titan_uranus

For those who are [censored] off at the fixture, I hope you go to our home games when you can. Our fixture this year is not at all surprising given our 2024.

Would surely be on the back of St Kilda’s win. If we bring the same pressure and contest focus as last week, we should find it easier to score against North’s defence than GWS’.

Here’s hoping Spargo is somewhat back to his 2021-22 form, because the Spargo of 2023-24 shouldn’t be getting a game. Bit harsh to give Langford the sub vest and just one quarter, then drop him. The other two changes make sense, position-wise.

We lose a lot of run if Sharp goes alongside Windsor, and we get little of it back with Spargo. Would have to have Woey playing a full game with plenty of run off half back but even then, might not be enough.

This surprised me too. In the “one’s” all summer, then emergency and now nowhere to be seen. I expect Turner and Woey, as the closest positional replacements for AJ and Windsor. But we could go Spargo or Laurie instead of Disco if we’re going to try a smaller forward line, Fritsch going deeper to be the third tall.

This topic is always triggering, to everyone no matter what your views are. IMO the crowd on Sunday was completely within what ought to have been expected. Scheduling a game against the lowest or second-lowest supported interstate side against the Grand Prix was always going to result in a low crowd, and then add to that the rain, and it's not just unsurprising, but honestly pleasing, that the crowd was 23,000+. If you watch on TV, you don't get it, because the MCC is consistently 10x more packed than anywhere else in the ground and you can't see the MCC from the broadcast wing. In 2022-23, our home crowds as a percentage of our membership were, I believe, the 2nd highest in the league, behind only Fremantle. Our raw home crowd numbers are of course lower than Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon etc., but they have 1.5-2 times as many members as we do. By and large, criticism of our crowds is misguided. However... I have been, and remain, of the view that our club has too great a proportion of supporters who choose to withhold their attendance as some form of "protest" against the club. My view was ratified last year when this debate came up after our game against North. Posters readily admitted on here that they chose not to go simply because they were "sick of Goodwin" or "sick of our low scores" or that they'd "go when the team starts playing the way I like". IMO, if you choose to withhold your attendance as a form of protest, you are killing the club from the inside. When I say this, I always say the next bit too - I do not, for one second, begrudge a single person who cannot go to a game because of cost, family, health, distance, work, or all the other sorts of things which make us unable to go. Almost no one can go every week. My comments above are directed solely to the portion of our supporters who can go (financially, health-wise, time-wise, family-wise), but simply choose not to. @Bring-Back-Powell asked earlier what will happen with our West Coast crowd if we keep losing close games. I would suggest that something that might help us win a close game is a loud crowd in our favour. So instead of asking what happens to the crowd after the losses, perhaps we should ask whether showing up in greater numbers earlier might help us win those games instead? @Dr. Gonzo earlier posted that everyone gets to make their own choices, and I agree - ultimately, you decide if you want to go or not (assuming you can). But if you choose not to go, when you otherwise could, IMO you don't then get to complain about, for example, our home games being shifted away from the G and to Marvel, or our games being in the worst timeslots, or our club not getting the same level of funding as other clubs. Whether we like it or not, this sport cares about crowds, and they are important.

This was always going to be a suspension whether we like it or not. Arms pinned, driven down. He maybe gets off if he can show he didn’t pin Brown’s right hand but the way the Tribunal works with dangerous tackles, I doubt it.

The first one may not be so bad, he might have expected someone to cover Greene (or maybe not), but the second one will surely be something Goodwin has to focus on in review. That’s the sort of stuff that leads to losing close games. Collingwood’s leaders don’t make that sort of mistake. Granted, they get super lucky with the way the ball bounces to Callaghan but still.

AJ given a week. http://mfcde.es/4ib1ROq

I agree, as silly as it might sound given it was 2 minutes into the game, but I reckon the psychological boost of two goals in 2 minutes would have been significant.

As with everything, we need to do it week on week, but what I saw yesterday was promising enough structurally. The Sparrow and Sharp set shot misses really hurt though. We just will not make the required progress if we keep missing easier set shots.

Yep. Absurd. Lynch is as much of a recidivist as Koz, if not worse. That’s IMO a textbook suspension for a high bump. The Archer one is way more complicated though.

A few on radio have said that Trac went to the midfield huddle prior to that bounce but looked to call an audible and put himself in the forward line. I didn't notice it at the ground but did anyone else? i.e. it might not have been Goodwin/the coaches' decision.

Yep, this is an issue. Interestingly enough, prior to that Carlton game we had gone 4-2 in games decided by 6 points or less in 2023, two of which involved us holding on at the death (vs Collingwood on KB and then vs Adelaide at the G).

I've mentioned in my last two posts in this exchange with you what I considered to be the biggest issues yesterday: our fitness, our inability to defend transition, and letting two goals through in stoppage/congestion in our D50. I'm genuinely interested to hear your views as to why these issues were not as important to the result as the forward line - and indeed, I'm interested in what it was about the forward line yesterday that was the issue over and above the correct, but generic, statement that our forward line continually lets us down.

Whoa, knives out hey @Macca? What’s my (now ancient) history of criticising supporters who withhold attendance from games as a protest got to do with the forward line? I asked you why you think the forward line was the (sole) reason we lost. I gave you three other factors, the biggest IMO being how we slowed to a walk in time on in all four quarters (but most notably the third and fourth). Our forward line has been an issue for 4 years, no one’s disputing that, but I walked away from yesterday thinking a few other issues were more significant than forward half inefficiency.

You’ve posted it about 100 times now but why do you say our dysfunctional forward line was the reason we lost? As opposed to what struck me as much bigger issues - not running out quarters, struggling to defend transition, and conceding two goals from situations we usually kill (both to Coniglio).

Even if he didn’t have Sam Taylor as his opponent, we shouldn’t be drawing conclusions based on one game. If we want to see JVR play without rucking (I do), then we need to see it for 4+ weeks.

To my eye Greene didn’t go ballistic because Howes went off, he went ballistic because they moved him more into the midfield. At any rate he killed Howes all day in the forward line.

There’s no way in the world Petty should go forward. I appreciate TMac was good but Petty looked more comfortable today than he did at any time in the forward line last year. It’s natural for him. He must stay back. I do not know whether we can swing TMac or May forward, nor whether we should, but it just cannot be Petty. Henderson was good enough to hold his spot over Spargo, IMO.

We’re now 1-4 from our last 5 games decided by less than a goal.

Not a fair comparison. Last week they were playing against a side who also were playing their first game. Collingwood lost legs, GWS didn’t. That has no bearing at all on this week, where they had the benefit of building match fitness last week and we didn’t. This isn’t a question about fitness overall. This is about them having built match fitness last week, blowing the fitness-related cobwebs out, whilst we didn’t.

Out of interest, what did @DeeSpencer say which you think is so egregious?

Not sure about the dangerous tackles. I thought both times the GWS player had an arm free but maybe not. Assuming no suspensions, Chandler may still be at risk. Howes was poor but who is better without McVee available?

6 - Trac 5 - Gawn 4 - Lindsay 3 - Bowey 2 - Lever 1 - TMac Really interested to see all the Salem votes. I thought his kicking was far too laid back and put us under unnecessary pressure.