titan_uranus

That game was cancelled due to the death of Phil Walsh.

My understanding, and I may well be wrong, is that Geelong want all 11 home games at GMHBA, but the AFL rejects that and "makes" them play two home games per year at the MCG against "bigger" clubs to maximise attendances (Collingwood, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn, Essendon). IMO, Geelong should play all 11 home games at GMHBA and that should therefore require those bigger clubs to go down there. Hawthorn is arguably a smaller club than us these days, and if it weren't for the Easter Monday game should be down in Geelong most years, particularly through this current rebuilding phase. Carlton and Essendon have been down there recently too whilst they've been weaker on-field. For so long as the AFL refuses to send those five "bigger" Melbourne clubs down there, Geelong will continue to get home games against us, the Dogs, St Kilda and North (in that order) because they can't just host interstate sides (they have to play some of those sides away and don't play them all twice) and regardless they want some Melbourne clubs down there for bigger crowds and better atmospheres.

Where did you get this data from @binman?

Also notable I think that he mentioned the crowd noise and its importance. When was the last time we matched/outdid Collingwood supporters for noise? Surely the players noticed. The roar as they ran out onto the ground must have given them positive energy. Petracca's mentioned it before. The more we get to the ground and make noise like that, the better it is for our chances.

Well to be fair, they did end up winning the last quarter... David King's pathetic. Speaks definitively about everything as if his laptop makes him an oracle, but flip flops every week. One week we're dominant, the next week we're hopeless. We beat Carlton ugly, it's a terrible game. St Kilda beats Sydney ugly and it's an important win and teams always get positives out of ugly wins.

A couple of statistical shout-outs: Petracca had a game high 37 pressure acts, 20 of which were in the back half. Like last week, in Oliver's absence he has stepped up defensively. Incredible work for someone who is dominant in the forward half After Viney's 4, our next best forward 50 ground ball get player was JVR (along with Fritsch). He was also our 6th highest pressure act player. This is why he keeps playing. He is doing defensive things that TMac and Brown can't do

6 - Viney 5 - Salem 4 - McVee 3 - Rivers 2 - May 1 - Petracca

I said this in the post-match but I am hopeful that the decision to sub Spargo off, and the lack of impact having one fewer small forward had on us, is a sign that we're thinking now about dropping one small forward and adding a midfielder. IMO it should be Oliver for Spargo. We lose little forward of the ball and don't have anyone else to drop who is more worthy. I love Hibberd and have loved his season, and I think right now he holds his spot over Bowey. I'm not sure there's a spot for Bowey anywhere else right now, other than perhaps as sub. If Petty's fit, I think he gets a run at Casey first. JVR and Smith are doing enough right now. I think we have to reward them and let Petty convince us that he is a forward. So for me it's Oliver for Spargo and that's all.

That was an incredible performance. If you have suggested anywhere in here that we weren't that good, you don't get it. We were stunning in all aspects bar the obvious one, but that doesn't mean we weren't good. Had we kicked accurately we would have won this game by 30-odd points and no one would reflect on that as anything other than exceptional. Collingwood hasn't faced that level of pressure all year. It's a level we haven't brought all year either. But when we combine that level of intensity, a full 23-man buy in, with a solid back-half defensive set up and more aggressive ball movement, [censored] we are good. Tomlinson (or at least, a third tall) in the backline works. I can't agree with @DeeSpencer at all on that. I can't accept it's a coincidence that we bring in the third tall and the defensive set up suddenly looks far stronger and sides suddenly start fearing kicking near May or Lever, and Gawn isn't asked to intercept everything. Tomlinson's a confidence player and some of his early efforts to out-body his opponent and get his head over the ball were critical to him being on all day. McVee is a gun. Surely in line for a Rising Star nomination. Rivers is taking his game to another level, and with Salem playing like that we have weapons behind the ball. Still so much work to do with disposal - Hunter's first 3-4 kicks were turnovers, Brayshaw's kicking has gone to water, ANB started poorly too. But at least in-game all three improved as it went on. I tend to think the last three weeks' poor goal-kicking is pressure (of losing) and fatigue, given how accurate we were early, but it's a worrying trend that I'm hoping we can arrest. I'm hopeful that the decision to sub Spargo off for Jordon might be the signal I've been waiting for - that we've realised we have one too many small forwards and could do better with an extra mid. With Oliver due to return, I think that's where the swap gets made. There's no doubt Collingwood can be better, simply by adding De Goey, Sidebottom, Howe and Elliot. Of course, we're missing a player who has strong claims to being the best in the league, so we could be better too. And again, if we'd kicked straight, the margin would have reflected the gap between us and them. So with the top 4 all having played each other once, Port and Brisbane are 2-1 and us and Collingwood are 1-2. It's a feather in the cap that hopefully shows the doubting Demonlanders, media personalities, and our own club that we have what it takes.

I sit somewhere between your view and the views you're arguing against. IMO Collingwood are the best team in it because of their intangible belief and ability to win when things aren't going their way. They have lost four games in a year and two of those were close games (the two finals). But I also believe that their belief isn't always enough to overcome deficiencies in their game which, if we play to our best, we can exploit (as can others). And the gap isn't as big as others argue - if we win, we'll both have the same record against the top 4 (1-2).

