titan_uranus

Agree Macca. I had a look last year; stats-wise, the breakdown is as follows:

I'd go with Grimes, Harmes, and then two of Michie, Stretch and ANB, one of whom to be the sub. Yep, correct. Other 'quirks': last home game against Adelaide was round 22 2012. Last home game against Carlton was Round 10 2011. Last home game against Essendon was Round 15 2010 (and the one before that was Round 1 2005).

I found the article pretty simplistic. There are a greater number of issues facing the game than just stoppages. For one, I'm bored sh!tless with Hawthorn being an ever-present powerhouse. They're odds-on to win it again, making it three in a row, four GFs in a row, five Preliminary finals in a row. If their opponent is Sydney or Fremantle, which is more likely, then that will mean we've had a grand total of three sides make the GF in four years. But just as importantly, fixturing is horrendous. Free to air TV is dominated by the same sides. If I want to sit down on a Friday night and enjoy a game, I'm essentially forced to watch Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, Hawthorn and Geelong. I'm sick of being forced to watch the same sides weekly. So I've significantly reduced watching non-MFC games. Meanwhile, if I want to follow Melbourne closely, I'm forced to show up at ridiculous times like 1.10 or 4.40, or even 3.20 which exists solely for TV. And if my club goes interstate they essentially disappear off the face of the earth, save for those fortunate enough to afford the rip off that is Foxtel (although I will give credit to local pubs who do their best to have AFL on where possible). As for the game, I've always believed it will evolve over time and problems like stoppages will sort themselves out. Having said that, I agree that the interchange cap needs to be reduced (significantly, IMO). I don't like the concept of zones, nor do I think they're necessary - eventually, with interchange rotations forced downwards, sides are going to start resting more players in the forward line (because they can't rest them on the bench and they won't be able to push up to the stoppages like they do now). It will sort itself out if we give it the push it needs in the form of reducing rotations.

As rjay has said, I agree with the general proposition that you shouldn't expect to get blockbusters and Friday nights etc. if you're not playing well. However, the fact Carlton finished 6-16 last year playing ho-hum football but got 7 Friday nights this year shows that there are no guarantees that performances are rewarded. Blockbusters (i.e. timeslots and opponents) to one side, another gripe, and one that is completely fixable without distorting the brand, is the spread of home games each club gets. There was a thread last year where I had a look at who hosts who - essentially we are continually getting home games against interstate sides and not against the bigger clubs. The bigger clubs all host themselves. That, IMO, is an area that can be improved upon and doesn't necessarily require Melbourne vs Brisbane to be a Friday night game.

Robinson's attack on us reeks of just watching one game (Brisbane) and not watching any others, which I think is common as I don't think too many people pay huge attention to Melbourne during the year. IIRC no one was wondering if we were bad for football when we beat Geelong.

Here. Anyway, I severely regret my decision on this one. Returning to the topic: I don't mind McDonald playing forward when it's possible, though IMO he's a defender and I see him as a defender long-term. If Riewoldt doesn't play, I reckon we can get away with it again this week without needing Fitzy. If he does play though, I'd rather play McDonald on him - Riewoldt's tank is too much for anyone else on our list I think.

I like the thread, but I don't agree with the OP's fundamental premise that our gameplan is fatally flawed and needs to change in order to be competitive. IMO, our issue isn't gameplan, it's personnel. We don't have enough skilled players, nor do we have any flexibility, nor have our players had enough time to work together as a team yet. What I think makes Hawthorn so good is the way everything is second nature to them. They know where to bring the ball out from a kick in because they know the forwards will be leading when the time is right. Meanwhile with us Dunn (or whoever it is kicking in) is hesitant because they're looking for the right option to arise. I notice with Watts, he often gets the ball and knows where it is supposed to go but can't execute it quickly because the next piece in the puzzle hasn't fallen into place quickly enough. I think the two biggest things we need to do to keep pushing up the ladder are: Continue to play our core future players together so that they feed off each other, learn from each other, and become a true team Adding to that core at trade/draft period by bringing in players to fill the obvious gaps on our list (half-back kicking skill, second ruck, second KPF, outside run, half-back flank run) But I don't think changing the gameplan is on the cards.

No, not 'bang'. Look, I'm not stuie's biggest fan and he says some ridiculous, rude, petulant things sometimes (the stuff with KC is a perfect example). But coming onto threads, waiting for someone to say something, then responding to it, without engaging with the thread, is trolling, which ironically is something you/BBO criticise stuie of doing. You're not even right about his post. He said it's shallow to judge H's form on just stats (which, IMO, is correct). What he then said was H plays on 9 times out of 10, which isn't a stat but a figure of speech, but even if it was a stat, wouldn't be a problem because he used it in context with his observations (i.e. not 'just' using stats to judge a player). FWIW, I like Lumumba playing on repeatedly, we're too stagnant and too inert through the middle and he tries to keep our transitions moving. However, his disposal hasn't been up to scratch and he's made too many bad decisions with the ball for my liking.

You started a PP thread on here on 20 May. Pot, kettle, black.

That's your definition of 'elite'? Gets a game for a strong side? Not only is West Coast not yet 'elite' (they'd want to achieve something first before they get that mantle), even if they were he's not 'elite'. He's still learning how to play FFS!

Except that there's no need to wear an alternate strip vs Collingwood.

Another Watts v Naitanui thread! Yay!

Possibly no Riewoldt and at the G, and against a side who, until the last quarter against Richmond, had kicked just 10 goals in their last 7 quarters (3 of which vs GWS came in 2 minutes). St Kilda have been getting a fair bit of positive media recently (a 110 point win does that I guess), but I maintain they are overrated and overhyped. That of course doesn't mean anything and we could easily lose the game convincingly, but we are more than capable of winning this one.

