titan_uranus

I have this feeling that, regardless of the Suns game (which I think we are a good chance to win because of their injuries and also total lack of form), we're going to play well against the Dogs. We usually play them well at the G and I have a suspicion we'll fire up for it because a) we know we beat them here last year (same as we knew we beat GWS, Richmond and Collingwood last year) and b) as some sort of "payback" for being destroyed by them at Etihad the second time. If I'm right and we play well (win or lose) against the Dogs, I expect to see a shocker against the Lions the week after, though.

Haven't beaten anyone good? Only Adelaide and the Dogs. I don't like North but give them credit, they're flying at the moment. They'll win their next three, too (St Kilda, Essendon, Carlton). It gets harder from there (Sydney (away), Richmond, Geelong, Hawthorn, Adelaide (away), West Coast (away)) and they end with three tough games (Hawthorn, Sydney, GWS) but they'll bank enough wins to make finals easily, top 4 almost certainly and possibly top 2, the way they're playing. Collingwood's next two games are against Carlton and Brisbane. The Brisbane game is away but I think Collingwood will win both and be 4-4. Might push them up the ladder a bit. The way they're playing, Carlton and Essendon won't win many more games for the year other than when they play themselves and Brisbane. They've both already lost to Gold Coast (though Essendon gets them again) and Carlton of course gets us, and we stink in those sorts of games. As for Richmond, I can't believe how poorly they're playing. Next two games are Hawthorn and Sydney - they traditionally play those sides well so we'll see what happens this year. Otherwise it will be 1-7 and a trip to Perth to play Fremantle who may well be winless at that point (GWS at home this week, Hawthorn in Tassie the week after).

Looks like we do agree then. I think the FD wanted to reward the team who had brought us consecutive wins and who had been, generally speaking, doing everything right. Getting games into us as a unit, rather than with continued changes to personnel, has its benefits. But with the benefit of hindsight I think it's clear (or at least should be) to all that we need to rest and rotate our kids as we go to ensure that we bring the right level of intensity every week. That, fundamentally, is what led to the rest of our game falling down.

25 plays 10 at half time? Is it that bad of a game?

Thanks for the pot shots. Funny isn't it, that you had a problem with my "cheap shot" directed at a company the majority of people have an issue with but you take two at me? Anyway, as for the print from home thing as I said I can't say if it's applied to AFL games and it may well not be. But it's happened before and speaks to the type of business the two agencies are running. Customer service is more than the person you speak with. It's the time it takes to speak with them, the time they take to get the job done, the effort it takes to get an answer to the question you have, the response they provide, etc.. The technological failures have happened at least twice this year, to such a large and bad extent that the AFL put out a statement after the Richmond-Carlton game to apologise for it. If you like going to Etihad, good for you. I love that you support the club through rain, hail and shine (really, I do). If you haven't had a problem with the ticketing agencies, again good for you. Unfortunately, a lot of us have, and I don't like them, nor do I like Etihad stadium.

Pity about ANB. I really wanted him to dominate today to seal the deal. He's been unlucky to miss out on a spot in the seniors to date and he will be again if Garland gets in on the back of one good game (they don't necessarily play the same role, though).

Technically, I called Fat Tony's opinion (that our midfield looks slow and lacks run and spread) rubbish, but if you want a change in language then I'll rephrase: I disagree with your opinion that we "bleed goals". Yes, yesterday we let through far too many goals out the back of our press. But extrapolating that into broader comments that we bleed goals, or that our defence stinks, or that we lack run and spread through the middle is, I think, to revise what has taken place so far this year on the back of the most recent performance (which, by the way, happens the other way when we win and people think we're going to reel off 5 win a row and make finals). We showed against North, Richmond and Collingwood (and, to a lesser extent, GWS) that when we apply ourselves properly, our game plan and structures lead us to outscoring our opponents (with relative ease, too). Yesterday (and against Essendon) we didn't work hard enough. That causes the structures to fall apart in areas (e.g. yesterday we pushed high up but didn't work back hard enough), leaving too much space in certain areas and leading to cheap goals to fast breaks. I don't agree that we bled goals against Richmond (they never kicked any more than three in a row and the one time they did that was over a 10-minute period) or Collingwood (who never kicked more than two in a row). Yesterday was vastly different, with St Kilda putting on runs of goals at the start of the second and again in the middle of the third. That doesn't mean the previous two weeks were the same. It, to me, shows the difference between our application yesterday and the prior two weeks. My frustration lies more with the inability to consistently play to the same standard (and, moreover, that we continue to have periods of unacceptable quality football, rather than just "poor" football), not with some deeper underlying defensive problem.

I have no problem with buying tickets in advance but sadly not everyone is able to know in advance if they're able to attend. Charging people a fee to print their own tickets out at home (I don't know if this applies to AFL tickets but it certainly applies to other events on Ticketmaster/Ticketek) is a classic example of why I don't like these companies. Their customer service is poor, their websites crash, and this year their systems at the MCG (and now, apparently, Etihad too) have crashed and failed, causing people to be stuck outside missing the game (e.g. Rich v Carl Round 1, the opening game of the year, some people who had pre-purchased tickets couldn't get in because the turnstiles were down). If they're "prone to error" then that makes my point. As for my industry, as if that's relevant, I'm a lawyer. Feel free to take a pot shot. Doesn't mean the two ticketing agencies aren't crap.

