titan_uranus

With the evenness through the middle of the ladder at the moment, it might be a year where 13-9 is required to make the top 8. Sydney's 6 losses already make their task hard, and they still have to play us, GWS, Geelong and Adelaide all on the road, as well as the Dogs at home (who've beaten them there both of the last two years). Still, I am quite confident they are going to win more than they lose from here on out. Would have been nice to get them in that opening six weeks where they had injuries and just didn't gel together for whatever reason. Meanwhile, assuming St Kilda doesn't pull this one out in the fourth, this is a good opportunity for us to keep pace with the sides around us who are going to compete for a top 8 spot. A win tomorrow draws us level with them and the Dogs.

I actually find it funny how reliant Geelong is on Dangerfield and Selwood. Their supporters will, to a tee, tell you they're not, that they're well-rounded and a true 22 man unit. The delusion amongst Geelong supporters is incredible. We'll learn a lot about them in their next five games - Port, Adelaide, West Coast (in Perth), Fremantle and GWS (in Sydney).

This is solely about money. This wild card rubbish does nothing at all to make the fixture fairer or bring meaning to the later part of the year. If anything, it diminishes the meaning of the home and away season even more by effectively extending finals to the top 10. The greatest irony is that this is shaping up to be the most even season in decades and we could well find ourselves with Rounds 20-23 containing a stack of critical games for qualifying for finals. The finals system we currently have is actually really good. The fixture is flawed but it's never going to improve. The game is flourishing, it should be left alone for 2-3 years at a minimum to see how we go in the post-expansion, post-Hawthorn/Sydney dominance era, see how it travels. But McLachlan and the AFL are obsessed with money, obsessed with commercialism and obsessed with copying American sports, so that's just not going to happen.

I posted in the preview thread that IMO every game we play this year is going to be decided based on our performance. Our best football is top 4, maybe top 2 quality. It really is. We showed that last week. But it's been 11 years since we went on a run where we consistently produced our best, or near our best, for a month or more in a row. Unless and until that happens, we are not a contender for finals, let alone a flag. Beating North this week is the start, but then we get Gold Coast and Collingwood either side of the bye. This thread will have a lot more impetus if we're 7-4 at the end of that period, on a 4-game winning streak and in the thick of the finals race.

I'm tipping no change but if there's going to be one, it might be Melksham for Wagner. This game, like almost all of the remaining 14 games this year, comes down almost entirely to us. If we play at our best, we will win. Last week showed that our best is good enough to beat any opponent, anywhere. However, if we don't play out our best, North is good enough to beat us. Would dearly love to have a dominant first quarter, kill some nerves off, get a nice lead going, and get a confident feeling that we've come with the right mindset against our last remaining "bogey team".

If we can grab the North and GC games before the bye, rest and reset, then get the Collingwood win on QBD, that would put us at 7-4 before our fixture goes mental: Dogs at Etihad (on a 6 day break) West Coast in Perth (another 6 day break) Sydney (another 6 day break, and by this stage Sydney could be right back in the finals mix) Carlton Adelaide (Darwin) Port Adelaide North (in Hobart) GWS (in GWS, so that's back-to-back interstate trips) St Kilda We haven't won 4 in a row since 2006 and we'd need to do that to get to 7-4, but if we can that gives us a great platform and confidence to launch into the back half of the draw which is much, much harder than what we've had so far.

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.

There's a difference between letting opponents go on runs of goals (which, as an aside, has now happened in all 8 games) and our backline leaking like a sieve. This, coupled with Cotchin getting off, frustrates me endlessly. It looked to me like Vince was pushed into the umpire's path by Sloane. Had no intent whatsoever to hit the umpire, was just an accident. Meanwhile Guthrie deliberately shoves an umpire in the back and that's considered "not unreasonable". And then Cotchin does exactly the same thing Lewis/Hogan did against Carlton but because Fremantle didn't submit a medical report detailing some sort of serious injury, he doesn't get a week. The consequence again getting in the way of the action - what Cotchin did was the same level of bad, the same level of dangerous, as Hogan/Lewis, but only they missed weeks.

6 - Hibberd 5 - Oliver 4 - Viney 3 - TMac 2 - Petracca 1 - Vince

I've now been able to watch the replay. We made Adelaide look completely ordinary. That sentence is remarkable in itself. Our pressure was exactly where it ought to be, and was there for the entire game. We knew what we needed to do, we stuck to it, and it worked. We also, finally, made the most of our dominance and converted it into scoreboard pressure, a huge problem so far this year. Our backline played really well, helpfully supporting the argument against the proposition that our backline "leaks like a sieve". And it didn't stand up against any old side, it stood up against the competition's strongest forward line, at their home ground. With that pressure, that direct ball movement, and that clean use of it going inside as we had this week, we are capable of beating anyone. The season is in our hands.

Hit outs were 76-29 but clearances were 38-49 and centre clearances an utterly incredible 6-18.

Having not seen the game other than the highlights, this is really pleasing to read. Against much better opposition than last week, we've learned a couple of really important lessons.

