titan_uranus

Thought the McHenry miss might have killed them but that kick from Walker was incredible with the wind the factor that it is.

Jeepers the umpires just missed an utterly blatant protected zone 50m against Weightman.

Across their careers Dunstan averages 0.4 goals per game to Viney's 0.3.

Well, there it is. TMac loses his spot to Brown (but really, he lost it to Weideman). As for Dunstan getting Viney's spot, makes sense and is precisely why we got Dunstan in as depth. Hope he does well, but you'd think he'd have to be utterly dominant to avoid not making way for Viney the following week. I reckon Smith over Tomlinson for Lever's spot makes sense. Tomlinson's in more direct competition with Petty and May, being the defenders who stay further back and get more of the "power" forwards. Smith covers Lever's intercepting role better.

Why? What I was suggesting might happen is that Jackson is going to be declared out in the final team tonight, which would then mean Brown came in for him. No, it doesn't make sense (if Jackson were unfit why not just declare so last night), but it's still an option.

I agree. TMac down back in Round 1 was a necessity because we lost Salem mid-match. But we have Smith and Tomlinson ready to play, both of whom are fit and better defenders than TMac right now. Why would we force a square peg into a round hole by trying to make TMac a defender when we have Smith and Tomlinson who've already played a tall defender role (and well, too) in 2022? It's possible we want to use Smith to replace Brayshaw, so that Brayshaw and/or Jordon can make up Viney's minutes in the middle. But even if we did that, we should still be playing Tomlinson over TMac as a key defender. There are only two realistic options IMO. The first honours the "rule" that the 18 picked are the starting 18, with emergencies to come from the extended bench. Honouring that "rule", I wonder whether Jackson may be out injured. That would mean Weideman/TMac stay in to play Jackson's role. The second option is that the starting 18 is prone to change and one of TMac/Weideman will actually be dropped. As an aside, what is Melksham doing in the squad? Hasn't he been in zero form to speak of all year?

I strongly doubt we're doing that. Since settling on a forward line of Brown/TMac/Fritsch plus a resting ruck at times and then the smalls, we're 13-1-1.

The last paragraph I agree with. Problem is, I also agree with @Macca and others who say we do not want or need more grey areas in our laws of the game. So I understand why the AFL may prefer to just say "anything at all is a 50m penalty". Of the examples shown over the weekend, the Hewett and Holman ones should have been penalised, but the Andrews and Mitchell ones should not have been - the former two involved the player staring at, and walking towards, the umpire with their arms out, the latter two were just two players almost shrugging their shoulders. Yes, it's more grey area, but ultimately I think I'd be more comfortable with the "arms out" action being considered in context.

I am very, very torn on this. I am 100% supportive of both the need to drastically improve the way umpires are treated by players, and the basic concept of legislating to make it happen. But a blanket rule that says “arms out is 50” just doesn’t fit. Are we saying that in no circumstances, ever, should a footy player raise his/her arms in response to a free? if they do it whilst mouthing off (eg Clarry this weekend, from reports), fine, pay 50. If they do it whilst walking towards the umpire as if to intimidate, pay 50 (eg Holman and Hewett this weekend). But if they’re doing it in the context of a lack of understanding of a decision, in downtime (eg Andrews and Mitchell), that IMO is not dissent nor behaviour we need to eradicate. It’s a player trying to understand a decision.

That is clearly something in our favour but unless you see Essendon, Port and/or GWS rebounding and making finals this year, those wins aren't going to be as strong as wins over Brisbane or Fremantle (both of whom we play twice), for example. FWIW I see GWS pushing for the lower half of the 8, and I think Port will get much better than the currently are, but Essendon might be a lost cause.

The latter is the knock on us, and it won't be answered until either Round 7 (if Hawthorn hold their spot in the 8) or otherwise Round 8 when we play St Kilda. Geelong are 3-2, but they've already played three top 8 sides and 9th as well. Their repeat games include Port Adelaide, North and West Coast - you can almost lock in six wins right there, and certainly the three home games as they're all at GMHBA. They also have the Dogs and St Kilda twice, but again the two home games are at GMHBA. They have Fremantle, also at GMHBA, and are yet to play Adelaide, GWS and Richmond, all mid-table sides (at best). This loss hurts Geelong, sure, but they've probably already had the hardest part of their fixture.

Love seeing Geelong lose, but why does it have to be Hawthorn? I don't want to see Hawthorn anywhere near the finals for years. But right now each of Geelong, Hawthorn and Sydney sit inside the top 8.

This doesn't appear to have aged well...

The last paragraph I can't agree with. We're playing great footy to watch. The third quarter yesterday was as good football as you could ask to see. The first half was actually a strong and gripping contest.

I agree, I thought Weid looked better when he was further up the ground. I don't think he's as good as a deep forward. Which IMO increases the likelihood either he or TMac make way for Brown. