titan_uranus

The expected score I use (AFLxScore on Twitter) is simply an analysis of the AFL average points scored from the shots a side takes (based on distance, angle, and whether it's a set shot or general play). It doesn't take into account pressure (actual or perceived) or time of the game, I don't think. The fact we won on expected score yesterday helps dispel the bolded part of your post. It's not really accurate to say "they missed some easy shots" - on the whole, they scored above what the average side would score from the shots they took, whereas we scored about on that average. So they were outperforming, not underperforming. Of course, these things all have to be taken with a grain of salt. If a goal had actually been kicked, the ball goes back to the centre, and the whole flow of the game changes. But the metric is helpful to consider goal-kicking accuracy and the difficulty of shots, and just on that basis, it's not actually correct to say they missed easy shots - on the whole, they out-did what they should have scored.

What do you mean "starting"? He's been doing this for weeks now. We've had more players rotating through the middle than in 2022. We've rested/managed players who haven't been fit instead of pushing through (with Petty the only exception I can think of). We've gone away from the 2021 preferred forward structure and indeed we're also now trying out a single ruck model. We've tried two tall defenders instead of three. We've dropped Spargo and Harmes more than once, we kept Brown out for weeks, we're now keeping Hibberd out. We currently have three 2023 debutants in our line-up as well as Chandler who had 5 games' experience before this year. And above all, we've spent huge portions of this year developing a turnover/transition game, rather than going all in on our stoppage game.

We’ve changed quite a bit since the first half of the season and one of the important changes IMO has been to reduce the number of small forwards in the side. I don’t think we should go back to having all four in the side, even with Pickett doing a bit more midfield minutes. I’d prefer another midfielder.

Where did I say I was happy giving up that fourth quarter lead? In fact, I said the opposite. Where I’ve engaged with you is in relation to your argument that close wins are worse when you lead first then get clawed back as compared to the other way around. I don’t agree with that.

Circular argument. They’re where they are because they’ve won 5 games when behind at 3QT (including, funnily enough, to Essendon). But if you didn’t like that example how about Port being 3 goals up on Essendon with 10 minutes to go and then needing a goal after the siren to win?

I’m not sure you’ve thought this argument all the way through. On your logic it’s better to be bad for 3 quarters then good for 1, than the other way around.

St Kilda is surely the worst ever side to sit in the top 6 with five games to go.

Last night, Collingwood laid 2 tackles inside 50 (Port laid 15).

How do Chandler and Spargo play in the same side from here? Does ANB get dropped? Or are you assuming Pickett plays more midfield? And if so, who gets dropped from today’s side? Woey?

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We won’g win it if we can’t learn to score from our defensive half and if that means we relax the forward press a bit and learn to accept a game that isn’t played entirely in our forward half, I think that’s ok.

Adelaide are the second highest scoring side in the comp. Is it that surprising they scored highly? Later in your post you say we look miles behind Collingwood (who had an extremely similar game vs Adelaide a few weeks ago) and Brisbane (who we beat a week ago). I’m surprised you didn’t have a crack at our “culture”, too.

What difference is that? Is it like how Collingwood led Adelaide by 35 points at the G a month ago and then won by a point?

You don’t have to convince me this was a good win! They’ve run Collingwood to a kick twice and beaten both Brisbane and Port. But it’s still the case that Adelaide aren’t a good travelling side. They’ve only won 1 game on the road and that was Hawthorn. Agree re top 4, as I already posted. We probably only need 2 wins from here unless you think the Dogs, GWS or Geelong will go 5-0, which for all of them appears unlikely.

We’re effectively 3 games clear inside the top 4 with 5 games to come. With Oliver and Fritsch (and maybe Grundy) to come back. Adelaide suck on the road, so it was disappointing to see us give up a 5-goal lead twice and then a 4-goal lead twice in the last quarter, but their best is good so it’s not wholly surprising. Big tests to come against Richmond, a resurgent Carlton, and a Sydney who could be playing for finals in Round 24.

Tomlinson for Petty is the right call. Wonder what the rumour mongers will come up with next. Spargo out is also correct IMO. I suspect Chandler comes in but the Bowey/Hibberd idea is appealing.

