titan_uranus

That was an incredible performance. If you have suggested anywhere in here that we weren't that good, you don't get it. We were stunning in all aspects bar the obvious one, but that doesn't mean we weren't good. Had we kicked accurately we would have won this game by 30-odd points and no one would reflect on that as anything other than exceptional. Collingwood hasn't faced that level of pressure all year. It's a level we haven't brought all year either. But when we combine that level of intensity, a full 23-man buy in, with a solid back-half defensive set up and more aggressive ball movement, [censored] we are good. Tomlinson (or at least, a third tall) in the backline works. I can't agree with @DeeSpencer at all on that. I can't accept it's a coincidence that we bring in the third tall and the defensive set up suddenly looks far stronger and sides suddenly start fearing kicking near May or Lever, and Gawn isn't asked to intercept everything. Tomlinson's a confidence player and some of his early efforts to out-body his opponent and get his head over the ball were critical to him being on all day. McVee is a gun. Surely in line for a Rising Star nomination. Rivers is taking his game to another level, and with Salem playing like that we have weapons behind the ball. Still so much work to do with disposal - Hunter's first 3-4 kicks were turnovers, Brayshaw's kicking has gone to water, ANB started poorly too. But at least in-game all three improved as it went on. I tend to think the last three weeks' poor goal-kicking is pressure (of losing) and fatigue, given how accurate we were early, but it's a worrying trend that I'm hoping we can arrest. I'm hopeful that the decision to sub Spargo off for Jordon might be the signal I've been waiting for - that we've realised we have one too many small forwards and could do better with an extra mid. With Oliver due to return, I think that's where the swap gets made. There's no doubt Collingwood can be better, simply by adding De Goey, Sidebottom, Howe and Elliot. Of course, we're missing a player who has strong claims to being the best in the league, so we could be better too. And again, if we'd kicked straight, the margin would have reflected the gap between us and them. So with the top 4 all having played each other once, Port and Brisbane are 2-1 and us and Collingwood are 1-2. It's a feather in the cap that hopefully shows the doubting Demonlanders, media personalities, and our own club that we have what it takes.

I sit somewhere between your view and the views you're arguing against. IMO Collingwood are the best team in it because of their intangible belief and ability to win when things aren't going their way. They have lost four games in a year and two of those were close games (the two finals). But I also believe that their belief isn't always enough to overcome deficiencies in their game which, if we play to our best, we can exploit (as can others). And the gap isn't as big as others argue - if we win, we'll both have the same record against the top 4 (1-2).

Lever said the same thing on SEN a couple of weeks ago. I think we have acknowledged now that in 2022 we spent too long trying to recreate 2021 (both as to gamestyle and as to personnel) when we needed to accept that our entire 2021 season was top shelf and we don't need to necessarily be at that level to succeed. The changes we've made this year, to try to adapt and be less reliant on stoppage and more capable of scoring off turnover, as well as to rest our players more and not rely so significantly on Gawn, Oliver and Trac, are positive developments. We're not quite there yet and we need to demonstrate, soon, that those changes translate to an ability to beat a top 4 opponent. This week is another opportunity to do that.

It's possible Collingwood select Mihocek, McStay, Cameron and Cox. Plus Elliott. They all played when fit earlier in the season (before McStay, Cameron and Cox went out with their various injuries). They could have three talls at any given time. If we drop Tomlinson for Hibberd, both Hibberd and May will have to play tall and Elliott will have to be taken by...who?

Don't agree at all re: Port. Not sure I agree with any of the rest either, except the W-L record being spot on, which I didn't disagree with from the start.

All members of the current top 4 (Collingwood, Port, Brisbane, us) have played each other except Melbourne v Collingwood which is this week. It's a big if, but if we win, the top 4 record against each other will be: Port - 2-1 Brisbane - 2-1 Collingwood - 1-2 Melbourne - 1-2 Obviously if we lose, they'll all be 2-1 and we'll be 0-3. But a win will show that we're not that far off, particularly given that our loss to Port was by a kick in the rain.

As @Lucifers Hero has posted above, we actually have a comparatively kind draw. That stems largely from the six double-up opponents we were given. Of them, two are North and Hawthorn, the next two are Carlton and Richmond who pre-season were considered top 8 chances but right now are both more likely to be bottom 6. Then there's Sydney, a pre-season flag fancy who IMO can still challenge and by Round 24 could be well in the thick of it, and then Brisbane. That's a much kinder slate of repeat games than would have been expected pre-season.

I'm in the opposite camp, in that I think going with May + Lever, then Hibberd, then smalls, is a worse structure than May + Lever + Tomlinson/Turner/Petty, then Hibberd, then smalls. When we play sides with at least two good tall forwards the former structure requires either/both of Lever to play with less freedom and Hibberd to play taller than he is. I've seen enough from Hibberd this year to believe he has enough run and gun to be a smaller defender than a taller one, and the addition of a third tall helps allow Lever to zone off.

This reads like you are already laying the foundations to be pessimistic if we win.

So can we make the prelim if we "perk up"? This time last year no one expected Collingwood to make a prelim and if you had thought it, you'd have added that they would have been "significantly out of their weight division".

