titan_uranus

Goodwin in the presser suggested as much, focusing on our inefficiency across the ground (ie in transition, in connection and in terms of shots on goal). He also focused on their third quarter scores from stoppage. Against Brisbane and Port as well, we conceded too many goals from stoppage (particularly in the forward half). We can’t afford to be inefficient in transition from turnover if we are going to be sub-par at stoppage, which has been the case all year even with Clarry. When we get looks on turnover, we need to capitalise.

If true, why is this? Why do our opponents regularly bring their best pressure against us? Arguing that “they know pressure is our weakness” is silly because pressure is every side’s weakness. Sides would bring elite pressure all 23 weeks if they could. But for most, they can’t. But why us? Do we invite it somehow? Does the stat go up because we fumble and they get another point for a repeat tackle or something? Is it up because ours is down? (I don’t think it’s this because our pressure was high last week v Port). Do they just view us as a massive threat and gee themselves up for us - the whole “hunter vs hunted” mentality? Is it just plain bad luck?

I have no idea what you’re talking about in terms of me attacking you. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Let me know via DM perhaps. My point remains though. You’re entitled to be upset with the game and the season to date. But you posted a number of times in a way which denigrates those of us who chose during the week to look at the positives and what we could work with - which, at 7-3, is hardly an unreasonable thing to have done.

Look, I get you're upset with the game, I'm sure almost all of us are, but all of your posts are attacks at Demonlanders. Do we have to, after every loss, turn on each other? There's plenty to talk about, let's focus on the team. I'm sick of coming onto threads like this and seeing so many people going the "I told you so" route trying to put down anyone who dared during the week to try to see the good parts of what we've been doing and how we could win today.

I really only want to see three things selection-wise: Another tall defender alongside May and Lever. Our insistence of going with May and Lever on their own, stretching HIbberd, is not working. It's not a good strategy made even worse by seeing Lever's AA form in the first few weeks fall apart since we moved Petty. I don't care whether that's Tomlinson, Turner or someone else. A change to the two tall forwards. The JVR-TMac combo doesn't work. If JVR's tired, he should be rested. Either way, TMac isn't good enough. I don't know what the FD are waiting to see in Brown but he was averaging 4 goals a game at AFL level before his injury and perhaps we should try putting him back in. He can hardly do worse than what we're seeing. A rebalancing of our smalls. We have too many small defenders who are low possession getters. We have too many small forwards who are low possession getters. Too much is left to too few. We need to increase the number of midfielders in the side who can rotate through the middle at the expense of one of the smalls. I fear this will mean Chandler or McVee will be dropped, which saddens me because I like both of them and like the freshness they bring to the side, but something has to change.

Apparently expected scores were 80.3-63.5 in our favour. Our early season accuracy has faded. Not helping.

Have been out and was hoping to come home, see that we'd won, and put the replay on. Sigh. Amiss and Treacy 5 goals and 23 disposals. JVR and TMac 2 goals and 14 disposals. We can't keep doing this. Lever was in AA form at the start of the year when we had three tall defenders. Since moving Petty forward and not replacing him in defence, Lever's form has deteriorated. I doubt anyone on here thinks that's a coincidence. We don't need all of Salem, Bowey, McVee, Rivers and Brayshaw. We don't need all of Chandler, Spargo, ANB and Pickett, either. Our structure is out and it's time to see the FD step up and make the changes we need to revitalise our season. The season is not lost at 7-4 and 133.9%. That is a solid enough foundation to attack finals/the flag. But what we're doing right now isn't working and needs to change.

A lot of talk about us losing this game last year. We went on to beat them later in the year, relatively comfortably, at Optus. They were a better side then, too (but we had May and Petty didn’t get injured mid-match).

But what if we do? If we go 1-2 in those games by beating Brisbane, will that help you believe in us?

Why Geelong and not the Brisbane return game? Geelong’s 5-5, playing iffy footy, and we get the luxury of playing them in Geelong. Brisbane is IMO clearly the next best side after Collingwood (if not better) and that game will be at the G.

I’m not going to write the season off if we lose but I will be disappointed if we look too short down back and/or if TMac and JBR struggle. No Oliver hurts badly but we covered well for Gawn and I’ll back Harmes and Sparrow in to give us good cover today.

Who asked those questions? Prior to the Hawthorn game we’d beaten Geelong, Port, Brisbane, GWS, Sydney, the Dogs and Essendon. In other words, every single other top 8 side.

