titan_uranus

We lost to Sydney twice last year which many said “confirmed” we couldn’t go with them. I hope the club hasn’t written our chances off like you have. This question shouldn’t need to be asked. They are 100% a flag chance. Right now they have claims to being the best side in the comp. They have already shown that, no matter what happens today.

But it’s easy. I think structure and team balance have been our biggest problems for the last 6 weeks.

We won CPs in every quarter except the third when we lost by 3. Clearances though we lost in each quarter except the last. That’s interesting in itself though - it wasn’t a comprehensive failure at contest but it was another game where we had enough contested ball but conceded too many exits from stoppages (and then couldn’t stop them scoring from those exits).

We get it. You’ve posted it about 6 times today across multiple threads. It’s 2 wins in 14 games, but I guess going back one more game doesn’t assist? And of those 14, 6 were against sides not currently in the top 8. Agree that’s a poor record but I’m not sure how relevant it is other than against the obviously good sides (ie Brisbane, Port, last year’s finals - less so sides like Essendon and Freo where the jury remains out). At any rate, by the end of the season, if say Sydney or GC make finals (both are just one game out right now) and we get another win vs say St Kilda, Geelong or Brisbane, this sort of stat is going to look very different to what it does now. An errant Fritsch snap last week goes through and we beat Port and this stat would be 3-5 including the two finals. But that win wouldn’t necessarily change the broader issues which deserve more focus than this stat.

I agree with a number of these (indeed, I think the title of the thread is misguided - there is no one issue, there almost never is, it’s usually a combination of things). I didn’t like the Petty forward move to begin with. He’s probably a better forward than I had expected but the team net loses because it’s thrown our backline structure out. I cannot accept that the FD haven’t seen Lever go from AA form to, well, not. If they have been persisting, hoping that Hibberd could fill the void, I think that it’s time to end the persistence. I also agree re Rivers. I see him as being ready to move into the midfield. It would help solve two problems - insufficient midfield depth and too many small defenders.

This is still something I think is a massive problem with our supporter base. Too many on here have their expectations so high - it seems you expect us to not just beat, but dominate, all sides except, what, Collingwood, Brisbane and Port? It doesn’t work like that. It never has. It’s a separate issue altogether to discuss the parts of our game that aren’t working but defining failure as small wins over mid-table sides sets you up for a season of disappointment.

Way, way, way longer than you’re suggesting here. We are 23-12 since the flag (ie we win twice as often as we lose). We’ve been in the top 4 for all bar, what, one round in that time? As upset as you are, this isn’t where we are heading for a long time yet.

From Round 11, we have 6 games against the current top 11 (but only 3 against current top 8 sides), and 6 games against the current bottom 7. It’s possible that’s the hardest draw but that would surprise me. Certainly though, other sides must have worse travel fixtures than us.

Is this a dig at me? If so, you’ve completely missed my point. If not, carry on (FWIW, agree with you, we are on form a bottom half of the 8 side at best right now). Which line? The one where I said you use the 2021 flag as a crutch for your pessimism when instead you should celebrate it? The more we lose in 2023, the more I think I’m right about that. Enjoy what we did in 2021. It was unbelievable.

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.