titan_uranus

I have no idea why this thread exists. Why do we have a thread specifically for criticising one off plays from a 20 year old second year player who, on any measure, has been fantastic for his age and experience as part of a top 4 defence? Judd’s a star.

They’re lucky he didn’t get 2 weeks. Ridiculous challenge.

I personally don’t think there’s ever a good time for a 5 day break. They only exist to satisfy Channel 7 and their insatiable desire for Thursday night footy. Which, when we’re involved, I hate.

I remember this, he looked proppy on a left knee/ankle maybe on the outer wing, took his kick but didn’t look comfortable at the time. Channel 7, in their usual way, didn’t follow it up (despite having two boundary riders!).

There have been multiple reports that Gawn had the flu or similar and shouldn’t have played. Might explain it.

Of course you are. Most agree with the general proposition that we struggled in various aspects of the game. It’s just that there was nothing in your original post to explain why you said it was a “fantastic win”. Which made it feel like you dropped it in for the sake of it, in a post which otherwise read like we’d hardly impressed against an average side.

Correct, sorry

Underrated moment. Also Chandler’s tap to ANB in the fourth. Both great reads of the play and uses of space.

I’m not quite sure I agree with the bolded bit, tbh. I think your lack of a solution to replacing Hore perhaps suggests as much.

“Fantastic win, but…” Jesus this is a fair shake of the old sauce bottle, even by your standards.

@fr_ap shares my view - Gawn moved Finlayson around before Finlayson grabbed him. I’m confident if the roles were reversed there would have been outrage on here. Most of the early frees to us were there, I agree @fr_ap, but in a hostile interstate environment they don’t always get paid. It helped us that they did.

The Gawn one was classic "ruck lotto". The rules in those contests are so unpredictable. If that had gone the other way we'd have been ropeable. I was equally ropeable at the Rozee one, that was horrendous IMO.

I'm just noting a few of the moments which did admittedly go in our favour. I forgot the Dixon one going against us. I think the only time the umpires influenced the game was early, paying frees that were there but which don't always get paid against the home side in a hostile environment. Helped us steady.

You'd think the changes will be dictated by fitness more than anything. We will have been planning this out for months. Is Brown able to back up? Can Gawn go again against another pretty decent ruck in O'Brien? Is Lever's knee OK? Is Oliver's finger OK?

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too. But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free. And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

This is how I felt watching the game too, other than the third quarter which felt like them dominating but us defending brilliantly and holding them back for most of it (until they got those two goals to push it out to 16 points). The third felt like the Collingwood QF a little bit. The rest of the game felt like a much more even game. We did, though, nail difficult shots at key moments (Brown and Gawn late third, Fritsch late are probably the three big ones) and that helps our xScore go up, whilst they missed some easier shots and their xScore dropped.

For three of the quarters I’d agree but it felt like in the third quarter they just got too far on top in the middle and controlled play. We sagged back to defend but it felt to me like the game was on their terms, not ours. The rest of the game felt like we were prepared to give up some territory and so it was more within our control.

6 - ANB 5 - Viney 4 - Gawn 3 - Lever 2 - Chandler 1 - Oliver

Absolutely brilliant win. When they got to 16 points up in the third it felt like we were hanging on by fingernails, with the time they had in their forward half, but we defended so well and when the tide turned we took full toll. -2 CPs, -15 clearancss, -10 tackles despite being -36 disposals and -21 inside 50s. 99.9% chance if Port does that again this year at home they beat whoever they’re playing. For us to win despite that is a testament to the way we’ve changed how we set up and move the ball. On TV it felt like we retained forwards deeper to ensure we had options; it also felt like when we were at our worst we lost that shape forward of the ball. ANB humungous, Brown’s leading and aerial contest work was critical, Viney massive all night and Clarry’s final quarter was stunning. TMac was surprisingly good on Dixon, so much so that we felt comfortable swinging Petty forward. Lever’s intercept game was phenomenal but he and Rivers have to improve their kicking, they both made critical errors. Despite all those shout outs, this was a win that didn’t have Trac, Oliver or Gawn dominating for four quarters. That of itself is massive. (Edit: the stats suggest Gawn was more dominant than I felt while watching. I thought Soldo troubled him at times. But clearly Gawn was good). These sorts of wins, on the road to boot, can really make something of a season.

Is it fair to say the disparity between their players with AFL experience and ours means this has been a promising performance so far?

So Adelaide are 0-3 and have us (home) and Carlton (away) as their next two. 0-5 is not exactly far-fetched. They just re-signed Nicks, too. We'll see if Fremantle are truly the real deal in the next fortnight, with Carlton and then Port (away).

Your constant conspiracy theorising is tiresome. Also, probably not accurate here. How much media was generated by their 0-3 start? It was all over every paper and website. The more they lose, the more attention they get.

It will most likely be a fine. Intentional, body contact and low impact is a fine. Has to be graded medium or above to get a week. For that, either the MRO decides it was genuinely medium force or applies the "potential to cause injury". I'd love it if the MRO did actually grade it medium but I doubt it. Edit: a reminder that the system is broken. Any intentional strike should be a minimum week. If it's enough force to be reportable, then it's a week. It's [censored] moronic that we still have fines for intentional strikes.

If he stays next year then walks as a free agent, and if we get band 1 compensation, then we get the first pick after our own. Which, if we are any good next year, will be mid-teens. North Melbourne got pick 3 because their first pick in the draft was pick 2.

I'll reserve judgment on whether Collingwood are "back" until I see them play someone else. Brisbane right now are no good. I don't think it's hyperbolic to say the wheels could fall right off. If they're this lethargic against North...well...probably not. But then they play us, Geelong, GWS, GC and Adelaide. It's a tough run and on current form they may well be 2-7 at the end of it.