titan_uranus

If Viney's fit he comes straight back for Dunstan. Dunstan fills the gap at stoppages well enough but his disposal is just not good enough. Melksham shouldn't be playing but I imagine we'll give him game 200, pressing him to lift for the milestone whilst Harmes is still out. Not sure what we do if Langdon misses. I'm not interested in trying Baker again. If someone is OK to take Gus' half-back spot and we roll Gus up onto the wing, I'm OK with that, but I'd imagine the FD will prefer to leave Brayshaw in defence now that he's been there 10 weeks.

We dominated time in forward half and generated 30 scoring shots whilst conceding only 13. Inaccuracy meant the margin was 47 instead of 77. We continue to deploy the same method each week, treating each opponent equally, and assuming each one brings its best. North's only played one game as well as they played today, and that was when the led Sydney in the fourth quarter in Round 4. West Coast last week probably hasn't brought that level of application in any other game this year barring perhaps its win over Collingwood. I don't really know, or care, why that is, because we won't be playing North or West Coast in September. What I care about is that we approach games wanting to play our brand, and each week we play our brand. So on a night where we went in with four premiership players missing, lost a fifth in the first quarter, appeared to end with another one or two injured, when our opponent lifts, we turn it over too much, and we miss easy shots on goal, we still generated 30 scoring shots to 13, with 40 more inside 50s, and won by 47. I imagine if anyone had said that about one of our losses in 2013, you would have gone ballistic. As to "inaccurate as always" - tonight was the third time this year that we've scored more behinds than goals. That's 30%. Not "always".

Dogs play the same way and kicked 8 in a row against us in Round 1. (just playing devil's advocate here)

Look, I think Carlton's gameplan is flawed too, but in all our losses last year our opponents went hell for leather and took us on through the middle. Carlton will do the same and have the talent to score against our backline. The way to beat Carlton is not exactly hidden - breakeven in contested possession. They are like the Dogs and a bit like us in 2018 - their one-wood is the middle, and if they don't dominate in the middle they are capable of being opened up defensively.

Newman gets caught by Franklin at full back, doesn't bother trying to dispose of it, drops it, play on. Warner gets caught by Owies with little prior, drops it, holding the ball. Would be infuriating to be a Swans supporter seeing that. Although to be fair, they've had their chances and squandered too many of them.

Sydney choking hard here. Gone inside 50 with options to score so many times but continually kicking to Franklin or Papley when they're outnumbered.

The "game day experience" could mean about a million things and umpiring may not even be one of them. I for one cannot stand any ground which blares music after a goal, or pumps music so loud between quarters that you can't hear the person sitting next to you. Nothing has been worse for football in the modern era than the concept of "fan activation".

Yeah you'd still expect Carlton to get up from here. Still got a three goal buffer and probably only need 1 or 2 goals this quarter to seal it. Big first halves help as your opponent is playing catch up footy to get back into it.

Carlton are also a massive front-running first half side. vs the Dogs, 12 goals in the first half, 4 in the second vs Hawthorn, 9 goals in the first half, 2 in the second vs Port, 12 goals in the first half, 2 in the second now vs Sydney, 12 goals in the first half, only 2 so far in the third quarter (and having conceded 5.4 at the same time) We remember Carlton well because those four first halves have been intensely good, but they've been opened up defensively in each of those games too.

To be fair to the Dogs, Josh Bruce changes their forward line, gives Naughton a chop out. I reckon Naughton would be flying if he had McKay alongside him like Curnow does.

The funny thing about their scoring is that going into this Round, we've scored more than them. You wouldn't think that based on the narratives around us and them. The 726 points they had conceded coming into this round is worse than all other top 10 sides bar Richmond. Sydney are hugely over-rated, agreed. Their only win of merit was vs Geelong, in Buddy's 1000th game, and Geelong are also pretty mid-road this year. Remaining wins are five of the bottom 6.

The Geelong situation is one of the many inequalities in the AFL fixture. Essendon played there last year, for the first time since 1993. Collingwood hasn't played there since 1999. Hawthorn played there in 2020 (no crowd due to COVID) but previously hadn't played there since 2006. Richmond's played there once since 2012 (2017). Carlton played there in 2018, 19 and 20, but before that hadn't played there since 1997. Meanwhile we've played there 18 times in the last 22 years (this year included). The game was always going to be there this year because of Round 23 last year. But the real reason we, the Dogs, St Kilda and North continually get sent down there is because Geelong has 9 games there each year, and as they can't (and don't want to) play all 8 interstate sides down there, they need 3-4 Victorian opponents each year, and the above five Victorian clubs are generally speaking immune.

Carlton are a superior version of the Bulldogs. Reliant on their midfield and forward line to keep the ball out of their defensive 50 and to score enough to outdo their backline weaknesses. Despite all the hoo-ha over their midfield and forward line, they entered this game with the worst percentage of any top 8 side, which is indicative of their back half weaknesses.

