titan_uranus

-17 in stoppage score despite being obliterated in clearances tells me we are still setting up well at stoppage and behind the ball. However, the -44 from turnover will no doubt be impacted in part by our uncompetitiveness in clearances, which led to the ball being camped in our back half far too much.

Ridiculous take. Sydney aside, everyone has lost games to everyone else on the ladder. At any rate, Hawthorn is, on form, a top 4 side, the Dogs aren’t far off. Fremantle also beat Sydney a few weeks ago.

He is regularly in our top handful for pressure acts (4th yesterday). We know we’re a nothing side without pressure. So I assume it’s that side of his game which is keeping him in the side. Because I otherwise agree that his game on offence is nowhere near good enough. That same post also mentions Bowey as a player who is underperforming. I agree. Of all parts of the ground, we have depth in that part (unlike the midfield), so I’m not sure how much longer we can keep playing Bowey on current form.

It’s pretty weak to say nothing after a win, wait for a loss, then say “you [censored]” or “told you so” or similar. But equally, the reaction to beating Essendon was OTT. I maintain my general view that Goodwin’s a far better coach than most give him credit for, principally because our list has not been anywhere near as good as what some have tried to make it out to be. It’s becoming clearer now that making even finals, let alone top 4, in 2022-23 was an achievement given what the other three recent premiers have done (or not done) post-flag.

Who are you dropping out of JVR, Petty and Turner to bring him in, bearing in mind Gawn is coming back too? Surely our focus has to be on the mids after what we just dished up? Given what I’m reading here and seeing on the stat sheet, Salem, Sparrow, Kolt and AMW would all be up for debate?

I didn’t get to watch the game today so there isn’t much I can add. I fully expected a loss today, but not by 50, and not with 0 clearances in the first quarter and 3 to HT. Fremantle clearly love playing us and I’m more than a little bit embarrassed at how easy it seems for them to dominate us. Just have to accept that we were always going to lose this one and move on.

What even is this X account though? Just some random made up rumours thing? Or any sort of track record?

Not even remotely true. If we lose we’ll be 2 points out of the 8, and still within one game of 5th (possibly 4th too, if Brisbane lose). Our draw gets easier from here, not harder, with the last three (Port, GC, Coll) easier than the next three (Fremantle, GWS, Dogs).

Yep agree. We can win this, and I am 100% all in on the optimism and confidence, it’s refreshing and enjoyable. But IMO Fremantle are a top 4 side and will be eager to bounce back after last week. We are deservedy marked underdogs.

I believe it’s 17 of the last 18. And the outlier was the Dogs in 2016.

After today I think it looks like this: Win, and we go to at least 7th. Whether we go up more depends on if Brisbane lose and whether we catch Port or Geelong on percentage. We’re 0.5% behind Port and 1.3% behind Geelong. Lose and we’re 10th, unless we shed 5.5% and slide below Hawthorn. IMO, our games are almost in order of descending difficulty from here. Fremantle in Perth, GWS and Dogs at Marvel seem the three hardest. Port, GC and Collingwood IMO the easier three.

With a win tomorrow, I believe the wildly ridiculous best case scenario is currently that we finish this round 2nd. We would have to win and make up like 7-10% and then each of Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane and GWS all lose, which is possible as none of them play each other. Without the percentage gain we’d be 4th, and then 5-6 depending on if Brisbane or GWS win. On the flipside, if Port win and pass our percentage (very possible) we can win and go down a spot on the ladder (all those sides above us win/don’t go below our percentage). If we lose we may stay where we are if Port, the Dogs and GC lose, but worst case scenario we’d be 12th (Port, Dogs, GC and Collingwood win and the latter two pass our percentage). So, our window at the end of this round is 2-12. What the [censored].

Well. Yeah. That helps. Don’t mind Adelaide finding some form. They have Hawthorn, Geelong, the Dogs and Port in their next four.

I posted this earlier in this thread but I don’t agree with this. Not anymore in the current AFL media hyper-trade era. I do not accept that these stories are all born out of something legit. But, even if they are, the “legit” bit of this could easily be nothing more than “other clubs think they can entice him”. Which may amount to nothing more than wishful thinking, or a deliberate attempt to “stir the pot” to see what sort of response comes from the club or Clarry.