To be fair, the G has had ticketing issues a few times this year now (including last week vs Richmond). Apparently those issues lie with Ticketmaster/Ticketek (are there any two more useless, over-priced, low-performing, profiteering companies going around at the moment)?

I was responding to your comment "our defence stinks". Maybe I should have bolded it. Why should I care about what other teams concede? Because most elements of any team's game are relative. Funnily enough jnrmac, if you concede fewer points than your opponent on game day, you win. So when we conceded 14 goals against Richmond, we won by 30+ points. Why does 14 goals suddenly become a problem the following week? If you're saying yesterday's defence was poor, you're absolutely right. Trying to extrapolate that into a season-long issue is iffy though because, as I said, the statistics show we're not at the bottom, or even that close to it, in terms of points conceded per game.

Too hard to know who is best to bring in this week but I really hope ANB plays well. I'd be quite disappointed for him to play his first bad VFL game this week and miss selection because of it.

What's with all the revisionism? We did not look slow and certainly did not lack spread against Richmond or Collingwood (or North, for that matter). That's just complete rubbish. As for bleeding goals, wtf? Richmond kicked 14 goals, the week before Collingwood just 9. When we are on, we are fast, we spread, we score highly but we defend (hence the previous two weeks we scored over 100 points and won by 30+ points both times). When we're not on, we are slow, we don't spread, we don't score enough and we don't defend (hence the losses to Essendon and St Kilda). Stats seem to suggest otherwise, jnrmac. 12 teams have played 6 games already. Of those 12, 6 of them have conceded more points than we have (Richmond, St Kilda, Fremantle, Port, Gold Coast, Hawthorn). Brisbane has already conceded more than us and have a game to play today. If either Essendon or Collingwood concede 75-odd points, they'll both pass us too.

Nope, not true. Collingwood has two home games at Etihad this year, and has done for awhile. IMO the problem is twofold: the AFL has a contractual requirement to have a certain number of games at Etihad this year and two of its tenants, Carlton and Essendon, get to host too many of their home games at the G. Why is Essendon hosting Geelong at the MCG? Why does Carlton have home games against interstate sides at the MCG? These are the clubs who signed up to Etihad at the start, they should be the ones wearing the minimum games requirement, not MCG clubs like Melbourne (and Richmond, and Collingwood). The location is fine. The design is appalling. The service is poor. The facilities are worse than the G's. The seating arrangements are complicated. Ticketing is difficult.

It was our first 6 day break for the year (the Saints' second), I wonder if some of our players didn't prepare properly or know how to prepare properly (compared to our standard 7 or 8 day breaks). I'm a little disappointed in selection. We went in very young an inexperienced (20 fewer games per player and a whole year younger per player) and, relatively unsurprisingly, St Kilda seemed to deal with the short turnaround better than us.

Well...nope. We did have a player kick 7 goals though, no idea when the last time was that happened. So does that count?

I thought that was the rule too but Hawthorn doesn't have a home game at Etihad this year.

This is the same thing we saw against GWS. We turned it around against the Giants, though, mainly by tightening the zone and not being sucked too far up the ground.

When did we agree to play it there? As far as I know, each year we request all our Melbourne home games to be at the G. It's the AFL's decision, not ours.

Gawn's played 45 games. He's going to be up-and-down whilst he's still learning his craft at AFL level. Tyson 56, Pedersen 57, even McDonald's only played 88. This is still relative inexperience. Today's players with over 100 games experience - Dunn, Garlett, Jones, Lumumba, Vince, Watts. How many of them played well (or at least acceptably well)? Jones? Watts? Is that it? That's the real problem.

Had we won today, we'd currently be above Hawthorn on the ladder. Kind of hard to believe, really. Hoping this is a sign that Hawthorn, without luck/free kicks, is one or two notches below the best this year.

Would love to see the Giants get up, followed by Port over Richmond. Would make today's game a tiny bit easier to deal with.

We got more people to the Round 1 game against GWS than we did today.

Rubbish, our best football this year clearly indicates our game plan is perfectly fine both offensively and defensively. The real issue is why we can't execute it weekly. Part of that is youth (our 22 players today are a year, on average, younger than St Kilda's) and inexperience (our 22 averaged 20 games fewer per player than theirs). Part of that is also our first 6-day break for the year. Part of it is poor coaching, poor selection, and a lot of it is a group of players who still aren't at the required AFL level of consistency yet within themselves. I thought we were improving in all these areas this year but I guess not.

If what I'm reading is correct, and we were lazy, flat and disinterested, it's not an Etihad problem. Those are the same traits that we showed against Essendon in Round 2, coming off a good win and hype. The problem is the club, not the ground. (NB: I still hate Etihad and don't want to play home games there, but still).

I haven't been able to watch the game today and suspect I won't, but on the basic stats alone I suspect it won't be too hard to find room for ANB, Brayshaw, Oliver and/or Trengove. Kent's had 8 touches after 25 last week and 21 the week before. Has Frost touched the ball since quarter time? I find it difficult to fathom how we could be getting ahead of ourselves merely a month after the Essendon debacle. I also don't want to let myself believe that we debuted Petracca earlier than his form warranted because we wanted to pull a crowd to a home game. That's the MFC of 2009, should not be the MFC of 2016.