titan_uranus

I actually think 2-3 is the minimum to lock in top 4. That gets us to 15 wins. Right now our percentage is 12% better than Sydney, 20% better than Carlton and 26% better than Collingwood. If we can hold our percentage over those three sides, then they would have to get to 16 to pass us. That means Carlton and Sydney have to win all 5 of their remaining games, whilst Collingwood would have to go 4-1 in a run which includes a suddenly in-form Essendon, Port, us, Sydney and Carlton. Assuming Carlton and Sydney drop 1 game from here and Collingwood drops 2 (which is made much easier if we beat them), then there's a good chance we only need 2 more wins to make top 4. I agree, if we go 3-2 there's still a reasonable chance we finish 2nd. If we go 4-1, that prospect significantly improves, particularly if the 4 wins include Fremantle and Brisbane. I wouldn't say we need big percentage boosting wins. What we need is to ensure that our losses aren't dramatic. Keep the losses in check and "moderate" wins like yesterday's will keep our percentage close enough to where it is right now.

Where did you see that clanger stat? The AFL's website says that he had 4 clangers, not 10. He led us for metres gained, was second only to Fritsch for score involvements, and was our leader for goal assists. He also had our fourth most pressure acts, meaning he added defence to that attack.

Agree with this, except that I think the clearances went too far in their favour. I'm prepared to cop that given it's been a long time since we went into a game without Oliver, but I don't think we did well enough in that area with the personnel we still had in. The Bruce inclusion is the main thing worrying me about the Dogs doing something different. They changed a few things up in Round 1 (notably Libba on a flank) and they largely didn't work. But Bruce in the forward line to help Naughton is a hugely different forward half dynamic to what they had in the GF and in Round 1. I'm not sure how much they've been preparing for us though. They had their revenge game in Round 1, and flunked it. Geelong had to wait until last week. And the Dogs have been playing elimination finals for a few weeks now. They would have been equally focused on how to beat St Kilda, given that a loss coupled with the expected Richmond win was likely curtains for their season.

6 - Pickett 5 - Petracca 4 - Jordon 3 - Brown 2 - Langdon 1 - Hibberd

Would be bloody helpful if so. Essendon's last month has seen them knock off St Kilda, Sydney, Brisbane and now Gold Coast, all sides in the top 12 pushing for finals (or very much going to make them). Collingwood are as due for a loss as any side in recent memory. Essendon will probably turn in a stinker at some point soon but for our sakes, I'd love it to not be next week.

Melksham was better than many of us expected, but still wasn't great. We don't need all of Pickett, Bedford, Spargo, Melksham and ANB in the side. But we do, IMO, need another tall to help Brown. Jackson/Gawn aren't providing that help right now, and I'd rather Gawn sit a kick behind the play to help intercept than be forced to push forward all the time. Tomlinson doesn't deserve to be dropped but I'm not sure we're flinging Petty forward after 18 months of him being a really, really good defender. If Lever's not fully fit then that's an easy decision (Petty for Lever) but if Lever's good to go, it's tough but I think Tomlinson goes back out. Bedford and Melksham to be replaced by Oliver and Weid/JVR. Probably the only other option is Sparrow for Oliver, sparing Melksham, if the FD wants Melksham in for a defensive forward job next week. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

Having watched the replay, I reckon we were nowhere near as bad as most are suggesting. We intercepted well and our transition from D50 to forward 50 felt really solid to me. We were dominated in clearances, but as I said before I can understand how that might happen when we go into a game without Oliver for the first time in a long time against an opponent with a decent midfield. Major disappointments IMO were Gawn and Jackson failing to dominate anywhere on the ground against two part-time rucks, Fritsch burning a teammate in the first quarter (when will it stop?), and giving up those last three goals and the consequent percentage, which we need to hold onto top 2/4. Melksham exceeded my expectations, but to be fair they were very low. Brown's best game for a while, if not all season. Held his marks, got on the move, nailed field kicks. That's the standard we need to continue to see. We're still a tall forward short IMO. We don't need all of Pickett, Spargo, ANB, Bedford and Melksham. Really impressed with Hibberd's game, Tomlinson was an able replacement for Petty, and I thought both Jordon and Langdon were stunning with their two-way running in the heat.

"Attacking"? Where? I'm expressing general frustration here at a group of posters (no one in particular) who prior to the game said we were going to lose and then after the win complained about the manner of our win. It's inherently inconsistent, but all too common on Demonland. Edit: read my other post above yours, you'll see I'm very happy with the win.

I've only seen patches of the game but will hopefully catch the replay later on. Got belted in the clearances which is disappointing but not altogether unexpected for our first game without Oliver in years. Obviously Pickett's game is a massive positive, not just for its outrageous quality but just to see him getting back into form. Brown's stats suggest he played his best game for a long time, which is also a positive. Lever's potential injury is a scare but happily Tomlinson looks like he's in good enough form to keep playing seniors if required. Major room for improvement in the middle, and the Dogs are not a good opponent to come up against if we're not on song in that area of the ground, but we get Oliver back and Gawn and Jackson surely will find form at some point. But with the flatness of the ladder from 1st to 7th, a win today helps solidify our buffer. Over the last three weeks only Geelong and Collingwood have managed not to drop a game you'd expect them to win. The rest of our top 4/8 competitors have dropped at least one. Our only loss was to Geelong, unbeaten for two months and down the highway. We're not as far off it as some think. Meanwhile today Port were a B-grade ruckman short of full strength who have to treat almost every game as an elimination final, we were missing the league's best player and two structurally critical players at both ends of the ground, playing a one-off 22-degree game in the middle of winter (warm enough for Langdon to go the short sleeves!), went goalless in the first quarter and fell behind in the third, but had the game put to bed halfway into the fourth with a solid 31 point lead. This wasn't a walk in the park game going in - almost no game for any side is - but we did precisely what we needed to do, and more.