Most of the finals contenders have at least one game left against a bottom 5 side. They’re all issues for us, unfortunately.

The timing was definitely a factor. We won ours just after Richmond had won 3 of the last 4, which came just after Hawthorn won 3 in a row, which came just after Geelong won 3 out of 5. However, three years on and there's a fair chance we will be the only one of the last four premiers to have even made the finals the year after the flag (Richmond missed in 2021, Geelong missed in 2023, Collingwood may miss in 2024).

I'm all for the optimism and confidence, but yes, I seriously think Fremantle are better than us. Their loss to Hawthorn last week doesn't immediately negate what they've done this year, which includes beating Sydney two weeks earlier. They have weapons which we struggle with (a midfield which can match us at contest but beat us on spread, half-backs with pace, forwards who can compete in the air even if they're not A-graders and rucks who would give Gawn trouble, let alone Petty/JVR), and their only losses in Perth this year have been to West Coast in a derby (we lost to them too) and Sydney in the game after McCarthy's death in which they were clearly and for obvious reasons not at their peak. I want to see us play like we have the last month, and if we do I think we can win, but I'll be OK with our season and fortunes if we don't because Fremantle should be considered a difficult match-up for us and a strong opponent.

Who wanted to go back home for a number of (valid) personal reasons? That's not an example of us being "ruthless". That's an example of us being relatively compassionate, to be honest, which is almost the opposite of this whole "we have to be ruthless with our list" concept.

I don't think this is right. Whether or not something is "likely to cause injury" is not the same as "will cause injury". Bedford's tackle is the perfect example - it's not a type of tackle that is likely to cause injury because that type of tackle occurs 100s of times a Round without any injury occurring. Put legalisms to one side. Do you really think Bedford deserved suspension for his tackle?

What's being missed in all the outrage tonight is that the Appeals Board is all about "getting off on a legal technicality". It's almost impossible to win an appeal without showing that the Tribunal applied the rules/guidelines incorrectly. The only other option is to say that the Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to that decision, which is such a high bar. There should be outrage at the entire system of course. The MRO box-ticking exercise has been unfit for purpose for years. The Tribunal is far too inconsistent and doesn't explain its reasoning in a way which anyone other than lawyers can properly understand. The rules have been patchwork developed year-on-year to have become bloated and unworkable, with convoluted definitions and concepts upon concepts which are not capable of easily being understood and therefore ripe for legal debate. And the AFL, overseeing all of it, is too scared to admit what we all want it to admit - a certain amount of concussion is going to occur in this sport unless we fundamentally change it in a way that no one actually wants. The AFL media make mountains out of molehills all the time, and I can't stand what is often confected outrage (e.g. May's play for a free). But I'm all for it here - this off-season, the AFL has to completely revamp the MRO/Tribunal process.

I'd be all in favour of bringing Houston to the club but suspect this is like the Clarry story and is another one of the AFL media's attempts to drum up interest where there isn't anything actually happening.

Who have those been in the past? Watts? None of them have the career that Oliver has to this point. People throw around this concept of clubs needing to be "ruthless" all the time. I actually think it's exceedingly rare that clubs force out proven talent.

Source? Or just your opinion? I don't know if it's a rule but I thought that the sub and emergencies come from the extended bench. Petty not on the extended bench which tends to suggest he's playing. Fully expecting one of Billings or Laurie to play, and be sub. Personally I don't think either are part of our future and I don't think either are going to make us better in 2024, but I also appreciate the importance of rewarding VFL form and I understand both were very good last week.

I enjoy the debate @Deespicable but as others have said, it’s indefensibly bonkers to give us a 6/10 when we found three players who each played their own critical role in 2021, and none of whom were before pick 29.

This is true, and worth us all bearing in mind (some rate Essendon but I don’t). But it’s not so much the opposition but the fundamentals in our game since the bye that excite me. The fourth quarters vs North and Brisbane aside, for 14 of the last 16 quarters we’ve played, we’ve looked markedly better than we did pre-bye in most facets of the game. We’re more contested, pressure feels up, we’re transitioning the ball better, and there’s a bit of an intangible vibrancy coming from the kids (Kolt, AMW, JVR, Windsor, McVee, Woewodin).