titan_uranus

They did treat Hawthorn with disrespect. Mitchell had said in the week they were going to tag Daicos but no one tried to help him (compare how we dealt with Starcevich's tag on Trac). Sicily's in AA form and they did nothing to tag him (compare what St Kilda did last week, having been taught that lesson earlier this year). They used the game to drop Cox and try a lineup with one ruckman, without bringing in Frampton.

It's rational and fair to argue that this shouldn't be close given the respective formlines. But we cannot disrespect them. This isn't even about moving up on the ladder. It's about our form. Collingwood's lost two in a row. Port's lost four in a row. Brisbane lost to a non-finalist last week. Geelong lost to a bottom four side last week. This is another chance to build our form, build on the last four weeks. But it's also a chance to win at a different venue (10 of our 13 wins have been at the G) and to win interstate (2-4 record on the road so far this year).

Don't sleep on Sydney for finals. They are under the radar getting closer and closer as each week goes by to their 2022 form. They'll beat GC next week and I wouldn't write them off beating Adelaide in Adelaide the week after. If they win both they'll be 12.5 and that should do it for finals. If they lose to Adelaide, they'll then need to beat us in the final round to make it - huge game.

I get it, but seriously, the odds here are so low. If we drop even a single game, Collingwood have to lose all three for us to be able to pass them. Even if we win all four, Collingwood still have to go 1-2 from here, from three games in Melbourne, one of which against Essendon who likely will be out of finals contention in Round 24. It's fair enough to note their slide and the reasons underpinning it though. It's valid. Their form is not going in the right direction.

Sydney's right - finishing 2nd guarantees no travel only if we win our first final. Otherwise have to rely on Collingwood winning their first final.

I really, really, don't like this argument - when we do well it's Choco (or Yze, or whoever) but when we do poorly it's Goodwin's fault. Goodwin's win-loss record is comparable to the best modern day coaches. He's taken a club that had struggled for decades and has produced 6 winning seasons out of 7, including 3 (and soon to be 4) finals appearances, at least 2 prelims, and a premiership.

If Sydney hold on to beat GWS, they will near-certainly be playing for a finals spot in Round 24 (even if they lose to Adelaide in Round 23). That game is going to be brutal, I suspect. Our run home isn't as easy as some would think - Hawthorn have the same number of wins against the top 4 as every single other member of the top 4, Carlton's won 6 straight and is playing top 4 quality football, and Sydney are peaking at the right time. Meanwhile Port is a goal up on Geelong - likely end Geelong's season but reminds us that we are still favourites to finish 4th, not 2nd (and not 1st either).

Not necessarily. If Brisbane/Port beat Collingwood in the first final and we lose our first final, we'd have an away prelim. Finishing 2nd gives us two guaranteed MCG home finals, and is clearly better than finishing 3rd or 4th and risking an interstate trip in the first week. I agree. I don't think Spargo's form this year has been good enough, and I think the FD accepts that. I don't think it's just a matter of him needing to work on his tank. I just don't think he's best 23 in the FD's minds right now. @binman doesn't like the "aggro" "who comes out to bring him in" argument - I don't agree with that view, I think that question is valid. Who comes out of the current side to bring Spargo back in the final three weeks and/or finals? Whoever he replaces, we lose whatever their contribution is. So, if it's Chandler, we lose his pressure, goal-kicking and speed to bring in Spargo's running, link-up play and good distribution inside 50. Similarly if it's Jordon, we lose a midfield rotation (which I am against).

So far this week, Essendon nearly lost to West Coast, Collingwood lost to Hawthorn and Geelong is struggling to beat Port Adelaide at GMHBA despite Port Adelaide missing a heap of good players. I don't want us taking this game lightly, as some sort of experiment or fitness training run. I want our form peaking, not starting to slide like (potentially) Collingwood. I get that it's North Melbourne, and I get that rationally this is nothing but MFCSS, but with Clarkson back and Ziebell announcing his retirement, and having just watched West Coast and Hawthorn play two of their best games of the year, who knows what might be sparked in them.

I know Tomlinson wasn't great last week but are we really that desperate that after all the effort to turn Smith into a forward we're now flipping it around yet again and making him a defender? No Spargo is the right call IMO. The small forward to midfielder balance is right. Hibberd for sub? We've tried Spargo as sub and it didn't work, and I sure as [censored] hope we don't try it again. Goodwin ruled Grundy out already so it would be odd to see him get picked. I suppose Tomlinson's versatile and could feasibly play multiple spots (or replace Smith and free Smith to move up the ground), but I doubt we go that way.

Late call-ups can come from those not named emergencies, so IMO emergencies these days are almost symbolic more than anything. I think we name the emergencies to signal to the squad who is next in line.

Maybe, but I think we should change what we were doing earlier this year and use the spot Woey's vacated with another midfielder, not another small forward. IMO playing Spargo alongside ANB, Chandler and Pickett is too much, and we're better off using that spot as another midfielder, all the more so whilst Oliver's not playing.

Whilst I did say earlier that I somewhat understand Cornes' position on this issue (i.e. not going too hard for a single doctor who will have done a lot right by players over the years, even if this is an egregious mistake), this issue does display his awfully blatant Port Adelaide bias. When Oliver was ruled out for longer than first expected he called it the "Demon Debacle" and said he couldn't think of another injury that was managed as poorly. No "good clubs stick by good people" for us, was there.

