titan_uranus

I really find this view point insane. If all you see in us sitting 4th on the ladder is "we're not as good as last year" or "this will be our lowest finish of the 3 years", what is the point of following the side? Expecting us to be 1st, or to be better every year (FWIW there are good arguments to be made that we're better this year than last anyway), only sets you up for disappointment. A bar at that level is unreasonably high.

If we stay in the top 4 for the rest of the season, we'll have been in the top 4 for all bar 2 rounds since Round 1, 2021. The two exceptions were Round 2 this year (fell to 8th after losing to Brisbane) and Round 5 this year (fell to 5th after losing to Essendon).

I thought we were long past the days of reducing Oliver down to nothing more than a contested ball winner. He is an elite two-way runner, a damaging burst player, and a physical presence defensively as well as offensively at stoppages. There is IMO very little merit to the argument that we are more effective without him. If you think we’re doing ok without him that’s just a testament to how hard we’ve worked to cover his absence.

In Smith's last full game (vs GWS) he took 1 mark. The week before that (vs Geelong) he took 3 marks. In the four full games he played (Carlton, Collingwood, Geelong, GWS) he took 14 marks at an average of 3.5. In Brown's four games since returning he's taken 12 marks at an average of 3 (bearing in mind he was subbed off this week for a quarter). I've liked Smith's efforts this year but he remains a player for whom his talent distracts from his actual output.

To summarise this - we will make top 4 even if we only go 2-3 from here, provided that the Dogs, St Kilda, GWS, Carlton, Geelong and Richmond all lose at least once and the first three don't make up the 18%-odd on us. By going 3-2 we eliminate Carlton, Geelong and Richmond and could only fall out if the Dogs, St Kilda or GWS go 5-0 and then make that 18% gap on us. By going 4-1 we cannot miss top 4. For climbing up the ladder, we need to out-do Port or Brisbane by 2 games (we have the percentage over Port but not Brisbane). I don't think Brisbane will lose any more than 1 more game (Collingwood at Marvel) which rules that out, and means we can probably only pass Port - they have the Showdown, Geelong in Geelong, GWS, Fremantle away and Richmond. If they drop the first two and we go 5-0, we can pass them. If we go 4-1 they'd have to drop a third and that seems unlikely. So I think 4th is very much the likely landing spot for us.

The expected score I use (AFLxScore on Twitter) is simply an analysis of the AFL average points scored from the shots a side takes (based on distance, angle, and whether it's a set shot or general play). It doesn't take into account pressure (actual or perceived) or time of the game, I don't think. The fact we won on expected score yesterday helps dispel the bolded part of your post. It's not really accurate to say "they missed some easy shots" - on the whole, they scored above what the average side would score from the shots they took, whereas we scored about on that average. So they were outperforming, not underperforming. Of course, these things all have to be taken with a grain of salt. If a goal had actually been kicked, the ball goes back to the centre, and the whole flow of the game changes. But the metric is helpful to consider goal-kicking accuracy and the difficulty of shots, and just on that basis, it's not actually correct to say they missed easy shots - on the whole, they out-did what they should have scored.

What do you mean "starting"? He's been doing this for weeks now. We've had more players rotating through the middle than in 2022. We've rested/managed players who haven't been fit instead of pushing through (with Petty the only exception I can think of). We've gone away from the 2021 preferred forward structure and indeed we're also now trying out a single ruck model. We've tried two tall defenders instead of three. We've dropped Spargo and Harmes more than once, we kept Brown out for weeks, we're now keeping Hibberd out. We currently have three 2023 debutants in our line-up as well as Chandler who had 5 games' experience before this year. And above all, we've spent huge portions of this year developing a turnover/transition game, rather than going all in on our stoppage game.

We’ve changed quite a bit since the first half of the season and one of the important changes IMO has been to reduce the number of small forwards in the side. I don’t think we should go back to having all four in the side, even with Pickett doing a bit more midfield minutes. I’d prefer another midfielder.

Where did I say I was happy giving up that fourth quarter lead? In fact, I said the opposite. Where I’ve engaged with you is in relation to your argument that close wins are worse when you lead first then get clawed back as compared to the other way around. I don’t agree with that.

