titan_uranus

Lin Jong toured Collingwood's facilities earlier this year. Your point is valid, though. The Dogs' best, say, 26 or 27 players are completely and utterly committed to the club and to their cause and it shows. What it all boils down to, though, is consistency, and Hogan is not the only player on our list who needs to develop that week in, week out consistency.

What?! I'll put it down to you being one of those who is deliberately downplaying Hogan's ability to soften the blow of him leaving because, otherwise, I can't fathom how anyone could believe that. And, before you start, I thought Boyd was totally deserving of the North Smith today. Incredible performance.

An incredible day. Not just a win for the Dogs, but a win for football. Premierships can be won from outside the top 4, from outside the "big 3" clubs, from outside the "big 4" Melbourne clubs. Sydney's forward line was non-existent today. Franklin had to do it all himself. Papley, RIchards and Hewett had great debut years but had no impact in the game - in fact, other than Heeney I thought all of Sydney's young players were rubbish. I've long considered Tippett to be the most overrated player in the league and today was no exception. Watch Sydney target/buy a key forward this off-season as they really need someone to support Franklin (and it's not Tippett). As for the Dogs - no absolute A-grade star performances but 22 contributions. An amazing game, capping off the best September I think we have ever seen. Wholly deserved. Let's hope some/all of our players were watching today and can draw some believe for 2017.

What about this year's top 8? Sydney have Franklin and Tippett, West Coast have Kennedy and Darling, Adelaide have Walker, Jenkins and Lynch, North have Brown, Waite and Petrie, Hawthorn have Gunston and Sicily (and would have had Roughead if circumstances allowed it), GWS have Cameron, Patton and Lobb, Geelong have Hawkins and Smith and often rotated Henderson and/or Taylor through the forward line too. The Dogs even have Dickson, Roughead and Boyd. Yes, teams can win flags without having a big key forward, but that doesn't mean that teams with a big key forward are at a disadvantage. Indeed, I would argue the opposite. 2016 finalists all had at least one good, strong key forward, most of them had two, some even had three.

Not the current top 4 system though. Since they changed to the current finals system every single Grand Finalist has finished the home and away season in the top 4, until today. The salary cap issue can be debated forever and he's not playing the role they envisaged, but he was hugely important tonight. Once Roughead went down Mumford should have dominated the ruck. He didn't. Boyd is the reason. Boyd also throws himself into packs and makes repeat efforts even when out on his feet. I wouldn't want to be paying what the Dogs are paying for that sort of player but he's vitally important regardless. See above. Stats aren't the story with Boyd's current role.

The last two minutes are up on the AFL website. To feed the whole "the Dogs get the umpires' help" stuff, have a look at about 18 seconds in. Scully takes the mark in the middle and Johannisen come running past, well within the "protected zone" IMO. In another game I reckon that gets paid a 50. I'm also not sure how I feel about the high tackle free McLean got with about a minute left. Not complaining about the decisions of course (Scully kicking the winning goal would have made me projectile vomit all over the TV) but slightly controversial nonetheless.

I lost a lost of respect for him tonight. What an absolute [censored].

First team to make the GF from outside the top 4. Also the first Victorian team to win two interstate finals in the same year. Also the first year neither team who won the QF and had the week off made the GF. Whether that's a coincidence with the Round 23 bye) or not will be debated, I'm sure.

Not only the result we all wanted, but a cracking game of football as well. That was some seriously good stuff. I've got Dogs-supporting mates who are crying with happiness. I can't wait until that is us.

GWS was off for most of that first quarter. Dogs should have kicked 4 or 5 goals. Instead, they mucked around with it across half-forward and couldn't find a target. Shaw and Davis were exceptional, it has to be said. But the Dogs made mistake after mistake. Now, they're losing.

It's been said but any analysis that doesn't compare Hogan to every forward is going to be "selective" to those who don't like what it says Players do develop at different rates, agree with that, but that doesn't mean that someone who starts well (Go The Biff's post demonstrates that Hogan has, clearly, started well) is less of a chance to improve. And as for the bolded bit, you clearly aren't reading this thread consistently. IMO "most on Demonland" either genuinely don't think Hogan is worth keeping or have deliberately downplayed his ability to soften the blow they think is coming when he leaves. Either way, "most on Demonland" are rubbishing one of the competitions most genuinely exciting future prospects.

Selwood 39, Dangerfield 39. Next most were Bartel and Enright on 26 - two veterans close to retirement. Geelong is nowhere near where they think they are. I'm not sure a team has ever been as reliant on two players as Geelong of 2016.

