're going to turn it over from playing on too quickly because our aim is to play on as often as possible. It's always going to lead to the occasional error in judgment but by and large we look much better when we move the ball quickly and take the game on rather than sit behind the mark and let opposition sides flood back (especially teams like Carlton who are pretty good at it, too). Agree that we don't get behind the mark quickly enough but that problem is getting better as the year goes on and it's nowhere near as bad as previous years. As to the tackling I'm not convinced there is a long term issue there. We didn't have a great tackling day yesterday but it's not something that has been an ongoing issue and given we've consistently been ranked highly for "pressure acts" which measure tackles and our ability to pressure opponents without tackling, I'm not as concerned about that as I am about some other things (primarily the continued problem of too many players going up in defensive marking contests and too many turnovers by foot).

I'm far more of a supporter of Lewis than Vogon or TGR but I find it funny how many people point to him getting ANB to pass him the ball in the final minute is proof that he's a star. It was absolutely a good piece of leadership from him but that on its own doesn't really do much to support the argument that he's adding much to the side. FWIW, I thought he played a lot better yesterday than in previous weeks. He had one abysmal turnover that reeked of a Vince-like lack of care, but he copped a lot of flak from not just the fans but the Carlton players, physically, and unlike last time he wore it properly and focused on getting the ball and playing a role as an inside midfielder which we sorely needed.

I'm pretty angry about this. The Carlton coward has a crack at Oliver and then didn't like copping a response. What did he say, "touch me again and I'll kill you" - what, we all worry that Oliver would jump the fence and attack him? It's an admittedly aggressive response to a fl*g being aggressive towards him but it's wasn't racist, it wasn't sexist, it wasn't homophobic, and it was in response to being unnecessarily pushed/touched/shoved. I see no reason for Oliver to have to apologise which implies the coward deserved an apology of any kind.

People calling for Hogan to be dropped are just the same old people who criticised him all through last year and early this year. It was his first game back, he was clearly rusty but not as bad as some are suggesting and he played a role, albeit not a stellar one - but as is the classic problem for Hogan, he set such a high bar early that his critics expect/demand him to dominate each week. Ridiculous calling for him to be dropped. Absolutely ridiculous. Sorry but no. Having said that, Melksham is playing a solid role at the moment and I don't see him being dropped (yet, anyway).

6 - Jetta 5 - TMac 4 - Oliver 3 - Frost 2 - Petracca 1 - ANB

If Oliver said something racist, sexist or homophobic, I'd be concerned. Otherwise, that Carlton fan can take his cowardice and f**k right off. If you're going to sit front row and sledge 19-year-old opposition players, don't cry when you cop something back your way. Seriously, a storm in a teacup (subject to my first sentence above, but there's no evidence of that being an issue I don't think).

Couldn't West Coast have just given us one week in the top 4? Just one? I reckon every result went against us this week (Essendon won, Sydney won, St Kilda won, Port beat West Coast). Still, our season is in our hands, not anyone else's.

I had convinced myself we were going to lose this game going into it, so the result was pleasantly surprising. Obviously them being two rotations down in the second half affected them, even more so given one was Cripps, but we had a second/third-string midfield out there at times so it's not like we were able to take major advantage of that. Hogan and Smith were both obviously rusty, but I thought Hogan's leading was really good and he made TMac's life a little easier. Jetta was phenomenal, may well have saved us the game with that final effort. We needed a lift through the middle and we got that from Oliver and Petracca, with able support around them. As for the leaders, Lewis made a couple of horrendous, embarrassing mistakes but he also wore immense physical pressure from them all day and took hit after hit. He put his body on the line when he needed to and he was obviously smart in that final play. Vince, on the other hand, I thought was putrid. If we had our best 22 available I don't know if I'd have Vince in the side. Stretch is sh*tting himself at the sight of physical pressure and it's costing us. Far too fumbly and just cannot win a hard ball. Kent improved as the game went on, I'd certainly give him another game. I also thought Wagner was much improved on last week. Ultimately, we beat a side that is difficult to beat, at a ground we're losing at more than we're winning, with the pressure of knowing a loss would send us out of the 8, without 5 of our best 10 players. That, to me, is a huge positive, even if the quality of our performance was low.

I reckon posters who are calling for Walker to be suspended are only doing it because we play Adelaide next week. He was shepherding, completely within the rules. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Meanwhile they lost to Brisbane last week. Having said that, I'm concerned about their draw and they're only one win behind us if we lose tomorrow. They will be putting a lot more pressure on us for a top 8 spot than the Dogs, I reckon. They beat Adelaide in Adelaide two weeks ago and drew with GWS today. With no Birchall, Frawley, Gibson, O'Meara, Puopolo, Rioli or Stratton either. IMO they're capable of doing it, though I think ultimately they'll fall short. Sydney, Essendon and Hawthorn are all going to push the top 8 and if we drop tomorrow's game we are going to feel that pressure as much as any other top 8 club.

Hoping for a bench of Stretch, Trengove, Smith and then one of JKH/Kent. I see no need for Weideman with Hogan returning and I think Wagner deserves to be dropped after last week's performance. Smith to help off half-back allowing Lewis/Vince to move into the middle. Trengove to also provide half-back/midfield rotations. Stretch to get one more game (mainly because his running is elite and we looked tired last week) but if he doesn't pull his finger out he won't stay. Then either JKH or Kent depending on whether we need more forward (Kent) or midfield (JKH) rotations.

I can't argue against the general proposition that he's not adding a whole lot on the field. His form doesn't presently allow it. But I think you're being unnecessarily and unfairly harsh with some of the other comments like this one, or the one about his "financial advisor" and his super. I don't think, after the body of work he has built up over his career, he deserves that sort of commentary. Certainly given he was pushed out of Hawthorn more than he walked away for money, I don't think it's fair and it's not necessary given there's plenty to have a go at him for in terms of what he's doing on the field.

If Tyson is out this week as well, I'd have thought this is as good a chance as any to try Trengove out. He's either going to play through the middle as an inside mid or he's going to play Vince/Lewis' role off half-back whilst they are put into the middle. I doubt it. I think we now know that the JKH/Kennedy/Kent saga caused the FD to have to make something up on the run to cover for Garlett, and they tried using Hunt in that role and replacing him with White. Failed, but probably wouldn't have happened if those others were available.

Clearly 5, arguably 7 of our best 10 players on that list.

Whilst I think a lot of your criticism of him throughout the year has been unnecessarily harsh, I agree with the general premise that he's underperforming, and I also agree that this weekend is a big game for him in the circumstances. Win or lose, if he doesn't step up I'll be disappointed.

I can't decide whether the stupidity or the lack of professionalism/drive frustrates me more. Didn't any of them want to be picked for the seniors? Didn't any of them even think they were a chance to be picked for the seniors?

That's because they're all largely developing in the seniors, which is in no small part because of our injuries.

The problem I have with it is that none of them seemed to want to be picked in the seniors, or had the belief in themselves that they might get picked. Knowing we have a rule which prevents drinking on a 6-day break, they shouldn't have needed to know there were injuries to the seniors before making a decision on whether or not to go drinking that night. They chose to go out and drink either disregarding the rule and hoping they wouldn't be caught (bad) or making a decision that they didn't think they could be picked without injuries, or they didn't want to be picked. A lack of drive, a lack of professionalism, and ultimately just disappointing. FWIW, I have no problem with players having a drink or a dart or whatever they want to do in their own time provided the club has limits on how it affects the performance of the side. The club's put in place a rule which forbids drinking on a six-day break. Sounds eminently reasonable to me, and clearly we are comfortable with drinking on longer breaks as today's winery function shows.