I'm watching Sydney fumble in space, be led to the ball, get walked through in tackles and continually lay tackles too high or in the back. There is plenty about this performance that is on Sydney independently of Carlton. Carlton are good, don't get me wrong, but Sydney are not in form, having lost two in a row before beating a sub-VFL side in Essendon.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1130811/viney-to-miss-roos-clash

Fair points these. Fremantle's on Friday night in Round 19, so the AFL may not be keen to double-down on the Dockers in prime time. Geelong v Bulldogs and Richmond v Brisbane are contenders for the Friday night. We could easily be Saturday night, though (far preferable to Sunday twilight, particularly for the following round). Round 21 is the Collingwood game. There are plenty of contenders for prime time that will come before that if Collingwood is, as you'd expect, no good by then (Brisbane v Carlton, Geelong v St Kilda, Port v Richmond, Bulldogs v Fremantle). Agree that a Saturday afternoon game is a good chance. Round 22 is the Carlton game and as you've identified, there are three Marvel games. Unless Thursday night games persist to that point, we can't be the Friday night absent some whack Marvel double-header. St Kilda v Brisbane likely. If the above three games don't get us into prime time then surely Round 23 vs Brisbane gets us there. If not, we'll have had one single Friday night game for the entire season, surely a record low for a Victorian reigning premier?

A shocker. At least Geelong is on the same five-day break.

It's probably not as surprising as it first seems. Melksham is a closer fit for Harmes' spot than Bedford, even if Bedford has been on the cusp of selection longer than Melksham has.

My rudimentary analysis: to Round 19, the Dogs will have been on free to air TV in 16 of their 19 games to that point - 10 Thursday or Friday night games, four Saturday night games, and the season opener on a Wednesday night to Round 19, the Dogs will have had zero Sunday 1.10pm or Sat/Sun twilight games. to Round 19, we will have had four Thursday/Friday nights (three Thursdays, one Friday), four Saturday nights, and the season opener; we will also have had six games in the Sunday 1.10pm or Sat/Sun twilight slots.

The Dogs' prime time and FTA exposure is getting out of hand. This confirms that, to Round 19, the Dogs will have been on FTA in 16 out of 19 games. As for us, this is to be expected really. The Port game on a Sunday is at least on FTA, but is the reason the Dogs game is on the Saturday night and not the Friday night. You'd expect our final four games (Fremantle, Collingwood, Carlton and Brisbane) to all be good chances of prime time.

We're also not on FTA next week when we play Fremantle on a Saturday twilight timeslot. That will mean 5 of our first 11 games have been on pay TV, and 3 of those 5 will have been our home games (vs Hawthorn, St Kilda and Fremantle). By comparison, the Dogs will have 3 of their first 11 games on pay TV (they've started with 8 of their first 9 on FTA, so they've been all over the TV so far).

Out of interest, which aspects did you prefer? I struggle to identify a way in which the McIntyre system was better than the current system.

It's not just Hawkins v Chandler, too. What about Tom Lynch getting nothing for his elbow to Impey's head, but last year Toby Greene got 2 weeks for his elbow to Dangerfield's head? Again, like Hawkins v Chandler, I can find no material difference between the two. How are players supposed to know when something is a reportable offence and when something isn't? The MRO's statements do nothing to assist - how does this explain why Lynch got off? The incident involving Richmond's Tom Lynch and Hawthorn's Jarman Impey from the third quarter of Saturday's match between Richmond and Hawthorn was assessed. Lynch takes possession of the loose ball on the wing. Impey approaches to tackle from side on and high contact is made by Lynch on Impey. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Lynch's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken. There's nothing in that paragraph which explains why Lynch's elbow was "not unreasonable in the circumstances".

The thing about their fixture though is that of those three hard games, two of them (Geelong and Richmond) are at home. They currently lead the competition for wins over current top 8 sides (they have three, tied with St Kilda). If they can sustain that sort of football for long enough this year, their fixture presents them with a golden chance to make finals. Agree re: King. Chol-Casboult is doing surprisingly well for them, but if they had King they'd be a seriously difficult force given they are, I think, the AFL's number.1 side for time spent in forward half.

Whether sub-consciously or overtly you are focusing on the outcomes. How can you call the tackle "crazy dangerous" but the bump "clumsy" and "happens regularly" (the latter of which is irrelevant, indeed tackles happen far more regularly than off-the-ball bumps)? Even accepting the tackle was dangerous, the bump had equal potential to destroy Bowey's head/jaw. It didn't, and for that we should all be grateful, but of the two actions neither is more dangerous than the other. At least Chandler's is part of the game. If anything was clumsy it was Chandler's tackle.