Lever said the same thing on SEN a couple of weeks ago. I think we have acknowledged now that in 2022 we spent too long trying to recreate 2021 (both as to gamestyle and as to personnel) when we needed to accept that our entire 2021 season was top shelf and we don't need to necessarily be at that level to succeed. The changes we've made this year, to try to adapt and be less reliant on stoppage and more capable of scoring off turnover, as well as to rest our players more and not rely so significantly on Gawn, Oliver and Trac, are positive developments. We're not quite there yet and we need to demonstrate, soon, that those changes translate to an ability to beat a top 4 opponent. This week is another opportunity to do that.

It's possible Collingwood select Mihocek, McStay, Cameron and Cox. Plus Elliott. They all played when fit earlier in the season (before McStay, Cameron and Cox went out with their various injuries). They could have three talls at any given time. If we drop Tomlinson for Hibberd, both Hibberd and May will have to play tall and Elliott will have to be taken by...who?

Don't agree at all re: Port. Not sure I agree with any of the rest either, except the W-L record being spot on, which I didn't disagree with from the start.

All members of the current top 4 (Collingwood, Port, Brisbane, us) have played each other except Melbourne v Collingwood which is this week. It's a big if, but if we win, the top 4 record against each other will be: Port - 2-1 Brisbane - 2-1 Collingwood - 1-2 Melbourne - 1-2 Obviously if we lose, they'll all be 2-1 and we'll be 0-3. But a win will show that we're not that far off, particularly given that our loss to Port was by a kick in the rain.

As @Lucifers Hero has posted above, we actually have a comparatively kind draw. That stems largely from the six double-up opponents we were given. Of them, two are North and Hawthorn, the next two are Carlton and Richmond who pre-season were considered top 8 chances but right now are both more likely to be bottom 6. Then there's Sydney, a pre-season flag fancy who IMO can still challenge and by Round 24 could be well in the thick of it, and then Brisbane. That's a much kinder slate of repeat games than would have been expected pre-season.

I'm in the opposite camp, in that I think going with May + Lever, then Hibberd, then smalls, is a worse structure than May + Lever + Tomlinson/Turner/Petty, then Hibberd, then smalls. When we play sides with at least two good tall forwards the former structure requires either/both of Lever to play with less freedom and Hibberd to play taller than he is. I've seen enough from Hibberd this year to believe he has enough run and gun to be a smaller defender than a taller one, and the addition of a third tall helps allow Lever to zone off.

This reads like you are already laying the foundations to be pessimistic if we win.

So can we make the prelim if we "perk up"? This time last year no one expected Collingwood to make a prelim and if you had thought it, you'd have added that they would have been "significantly out of their weight division".

Not sure Geelong winning is a good result.

They haven't won tonight yet though... Meanwhile the Dogs cannot defend. If they're serious they have no business losing to a Geelong side missing the midfield talent Geelong's missing (Dangerfield, Guthrie, Holmes, Duncan, Stanley). But they cannot stop Geelong moving the ball on transition.

You understand this is blatant hypocrisy, right? We win ugly, you talk about how we played terrible football. Collingwood win ugly, you talk about their W-L record (i.e. suggesting the win is all that matters).

If Collingwood can be challenged by a rabble West Coast side fielding half a WAFL outfit and down to two on the bench, then this game is right there for us if we're good enough. But let's not get sucked into the "De Goey's out" stuff. They bat deep. It's obviously a big loss but we need to focus on the 23 they play, not the ones they don't.

Fine. Not exactly what we were debating but fine. Although I challenge the notion that we've had a "soft" draw. It hasn't been the hardest, but it hasn't been easy. We spent 50% of the first 10 weeks on the road. We've had the two hardest road trips (Brisbane in Brisbane, Port in Adelaide). We got Sydney when they were full strength before they collapsed. We got Fremantle when they were in-form, rather than earlier in the year when they spent weeks playing mindlessly slow football. It's all debatable but despite having played 8 of the current bottom 10, it's not like we've had a cakewalk of a season so far.

I'm guessing you're saying he's not playing well? 2.1 from 8 touches, 3 marks, with 1 tackle, reads pretty standard I'd have thought?

If you're expanding the definition beyond the bottom 3, then that applies to everyone. Since Round 2 Collingwood's only scored over 100 twice, against GWS and North. Since Round 1 Port Adelaide's only scored over 100 twice, against West Coast and North. They struggled to score against Sydney without a backline and then their other low scores have been against good sides (Collingwood, the Dogs, us). Brisbane's five lowest scores this year have been against five of the six best sides they've played (Port, the Dogs, us, Adelaide, Essendon, with the 6th being Collingwood). Adelaide's three lowest scores have been against three strong sides in the Dogs, Collingwood and Geelong in Geelong. The Dogs have only scored 100 once, against Fremantle during Fremantle's losing streak, and their four lowest scores were against us, Brisbane, Port Adelaide and Gold Coast.