titan_uranus

@binman - well done

Huge "8 point win", that. 25 scoring shots to 14, +20 inside 50s and +25 contested possessions. Back playing the way we want to play.

@binman I think you've gone a bit too hard on this one. I think the messaging from the club this week indicates that we've focused on our effort levels. This happens a lot, there is a key theme at the club and key words permeate through press conferences and quotes from players. This week "ruthless" and "buy in" seem to be a theme. I reckon we've had a chat this week about the selflessness and effort that got us to the flag last year and how, perhaps, now is the time for us to lift that effort. I personally reckon too many of our best 22 have had a gear they've not been going to that they showed last year, and unlike you I do not pin that all down to loading.

Second consecutive six day break, no TMac, no Brown, no Harmes, Jordon questionable fitness, Lever questionable fitness, Oliver still recovering from a broken thumb, flying across the country to play on a slop of a turf against an opponent Fyfe and Switkowski short of full strength with an extra day's break. Get around us. Season-defining win coming up tomorrow night.

5, actually (3 vs Collingwood, 1 each vs Fremantle and Adelaide). The rest of these two posts really leaves a lot to be desired and makes me grateful you have nothing to do with running our club. Parts of them very arguable, if not flat out wrong (he's not "one paced", he can kick, albeit not at an elite level like Salem or Bowey, and he is as defensively reliable as anyone in our side), they are premised off a position you know nothing about (the value of his salary), and they ignore the clear benefits we get from Gus culturally and through his leadership. I also have no idea about the logic behind the "panic move" comment. You really think the club, suspecting Jackson's going to leave, took extra money/years and threw it at Brayshaw out of panic? After everything we've established in our list management over the lsat 5-7 years?

Good memory re: Essendon. We didn't have a home game against them for 9 years (2010-2019). Brisbane also didn't have a home game against Hawthorn for 8 years (2008-2016). Meanwhile we've been to Geelong 17 times in the last 21 seasons...

As an aside, this is Fremantle's first home game against us since 2015. Which is utterly ridiculous. I wonder whether there is any other match up in the competition where a side hasn't had a home game against another side in 7 years.

JVR an emergency. Getting closer now. Chandler could well be the sub, which I don't think is a very good option. A small forward offers very little if a tall, defender or mid go down. Given we already have Spargo, ANB, Pickett and Melksham in the starting 22, unless he's subbed on for one of them we just get so out of what. At the very least, Dunstan as a midfielder can slot into the middle and push, say, Petracca forward (if the injured player is a forward) or Brayshaw/Hunt back (assuming one of them is playing midfield).

The Doctor’s right, old dee. You’d have jumped up to say “no, fact is we only won 2 of those games, last time I checked a draw is not a win”.

It’s really hard for me to read posts from lifelong Melbourne supporters, who I’ve shared the misery of 2007–17 with on here, say they’re not enjoying a season in which: 1. We’re 13-5 with a percentage of 128% and sit 2nd on the ladder 2. We play regular prime time games 3. We’re a key focus in the weekly TV shows and podcasts 4. We’re watching three of our greatest ever players play elite football on a near-weekly basis It’s crazy what one brilliant season can do for expectations. After years of being irrelevant, losing most weeks (sometimes in dispiritingly non-competitive fashion), and with few stars on our list, I relish watching us every week this year, even if I’m concerned we’re not going to win the flag because we’re not in good enough form. I really worry that those who aren’t enjoying it right now will look back on 2022 in the future when we’re tripe again some day and regret not relaxing slightly, accepting back-to-back flags are [censored] hard, and enjoying us being so good that even when we’re pedestrian we’re the competition’s 2nd best side.

Do they? I’m not being sarcastic - I just don’t know of players saying there’s no difference. Perhaps there’s little difference between 7 and 8 day breaks, but we know 5 day breaks are a bugbear of the AFLPA so there is clearly a difference between 5 and 6, and I’d hazard a guess a meaningful difference between 6 and 7 days too. But of more importance IMO is the timing of the breaks (this week is our second consecutive 6 day break), as well as the comparison to our opponent (last week the Dogs had 8 days off, this week Fremantle has 7). Last week as an example - on Friday night the week before the Dogs got home from playing St Kilda and commenced preparation for our match. In that time frame, we flew to Alice Springs, played in 20+ degree warmth, then flew back again, then started preparation on Sunday night. It’s often seen as a cop out but when we got steamrolled in the fourth quarter, I can’t help but think the shorter break and differing preparation played a role. Yes, across 23 rounds we all start in the same weekend and finish in the same weekend, but it’s not the impact on the overall season that matters, it’s the impact week-to-week. IMO we’ve had it reasonably tough.

They’ve only lost one close game, to Brisbane. Yes there is some skill to winning close games, but there is also most definitely luck. The bounce of a ball, a free paid/not paid, your opponent missing a set shot, etc. You need luck to win close games and history shows that sides don’t repeat their luck too often. Collingwood is riding their luck to historically ridiculous levels. Power to them, but it is unlikely to last forever, or even for another 8 weeks.

As @Bring-Back-Powell said though, because the Dogs are already 8th, they’re already in. So someone out of the 8 has to pass us for us to miss. That has to be St Kilda or Richmond. So if you’re thinking about whether we miss, either Richmond wins out and gets to 13.5 wins, and we lose out, or St Kilda wins out and gets to 14 wins (and we lose out), or somehow they win 3 games and close the 25% percentage gap (and we lose out). It is highly improbable that one of those sides wins all 4 of their remaining games, and we lose all 4 of ours.

Oh come on now, it's not good enough to beat a top 4 contender at their home ground, we now have to do it by 4-5 goals or else you'll write off our season? Far out.

