titan_uranus

Nasher sums it up best: We had our lapse - the second quarter, in which they kicked 6 goals in about 20 minutes or something like that. We fell our standard 20-30 points behind. And then, when we clicked, we flipped the game on its head, played much better football than our opponent, and clawed the deficit back. Getting the lead in the third quarter was helpful to our momentum and confidence in the fourth. Petracca was incredible, OMac's second half gives us all something to at least get excited about (with the likely exception of @stevethemanjordan), Oliver lifted as the game went on. Hibberd is an absolute star, his spoil is what got the ball to Watts for the sealer and was just one of a series of important things he did. And as for the umpiring, that is the exact narrative Collingwood wants to drive post-game: that we "stole" it from them because of free kicks. That is rubbish. We won the game because we were better than they were for longer periods. They were on top for one quarter, we won the other three. We had a more even distribution across the ground, we learned from our mistakes and won the clearances in the second half, and we were cleaner with the ball than they were. Yes, there were some decisions which clearly went in our favour (Dunn did not chop TMac's arm, Hibberd didn't handpass it, etc.), but that's not why we won (just like it's never why we lose). We've now played 6 games since Spencer went down (with Gawn already injured), for a 4-2 record. Whilst the only strong side in that 6 was Adelaide, we also beat Essendon, GC and Collingwood, three sides who are thereabouts and fighting with us for a spot in the 8. So I rate our past 6 weeks, ruckless (and largely Hogan-less) as exceptional. And a shout out to Goodwin who made some key changes at half time. The biggest one IMO was moving Melksham off Pendlebury. Melksham was in at centre bounces in the first half which had us playing with only two real midfielders and I think that contributed to their clearance dominance. Not that I thought Melksham was that bad, and certainly Pendlebury was quiet, but I think we set up better in the stoppages after half time (moving TMac into the ruck and Pedersen forward was also important). I thought he was pretty average actually. We've seen some ruckmen get the better of us this year (e.g. McEvoy and Goldstein) but IMO it wasn't Grundy, it was their mids (and Treloar and Sidebottom in particular). I think taking Melksham off Pendlebury and getting three midfielders in there, coupled with our mids learning to read Grundy more as the game went on, is what shifted things. And around the ground I didn't think Grundy did much. IIRC, only two: Carlton and Essendon. I'll double check but I am confident in each of the other 9, we've been down by 20+.

He had a week off due to suspension, not injury, and his pre-suspension form was unarguably best 22. Wagner, meanwhile, was just OK at AFL level and plays the precise position Salem plays. With Melksham in better form than Wagner, I can't see the issue at all. Great, nonetheless, to read that Wager dominated for Casey, bouncing back from the demotion immediately. Keeps the pressure on the bottom 6 tomorrow. Also great to read that Weideman worked his way into some VFL form. Hopefully he learnt a lot in the seniors about what is required and we give him a long period at Casey to work on those things. Once we can get Hogan and Gawn/Spencer back into the side, we shouldn't need Weideman at AFL level (barring further injuries/suspensions) and we can leave him to develop.

Their double up games are against Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Adelaide and Fremantle. Ours are against Carlton, Collingwood, Adelaide, North Melbourne, St Kilda. Ours are worse, but not by that much.

27,000-odd attendance at the G in nice conditions on a Saturday afternoon. Biggest bandwagon membership of any club. Meanwhile I suspect there'll be some pressure from Gold Coast on a top 8 spot. Their next three games are against Carlton, St Kilda and North Melbourne.

Adelaide - 9 Brisbane - 1 Carlton - 5 Collingwood - 5 Essendon - 9 Fremantle - 2 Geelong - 9 Gold Coast - 2 GWS - 4 Hawthorn - 7 Melbourne - 4 (ANZAC Eve, West Coast (Saturday night in Perth), Sydney (Friday night), Adelaide (Saturday night in Darwin)) North Melbourne - 5 Port Adelaide - 4 Richmond - 7 St Kilda - 6 Sydney - 10 West Coast - 3 Western Bulldogs - 10 There will be two or three more games in Round 23 to add, plus finals of course. Puts us last of the Victorian clubs (all others get at least 5) and one of ours is the "special" Anzac Eve game. Source.

