titan_uranus

This week it's Port v Hawthorn then Geelong v Sydney in the Thursday-Friday night games. Next week's it's Sydney v Hawthorn and Fremantle v Geelong. Can't wait. And by "can't wait", I mean "can't wait for a fixture where prime time games aren't just 5 or 6 clubs playing each other every week.

Nothing reinforcing his opinion, that's the second time he's posted that in a week.

I liked what I saw last year and I'm happy to see him get another chance off the back of solid VFL form. The Dogs have shown how important it is to a fast, running gameplan to have strong depth at half-back. We've found Hunt and Wagner, we already have Salem and Lumumba (query his long-term position on the list, though), last week we rotated Harmes through there too. Vince has spent portions of this year across half-back and could find himself more there instead of in the middle as he gets older. M Jones has played half-back this year, and we have Melksham to add too next year. It's an important part of our development, IMO.

I'm happy with the outs. I'm also happy with the ins. I'm just not 100% sure how I feel about taking a tall out and not bringing one in. Granted, there's not a lot left in the cupboard and Dawes was so bad he deserved to be dropped, but how does the team look afterwards? Either we are one tall down in the forward line (which means its Hogan and a bunch of mids/smalls when Watts is in the ruck) or we swing TMac or Frost forward to cover. Surely we know now that Frost is not a forward and it would be seriously dumb to flip him to the forward line again after re-setting him mid-season as a defender, so it'd have to be TMac I guess. Fremantle has Pavlich and Taberner but AFAIK just one ruckman (Griffin) so we'd only need two of TMac, OMac and Frost in the backline anyway. Even if it works this week in Darwin against a bottom 4 side, I'll be interested to see what we do the week after against St Kilda. I think the Essendon game trumps all three for least competitive efforts, whilst we were clearly in the Sydney game at three quarter time - the problem there was the fourth quarter. Your point is still valid though, I don't think we've planned or responded well to 6-day breaks so far this year. Partly that's due to the youth of the side but I don't think we've planned well with team selection either.

Average player IMO.

You rival BBP for the most pessimistic poster on here, and that's no mean feat. The only period of the game during which we were poor was the first 9 minutes of the third quarter. Outside of that we were, at worst, competitive and at best dominant. Against the form side in the competition and a genuine premiership threat. The margin flattered Adelaide, not us.

Instead of a thread on M Jones (who, even if his career isn't over just yet, obviously isn't a key part of our future), maybe we should talk more about Bugg? Many on here love him but I'm not sold. Far from it.

This is the kind of circular dumb logic I can't stand. Adelaide was "miles off their best" because we got close to them? No. Adelaide played their normal game. When they made mistakes it was largely because we did the right things in pressuring them. You need to find another outlet for your pessimism. We're top 8 for points for, having scored more this year than Sydney and the Dogs. And why are "pinching tight wins" the benchmark for a good side? I guarantee if that is what we were doing you'd be criticising us for being mediocre. Really? I can't imagine how you didn't notice him. He was so incredibly bad every time he went near it. I felt the crowd began groaning when he tried marking it.

If the choice right now is Pedersen or Dawes, the answer is Pedersen and there is no cogent argument to sustain in favour of Dawes. Long-term, I think you're right (not sure if Weed or Hulett are the second-ruck type players).

6 - Watts 5 - Hunt 4 - Garlett 3 - Stretch 2 - Kent 1 - N Jones

Rubbish thread. That mistake in the fourth was embarrassing but otherwise a solid contributor. His run is critical.