You only have to read some of the garbage posted in post-match threads from this year to see that a higher proportion of posters think he can't kick, can't/won't chase, has unfixable body language issues, drinks his own bathwater and thinks he's above the rest of the team.

I wholly disagree with you. IMO he's criminally underrated. He's 21 years old. The fact you say he's "not too far off his prime" is a perfect example of how, for Hogan, the goalposts are set markedly differently to all other young key position players.

Adelaide's season ended when they choked in Round 23 against West Coast. Went from two guaranteed home finals and the double chance to one home final and three road trips. Four different preliminary finalists this year compared to last year. That's a good thing, no matter who the teams are. Unfortunately, a Geelong-Sydney prelim means one of them will be in the GF and the risk of having 10 out of 12 premierships going to the same three clubs remains.

Mumford's tackle was IMO borderline. It wasn't the two-move sling tackle we've seen before (e.g. Gibbs last year). But at the same time, he grabbed Tippett's arm, pinned it, then dragged him downwards. What else could possibly have resulted from that movement? The MRP's statement is horrendous. Clearly Tippett's head hit the ground.

As has been pointed out, I would consider the slate of games (with Hawthorn v Geelong and GWS v Sydney) to have been the major factor increasing the crowds far, far more than the bye did. And as for losing momentum, how do you think West Coast feels about the bye? I'm not necessarily against it but it's not all amazing and not all the positives were caused by the bye, either.

Agreed. Other clubs may well be interested, but I do not see Hogan wanting to leave Melbourne (the club) other than because he wants to go home (to Perth). If he wants to stay in Melbourne, there will be other clubs who can give him a better contract than we probably can, but I doubt it will matter.

If the success is limited, yes. It's good for football. No sport is benefited by having the same club, or clubs, winning every year. I'd rather GWS win one, or even two or three, flags than see Hawthorn win another one. Of course, unless it was Melbourne, I'd prefer to see a different team win it every year, but if the choice is between GWS or Hawthorn, or Geelong, or Sydney, I pick GWS. I agree, but you made it sound like GWS got given everything and GC got given nothing. Both had the same set of first round picks and both had the ability to "steal" established players. I just think GWS did a lot better than GC and it's not as much do to with GWS' extra three years of list concessions (which help, obviously).

GWS certainly got more, but not as much more as you are suggesting. The main difference is GWS gets 7 years of salary cap and list size concessions, compared to GC's 4. The main difference is GWS did most of it right but GC has done a lot of it wrong. At any rate, the AFL was correct to err on the side of making GC and/or GWS strong very early. The alternative was to not give them enough and have them fail to get off the ground at all.

How's Gold Coast going? Starting up two new clubs in non-AFL areas was always going to require both getting advantages. Similar advantages were given to both GWS and GC and only one of those clubs has made it work. Credit to GWS for that (everything from their choices of experienced players through to their drafting and their coaching). The AFL knew it needed to make GWS (and GC) strong as quickly as possible or they wouldn't work as clubs. GWS making finals boosts AFL in Sydney and Western Sydney (you only have to be in Sydney, which I am as I type, to see that) and that is good for the long-term health of the game. I have no problem with their rapid rise. The key now is how well, if at all, the winding back of the concessions works. GC is back to a level playing field already and we know they don't look much different to any other weak AFL side. 2019 is the first year where GWS' list is the same size as everyone else's and its salary cap is the same. That means it has to start winding back, if it hasn't already. Hopefully, then, as the Dogs, Melbourne, St Kilda and Collingwood start to improve, GWS will come back to the pack. But ultimately, I would rather a GWS powerhouse for the next 2-3 years than another Hawthorn, Sydney or Geelong premiership.

I love watching the West Coast midfielders duck their heads into tackles and then, when the umpire correctly refuses to pay a free for a high tackle, the midfielder has no idea what to do next.

Feels a lot like West Coast has done a Melbourne with this one (except we obviously never do this in finals). Just feels a bit like they thought they had the win before they started playing. Selection error (dropping Jetta for a tall and then being cut up by the Dogs' run), some of their stars playing selfish football (it feels like a team vs 22 individuals).

There's nothing you can't love about watching West Coast play awfully on their own home ground. It's a lot harder when the umpires don't gift you the game. Amazing that the Dogs have done so well with Stringer having absolutely no impact (until that goal) and the Bont quiet for more than a half. A very well-deserved win.

No good at ground level but he's getting to an enormous number of contests and he's bringing the ball to ground - West Coast dominate on the back of intercept marks from players like McGovern and Barrass so he's actually making a significant contribution so far in the air. Easton Wood off the ground getting assessed...huge. Lycett too but that's less of a loss for West Coast than Wood would be for the Dogs.