titan_uranus

I don't need to watch the game to make this point. It is clear we were terrible for the first 2.5 quarters. When we lose but play well, you are one of a few people who often post about how the way we play is irrelevant or not important when we lose. It seems, to me, that it is hypocritical to say that when we play poorly but win, the way we played is relevant.

But aren't you one of those posters, like old dee and beelzebub, who often talks about how the only important stat is the W-L ratio and that there's no such thing as "honourable losses"? If, when we lose, you only talk about the loss and ignore what might have been positive about the performance, I feel like you should acknowledge the importance of the win even if we played tripe for 2.5 quarters.

Just out of interest, why does one getting all their possessions on the outside stop them being an A-grader? We don't need every single midfielder to be a contested ball freak and none of them to be any good in uncontested link-up play. I also dispute the proposition that Tyson "gets all his possessions on the outside" but that's a different story. FWIW, Tyson's just an average player IMO. B-grade at his best.

Haven't seen the game so it's impossible to comment but surely it's a positive when we only play for 1.5 quarters and win by 7 goals? Sounds like, for the 10th game out of 10 this year, the game was played on our terms: when we were "on", we dominated, when we were "off", we stunk. Again, can't know without having the game, but I suspect there is a healthy dose of MFCSS in the whole "the second half was only because GC stopped". They had the bye last week, surely it wasn't the fact that they hit a wall or something. I'd be confident that the second half was us lifting far more than it was GC dropping.

None worse than Brad Sewell. Every comment was about Sydney's problems or the great things Hawthorn was doing. I feel like commentary these days is becoming increasingly influenced by bias.

Meanwhile Hawthorn jump from second-bottom to just a game behind 6th (although they have an insipid percentage which keeps them another game behind).

Callum Mills' two massive errors in the fourth (the rushed kick for goal which would have put them 2 goals up and then the turnover which led to Roughead's goal) arguably lost the game for Sydney. Not sure what to make of that. Sydney was a man down from the start and two down for the second half but probably still should have won.

Bontemptelli, Kelly, Cripps, Merrett, Brown, Hunt and Lobb I would say can't be disputed. The rest can. It is, as always, very subjective.

Nope, not noise, facts. Stats are facts. Doesn't detract from the fact we're 4-5, which is the most important stat of them all, but the stats I posted above are facts. There are various conclusions to be drawn or arguments to be made about what, if anything, they mean, but they are the facts which sit behind the 4-5.

Franklin is playing out of his mind. Pity the rest of his side is playing a bit average (two injuries doesn't help). I don't like Sydney at all but I detest Hawthorn. I'd rather a situation in which Sydney make the finals from 0-6 and Hawthorn finish bottom 4 in a sh!t year than a year in which Hawthorn bounce back and tell everyone their list is actually good and their list management decisions were correct.

The changes seem reasonable, Melksham for Salem makes sense, Harmes for Kent also makes sense. Dropping Weideman is justifiable given the lack of impact he's having on games. ANB can play as a forward but I'd have preferred Stretch for his run (and for the fact that he didn't seem to deserve being dropped in the first place). This game, like every other game for the rest of the year, will come down to us. If we are on, if we play four quarters, we will win. But if we're not on, or if we don't play four quarters, we can easily lose. Right, so Adelaide's out of finals contention too? Geelong lost to Collingwood and Gold Coast, so I suppose they're done as well?

A few stats to ponder over: We've won the 4th most quarters of any side. We have the lowest average losing margin in the league and the 6th highest average winning margin. We're 5th for points scored, behind only Adelaide, Geelong, GWS and Port Adelaide. We're 9th for points against, in front of Adelaide, St Kilda, Geelong and Essendon. 5th-highest percentage in the league, as a result. We've used 33 players so far, equal-third (behind Sydney on 35 and Richmond 34, equal with Hawthorn and Essendon). We have the second-highest average disposals per game and the third-highest average tackles per game. Second-highest contested possession count per game. Equal-fourth in average clearances, third in average centre clearances, but 18th in hit-outs per game. Third-highest goal-kicking accuracy (55.3%).

But we know it doesn't work like this. We beat Adelaide in Adelaide which is a more difficult proposition than any of those "hard" games you've listed. We are capable of winning any of those games, just like we are capable of losing to anyone else.