This season is very even but appears to me to be full of a lot of good-to-average sides who, on any given day, can beat the better sides but can also produce poor football. I'd have GWS, Adelaide, Port, Geelong and the Dogs as the top 5, Brisbane, Carlton and Hawthorn as the bottom 3, and everyone else is the 10 in between (I can still see a Sydney charge, although at 3-7 it may well be too late for them to do anything). Richmond is much better than last year but have had hardly any injuries and have won some soft games (Brisbane, Carlton, us with two on the bench for a half, etc.). I think they're close to certainties to make the finals given their draw from here but I can't see them standing up in the finals against any of the above five teams. Collingwood's three consecutive wins have been against two bottom 3 sides (Hawthorn and Brisbane, and in both games they struggled in periods) and Fremantle, the competition's biggest pretender in terms of ladder position (and got them without Sandilands which makes them significantly worse). Still, they won on the road and with 2 down on the bench which is something many teams would have struggled with. I'm confident we are a better side than them, we match up well on them, and we should be fresh after the bye with them coming back from Perth having not had their bye yet. All of which screams "Melbourne should win" which generally means "Melbourne end up losing". At the very least, the crowd should be large, which would be nice. Dunn's winning percentage over his career is 27.65%. Treloar's is 30%. Big difference.

West Coast's final play from Wright's behind was as bad as anything Richmond did in its close losses. Around one minute to go, Hurn kicks short to Mitchell. Mitchell uses up 10 seconds or so then kicks short to the boundary line. Hill then rushes the kick down the line straight to GC's best mark, Tom Lynch. Eagles without Kennedy are just an average side at best (even with him they're not that good).

Robertson's right-angle bounce to get us into the finals in 2005. Jeff White's goal to get us over the Dogs the week before. Salem's goal to beat Essendon in 2014. Oliver this year. Jurrah off his back. Wonaeamirri to take the lead against Fremantle.

They host Gold Coast at the G next Saturday arvo. I don't think there will be 20,000 people there. Their supporters are more bandwagon than any other club's. They might have 70,000 members or however many, but a solid 50% of them are only there because of the premierships and are less invested in the club than the stereotypical Melbourne supporter people routinely make fun of.

Tippett is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most over-rated player in the AFL presently. A complete and utter spud.

The list as published on the AFL website: Angus Brayshaw Concussion Indefinite Lochie Filipovic Hip flexor 1-2 weeks Colin Garland* Knee Season Max Gawn Hamstring 4 weeks Jesse Hogan Cancer Indefinite Pat McKenna Hamstring 10-12 weeks Christian Salem Suspension Available Joel Smith Shoulder 4 weeks Jake Spencer Shoulder 2 weeks Aaron vandenBerg* Heel 8 weeks

Great post. We have been on top in general play (and by that I mean time in possession, stoppages, inside 50s etc.) for significant periods (and indeed, against Geelong, Fremantle and Richmond for longer than our opponent). But in those periods we have failed to convert the on-field dominance into scoreboard dominance. Then, whether it's goals out the back (Fremantle) or our pressure and intensity slipping (Geelong, Richmond), our opponent scores goals in the small(er) periods we're not dominating the play. As you say, the longer the same group of players play together, learn together and grow together, (hopefully) the sooner the patches of inconsistency will disappear and the more we will convert our general play dominance into scoreboard dominance.

I can't wait. Gawn/Spencer as the number 1 ruckman, Hogan and Watts as the two permanent marking forwards (both of whom can, if/when necessary, be pushed up into the middle to get their hands on the ball and change the dynamic) and Pedersen the hard-working third tall who provides the ruck relief (sparing Watts, which he and the side needs). Weideman to challenge Pedersen for his spot in the long-term (though that will mean Watts returns to the relief ruck role which I don't like). Because he is clearly best 22 and we're not in a position as a club to be over-punishing players. He did his time, now he comes back.

It's MFCSS to simply say we beat Adelaide because they were "napping". Gives us no credit when the performance warranted it. Port's stats are good. They're a finals-bound side, IMO. But we play them in Melbourne and as I said, they haven't beaten a top 8 side except Fremantle who aren't that good. The point isn't "we will win more than 6 games", it's that there is no game on the schedule that we should be writing off and saying "we cannot beat X". For that reason, no particular game worries me any more than any other.

