titan_uranus

The changes make sense. Obviously assuming May is unquestionably fit. If there is any doubt he should be a late out for Tomlinson. Otherwise, it is so tough for Tommo. It’s more than just he did nothing wrong, he was genuinely good and would be playing for most other sides this week. Laurie out for Viney makes sense too. He’s had a taste and will be ready for another crack if/when we need a replacement. Will be very tough once Salem and Pickett are ready to return. On last week’s game, McVee can’t be dropped.

It's a valid question. His form at the start of last year was the best it's ever been, so he can certainly push for selection when fit. But with his history of injuries, it is hard to see when or how he'll be able to cement himself in the best 22.

What about Essendon v GC? Recency bias would suggest Essendon but they beat a tanking Hawthorn last week and remain pretty shoddy on paper. GC were insipid last week but surely know they have to right the ship pretty quickly to avoid being stuck in their permanent world of irrelevance.

Hibberd maybe. Smith surely not, not after the 2021 QF when he was well beaten. Also, if we're cautious on May (correctly), why wouldn't we also be cautious with Smith? Smith's never played more than four games in a row with all his injuries, he's been injured over summer, he hasn't had a full pre-season - why would we be rushing to play him in the 22, or as the sub, without getting miles in his legs first?

True. Since it clicked, Collingwood has been very tough to beat. Everyone expects them to regress. Who knows if, or when, that might happen. There's no sign of it happening any time soon, although they did get Geelong without a number of defenders (Kolodjashnij and Henry missed, Stewart down early) which helped them outscore Geelong's 103. I predict Collingwood will put Port back in their box this weekend but it will be interesting to see how that game plays out, if Port can bring a similar level from the Brisbane game then who knows.

There's a lot of confidence on here, and well there should be. We were cooked in the SF. The two H&A games are better indicators of our chances this week IMO. But there's a touch too much confidence. Hipwood has a history of playing well against us. The Lions mids aren't going to all be sub-20 touches again like they were against Port. Their midfield presents a similar challenge to the Dogs' midfield and at times last week the Dogs were on top. And this time there is a more dynamic forward line, not the Dogs' over-sized and pressure-lacking options.

Going into Round 1 the FD felt Laurie was better than Jordon and Melksham. I don't think Laurie did much in Round 1 but I doubt the FD will now rate him behind Jordon and Melksham. However, if Viney's fit it's hard to see who else would make way for him.

I was interested in this stat about Collingwood at the G so I had a look. You're right, they've won 14 of their last 17 at the G stretching back to the start of 2022. But of the 14 wins, only 4 of them were against sides of any note: us twice last year, the semi final against Fremantle, and this week vs Geelong. The other 10 wins last year were against sides which missed the finals, whilst the three losses were to Geelong twice and Richmond. In the same period we're 9-6 at the G. The 9 wins included the Dogs, Richmond and Brisbane last year (all finalists) and the Dogs this year (we'll see if they're any good). The losses were to Fremantle, Sydney twice, Collingwood twice and Brisbane - all 2022 finalists. So our recent fixtures at the G have been harder than theirs, and we've still won the same number of games in that time against good sides as Collingwood has. The difference is we had far more games at the G last year against finalists and didn't win them all. I'm therefore not convinced Collingwood has some sort of knack for playing at the G that we don't have.

So are we thinking something like Viney and Fritsch in for Pickett and Laurie?

I don't agree at all that it was just a "badly timed attempt at a smother". He decided to bump. IMO, it's a non-football act because he had time to decide what he was doing and it was unnecessary. It maybe isn't as far removed from the game as an off-ball punch, but I don't at all accept it was just an in-game smother gone wrong. I don't think the sport should tolerate that sort of thing happening. It's unnecessary.

Maybe. But we just went through a few weeks of pondering whether we had to pick someone specific to deal with the Dogs' forward line. Ended up reminding us all that our defensive system gets the job done more often than not. I'm not sure we're going to drop someone for Hibberd just for Charlie Cameron. Would be incredibly harsh on someone like McVee or Rivers or whoever else would have to make way for Hibbo, and I don't know if Goodwin is that level of horses for courses.

Dear lord Fremantle fans should be livid. St Kilda has a bottom 6 list and was missing a stack of best 22 players, Fremantle is supposed to be in flag contention and was missing I think just Walters. Should have been a comfortable 5 goal win, not a loss.

I agree but what does "deemed worse" mean? Chandler got 3 weeks last year for a tackle gone wrong because the opponent was concussed. But I would argue Pickett's action was "worse" because Chandler's was a football action gone (slightly) wrong, whilst Pickett's was an unnecessary non-football act. Under the current MRO system, there is scope to challenge the two weeks given to Pickett because of the lack of clarity as to how the MRO upgraded him from low to high, and by directly comparing with the concussion Buddy gave Collins.

