titan_uranus

That wasn't the only decision in our favour. TMac cannoned into Langford's back in the third but no free was paid. Ridiculous non-decision, was clearly in the back, probably high too. Just awful umpiring last night.

If they can't beat Adelaide, St Kilda and GC (all at Marvel), they shouldn't be playing finals to be honest. They're where they are on the ladder because they haven't dropped any of these sorts of games all year (the only loss to a side not in the top 9 was when they lost to GC up there, and to GC's credit they are undefeated there). They could easily be pumped by the other three (Fremantle, Sydney and Brisbane) and finish with 13.5 and a percentage under 100%, and make finals on that basis.

Agree with this but query the last paragraph. The fact that it worked this week vs Draper doesn't mean it's going to work next week vs Darcy/Jackson. The threat they pose at stoppage with their clearance work, and around the ground (both are much better than Draper), means the task next week is a step up at least. Plus it rained last night, which I'm going to assume won't be the case next week. Plus JVR's just played a game in the ruck and has to get on a plane to Perth. There are plenty of reasons why, despite it working this week, we may need to reconsider it for next week.

It won’t get a mention because we won but if we had lost this should be getting the same level of attention as the NM- Collingwood non-50. I cannot fathom any reason for the umpire not to pay this.

Far more excited to go for the biggest upset of the year x 2 in Richmond or West Coast today. Either of them winning, and taking four points off GWS/Brisbane, would do wonders. GC beating Port helps, but keeps GC close to us. Reality is our fixture means if we get to 13 wins we're likely to make finals because that will require us to take four points of three of our rivals for finals spots.

Just noticed that Rivers had 29 touches (second most for all players, behind Langdon), but only 67% TOG. Incredible, really.

Salem - contest work underrated Put his body on the line repeatedly tonight.

He's a genius until we lose, following which he'll be a stubborn coach who is wasting a list. And so the Demonland cycle continues.

We need to think seriously about whether we can afford to ruck JVR against Darcy/Jackson. If that means dropping Petty for Fullarton, or even Tomlinson, I'd consider it. Bowey's out of form but I don't know if Woey's an improvement.

6 - Langdon 5 - McVee 4 - Rivers 3 - Pickett 2 - Windsor 1 - ANB

Great win. Not so much because of the opposition (I don't rate Essendon. They're fraudulent). But because of how we played. That's the way we need to play, and if we bring that more often than not for the last 6 games, we're right in with a chance. Windsor's skills on a wet night were insane. Pickett played with a focus that makes him so much better. McVee continues to play like a 200-gamer. May was better (but still a major problem with ground balls). Disco is really developing his positioning and leading (and the kicking is *chef's kiss*), and Melksham makes us a much more dangerous proposition forward of centre. JVR's job in the ruck bailing out Petty, ANB's job on Merrett, and Oliver's ability to get into the game and put his usual skills on show in the wet were, IMO, key reasons we turned it around after going down a couple of goals early. Loved Clarry's game actually - not a stand out dominant midfield performance but a role played really well when he clearly isn't at 100% Clarry power. The JVR thing is a positive and a negative - Petty in the ruck just didn't work and I don't like rucking JVR into oblivion. If Darcy's back next week, he's a Draper body with a brain and he could really smack JVR around. I don't like that match up, personally. I really liked AMW's game early, but he was flagging and I think the right call to sub. However, Bowey is just right off as well. Not sure whether Woey can grab that spot off him. Disappointing to lose 2% from when we were 41 up, and more disappointing to have let them back into it, but that was partly due to umpiring and surely partly due to them having an 8 day break compared to our 6. Also we were on average a full year younger than them (25yr 4 m compared to 26yr 3m). I said pre-game that this season is up for grabs. The Dogs winning doesn't help but Carlton losing means, as has been pointed out already, that we're now 1 game out of 2nd and just a draw out of 4th. Funnily enough though, we're a good chance of not even being in the 8 by the end of this round (Port, Brisbane and GWS win and we slide to 9th). Next week is, though, really tough. We're Fremantle's bunnies and they'll be smarting from their loss today. But a win next week...hoo boy.

Seriously though, no matter how much you think our culture is shot, our game plan is broken, our coach is too stubborn, our best players injured/out of form, and even if you're right (because you may well be), the majority of the rest of the comp are barely better. Geelong's 3rd but just came off a 1-6 run, including two 10+ goal beltings, and we've beaten them. Three weeks ago they were being completely written off. Fremantle's 4th but lost to West Coast and now Hawthorn. Essendon's 5th but have a percentage under 100% and just one win over a side in the current top 9. Port's 6th but their fans booed their coach off the ground and want him sacked, and a fortnight ago played the worst game of the season against St Kilda, and were again completely written off. Brisbane 7th but like Essendon, only have won win against a current top 8 side, and keep conceding big scores. GWS is 8th but had a 3-7 run in the middle of the year which included a loss two weeks ago to Adelaide (the only side they've beaten other than West Coast in 10 weeks). Yet another side who two weeks ago was completely written off. Collingwood in 10th have one win over a side not in the bottom 4 since Round 8, and an injury list longer than my leg. Hawthorn in 11th are...well...Hawthorn (they're in better form than most). The Dogs in 12th haven't won consecutive games for two months. Gold Coast in 13th are winless away.

