titan_uranus

Win this week and we’ll have won 5 in a row for the first time since 2006 (rounds 10-15).

Agree entirely. The game countered Sydney's mid-2000s "ugly" football with the late-2000s/early-2010s skill of Geelong and, then, Collingwood's press. The press was countered with Hawthorn's "web". That was countered with the Dogs' run-and-gun approach. That was countered with Richmond's aggressive mauling around the contest. The game will evolve from this, like it always does. The way the game is being played leaves a huge amount of space. I can easily see teams starting to take a number out of the contest and hang them on the "fat side" of the ground, instructing inside mids to go to that spot with the clearance. We might have been experimenting with Stretch in such a role on ANZAC Eve, possibly. All this talk is just knee-jerk crap (which the AFL loves), OTT media hyping (to fill news columns) or, with the greatest respect, people who yearn for "the good old days". I'd support this. I don't know how much difference it would make, given that most of the time once the player is down then the ball isn't coming out so the same result is achieved, but it might assist in the ball coming out from a tackle more often. At any rate, it is completely unnecessary to have two or three extra players jump on a player on the ground.

Love this thread, Skuit. Out of interest, where are you getting these stats from?

Happy bump.

Quite an incredible thing to have happened. The team has had a "win at all costs" attitude for a while now and something bad (not necessarily this bad, though) was always going to happen. Possibly the most galling part about all this is Smith's reaction. He seemed to think that by fronting up to the media and apologising, that would make it all better. I suspect he genuinely thought at that press conference that it was something he could push behind him and people would forget about, hence his comment about not standing down (and the way he said it). Smith's career is over, I can't see how he can come back from this - will anyone look at him the same, captain or not, again? Warner breeds the "win at all costs" mentality and isn't any help to the side. Lyon, i think, is the same. CA needs to properly work out who was involved. Any player who was involved should be stood down and, possibly, sacked/never selected again. Lehmann should resign before he gets sacked (if he knew, then he knew. If he didn't know, he should have). For the fourth Test, Smith, Bancroft and Warner mustn't play, nor should Starc, Hazlewood or Lyon unless it can be determined they had no role to play. Fly over replacements, put up a competitive and legal fight, then once it is all over a proper assessment needs to take place. New captain, new coach, new leadership model.

Has to be a concern. If Dangerfield doesn't play though, it lessens the impact.

Nothing dangerous about using 66 on a player like Balic. If it's another Riley/Michie/Newton/Kennedy trade, then so be it. At least we haven't given up trying. But we've bought low given his personal issues so if he does turn out to display what it seems he was promising pre-draft, then this could end up being a good get for 66. I look forward to watching him over the summer and to see how/where he fits into the 22, if at all.

Neither OMac nor Frost showed enough this year for any of us to be 100% convinced. I'm much more positive about OMac than, say, STMJ, but I still accept that he isn't anything certain. Bringing Lever in will likely make his job much, much easier. It also allows us to do one, and maybe both, of two things: play TMac forward (his best football in 2017 was, in my view undoubtedly, as a forward); and release Hibberd, who spent too much time this year being forced to play as the third tall. Until a quality midfielder becomes available, this is a nothing argument. There isn't currently a midfielder available who promises what Lever promises. Besides which, I think if we bring Lever in and can release Hibberd further up the ground that will assist with part of our current midfield problem. That said, I don't believe Lever is worth two first round draft picks. I think Adelaide is posturing, and fair enough too, but if that becomes the true asking price I wouldn't pay it.

I feel like this thread has reached the point where people don't want Lever because STMJ wants him.

Watching him closely tonight. Playing really, really well so far. Exciting.

Legitimate question though: when he's been "brilliant", where has he been playing? Forward or back? IMO, most of his good games this year were in the forward line.

This is the most interesting post on this thread.

Regardless of what you think of Lever (he's one of the competition's genuine stars) and of OMac (he's far, far better than STMJ claims and he's much improved on last year), if Lever wants to play for us then, provided we don't jeopardise our ability to retain our core talent over the next 5 years, we do that deal.

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 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.

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.

We're also +3 in the W-L record for the first time since 2006. We won 6 in a row in 2006. We won 7 in a row in 2000 (and 1998) if you include the two finals wins. Otherwise, we last won 7 home and away games in a row in 1990 (ended up 8 in a row with the first final win). I've just looked through this. Jones debuted in Round 17, 2006. He's missed 6 games since then, including last night. We'd lost them all until last night. That means until last night we hadn't won a game without Nathan Jones playing since before he debuted (which was Round 15, 2006 (we beat Richmond on a Friday night).

I actually thought he was just OK. A bit fumbly and didn't take clean possession every time, along with some turnovers by foot.

Yep. Snaps a 9-game losing streak vs West Coast, a 9-game losing streak vs West Coast at Domain, and a 17-game losing streak at Domain in general.

We won three in a row last year - Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide. That was clearly too much for us as we then proceeded to lose to Carlton.

If the general premise is that Tyson is not currently playing very well, I agree. I'm not sure I accept the argument that he's an inherently flawed player as I've seen more than enough from him to suggest he can be a vital part of our midfield moving forward. But right now his kicking is off and he's moving too slowly (both physically, in terms of legspeed, and mentally, in terms of decision-making). Not sure how I feel about calling him "senior". He's 23 and has played 75 games. At this club, that probably makes him "senior", but at any other club it wouldn't I don't think. Tyson has at least begun to kick on his right - he did it on Monday. I can't recall Viney using his right this year. What does "GWS knew which one to let go" mean? They've lost, what, 30 players? Did they "know" to let Treloar, Adams, Boyd, Bruce, Hombsch or Steele go?

After three Tests and two days of hard work to put ourselves in with a chance to win a series in India, or at least draw it, one bad day of cricket means it's all over. Getting bowled out for just 127 in well under a day is a brutal way to end what has otherwise been a strong series. The Saha-Jadeja partnership gave India a lot of confidence in circumstances where, if Renshaw had held that catch, they might have been all out by stumps last night 50 runs behind. Finally, if we're going to drop an in-form Khawaja from the series to play a "specialist" in S Marsh (who played, what, one innings of note in four Tests?), we should be dropping Warner the next time. Literally one decent innings from him all series.

One we can break on Sunday - a win will mean we have two more wins than losses. That hasn't happened since the end of the 2006 season. I believe we were in the 8 after Round 1, 2015 when we beat Gold Coast. Other than that, not since Round 14 2011.

I genuinely thought we were no chance of batting out the day. Handscomb and Marsh haven't been amazing this tour so far but they stood up when needed. We should take some confidence from that performance, not a typical Australian Day 5 batting performance on the subcontinent. Kept the bowlers off the field all day too, extra day's rest, given the next Test starts at the end of the week.

8 overs to bat out tonight, 152 behind. I smell a collapse coming up.