Agree, he's great. It's even better because he usually gets the "dud" Saturday game, twilight or night game. Which is a game we frequently feature in!

GWS had 10 best 22 players out yesterday. West Coast are average. We've already beaten Adelaide once and we didn't "catch them napping", North did that the week prior, they were on the rebound if anything. The only top 8 side Port Adelaide has beaten is Fremantle (their percentage of 81.5% says it all about their credentials). The point is, we can beat any club this year at our best. Each of the remaining 12 games will come down, IMO, to how we approach it. At our best, we can win all 12. At our worst, we can lose all of them. I'm not writing off wins against West Coast, Adelaide or GWS, just like I'm not pencilling in wins against Carlton, Collingwood, Brisbane or North.

Best game so far: Adelaide. Only one other visiting side has gone within 10 goals of them and that was GWS (56 points). And we played absolutely sublime football. Worst game so far: Fremantle - if we miss finals by a game, this will be the one I come back to as the one that got away, more so than Hawthorn or North. Most improved player: Garlett A player who needs to lift: Someone like Kent is an obvious option but of the "best 22" players, I say Jack Watts. Not all his fault (e.g. the ruck situation) but IMO 2016 showed he has a lot more to offer than he is currently providing. Who is currently leading the Bluey?: Oliver Best recruit: Hibberd (no contest, even with the positives Lewis has brought. Hibberd is a top 5 recruit in 2017, unless your name is Rohan Connolly and you're too thick to even mention him). Will we make the finals?: If the question was "can we make the finals?", the answer is a clear "Yes". We are good enough to beat anyone, anywhere, and we're only marginally out of the 8 as it stands. But the evenness of the competition, and our uncanny ability to lose the games we should win, gives me no confidence whatsoever in saying we will make finals. But to get off the fence, I'll say: Yes.

It does seem we've developed a good degree of resilience this year. We were 24 points behind St Kilda (won by 30), 24 behind Fremantle (had the lead with 90 seconds to play), 35 behind Hawthorn (drew level in the fourth), 28 behind Adelaide (won by 41) and 26 behind North (margin reduced to 2 points in the fourth).

I'm not trying to say the fact we beat Adelaide makes us the best team in the league or anything like that. But in a season where the closest margin from any other visiting side this year is GWS' 56 point loss in Round 1, our 41-point win should serve as a reminder to all of what we are capable of.

If you're not prepared to accept that we can play well and lose (which you were not after our loss to West Coast last year), you (and you're not the only one) are IMO hypocritical in arguing that we can play poorly and win. You either need to put aside today's 2.5 quarters of tripe or, alternatively, next time we play well but lose, acknowledge the positives in that loss.

Currently equal-third on 23. Port and Adelaide both on 27 (Adelaide with one left to play). GWS is also on 23 so could go past us but no one else can so we will end the round on fourth, most likely.

Meanwhile Adelaide currently 15.20.110 to Fremantle 3.1.19. Midway through the third. Let us (players and fans) never forget we beat Adelaide by 7 goals in Adelaide.

The story of our season so far seems to be that we dominate general play for large portions of games, but don't capitalise on that dominance. So we get lots of clearances, lots of inside 50s, lots of the ball, spend lots of time in possession, but don't put it on the scoreboard. Then we turn off for periods of games and in those moments our opponents often score heavily. So we end up with the stats in our favour from being better in general play for longer, but we don't always end up with the win because we don't kick enough goals from our periods of dominance.

If you're going to focus on the negatives in a win, that's fine, but I don't think it stacks up with ignoring the positives in losses. That's all. Agree. We've only won 4 first quarters this year (but, by contrast, we've won 7 third quarters). I do like our resilience, we've fought back from 4+ goal leads a number of times now. But the fact we're doing that is a sign of our inability to play four quarters, consistently struggling early but righting the ship late (sometimes too late).

I don't think that decision against Short was the right decision as the rules stand. However, if it is the right decision, it's an example that the rule is wrong and needs to be fixed.