That might be the most frustrating loss we've had in years. I disagree with those who think Adelaide was "off". They played this game how they play every game. Do they have a single player out injured? (Seedsman maybe?). But we tightened up in the contest in the second quarter and hit them harder. We forced them into mistakes through the middle and we were bold going forward. They lifted in the third and for the first 5 minutes we couldn't match them at all, but we steadied and evened it up. Had Kennedy not rushed his shot on goal in the fourth, we'd have had all the momentum and only 3 points down. Could have played out very differently from there. It felt like 23 vs 21 out there with Dawes. Every time he went near it he stuffed it up. Can't mark, can hardly move, can't kick, can't handpass, can't or won't ruck. Must, must be dropped. Compare him to Watts who was brilliant everywhere (bar the goal he gave up to Betts when he went to ground). Rucked, spent time at FB, and still dominated forward with 3 goals. Garlett showed why we need him firing in our seniors. Kent was much improved. It's all been said but Hunt is a gem. Petracca showed he can move through the forward line. Jetta again stood up as a true leader down there. In defence, I actually thought that, as defenders, Frost, TMac and even OMac looked fine. The problem is when we take possession - all three are awful kicks (OMac is scared of kicking it, though), all three make poor decisions, TMac and Frost try to take it on without thinking too often. Defensively, I was impressed, but I was disappointed offensively with these three. Gutted, but there is still plenty to work with. Finally, to quell all the crap from people who don't think we've improved because we haven't beaten anyone we didn't beat last year (a pretty dumb analysis IMO), the fact we are this upset about losing to a premiership contender who has hardly been troubled for the last six weeks should, when coupled with watching us play, explain to you that your analysis is baseless.

There has been considerable backlash this year to the way in which the byes have been arranged. The three weeks of 6 games each has been awful IMO and the week off between Round 23 and the finals is going to go down like a lead balloon, if it hasn't already. Hopefully we see something else next year.

I know it's a group. Adelaide's forward group is far better than our defensive group. My point is that if we limit the inside 50s, that forward group doesn't get the chance to exploit our defensive group. As for the Hawthorn comment, Hawthorn might not be scoring as much as Adelaide (roughly 101 to 112 points per game) but there's no doubt that Hawthorn's forward line, as a "collective group", is also much better than our defensive group. The point is that we can beat sides with strong forward lines which, on paper, will destroy our young backline, if we play well in the other 2/3 of the ground.

Don't agree. I don't think that happened in the North, WB, Hawthorn or Sydney games at all. It's not about the individual match ups which, obviously, favour them. It's about the rest of the ground which is far more even. For example, it's not like our backline matched up that well against Gunston, Rioli, Breust and Puopolo either, but we were in the Hawthorn game to the very end. If we limit our own turnovers when we have the ball and if we pressure them when they have it in the middle, we can win.

If that's how you want to view things, fine. But if Adelaide is "off" today, that will be either wholly or in part due to us being "on".

You make it sound as if Demonland is "privy to something".

I love this. You're already setting up insurance for the pessimistic narrative - if we win, it will only be because Adelaide (like GWS) were "off".

This is all about our pressure in the midfield and our forward line. If players like Kent, Harmes, Kennedy and Garlett do their job - chase, tackle, harass - then we will force turnovers before Lynch, Betts, Jenkins and Walker are able to destroy us. Our midfield, even without Viney, can compete with Adelaide's at stoppages, and our forward line can worry their backline. But none of that matters if we don't put on pressure when they are bringing the ball out of our forward line. Limit the turnovers across half forward, pressure the ball carrier at all times, and we can win this game.

St Kilda played last Saturday night so that's a 7-day break, 6.5 if you want to call it that because last week was a night game. Meanwhile Gold Coast played in Tasmania last Sunday so they had a 6-day break. Today's game was not about the break, it was about the fact that St Kilda are no better than we are and, IMO, they are in fact worse.

Surely Grimes takes Wagner's spot this week. Surely. As for replacing Oliver, none of the other ins are really the right type of player. I wouldn't mind M Jones getting a recall. He didn't do anything wrong when he was in the side at the start of the year.

St Kilda's conceded more points so far this year than we have.

Honourable losses against Hawthorn and North? Same for us, if you have fogotten. As 45hg pointed out earlier, they haven't beaten anyone good other than Geel. And something you haven't mentioned is that St Kilda have had two major blowouts whilst we haven't. As for our "bunnies", we hadn't beaten Collingwood for 8 years until last year whilst Richmond have played finals the last 3 years - they may not be superstar teams but our wins against them have far more meaning and relevance than you are letting on. Actually IMO the problem is somewhat the opposite. They seem to get themselves up for games against the best (beating GWS, North and WB in consecutive weeks) but they routinely lose to mid-ranked sides (Coll, Carl, St K). To me that means the problem for them will be finishing top 2/4, as they may drop easier games, but once they make finals I still see them as a threat.

You're comparing Riewoldt and Montagna to Dunn and Garland?

What do you mean "officially"? Officially, they are 20% behind us on the ladder. Officially, we finished above them on the ladder last year, and the year before.