IIRC you didn't buy that argument when we lost to Essendon. You don't get it both ways. If we were lucky to beat Brisbane because of inaccuracy then we were unlucky to lose to Essendon, and we're still 1-1 over the two games.

We lost the clearances 42-23 today, so we've already shown ourselves (I'm talking player mindset) that we can win without dominating at stoppages (which is something we've been quite good at this year). Riewoldt must surely be in doubt for next week too, so without him Bruce comes down a peg in dangerousness.

I haven't seen the game yet, which doesn't appear to be much of a loss based on the comments and stats. However, I notice we were thrashed in the clearances. To keep any side to 4 goals and to have more inside 50s than them when losing clearances 42-23 is a positive and, as AoB said, must surely speak to an improved defensive effort across the entire ground. I can't comment on how the game actually played out, but it's common for a bad side to bring the other one down, so though we may have played appallingly today, there's no guarantee it will happen again next week - we've shown this year that we have a much higher ceiling than whatever we dished up today. Also, on what appears to be another instalment in the Demonland "everything's black or white" saga, it is entirely possible for an ugly win and a poor performance to create positivity and optimism. On the one hand, our opponent was clearly abysmal and in perfect conditions we kicked 3 goals in 3 quarters. That's not good enough. On the other hand though, we got another great game out of Hogan and Gawn, Howe and Dawes contributed more, McDonald got another shot at being a forward, Harmes looks to have improved, and we won despite Jones only having 21 touches. It's now our best season on a W-L basis since 2011, we've won as favourites which gets that monkey off the back, and we've finally ground out a win against a bad side (stuffed that up twice already this season). It doesn't have to be either all positive or all negative. It is, like usual, somewhere in between.

This is a midfield battle, pure and simple. If our mids don't turn up with the right mindset, their midfield will belt us, and then we'll see the likes of McStay kicking bags because their mids will deliver it to him on a platter. If we win in the midfield we should be strong enough at either end of the ground to score more than enough. I'm not confident of winning in the middle though.

Geelong winning today puts them in the 8. How is that even possible? They're so average. I guess that's a sign that, after about 3 or 4 teams, the rest of the competition is even but mediocre.

As fans, maybe. As players, I doubt it. IMO another of the many issues to come out of our 'losing culture' is that our players don't get fired up after bad performances like other sides' players do. Essendon in the month leading up to the St Kilda game were mediocre at best, but the Saints game exposed all their issues and embarrassed them in front of the AFL. It forced their coaches into dropping consistently poor performers (e.g. Dempsey) but more importantly, the players appear to have responded in the last fortnight (if not in skill, at least in effort). With all the losing we do, big losses are just more of the same for our players, and I just don't think our players get fired up after bad performances enough anymore as a result. For any other club last week would have stung, but for us it was just another loss.

There was also Round 5, 2010 where Brisbane was 4-0, having scored 100+ points in each of their four wins, with Fevola and Brown as an unstoppable forward duo, and we knocked them off on a Saturday night at the G. Players from that side playing tomorrow - Dunn, Garland, Jones (and Stefan Martin).

The only reason I dislike going in with no changes is that we're going to be rucking Dawes against either Martin or Leuenberger. Given that Dawes struggles in the ruck against nobodies, I'm worried about that. I'd have thought Grimes would be an improvement over Harmes, ANB or Stretch (the latter two appearing tired to me), but changes in these sorts of players are not going to make us win or lose this game. The result will come down to our senior players, as it always does. If we drop him, there's no chance his value stays high. If we don't drop him, there's the chance he'll positively impact a game of football (I don't see it happening, but there's always a chance), and it will be noticed around the league. In other words, one option gives us 0% chance, the other gives us >0%. If he wasn't out of contract this year, I'm a lot more confident he'd be playing VFL right now.

Ripping efforts from Smith and Rogers with the bat, and then the pace bowlers with the ball. The extra pace of Johnson and Starc was evidently important. The fightback from Stokes and Cook was good but they're still 282 behind the follow on and 482 behind our score. There's Buttler and Moeen still to come but at the same time there's 3 days left and a mountain of runs. We're in a great position.

You're allowed to be pessimistic and critical but at least direct it in the right places. Garlett this year is averaging 1.8 goals per game. Rioli is averaging 1.5. Garlett's also averaging 4.8 tackles per game to Rioli's 4.2. I'm not saying Garlett is better than Rioli but why does he have to be? As for 'a couple of goals a game', he kicked 4 against Geelong and 3 against Hawthorn and Fremantle - he's capable of hitting the scoreboard. His forward pressure is fantastic (it's not his fault the majority of the rest of our forward line is no good at it). He consistently puts himself in the right places (whether it's front and centre of marking contests, where for the last 5 years we've had no one, or out the back of packs ready to use his pace). IMO, he's actually one of the few players who regularly puts in four quarters, even when the team isn't - you might not notice him during those kinds of games, but that's often because when the team is down a small forward doesn't get a lot of the ball. And at least the last fortnight, during which time the team has been disappointing, he's been leading the way with defensive pressure - 19 tackles in the last two weeks.

I know this might be a shock to you old dee, but it is possible to be slightly positive or optimistic without drinking.

I know he was found guilty, that's my complaint. You can be guilty of intentionally kneeing someone in the head and only get one week. The consequences ought to have nothing to do with it. Yes, Westhoff was fine. So what? One knee strike to the head could break a cheekbone, damage an eye socket, concuss someone - the risk of serious damage is obvious. It's the action that is the problem, but the MRP is far too weighted towards consequence. How can we possibly allow someone to intentionally knee someone in the head and only miss one week?! Intentionally kneeing someone in the head!!! What a dog act!!