Circular argument. They’re where they are because they’ve won 5 games when behind at 3QT (including, funnily enough, to Essendon). But if you didn’t like that example how about Port being 3 goals up on Essendon with 10 minutes to go and then needing a goal after the siren to win?

I’m not sure you’ve thought this argument all the way through. On your logic it’s better to be bad for 3 quarters then good for 1, than the other way around.

St Kilda is surely the worst ever side to sit in the top 6 with five games to go.

Last night, Collingwood laid 2 tackles inside 50 (Port laid 15).

How do Chandler and Spargo play in the same side from here? Does ANB get dropped? Or are you assuming Pickett plays more midfield? And if so, who gets dropped from today’s side? Woey?

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We won’g win it if we can’t learn to score from our defensive half and if that means we relax the forward press a bit and learn to accept a game that isn’t played entirely in our forward half, I think that’s ok.

Adelaide are the second highest scoring side in the comp. Is it that surprising they scored highly? Later in your post you say we look miles behind Collingwood (who had an extremely similar game vs Adelaide a few weeks ago) and Brisbane (who we beat a week ago). I’m surprised you didn’t have a crack at our “culture”, too.

What difference is that? Is it like how Collingwood led Adelaide by 35 points at the G a month ago and then won by a point?

You don’t have to convince me this was a good win! They’ve run Collingwood to a kick twice and beaten both Brisbane and Port. But it’s still the case that Adelaide aren’t a good travelling side. They’ve only won 1 game on the road and that was Hawthorn. Agree re top 4, as I already posted. We probably only need 2 wins from here unless you think the Dogs, GWS or Geelong will go 5-0, which for all of them appears unlikely.

We’re effectively 3 games clear inside the top 4 with 5 games to come. With Oliver and Fritsch (and maybe Grundy) to come back. Adelaide suck on the road, so it was disappointing to see us give up a 5-goal lead twice and then a 4-goal lead twice in the last quarter, but their best is good so it’s not wholly surprising. Big tests to come against Richmond, a resurgent Carlton, and a Sydney who could be playing for finals in Round 24.

Tomlinson for Petty is the right call. Wonder what the rumour mongers will come up with next. Spargo out is also correct IMO. I suspect Chandler comes in but the Bowey/Hibberd idea is appealing.

The idea of playing everyone once, getting to 17 games, and then drawing the fixture based on top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 doesn't work. Imagine if the side sitting 6th was like St Kilda right now - got some early season wins but in a major form rut. Under this model they'd be locked into finals and would play 5 straight games against 1-5, sides that on current form they're nowhere near. If you sit 7th on small percentage, you might then win your last 5 games and still finish below the side in 6th who lose a stack of games but make finals anyway. And before anyone says "but everyone plays everyone else once so it's even after 17 games", no it's not. Some sides will get Brisbane at the Gabba, some will get them in Melbourne. Ditto Adelaide. And Port. Etc. It's not even. Other than 34 games, the fixture will never be even. This model is in many respects worse than what we currently have.

Bit harsh on those of us born more recently than 1972 who are also vehemently against it. "Exciting addition" does not mean good idea. In fact, that's the precise problem. It's all about appearances, stories, "narratives", "excitement". Not at all about what the competition might actually need. At some point the AFL is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Continually shoving more and more "content" down everyone's throats until we're all sick of it.

The funny thing is they could easily be 8th at the end of this round (they lose, St Kilda beat North, GWS beats GC and then one of Essendon and the Dogs win, all of whom get to 10 wins and pass Geelong). They could even be out of the 8 if they shed a few percentage points and Carlton thump WC again (this is a bit fanciful as the gap is 11%…but WC are putrid…). Of course, I rate them infinitely above St Kilda, Essendon and the Dogs, so they shouldn’t stay behind them for too long.

This whole “he was sold a pup” thing is ridiculous IMO. He’s not stupid. He knew what he was signing up for. He wasn’t forced to come here. Sure, we laid out a plan, but he’s more then smart enough to have thought “this might not work”. The risk of it not working was a risk he knew about and signed up for.

Video’s back up. Has Petty as “test”, Oliver at 3-4 and Fritsch at 5-6. Would screenshot but on my phone. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/1384107/rd-19-injury-report?videoId=1384107&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1689679535001