Why do you use the near perfect 2021 season as some sort of crutch for your pessimism? Yes, we were brilliant in 2021. That is something to be celebrated. For a side that you believe has been “worked out” since then, we’re doing pretty well to be 23-11 since then. Do you think we’d be 34-0 if we hadn’t been “worked out”?

So the segment is in a Fox Footy article and I don’t understand some of it, such as this: “If you look at the absolute points for and points against, against West Coast, North Melbourne and Hawthorn, it’s plus 90 points in those three games, but against the rest it’s minus 50 points.” What is this? It can’t be total points for/against because we won those games by a combined 200+ points. It’s not average either, because our average across the other 7 games is not -50. Can anyone explain?

Oh ok well the point remains, whoever last week’s sub was is now “in” to the 22. But they don’t come up as an “in” because they were already “in” as the sub. They can’t name a replacement until they name the new sub.

It means last week’s sub, Fyfe, is “in”. AFL has to change the rules to mean clubs name 23 plus three emergencies. If the sub is credited with a game, the sub should be named alongside the 22.

I’ll give the FD one more go at the JVR-TMac set up, and the no-third-tall defender set up. But neither have me convinced and I’ll be more than a little peeved if we lose in circumstances which suggest a different tall mix might have made a difference.

Walyalup loses Sonny Walters.

In: Harmes, Sparrow Out: Hunter, Oliver, Jordon Jordon, Woewodin, Smith, Laurie the emergencies.

I think of all the things I dislike about Demonland, revisionism tops the list. We were 17-1-4 with a percentage of 130%. That’s the entire season of course, not just the last month. Pre-bye we beat Geelong (prelim finalist), GWS away (they finished 7th and won a final), Sydney (finished 6th), the Dogs at Marvel, Brisbane, plus St Kilda, Richmond, Fremantle and Carlton (10th-13th - so not finalists but also not bottom sides). Post-bye we also beat Port away (prelim finalist). Saying we didn’t click until round 20 ignores the stunning body of work we put into the first 17 weeks. Saying we got “beaten up” by the Dogs ignores that we’d already beaten them at Marvel, and is inaccurate anyway - that was a 20 point loss where it was single digits midway through the 4th quarter. We beat 16 of the 17 other sides that year (only missing out on Collingwood). Our 2021 season was, from start to finish, supreme.

Can someone post the stats David King was talking about? @fr_ap’s post above is spot on - stats done as totals make no sense if our sample is 7 games compared to Port’s 8 or Brisbane’s 9. I accept we’ve had the three easy games but we’ve also had Brisbane in Brisbane, Port in Adelaide, GC on the GC, the Dogs and Richmond in prime time (where they tend to do better). That slate of games is tough, so it wouldn’t surprise if we’re middle of the road for key stats. Clearly we need to improve but I suspect Collingwood are also middle of the road (in fact on SEN the other night they were mentioned as being 14th or worse in a number of key offensive stats).

Chandler’s good games have stored more than enough brownie points to guard against being dropped this soon. I’m not sold on the JVR-TMac combo but if we’re dropping one IMO it should be TMac.

Oliver won't play, Bowey's a "test" but sounds OK. Dunstan's still 1-2 weeks off. The simplest option is Sparrow takes Oliver's spot. We share Oliver's high midfield minutes between Sparrow (who usually spends 10-20% more of each game on the bench than Clarry does) and others such as Rivers, ANB and Pickett. But I'd like to see Turner play as a tall defender, moving Lever back to the third tall role he's played best in, replacing the role Petty used to play, and getting Turner some more experience as a reward for good VFL form. I don't think we need all of Bowey, Brayshaw, Rivers and Salem in the backline and I'd look to push Rivers further up the ground as I think he has real promise as a midfielder. If Bowey's injured, that makes my proposed changes easier. If he's fit, then I'm not entirely sure yet who gets dropped to make way for Turner. I also want a change to the forward line. I don't believe a JVR/TMac combo works. I'd prefer to see Brown in place of one of them, although I accept his VFL form hasn't been strong. If we make no change there, I'll understand it, but I think we can do better.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1338135/injury-report-oliver-scans-in “Clayton had some soreness at the end of the game and following a clinical assessment from the physios and the medical team, scans have shown that he’s got a hamstring strain,” Griffith told Narrm Media. “At this early stage, we anticipate Clayton won’t be available in the short term. “His return to play will ultimately be guided by his ability to deal with increase loads and reconditioning. As such, we will have greater clarity as Clayton progresses through his program.”

So is the Sam Edmund tweet confirmation that no one actually knows what is wrong with Oliver because we're going on nothing other that tweets from journalists?