titan_uranus

Round 1 - St Kilda kicked 5 in a row in the last 15 minutes of the first quarter. Round 2 - Carlton kicked 5.4 to our 0.2 in about 20 minutes of play either side of half time Round 3 - Geelong kicked 5 in a row in about 7 minutes of play either side of three quarter time Round 4 - Fremantle kicked 8 in a row from the half-time siren to the end of the third quarter Round 5 - Richmond kicked the last 5 goals in the final quarter in about 15 minutes. Round 6 - the only game so far where our opponent hasn't had a run of goals (the first half was too low quality for either side to do it) Round 7 - Hawthorn kicked the last 4 goals of the first quarter in about 15 minutes. In all four of our losses we lost by less than the score kicked during this period of being "off". It seems to me that we are spending more of the game playing better than our opponent than we do playing worse but we don't convert the periods of dominance whilst we let our opponent convert their periods of dominance into scores. The optimist says if we work on lowering the time spent "off" during a game, the wins will flow. The pessimist says we've had this same problem for years and we still, despite setting ourselves for finals this year, cannot get through games without these small periods which ruin what is usually otherwise 2 or 3 or 3.5 quarters of strong football.

Out: JKH, Hannan/Bugg In: the best two of Kent, Stretch, Harmes, Melksham or ANB We've got a height issue and Jacobs is going to destroy us but I don't think we have any option that is going to change that. JKH simply isn't good enough. Neither are Bugg or Hannan at the moment, but I doubt both will be dropped. An in-form Kent is precisely what we need but we shouldn't be picking players unless they are in VFL form.

That stat is probably Hawthorn in 2010. Started 1-6 but made the finals.

Is that a coaching issue? Instead of continually saying we have a coaching issue (whether it was Bailey, Neeld, Roos or Goodwin), I'd have thought it's far more likely it's a player issue. We just aren't capable of bringing AFL-level intensity for four quarters. Despite being 3-4, our percentage remains over 100%, so I don't think we have a defensive problem. There is a solid argument we should be 7-0. We haven't been "out" of any of our losses. I don't think anyone can say we've got something fundamentally wrong with our defensive system or our gameplan or something like that. When we're "on", we're really, really good. We just cannot stay "on" for four quarters and we're losing games because of it.

I only saw the second half so this may well be ridiculous: 6 - Viney 5 - Oliver 4 - Garlett 3 - Lewis 2 - Jones 1 - Hunt

Hawthorn may be rubbish this year but they still carry a stack of premiership and winning experience which obviously Richmond lacks. Playing catch-up footy is never a good thing but it always seem that, when making a comeback, it makes a massive psychological difference to get the lead, even if only by a point. If we'd hit the front (e.g. when Jones missed), I think we could have gone on with it.

Leigh Matthews' pro-Hawthorn bias made listening to the coverage nearly impossible. Didn't even try to hide it. Hamish McLachlan tried to hide it but failed (e.g. when Garlett was joking around with Stratton about kicking three goals he was like "a great response would be to say "that's cute, I have three flags"".

Haven't seen the first half but JKH 13 disposals and 0 tackles. That is surely all she wrote on that front.

What was the lack of luck today?

It's far too soon to be posting anything rational so I know this will be the opposite, but whatever: I can't help but feel our season is slipping through our fingers.

Because he deliberately put the ball out to force a reset in the forward line. Looked pretty clear on first viewing to me.

If we win tomorrow we'll be equal with St Kilda, equal with one of West Coast or Port Adelaide, either equal with the Dogs or just one game behind Richmond, and only one game behind GWS. The point isn't that a loss means we're as bad as Carlton. It's that this season is ridiculously even.

I think dropping Melksham is the right decision. Not entirely sure who comes off the extended bench (yes, they always do. There might be a late change on Sunday but for the purposes of tomorrow, the three emergencies are three of the current 7 on the bench). I'm certain it won't be Salem. The rest, less certain.

I'm going to take this as meaning we're actually not as bad without Gawn as those who don't pay proper attention to us and just say "no Gawn, no Melbourne". As opposed to some sort of comment that Gawn isn't actually as good as people say he is. It surely couldn't be the latter, could it...?

Assuming these figures are correct (the 177.2cm, as has been discussed, simply cannot be accurate): The positive sign here is that despite being more experienced, we were still younger. Youth is one thing, but we are now developing a side that remains young (and with its future ahead of it) but is finally beginning to play games together, as a unit.

This, I think, is going to be spot on come late-August or, maybe, mid-September.

Fair enough. I suppose we're probably a tall player short anyway, so we mightn't need to drop one to bring Hogan back and it could be a swap for someone like ANB instead.

Adelaide is the only one of those games that I don't think we can win (I don't see us getting close to them, but that says more about them than us). Our best shot at finals requires us to beat all of Hawthorn, Gold Coast and North before the bye, and then Collingwood on QBD after it, to put us 7-4 before the back-to-back-to-back six day breaks set in.

Yes, we get it, you don't like Tyson. Surely though, in a game in which our midfield worked into form over the four quarters, we're not going to drop a midfielder without an obvious replacement at Casey. Would have though players like OMac (if Hogan is ready), ANB, JKH and Melksham would be in more danger this week.

Probably more often than not when you're down to 2 on the bench with a further 2-3 injured on the ground. It's the Fremantle and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Geelong games we should be most disappointed with.

Having not seen the game, there are a lot of things I'm reading in this thread that sound very positive: Vince moving into the middle worked not just for Vince, but it seems for Viney, Jones and maybe Tyson too; Pedersen doing his role, and doing it well it seems; Watts, Garlett and Hannan clicking as the game went on (with Hogan out indefinitely, we need to find a forward line that can work together in his absence and we scored over 100 today); Hibberd playing well again; a settled back six. Let's hope Vince stays in the middle and we can find enough half-back use out of Lewis, Salem, Melksham, Hibberd and Hunt.

We had about 18 hours more rest than them, having played a higher-intensity game in the wet down 2 rotations (and down a further 2 or 3 sore bodies which didn't help). There is no reason to demand a blow-out from here.

Is Hurley playing loose in defence? Sounds like he's killing us. Meanwhile is this the worst quality game this year?

And given Bellchambers hasn't recorded a single stat other than the 10 hit outs, I think we'd have to be satisfied with the ruck situation so far (hard to say without watching, though).

16 inside 50s for 6 shots on goal. Doesn't help when we miss shots from directly in front.