titan_uranus

True, but Sydney are very good and St Kilda are not very good. I'm hoping St Kilda get up for Hannebery and Max King has a determination to kick straight which sees him bag 5.0 or something. Remember, in the unlikely event of a Swans loss, we will host Collingwood, Fremantle or Brisbane (imagine that - each of Sydney, Fremantle and Collingwood lose and we get Brisbane again!).

I agree. It needs to be dealt with, and Zorko deserves every last bit of (fair) punishment coming his way if this was more than a misunderstanding, but the less spotlight the better IMO. Fortunately there's a week off next week so the story will die down well before our first final no matter what.

Geelong's last month: Dogs (GMHBA), St Kilda (GMHBA), Gold Coast, West Coast (GMHBA). If Carlton wins on Sunday, that'll be 0 finalists and not a single game where a final will be played. Our last month: Fremantle (Optus), Collingwood, Carlton, Brisbane (Gabba). If Carlton wins, that'll be 4 finalists on finals grounds (albeit we won't be playing a final at the Gabba).

Yep, but 99-50 won't do it for them. It's that close.

Here is some guidance. I'm sure someone will do a bigger table tomorrow:

We're the first side to sit inside the top 4 each round for two straight seasons since Essendon in 2000-2001.

A suggestion Jackson hurt his knee late?

When we get it right forward of centre, we're still the best side in it. 26-26 inside 50s to half time for an 11-goal lead.

May on radio said that Zorko denies saying what Petty thinks he said. Hmmm.

Brisbane average 97.5 points per game this year. We held them to 110 across two games.

The vibes, I haven't yet seen footage from the rooms. Just heard May on radio say Petty's not one to get ruffled by that sort of stuff. Zorko must have said something pretty bad, you'd think, particularly if the rooms are sombre.

What do you mean?

I've always felt like Dayne Zorko is a [censored]. I suppose this confirms it. They're copping heat already online for "faux toughness", which is very accurate. Zorko, Mathieson, Robinson, all pretty rubbish fellows. Zorko got caught stone cold holding the ball by Langdon in the first quarter and reacted by grabbing Langdon's hair and putting him in a headlock. [censored].

Our last four matches have been against top 8 sides, three of whom have been playing for top 4. How much more different are finals going to be? Tonight we were underdogs and you yourself acknowledged pre-match it was supposed to be a tight one. Reacting like this after we've belted our literal contender for 2nd spot is silly. If we'd just played North, sure, be upset with junk time goals.

Are you serious? (PS not sure about the premise of your argument anyway. We're 7-0 on the road, whilst 5 of our 6 losses this year have been at the G, including to Sydney).

We just love playing Brisbane, don't we. Before tonight they'd lost three H&A games at the Gabba in three years. Season on the line, many had written us off (they went in favourites with the bookies), and we held the highest scoring side in the comp to 17 scoring shots, four of which came in the last five minutes. After the Dogs loss we had Fremantle (away), Collingwood, Carlton and Brisbane (away), and went 3-1 to secure top 4 (with the only loss being a tight game where our opponent kicked super accurately). Finals start in a fortnight, but unlike most of our competitors, we've been quietly playing our own finals series for the last month. We're ready to go.

Have to feel for Jordon. Played a lot last year but ended up in the sub role in the pointy end. Now he's been in the starting 22 for the first 21 games this year but loses his spot late. If he isn't the sub this week, it will be his first game out of the side since 2020. His form had dipped and put his spot at risk, although the same could clearly be said for Sparrow and Spargo as well.

2018. Have only played them once at the Gabba since then though, which was 2019.

Agree with that. I've seen a few of this week's AFL shows talking about the statistical dominance over the last two months of Geelong, Richmond and Sydney. I can't help but link that to those three clubs' respectively easier runs home. Is it any wonder, for example, that Sydney has dominated things like clearances, scores inside 50, transition from D50 to F50 etc., in a run of games including North, GWS, Adelaide, Essendon and St Kilda? A lot is made about how we were 10-0 and since then 5-6. It's not all entirely down to our fixture (I'm really not trying to argue that), but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that we were statistically dominant, and undefeated, when we had the "soft" part of our draw, and then mid-table in the "hard" part. Geelong was the same - 5-4 in the "hard" part of their fixture, resulting in them sitting 7th on the ladder at the time, then 12-0 since in the "soft" part.

I'm not sure if this is intended to be a reply to my post above, given you haven't quoted it. If it is, then again, I'm not arguing the fixture is "unfair". I'm arguing it's unbalanced, and that it may well have contributed to our drop off in key statistical areas post-bye whilst Geelong, Sydney and Richmond have all looked great in the same period. Another interesting metric, and one which I hope stands us in good stead come finals. Of the 8 sides in the running for finals, we've played all of them on their home deck except Sydney (and arguably Carlton, if you call their true home ground Marvel). We had Geelong in Geelong, Brisbane in Brisbane, Fremantle in Perth, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton at the G and the Dogs at Marvel (obviously also had Brisbane, Fremantle and the Dogs at the G too). Compare that run with Geelong. They played us, Brisbane and Fremantle at GMHBA without a return game. Or compare that with Richmond. They played Geelong, Brisbane and the Dogs at the G, and Fremantle at Marvel, again without return games. Or Fremantle. Their only games this year against Sydney, Brisbane and Collingwood were in Perth, and their only game against Richmond was at Marvel, not the G. If we miss top 4 we'll be playing other sides on their home deck. Sydney's the only side we haven't had that experience against yet.

You do know that: we beat Carlton; and last time we played Brisbane, we belted them right? Because this post reads like you think the opposite.

Both roads from outside the top 4 are tough. If we lose and Collingwood loses (assuming Fremantle and Sydney both win), our first final will be against Carlton, not Richmond. That's a win for us IMO. Also, our semi opponent will either be Geelong or Fremantle. Yes, Geelong is the best side in it, but if we're playing them in a semi they'll have just lost yet another first up final, with all that doubt sinking back in, and I would relish the chance to get them on the MCG in those circumstances with Jeremy Cameron possibly not yet back, or not at full fitness. Alternatively we get Fremantle. Yes, that's travel, but we travel well, we like Optus Stadium, and we're just two weeks removed from thumping them. If Collingwood wins, we'll get Richmond first up, and then would have to back that up with a trip to Sydney or Brisbane for the semi. The pre-finals bye is back, so I'm not sure two interstate trips hurts us too much, and there is also the risk that as we saw before last year, the sides who win the first final and get the week off get disjointed preparation into their prelims, with only one game in a month. Who knows, maybe that will put the Sydney/Brisbane winner at a disadvantage for that prelim.

Yes, it is unbalanced. What you're (fairly) arguing here is that it's not ridiculous that we ended up here. The Dogs were last year's runner up and Port were a prelim finalist. It makes perfect sense that Geelong would be given those sides twice. However, as the season as transpired, Geelong's five return games have been significantly easier than ours. That's unbalanced. It's wholly understandable given the way the fixture is drawn based on the previous season's ladder positions, but it's unbalanced.

It seems so. It's cut off from the broadcast but when play resumes at the bounce after Pickett's goal there isn't a wing on the Langdon side. When they get the ball and kick it forward you can see Fritsch running into the backline. You also see Langdon running up from half forward. I wasn't at the game so someone else may be able to confirm but it looks like we would have started Fritsch at the back of the square at the bounce and sent Langdon to his spot in the forward line, so that we could push Fritsch back as a spare marking defender.