titan_uranus

Very interested to see if Grundy holds his spot. All signs point to him being dropped. If that happens, hard to see him getting back again.

It's still very unlikely. Only St Kilda and Sydney can pass Carlton with one win (and even then, Sydney has to make up 4.7%). Everyone else has to win out to pass them. But the Dogs play Geelong in the final round, and GWS and Essendon (two sides who can do it) play each other this round, eliminating one of them this week. So for Carlton to miss, GWS has to beat Essendon this week (unless you think Essendon will beat Collingwood in Round 24), and Sydney has to beat Adelaide (unless you are keen for them to beat us). Then, either Geelong wins out and St Kilda beats Brisbane in Brisbane, or Geelong loses both games and the Dogs beat West Coast. Of course, Carlton would have to lose both games too. Which I just do not see happening. I think it's far more likely GC have packed it in for the year and Carlton cruise to a comfortable 4-6 goal win.

You can spin the results however you want. If you want to be positive, you'd argue that we dominated as much of the Brisbane game as they did, and overwhelmed a premiership contender. You'd argue that we withstood a frenzied Adelaide who has beaten Port twice, beaten Brisbane and challenged Collingwood. You'd argue that we withstood one of Richmond's best 3-4 games for the year, when they brought absolutely elite pressure, and managed to come back from 20 points down despite the crowd being pro-Richmond.

So my understanding is this: If we go 2-0, we could finish 2nd (Brisbane loses at least once, and we maintain our percentage lead over them, and Port loses at least once), 3rd (either Brisbane wins out, or Port wins out), or 4th (both Brisbane and Port win out, meaning that we can't catch either of them) If we go 1-1, we can also finish 2nd but requires both Brisbane and Port to go 0-2. If one goes 0-2, we finish 3rd. If both win at least once, we'd finish 4th If we go 0-2, we'll finish 4th if Carlton lose at least once, but we'll finish 5th if Carlton win both games. I think Brisbane will lose to Collingwood next week, but I think Port will beat Fremantle and Richmond. That means I think 2-0 most likely gets us 3rd (hard to see us going 2-0, Brisbane going 1-1, and yet our percentage dropping below theirs). That would see us playing Port in Adelaide in the QF. If we go 1-1, IMO we play Collingwood in the QF. If we go 0-2, IMO we finish 5th (I doubt Carlton lose again) and play someone like Adelaide or St Kilda, with a SF against Collingwood or (more likely) Carlton, with the reward being a PF on the road to Port or Brisbane.

These are free hit games - it’s nearly impossible for them to climb up a spot on the ladder. They have to win out, GC or Freo to lose out, and make up 12-15%. So they can just go all out, as they won’t bridge that gap.

Meanwhile Hawthorn haven’t played a truly bad game for 6 weeks. Perhaps they are due for a loss? Would be handy as they have a knack for upsets.

Dogs in real danger of missing now. They may be out of the 8 this week if St Kilda and GWS win. Either way they likely are going to need to beat Geelong in Geelong in the final round to make it. Really keeps the door open for Geelong. Sadly.

This applies to every single side.

I think it’s fair to give credit to Smith for being part of the first quarter dam wall, but not at all fair to suggest he would have made a difference in the last quarter burst which was entirely on our midfield for letting them come out the front of stoppage far too easily.

No way known we are making this seismic of a change this late. The synergy we have between May and Lever and the way we set up our entire side from the backline is nowhere near easily replaceable. We are going to have to persist with Grundy, TMac, Brown if fit, or Schache, until Fritsch comes back and we can then try to manufacture enough marks with him as the second tall.

Those disposal figures differ greatly from the AFL Live app for Dunstan (app says 31) and Harmes (app says 25).

We may replace Jordon with a non-mid but if we wanted another mid (and I’m of the view our midfield depth is too thin compared to our competitors) surely Dunstan is doing everything we’ve been asking of him. 31 disposals, 7 tackles and a goal to 3QT is a fair effort, although admittedly I’m not watching and therefore have no insight into quality of his disposals or the impact they’re having.

Dunstan’s stats line looks impressive. Any chance next week?

I understand what people mean by this (their pressure almost literally can’t be higher than that). But they have Walsh, Cerra, McGovern, Kennedy, McKay and McGovern out, some/all of whom will be back by finals. They probably can get better.

6 - Viney 5 - Petracca 4 - Brayshaw 3 - May 2 - Lever 1 - Rivers

I think this is an unreasonably high bar. In a competition as even as this year, expecting us to set the running every week against every opponent is too much. It’s understandable and acceptable for us to experience opponents dictating games for periods. They dictated last night for longer than us, so we lost, but that’s what happens when two good sides play.

I’m far from sold that this is the right move. I think Oliver’s return made our mids look off last night as they adjusted but I can’t see how adding another small forward helps any issue we have. Particularly one like Spargo who doesn’t get much ball or hit the scoreboard much.

I don’t agree. I think he looked more of an asset forward. In the backline I just feel he gets lost and that impacts May and Lever’s willingness and ability to zone and cover. I think many call for him to be sub because he can cover for an injured forward or an injured defender. No one else on our list offers that flexibility. Given he had 5 touches in an entire game last night I’m not sure he’s shooting the lights out with full game time such that he necessarily deserves to hold his spot.

We haven’t started a game well for a month, IMO (when we jumped Brisbane). Led Adelaide but they had plenty of territory and shots. Trailed Richmond and were 20 down in the second. Trailed North and were 33 down in the second. Conceded 20 of the first 22 inside 50s to Carlton. Would dearly love a strong start next week as a response.

My bigger fear is missing top 4. I woke hoping my MFCSS would subside but it hasn’t. I’m genuinely concerned we’ll lose to Hawthorn next week and expose ourselves to needing to beat Sydney to avoid slipping out of the top 4 altogether. I think 4th is more likely than 3rd though.

On xScore we should have won, despite their early territory dominance. Also if I’m reading this correctly the QT margin should have been a few points higher than it was on xScore:

You’ve written this like the game played out all like the first quarter. As the game went on we got progressively better at breaking down their defensive wall and pressure. We ended up with more scoring shots, despite their early flood of territory. And in case you missed it, we were the thinnest of margins from winning the game. If the goal umpire had given a soft call of goal, would you still think the mantle had been passed? The game was a strongly contested one between two strongly contested sides. Carlton, as we discussed mid-week, is much better than many have thought. They can win it. But I don’t consider that game signals the end for us. It should, though, be a reminder that we can’t afford lapses (mid-game, or at selection - got to get this Petty-less forward line right ASAP, and I think I agree with you on Grundy).

Not to go all MFCSS on everyone here, but next week is a must-win. Carlton will beat GC. If we lose to Hawthorn, we will be playing Sydney in Sydney for a top 4 spot, as Carlton will pass us if we go 0-2 and they go 2-0. And Sydney is one of the only other sides in as good form as Carlton.

Jordon has to be dropped. A mile off it tonight, sadly. I’m very close to ruling a line through the Gawn/Grundy combo. Is it a coincidence that Gawn had his worst game since Grundy went out and we kicked a low score too? Smith should be the sub or a forward. Hibberd should be a defender or not playing (but not the sub). Major query on Salem but I think we back him to find his form.

It infuriates me that, IIRC, the ARC never appeared to run the side-on and front-on angles together at the same time. Had they done so they would have realised the ball had passed his hand before that moment when they look like they might be touching. Anyway, nothing we can do about it. Need to focus on what is in our control (structure, selection), not what is out of our control.