He has great ability and at his best is a dynamic player who adds a great deal to the side. But he's lazy, he doesn't work hard enough, and his worst is pathetic. Unfortunately, he's trending towards the "worst" side of form right now. Deserves to be dropped for the lazy performance on Sunday and his future rides on whether or not he is willing and/or able to commit to working harder. I fear, if not, he won't make it.

I'm leaning towards Harmes and Stretch replacing Salem and Kent. Get Stretch to run off half-back and up the wings all day. Harmes to provide minimal impact across half-forward which unfortunately is an improvement on the nothing Kent is giving us. I'm not sure on Weideman. Given he's not impacting games it's hard to defend him on the "he's our only tall option" argument but I can't think of any exciting or obvious replacement. Wagner's adding little but with Salem forced out I'd rather not make more changes than necessary to that part of the ground.

It's actually impossible to work out how any umpire could conceivably award a free kick to the North player in that. It's insane. So, so bad. Up there with the DOOB against Hibberd.

Salem deserved a week. Stupid from him. But Cunnington deserved a week too, as did Cotchin last week. Whether it's the MRP or the grading system, it is broken and needs to be fixed.

6 - Hibberd 5 - Jetta 4 - Hannan 3 - Pedersen 2 - TMac 1 - Tyson

I've always liked Kent and wanted him back in the side the last time we dropped him. But efforts like today's are inexcusable and should not be tolerated. Must be dropped. Bring back one of Harmes or ANB. Wagner's giving us little off half-back. He's not giving us a huge amount of run and his kicking hasn't been great either. If Melksham's in form at Casey I'd make that swap too. Weideman ought to be dropped and developed at Casey but we can't afford it as we don't have any talls on the list ready to come back in. Even if we could bring a tall defender in, to free up TMac to play forward, that would be preferable to playing Weideman in his current form but we don't have a choice and so he stays. When Gawn and Hogan return, and we can play a forward line of Hogan, Watts and Pedersen, with Gawn the ruckman and Pedersen providing the relief, that will be a far stronger set up. It will likely come too late to save the season, though.

Their side today was more than a year older than us on average with an average of 18 games more experience per player. I don't think that played much of a factor at all, but they are still carrying quite a lot of older players in their best 22. Disagree - the list is not the problem IMO, it's all in the preparation, work-rate, intensity and mindset. We have shown what our best football is like and it is more than good enough to be a finals side, even a top 4 side. But we don't produce it consistently within a game, let alone from week to week. We're yet to put a single four quarter performance together and in all 9 games we've turned off for crucial periods of the game (today it was the first 10 minutes of the first and the third quarters). That inability to put four quarters together is what is losing us games, not a list problem. Also, if we had only one of Hogan or Gawn available we wouldn't be needing to play Weideman at the moment, who is clearly not good enough right now and ought to be developing at Casey. It's a double-whammy when key position players go down, not only do we miss Gawn/Hogan, but we're playing inadequate replacements in their place.

We didn't lose because of the umpiring, but there were critical decisions missed that impacted on the game and it didn't help us at all. We know we are capable of playing finals level football. Last week showed that. But we started the game pathetically. Smashed in the middle, beaten in CPs and out-tackled. The work-rate was not good enough and that's the root problem of these losses after good wins - we don't work hard enough the following week. I'm not sure what is worse - not starting the first quarter with the right intensity, or, after dominating the second quarter and starting the third only two points behind, not starting the third quarter with the right intensity. Just not good enough. The leaders were down (Viney disappeared after HT, Jones was just sucking up cheap possessions and didn't even care about his turnovers, Lewis had no influence), some of the kids were down (Oliver, Petracca, Hunt), and our weaknesses were therefore exposed (Weideman, Kent, Wagner, no ruckman). Need to drop Kent - inexcusable performance. Hannan was good. Pedersen was great, the midfielders were the problem, not Goldstein. Just so, so disappointing.

Strong performance last week, too. Everything points to a classic MFC loss. My expectations for tomorrow are being set very, very low.

I guess this is additional proof Richmond is worse than we are at closing out close games.

I don't like GWS, but that was so enjoyable. Not only did they concede a goal with 70 seconds left, it came after they thought they'd won it before a score review.

To be fair, they have an enormous injury list. Buntine, Coniglio, Deledio, Griffen, Haynes, Hopper, Kennedy, Smith are all good players and missing. Having said that, they do have that "team of champions" more than a "champion team" feel to them.