Yeah Harmes started following Bontempelli but at no stage last night did I think that Harmes quietened Bont in any way. He was closer to him in the first half when Bont was better. Not sure, though, whether he only played because Viney missed. Suspect that might have been Laurie's spot.

I said this in my previous post but in answer to you both: yes, the system needs to focus more on actions than it currently does and less on outcomes than it currently does.

The fundamental problem is with the system. The box-ticking mechanism for grading incidents is broken and has been for years. It results in some actions being unpunished or fined when they deserve suspension (we see this commonly with punches and elbows) and other actions being overly punished when they shouldn't be (we see this commonly with sling tackles, which are routine football actions gone slightly wrong). The system here results in a difficult-to-accept situation in which Franklin concusses someone and gets graded lesser impact than Pickett who does no damage. We know this is because the MRO is allowed to upgrade severity of impact to account for potential, and I agree with that in theory, but the Guidelines don't explain how he's supposed to do it and here he's lifted Pickett's action by two grades, not one. IMO I don't think a two week penalty for his action is unreasonable at all. What he did was completely unnecessary, in no way was he contesting the ball or doing something he couldn't avoid, and the way he did it could have seriously injured Smith. I have, for years, argued that the system needs to focus more on the action than the outcome, so that we start properly punishing dirty Cotchin-style elbows and we stop overly punishing Chandler-style tackles which go wrong. So IMO, it is absolutely right to punish Pickett for doing something that could have seriously injured Smith. But the way we've come to this two-week penalty is deeply flawed, and I suspect those on here who think he should have received a lesser penalty are thinking about Buddy, and Cotchin, and Cripps, and Hawkins, and all the other "big names" who have escaped punishment for other actions. That's fair, but not a good reason for Pickett to escape punishment.

Hawthorn are likely bottom 2. Glad Essendon can have fun beating them. Fremantle meanwhile struggling to deal with an injury-riddled bottom 6 St Kilda. Not a great start to their supposed “Flagmantle” season.

I have absolutely no idea how or why you hold this view. Hunter is a proper wing, allows us to spread the field and to not rely on Langdon, plus he’s a strong two-way runner, a very good kick, and a smart read of the play. He’s a critical addition to the side and played his role well last night. Yes, you are probably alone. Petty is not at all close to being dropped. However, with Tomlinson playing well, the broader point that there is selection pressure on all players is valid. Who are the players you think are ahead of Hunter for that wing and why?

IIRC he was only booed at his first touch, which was shortly after Hunter’s first touch where the Dogs fans booed him. I felt like those who booed were doing it in response to the Dogs fans and it didn’t happen again. I loved the way our fans drowned out the boos for Hunter and Pickett as the game went on though.

I’d leave it, but if we want to challenge it has to be the grading of high impact over medium (not high contact over body). Smith got up straight away with no injury. That is “low”. The MRO has upgraded it two levels. He’s graded it more severely than Buddy, where his victim was concussed. I fully support the Guidelines allowing the MRO to upgrade the severity to account for potential to harm but upgrading it two levels may not be fair. Ultimately I’d cop the 2 weeks but this is where I’d challenge if I had to. Possibly the worst fortnight of games to miss, unfortunately.

There is perhaps a bit more complexity to the MRO grading than I had first though. Was it careless or intentional? Most of the time these are graded careless but Pickett leaves the ground - what else was he intending to do? Upgrading to intentional will add a week to his suspension. Severity should be medium - it was actually "low" but the Guidelines don't just allow the MRO to upgrade it to medium, they pretty much mandate it given the potential for severe injury. But then was it high contact or not? It's almost implicit that he didn't contact Smith's head because if he did, Smith would have been far worse off than he actually was. So was it just shoulder to shoulder/chest, and if so is that "high" or is that "body"? If he gets intentional, medium and high, that's two weeks. If it's careless, medium and body, it's a fine. So IMO it's anything from a fine to two weeks. For him to get three weeks, it has to be intentional, high and high, but I don't think the MRO can give it high impact given Smith appears to have walked away unscathed.

Not really. Rioli argued he was contesting the ball. Pickett can’t argue that. In the matrix it should be careless, low, high contact, which is a fine, but the Guidelines allow the MRO to lift the impact rating up where there is potential for harm and I expect that to occur here to raise it to medium, meaning a 1 week suspension. But in the current climate I won’t be surprised if he gets high impact and/or intentional, to jack the suspension up further.

What?!

The average crowd between us and them is 22,700-odd. Tonight was the second-biggest H&A crowd between us since the 1960s. It was also 37 degrees which doesn’t lend itself to some people commuting in. Plus the majority were our supporters, meaning the Dogs’ fans were the ones who didn’t really turn up.

Interesting TOG stats. Lever, Petty and Tomlinson all 100%. Next was Langdon on 89%. Which means everyone other than our three key defenders got at least 11% time on the bench. IIRC we often had Langdon and other runners in the 90s for TOG last year. I’m hoping we learnt some lessons about resting players.