Not sure Geelong winning is a good result.

They haven't won tonight yet though... Meanwhile the Dogs cannot defend. If they're serious they have no business losing to a Geelong side missing the midfield talent Geelong's missing (Dangerfield, Guthrie, Holmes, Duncan, Stanley). But they cannot stop Geelong moving the ball on transition.

You understand this is blatant hypocrisy, right? We win ugly, you talk about how we played terrible football. Collingwood win ugly, you talk about their W-L record (i.e. suggesting the win is all that matters).

If Collingwood can be challenged by a rabble West Coast side fielding half a WAFL outfit and down to two on the bench, then this game is right there for us if we're good enough. But let's not get sucked into the "De Goey's out" stuff. They bat deep. It's obviously a big loss but we need to focus on the 23 they play, not the ones they don't.

Fine. Not exactly what we were debating but fine. Although I challenge the notion that we've had a "soft" draw. It hasn't been the hardest, but it hasn't been easy. We spent 50% of the first 10 weeks on the road. We've had the two hardest road trips (Brisbane in Brisbane, Port in Adelaide). We got Sydney when they were full strength before they collapsed. We got Fremantle when they were in-form, rather than earlier in the year when they spent weeks playing mindlessly slow football. It's all debatable but despite having played 8 of the current bottom 10, it's not like we've had a cakewalk of a season so far.

I'm guessing you're saying he's not playing well? 2.1 from 8 touches, 3 marks, with 1 tackle, reads pretty standard I'd have thought?

If you're expanding the definition beyond the bottom 3, then that applies to everyone. Since Round 2 Collingwood's only scored over 100 twice, against GWS and North. Since Round 1 Port Adelaide's only scored over 100 twice, against West Coast and North. They struggled to score against Sydney without a backline and then their other low scores have been against good sides (Collingwood, the Dogs, us). Brisbane's five lowest scores this year have been against five of the six best sides they've played (Port, the Dogs, us, Adelaide, Essendon, with the 6th being Collingwood). Adelaide's three lowest scores have been against three strong sides in the Dogs, Collingwood and Geelong in Geelong. The Dogs have only scored 100 once, against Fremantle during Fremantle's losing streak, and their four lowest scores were against us, Brisbane, Port Adelaide and Gold Coast.

I'm arguing Hibberd shouldn't be a key defender. May, Lever, Tomlinson and Hibberd can work. Hibberd can play smaller and looser.

I've seen the Harmes one on replay and I think he's likely to be suspended. Appears to me to run past the ball and bump, with some contact (probably minor) to the head. I can easily see that being graded "medium" impact, because the MRO has been obsessed with grading everything "medium" or above, and that's a week.

I've already mentioned this before but going into this round we'd scored 33%-odd from those three games, which were 27% of the games we'd played. So the discrepancy isn't huge and isn't anywhere near big enough to mean that we can't score against other sides, because that's clearly untrue. I suspect you don't like stats but on expected scores last night we won by 40-odd. Had we kicked some of the basic shots we missed, and won by 30+, there would be significantly less angst on here.

Hibberd for Bowey seems a clear one. If Viney gets suspended then Oliver takes his spot. If Viney doesn't get suspended then someone has to be dropped for Oliver. IMO, we still have too many mid/small forwards and mid/small defenders. McVee was fantastic last night and Rivers IMO is crucial to our future, so I imagine Chandler's going to be the one to make way. Chandler would then take Harmes' spot as sub (whether he's suspended or not). I still think we need another midfield rotation and if/when Dunstan's fit I'd be looking to integrate him into the side, although it's not abundantly clear to me who makes way. Tomlinson stays. Please, please, please, the FD has to stick with three tall defenders for the rest of the year. No more making Hibberd play tall. No more trying to make Lever take talls he's never going to beat. Last night worked, even if McKay kicked 3 on Tomlinson. We stick with it. Smith stays. No point giving him just one game. He wasn't good but he wasn't terrible. Try it again before the bye. If it doesn't work again, post-bye we get Petty back or we try Brown.

Probably should be talking about Petracca's game more. 32 possessions, 6 marks, 4 tackles, 7 clearances, 15 ground ball gets (next highest for either side was Walsh with 8), 9 score involvements but also 27 pressure acts, 11 of which were in the defensive half, all from 83% game time. Did it on offence and defence. Truly superb.

Too many Demonlanders expect 2021 form. I was taken by Lever on radio this morning. He was asked about whether he felt we are getting back to 2021 GF form (ridiculous question by the way). His answer was that we've spoken at the club about how distracting it is to try to "get back" to our 2021 form because it was so special, and that it's about working hard to play good footy. I wish more Demonlanders would come around to that line of thinking. The more we put 2021 to one side and just focus on what we're doing in 2023, the better. If you keep wanting us to play football like we did in 2021, you're going to more often than not be disappointed.

Genuine question. When was the last time we were underdogs for a game? Did it occur at all in 2022? Geelong in Geelong maybe? It’s a chance for us to be the hunters. No one actually expects us to win. Let’s relish that.

No Hibberd either, who despite his age and weary achilles has been one of our best this season so far.