Fremantle's loss to Hawthorn is good news for the optimists among us, because it gets us closer to Fremantle, but bad news for the pessimists, because it brings Hawthorn closer to us. Fremantle have 10.5 wins. Their remaining 6 games are us, West Coast, Essendon (away), Geelong, GWS (away) and Port. If we win tonight and then beat them next week, we'll pass them on the ladder. Hawthorn get to 9-8 with 6 to play. Their 6 remaining are Collingwood, Adelaide (away), GWS (away), Carlton, Richmond and North. Watch out. They have a clear path to 13 wins here (Adelaide, Richmond and North, then just one of Collingwood and GWS, who they've already beaten this year). If we lose tonight, you'd probably say Hawthorn's at least an even chance of passing us in the run home. The above reflects the ridiculous evenness of the ladder. 3-13 can barely be split, and even 1 and 2 are beatable.

These were consecutive posts. Sometimes Demonland is great.

Thanks @WheeloRatings. I think @Bring-Back-Powell nailed this one.

I'm continuing to hope that the "hunter" v "hunted" mindset shift helps us. I was hoping it would vs Brisbane and it did. This is another relatively rare game (for 2021-24) where we're underdogs, and indeed it feels like no one out there thinks we can win, let alone will win (Gawn out obviously a factor there). That lack of expectation, indeed the opposite, hopefully lifts the pressure off. And the opposite for them.

Re-written for you. Setting the bar at multiple flags for any side is unfair and unrealistic. Winning flags is hard. There isn't a single person associated with football who says otherwise. It's generally only done on here by the overwhelming angry/pessimistic. Your username checks out on this point.

I think the only conceptual difference between you two is that @binman is focusing on the potential for players to go backwards. A metre "lost" by a side going backwards is a metre that is not gained by the opposition. If a team has a chain of possession which goes backwards 20m but then is turned over, that's 20m off their metres gained which aren't added to the opposition. Whereas every metre gained by a side going forward who doesn't score is a metre that is eventually made back by the opposition, and so on and so forth until one of those sides scores. Which means that a team's aggregate metres gained really only reflects two things: scoring differential, and how much each side moves the ball backwards.

A sobering thought. Since beating Carlton by a goal in Round 8, Collingwood's only wins in the subsequent 10 weeks have been against West Coast, Adelaide and North Melbourne (two of which were by a kick and were affected by controversial late free kicks)... Oh, and us by six goals.

Assuming 13 wins is the cut off to make finals, Collingwood have to go 4-2 from here to make it. They have Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton, Sydney, Brisbane and us. If they can beat Hawthorn and Richmond, then find one win from their next three...they could well be playing in Round 24 for a finals spot. Whilst we could, easily, be playing for one as well. Having said that, on their current form they'd be no certainty to beat Hawthorn whilst I can't currently see them getting anywhere near Carlton, Sydney or Brisbane.

They're not much chop regardless. What's infuriating is that they could easily make top 4 off the back of 1, maybe 2, wins against eventual finalists.

Collingwood v Geelong games are tough - I hate wanting either side to win. But in this instance I think we want Geelong - I doubt we can catch Geelong given their fixture (Collingwood, the Dogs and Fremantle are the only relevant sides they have, the rest being North, Adelaide, St Kilda and West Coast), so I'd rather sink losses into Collingwood to keep us above them. We won't catch Carlton so we definitely want them to beat the Dogs (and handsomely too if possible). Gold Coast v Port is another tough one. We'll likely have to beat both to make finals. Can GC find 4 wins out of GWS (away), Brisbane, West Coast (away), Essendon (away) and Richmond (away)? If not, we want them to beat Port to try to keep us closer to Port. Outside of our game, a Richmond upset over GWS would be the best result of the weekend, though.

Paging @WheeloRatings

Being an ex-player obviously gives you knowledge that the rest of us don't have. It doesn't make you a good commentator. King is not a particularly good commentator, because he says stupid things and changes his opinion all the time. For example: A few years back he did a big thing about how the top 8 had the same W-L record against each other. Which was how maths works, not some sort of insight into the evenness of the top 8. This year he said in April that only three sides could win the flag - Geelong, GWS and Carlton. Those three sides went something like 1-8 over the next three weeks, two of them fell away so much that the debate turned to whether they'd make finals, and his analysis obviously ignored the current flag favourite (Sydney) and the next best side (Fremantle). Pre-season he said we weren't going to make finals until we beat Carlton in a pre-season match and then he said we would make finals. Which is stupid because pre-season matches shouldn't make that level of difference to your opinion on any side. I give him plenty of credit for at least looking for the stats and using them when he can. That beats out a fair portion of other commentators who don't even look at the numbers. But that doesn't mean his opinions are good.

I understand the argument for this, but don’t agree with it. It’s clear that we don’t have faith in any of the ruck options (Fullarton, Verrall, Schache). Fine. For those who say “why did we get Fullarton”, I think it’s less about why we got him and more about why he’s failed to impress. We took a punt in some respects, and it hasn’t worked. He should be good enough to get this spot but he isn’t. But even accepting we don’t have faith in those players, we have to balance picking a poor ruck against putting a far more important long-term forward into the ruck against Draper who no doubt will try to bully whoever he gets. I cannot stand seeing JVR in there at the best of times, but it’s not much better thinking that we have to throw Petty and Turner there too. It’s also near certain we don’t play all three when Gawn returns so we don’t need to see what they all look like together I’d have preferred we maintained the same structure by going with the admittedly poor ruck replacement and allowing JVR/Petty/Turner to keep playing as forwards.