The idea of playing everyone once, getting to 17 games, and then drawing the fixture based on top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 doesn't work. Imagine if the side sitting 6th was like St Kilda right now - got some early season wins but in a major form rut. Under this model they'd be locked into finals and would play 5 straight games against 1-5, sides that on current form they're nowhere near. If you sit 7th on small percentage, you might then win your last 5 games and still finish below the side in 6th who lose a stack of games but make finals anyway. And before anyone says "but everyone plays everyone else once so it's even after 17 games", no it's not. Some sides will get Brisbane at the Gabba, some will get them in Melbourne. Ditto Adelaide. And Port. Etc. It's not even. Other than 34 games, the fixture will never be even. This model is in many respects worse than what we currently have.

Bit harsh on those of us born more recently than 1972 who are also vehemently against it. "Exciting addition" does not mean good idea. In fact, that's the precise problem. It's all about appearances, stories, "narratives", "excitement". Not at all about what the competition might actually need. At some point the AFL is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Continually shoving more and more "content" down everyone's throats until we're all sick of it.

The funny thing is they could easily be 8th at the end of this round (they lose, St Kilda beat North, GWS beats GC and then one of Essendon and the Dogs win, all of whom get to 10 wins and pass Geelong). They could even be out of the 8 if they shed a few percentage points and Carlton thump WC again (this is a bit fanciful as the gap is 11%…but WC are putrid…). Of course, I rate them infinitely above St Kilda, Essendon and the Dogs, so they shouldn’t stay behind them for too long.

This whole “he was sold a pup” thing is ridiculous IMO. He’s not stupid. He knew what he was signing up for. He wasn’t forced to come here. Sure, we laid out a plan, but he’s more then smart enough to have thought “this might not work”. The risk of it not working was a risk he knew about and signed up for.

Video’s back up. Has Petty as “test”, Oliver at 3-4 and Fritsch at 5-6. Would screenshot but on my phone. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1384107/rd-19-injury-report?videoId=1384107&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1689679535001

And top 4 against each other: Port - 2-1 Melbourne - 2-2 Brisbane - 2-2 Collingwood - 1-2 Assuming Collingwood beats Port this weekend, we'll all be 2-2 against each other, with only one more game to come (Collingwood v Brisbane).

Current top 8 record vs each other: Port - 8-1 Collingwood - 5-2 Geelong - 4-2 Brisbane - 4-3 Melbourne - 4-4 St Kilda - 2-4 Bulldogs - 1-6 Essendon - 1-7 Port the clear leader here, Collingwood next, with Geelong, us and Brisbane all sort of even but Geelong having two fewer games and Brisbane one fewer game than us so far. Interestingly though, 3 of our 4 wins have been our last 3 wins, in our last 5 games. Similarly 3 of Geelong's 4 wins have been in their last 6 games. Whereas 2 of Brisbane's 4 wins were in the first month and 4 of Collingwood's 5 wins were in the first 6 games. Bear in mind these figures will change on the expectation that Carlton or GWS will likely replace St Kilda/Essendon/the Dogs.

We all want Fremantle to beat Geelong in Geelong, for example.

I hate this idea, more than most of the AFL's other yuck ideas. Hate it so much. We don't need 10 out of the 18 sides making finals (because let's be honest, this wildcard round isn't a chance to play finals, it is an extension of finals). We don't need a side finishing 10th (that's in the bottom half of the league) getting a shot at knocking out the side who finished 7th. I hear some say "but it incentivises finishing 6th". We already have that - 6th gets a home final. We also already have massive incentive to try to get up to 4th. Right now we have a league where the evenness of the middle of the ladder makes for an exciting last 6-8 weeks of the H&A season, but that is largely because of the scarcity of finals spots. It's exciting because we know that only three of St Kilda, the Dogs, Essendon, GWS, Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond are going to make finals. Allowing 9th and 10th to join in renders these last six weeks less exciting - they're all going to make it anyway.

IMO we're already winners. Even if Fremantle win a stack of games from here, they won't make finals, so their first pick is going to be a top 10 pick. So we got 13 last year, a top 10 this year, and Fremantle's second rounder this year too (at worst, something like 30), for Jackson and last year's 44 and 67. I'm happy with that, all things considered. It's a bonus if Fremantle struggle and stay closer to the bottom 4.