What was that?! Kept Adelaide to 66 - their lowest score at Adelaide Oval since Round 9 2015 against Fremantle (minor premiers and defensive kings that year). Indeed, that's Adelaide's second lowest score at the Adelaide Oval ever. What an incredible win. We're out of the 8 at the end of this round but we'll only be a game behind 4th (which is a Geelong team that is average at best). Clearly, we have the capacity to be a dominant side this year. Cannot wait to watch the replay!

Hogan out is a massive blow. We struggled badly enough in moving forwards efficiently when he wasn't playing, let alone when he was. Without his option to kick to at half-forward or up on the wing, I can see a lot of turnovers around the half-forward area, which is the worst place possible to turn it over against any club, let alone Adelaide in Adelaide. If we can break even, or win, clearances (especially centre clearances), I still think we can score enough to at the very least be competitive, but if we're relying on generating scoring shots from our defensive 50 I don't like our chances.

I'm coming around to this line of thinking. Makes a lot of sense.

Kent for JKH is an improvement. I have no idea why Stretch remains outside the 22. This is going to be a tough game regardless, but if Hogan's out and we have to play an out-of-form Weideman in his place, it could get very ugly.

You say "seem". I think it's very subjective. In the article on The Roar which has its own thread, the author notes the following: "At a more macro level, the Dees defence is right around average, ranked ninth with 92 points against for a defensive efficiency rating of +2.8. They’re conceding slightly more points per minute of opposition possession than the AFL average, and their opposition is probing their defensive 50 bang on the AFL average when adjusted for possession. Given Melbourne’s bias for attack, this portion of the ground looks rock solid – even a strength." So we're average for points against, we're just below average for points per minute of opposition possession, and we're average for inside 50s conceded adjusted for time in possession. You may perceive us to be conceding goals too easily but it appears we are around the league average in those metrics which means, IMO, it's not as big an issue as you suggest.

Ryan Buckland is a great writer and he notes many of the important features of our season so far (the biggest one being our low scoring per minute in possession). Makes some errors (e.g. naming TMac as a good kick and good decision maker) but overall a good analysis.

Is it true, though? We're 9th in the league for points against. We're 10th on the ladder. Seems about right. We've conceded fewer points than Adelaide and Geelong, too. And our percentage is 106.7%, so it's not like our scoring isn't keeping up with our conceding - in fact, it's the opposite. Do you think St Kilda's backline leaks like a sieve, or has a fundamental flaw in its game plan? They've conceded 9 points fewer than us and scored just 4 points more than us. So, essentially, the same numbers after 7 games. No one thinks they've got a "fundamental flaw", do they? IMO the issue isn't the number of goals we concede, it's how (off inopportune turnovers and leading to us being out of position) and when (consistently in blocks or 4-5 in a row) we concede them. But those problems aren't just down to the backline "leaking like a sieve". It's a whole team thing.

Ridiculous statement. You want to go back to the Neeld era when the players hated the coach? The fact that the players love Goodwin doesn't mean Goodwin doesn't apply pressure as and when required, either.

I'm not sure Wagner or Hibberd are tall enough (or good enough in a KPD role) to take someone like Lynch or Otten. I'd also prefer Hibberd to be used in a more attacking role. I think you're right about why OMac was brought back last week but I think, given our opponent, he stays. Does at least add some flexibility should we need to go back to using TMac in the ruck.

Even if Lynch doesn't play, Adelaide has Walker, Jenkins and may use Otten up forward. I think OMac will have to stay. Having said that, he definitely needs to work on his aerial contests. IMO he's as bad a culprit of our current problems of having too many go up and no one stay down, and his problem is he regularly fails to impact the contest.

According to Footywire our average age was 24 years 10 months, theirs was 26 years 8 months. Average experience was 84.5 games to 134.5 games, too.

Sometimes I think the overuse of the handball is because we have nothing to aim for by foot up forward. That comes in part from a forward line of Hogan and Watts and frequently it's just not tall enough. I think it also comes in part from structures - opposition coaches are, I think, playing us the same way by getting extra numbers behind the ball. When we're trying to bring the ball out of the backline we are consistently looking up and seeing a wave of opponents. I also think we are actively trying to use the handball more than other clubs. We set up at centre bounces with a half-forward coming off the back of the square. There is only one reason for that and it's to have a runner coming through the stoppage to receive a handball to get forward movement. We are setting up at centre bounces with our mids thinking about handballing to that running player. And of course, if they decide to kick it, we're outnumbered up forward because we've sent one or two half-forwards to the backline.

Having reflected further, I think there is enough evidence to argue that in all seven games we've played so far, we've been better than our opponent for longer than we've been worse than them. To only have 3 wins in those circumstances is remarkable, really. I'm currently leaning towards the off periods being brought about by inexperience, not just in terms of age but also in terms of games played together. Too much chopping and changing the team this year (have we had a week with any fewer than two changes to the side?) is not helping.