Far out. A significant bunch of posters went into this game telling us about how Port was in form, we were not in form, we weren't playing well and that we would likely lose. We then proceed to win, and those same posters then complain about the way we won. FFS. If you thought we were going to lose before the game, you should be celebrating right now.

Their form is only marginally better than ours. They're 3-2 since their bye, we're 2-1. Their wins were against Sydney, Gold Coast and GWS. Ours were against Brisbane and Adelaide. Importantly, all three of their wins were at the Adelaide Oval, too.

Huge opportunity this week with Fremantle and Carlton both losing. But also major pressure with Brisbane, Collingwood and Sydney all winning. Which is going to be the case each week for the rest of the year. I disagree. They’ve heavily relied on luck to go 7-1 in close games. 5 of those close games have been bottom six sides. That luck, history tells us, cannot last, and to win the flag they’re going to have to beat 3-4 top 8 sides in a row. Takes much more than luck.

There are few guarantees in life, but I reckon it's a dead set certainty that if it was us winning these close games against bottom six sides, you would be writing us off entirely as fluking it. Yet Collingwood does it and they are a chance to win the flag.

Sigh. They're 7-1 now in games decided by under two goals. I would love to know if there has ever been a side sit this high on the ladder this late into a season with a percentage of 106.2%.

I let myself get too excited by North last week, I'm not letting that happen again today with Adelaide. Fully assuming Collingwood pull yet another close win out of their rear ends. Winning close games is a bit of a skill, no doubt, but it's also a lot of luck. They're already 6-1 in close games this year, and IMO are in the conversation for having the least impressive "best" football for a top 4 contender I've ever seen. Their best football doesn't get close to us, Geelong, Fremantle, Carlton, Brisbane, or even Sydney, Richmond or the Dogs. But they keep games close with effort and they hold their nerve late.

And then the following week we get a second consecutive 6 day break, whilst Fremantle get 7.

But is this the right move? Without picking another tall forward, can we afford to not play Trac predominantly forward?

In: Melksham, Tomlinson, Rivers Out: Oliver, Petty, Bowey Cue outrage.

Duplicate.

To be fair, Lycett is pretty much the only player missing from their best side (I'm not sure Fantasia is best 22 these days). Against the current top 8 they are 1-6, but their most recent games were an 8 point loss to Fremantle in Perth, a win over Sydney, and a 12 point loss to Richmond at the G. Post-bye they have been better than they were pre-bye. Having said that, they are 2-5 in games out of Adelaide, with the two wins being a 1 point win over St Kilda in Cairns (in the scrappiest, low skilled game of the season) and a win over North. 6 of their 8 wins have been at the Adelaide Oval.

I don't get all the complaining, with the sole exception of Melksham being included. Tomlinson has to replace Petty. We don't have anyone else, with Smith injured, and we can't not take a third tall given they have Dixon, Marshall and (if he holds his spot) Georgiades. It's not exactly a shock that Dunstan's on the extended bench. The odds were always in favour of a like-for-like replacement for Oliver as opposed to moving Brayshaw up into his spot. Nevertheless, that's still an option, given both Rivers and Hunt are in the squad too. And it's not exactly a shock that Bowey's been dropped given his poor form. That's three changes. I personally would like to see a second tall forward and given the bench, that has to mean Weid comes in at the expense of Bedford. But given we already have three changes it may well be that the FD don't want a fourth. They've named Gawn at CHF and Pickett in the middle so maybe they are going to make some changes with the other members of the best 22.

This is a more pertinent topic. Post-bye we only play consecutive games in the same STATE, let alone venue, once (Rounds 21-22 at the G). Geelong, meanwhile, play more games in Geelong in the last 8 games than they do in their first 14. It feels like this happens every year. Our back half/third is loaded with travel and movement, whilst other clubs seem to get runs of games at home.

Seriously, a loss really brings out the worst in Demonland. Wearing the jumper in Sir Doug Nicholls Round, NAIDOC week and a game in the NT all make sense. If you want to complain, complain about our NT game not being scheduled in Sir Doug Nicholls Round or NAIDOC week. But remember of course that the jumper we wear has literally zero impact on our performance. Literally zero.

It's clearly both. We know Brown's failing to mark the ball too much (of those 8, I reckon 4 of them were vs Harris Andrews alone), and whether it's B Brown, M Brown, Weideman or Fritsch (pretty much everyone except TMac this year), our forwards are often in the wrong spot or, when in the right spot, get beaten. But we also know the kicking is poor. Everyone sees it every game. On Fox they've been showing from the Geelong game the footage of Fritsch streaming into the left-hand forward 50 (2nd quarter I think?), missing/ignoring a wide open Petracca and going longer and deeper to a non-advantageous contest. Then later, going to the right of screen, Petracca picks it up and kicks to a loose Geelong player when he had time to steady and at least target the one-on-one. How many times does our kick inside 50 go to the advantage of our opponent? i.e. into space beautifully, but the space on the opponents' side of the contest, not our forward's? I suspect more often than not that's the kicker's fault, but the entire process of moving the ball from the back half into our forward 50 is in need of work.

Whilst I appreciate you've put a lot of thought and research into your views on this, and your broader post, I have an issue with this bit. Surely before you start knocking people for disagreeing with you this year, you need to see that you are indeed correct this year, and therefore that we improve our fitness and start running all over our opponents in the last few weeks of the H&A season? If what you're arguing doesn't eventuate, then this sentence will sound a bit silly, won't it?