It certainly doesn't sound like we're playing Grundy this week. If North play two rucks, my concern isn't Gawn as much as it is JVR, who we're going to be asking to compete in centre bounce ruck contests against someone like Xerri. Do we really need to be throwing our most promising young KPF into ruck contests like that? Having said that, someone has to be dropped to bring Grundy in and there's no obvious option.

What we're seeing here with the delayed release of the Round 24 fixture is yet another reason why the 17-5 fixture model should never see the light of day. We'd get 1-2 weeks' notice for the first game of that block. We're at 4 weeks right now and it's (rightly) causing fans to be frustrated. My view on Round 24 is that we're a Saturday night chance, if Sydney are going to use the game as a Buddy farewell - will be on FTA TV and will give him a send-off. And that's without considering if Sydney are playing for finals, which is a very high possibility. We can't be the Friday night as we're the Sunday in Round 23 and won't be given another 5-day break. I suspect Essendon v Collingwood will be the Sunday 3.20pm game, which will draw a crowd and a TV audience even if Essendon can't make finals (but will be enormous, like Carlton v Collingwood last year, if Essendon are in a "win and in" situation). I reckon one of Brisbane v St Kilda and Carlton v GWS for the Friday night, as those look to be certainties to have top 4, top 6 or top 8 ramifications.

I somewhat accept what Cornes is saying. I don't think we should rush to hang their doctor over this mistake. As best we can, the focus should be on the club as a collective and not an individual. Having said that, it's a mistake that simply never should have been made. In 2023, with everything we're doing on concussion, with the focus, the lawsuits, the dozens of players who are forced to sit out games because they tackled a player dangerously even when that player had no issue, it is impossible to understand how Port Adelaide decided it was OK to not put those two players through full concussion tests. The AFL has to make a big example out of this. It has to be a massive punishment. Whether it's a fine as part of the soft cap, draft pick penalties, premiership points, whatever, it has to hit hard. The AFL needs to show itself outwardly to care and to signal to clubs that you can't get these things wrong.

IMO, 3-1 is the "likely" outcome. 4-0 is optimistic, 2-2 is pessimistic. I think @binman's take on our form is almost as good as it could possibly get, whilst some of what you've said here is unnecessarily negative. "Decimated" Adelaide? We played that game without the game's best midfielder and our best forward. I know Adelaide was missing Rachele, Laird and Doedee but with our outs as well, the gap wasn't really enough to make them "decimated" (they also proceeded to belt Port by 10 goals one week later so it's hardly like other clubs are finding it easy to beat that side). And focusing on "luck" against Brisbane and Adelaide is fair, because as I've argued all through Collingwood's 2022-23, you need luck to win close games (as well as skill). But it obviously also applies to Collingwood, and other sides who squeak through close games, such as GWS against us.

He will. All I meant was that if we are going to push May up the ground, we need someone else playing key defence and with Petty forward, that is almost certainly going to be Tomlinson (not Hibberd, for example).

Except in finals - under Fagan they are 2-4 in Gabba finals. To answer the OP, if I could pick any match up it'd likely be Port at the G - we get into 2nd, they slide to 3rd, their late-season form is trending the opposite way to ours. But we don't get to pick, all we can do is win and let the ladder play out.

Wasn't sure where else to post this so figured here. Did anyone else hear Daniel Hoyne from Champion Data talking about May? He noticed that this week May played higher up the ground, winning 43% of his possessions across half-back (his highest for the year) and 43% inside D50 (his lowest for the year). Noted that in Round 6 he took Riewoldt but this week we left that to Tomlinson and let May push higher up the ground. Do we think this is going to become a trend for us, or more of a one off? If the former, would support the idea that we're going to keep playing Tomlinson (at least so long as Petty stays forward).

I don't think this is clear or even known as it's never happened before. The argument that Collingwood wouldn't be on the hook is that they only have an agreement with us - i.e. they pay $350k or whatever it is towards his contract whilst he plays for us. If we then wanted to trade him, the argument is that they would say to us "you can do whatever you want but we're not going to keep paying the $350k". Of course, I can't see why they couldn't agree to do it - it wouldn't change what they'd budgeted for in their salary cap. I think the idea is that it's just opportunistic, with the new contract they could squeeze us and hold off on contributing anything, forcing us to find the money if we or Grundy really wanted to find a trade.

In all likelihood I agree. However, if Richmond is playing for a finals spot in Round 24, that final game Port has could be interesting. I think 3-1 gets us 3rd at best, if we can make the percentage up in the wins and catch Brisbane. An away final to Port is not ideal but IMO winnable.

We also have double ups against Brisbane, as well as Richmond, Carlton, and Sydney, those three all in the final 5 weeks when all are pushing for finals and at least one (Carlton), if not two, are going to make finals.

I didn't say it would happen, only that it's what would be required to happen. On current form St Kilda will do well to go 2-2 from here, which might be enough for finals but would be close.

IMO, if we can go 4-0 from here 2nd is more likely than not. I can see Brisbane losing to Collingwood so we'd pass them, but we might pass them even if they also go 4-0 given the percentage gap is small now. And I doubt Port goes 4-0 from here, given they have Geelong and GWS in their next fortnight. 3-1 from here can allow 2nd but is less likely (Brisbane lose to Collingwood and we make the percentage, Port lose twice). 2-2 from here almost certainly locks in 4th - would require Port to go 1-3 and/or Brisbane to go 2-2 or worse to go up, and to go down from 4th GWS or St Kilda would have to go 4-0 and make up 20% on us. Nearly a mathematical certainty but not quite. 1-3 can still make top 4 but would be tough. Would miss if St Kilda or GWS go 4-0, or 3-1 but catch the 20%, or if Carlton go 4-0.