Holding on and getting the win on Saturday would have been huge. Largely, it would have meant we don't have to read posts about how we might miss the finals. To miss the 8 we have to lose all four of our matches - no one is passing us on 14. Then either the Dogs have to beat Geelong in Geelong and Fremantle (and the other two), or St Kilda has to beat Geelong in Geelong and Brisbane and Sydney (and another game), or Richmond (whose only win in the last five weeks has been against West Coat) has to beat Brisbane and Port in Adelaide and Essendon (and one more). If you genuinely think that is more likely than the opposite (i.e. we win just one game or each of those sides drops just one game), you might as well give up following football as it must be impossible for you to enjoy it. As to how the run home will play out, I like our chances against each of our opponents for varying reasons. I doubt we'll win all four, and the second consecutive six-day break into the Fremantle game with them on an extra day break hurts, but I also think we'll have learnt some lessons from the first game and we hopefully won't get a mid-game injury to a key player forcing a reshuffle. Carlton are flakey and have back-to-back road trips prior to their game against us, Collingwood is IMO the worst 13-5 side the competition has ever seen, and we've beaten Brisbane comprehensively the last three times we've played them. However, this round was as bad as it gets for us with all of the other top 8 sides winning (Fremantle's draw is effectively a win when comparing them to us, as we had the percentage buffer over them). Essendon and Gold Coast holding on would have been enormous for us and would have increased the prospects of us making top 4 even if we go 2-2.

Haven’t had the pleasure of seeing the full game but where I’d be thinking for changes: 1. Chandler had a ripper in the VFL whilst in the seniors we laid 0 tackles inside 50. 2. Lever returns if fit. 3. From Goodwin’s presser I’m not confident Brown will be ready next week. 4. This will be our second consecutive 6-day break and long flight between games. We got overrun this week. Anyone who isn’t fully fit shouldn’t be playing. So if Jordon has a knee concern, don’t risk him, and bring back Hunt or Bowey and move Gus to the wing.

So many said the same thing last week about how Port were on an 8-3 run and we were struggling. It's a bit rich to say you need pressure and clearance to beat the Dogs. We will beat everyone if we bring our best clearance and pressure game. The positive from last week is that we won despite not being able to get on top in clearances. We found another way. And I really hope we're aiming higher than the Tigers who are 0-1-2 in their last three weeks with their season on the line.

Cannot underestimate the importance of this game. For one, we can't afford to drop many games for ladder position. For another, we need to keep building form and whilst we're 3-1 in the last month, we don't want to be too patchy with alternating W-L (or worse). For another, I want to keep the Dogs away from finals, and I just like beating them. It won't be easy without either of our two best key forwards and with Oliver, Lever and Gawn all seemingly of questionable fitness. But so important as a win tonight puts us 1.5 games clear of Fremantle and a game clear of Collingwood (at worst), our next two opponents. Sets us up to close the door on top 4.

For us, it's near-certain but technically not guaranteed. If we get to 16, three sides (other than Geelong) need to get to 16 with a better percentage than us, or get to 17 to pass us. Sydney and Carlton can't get to 17 so they'd have to win out and then close the percentage gaps (12% and 19% respectively). Obviously if they win all five games their percentage is a fair chance of increasing but those sorts of gaps probably require us to suffer a large-ish loss. Brisbane, Fremantle and Collingwood would have to go 4-1 and then close the percentage gap (easiest for Brisbane at 6.6% behind, harder for Fremantle at 12%, pretty much impossible for Collingwood 26% behind), or run the table. Remember that we play Brisbane, Fremantle, Collingwood and Carlton, and if we go 3-2 we have to beat at least two of them. Likely rules out Carlton and Collingwood passing us. Remember also that Collingwood plays Sydney, which forces a loss between them. Bringing all that together, for us to go 3-2 but miss top 4 almost certainly requires Sydney to win out and close the 12% gap between us.

They lost to Essendon two weeks ago. They have the easiest draw of probably any side in the comp but the odds of getting through it undefeated are low. Particularly if Collingwood and St Kilda are playing for top 4/8 in their last two games. Implicit in my post though was that Brisbane and Fremantle also either get to 15 but pass us on percentage, or get to 16. Fremantle is 12% behind us (worse percentage than Sydney right now), so again assuming we don't shed too much percentage in our losses from here there's a fair chance they need to get to 16, which requires them to go 4-1 from Richmond (Marvel), us, the Dogs (Marvel), West Coast and GWS (away). They can do it, but they're in patchy form and could easily go 1-2 from their next three. So for us to miss top 4 on 15-7, three of the following five things all have to happen: Brisbane goes 3-2 but makes up the 6.6% gap on us, or goes 4-1 or better Fremantle goes 3-2 but makes up the 12% gap on us, or goes 4-1 or better Collingwood goes 3-2 but makes up the 26.5% gap on us, or goes 4-1 or better Sydney goes 4-1 but makes up the 12% gap on us, or goes 5-0 Carlton goes 4-1 but makes up the 19% gap on us, or goes 5-0 Even if Sydney does pass us, two of the other sides have to do it too, and I'd rate Carlton and Collingwood's chances low. Which means both Fremantle and Brisbane have to do it. So I still think 2-3 is the minimum mark to get us into the top 4. 3-2 makes it pretty much certain. Having said all that, conceding those last three goals to Port really disappointed me. The extra percentage buffer over Fremantle and Sydney would have been very helpful.

I think Collingwood could honestly go anything from 0-5 to 5-0. Their draw is tricky, with their two easiest games being an in-form Essendon and then Port Adelaide. You'd think they should go 2-3 overall but it won't surprise me if they do better.

I'd be even more amazed if they finish above Collingwood. @Sydney_Demon must have Port going 5-0 and Collingwood 1-4 or 0-5 from here.

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.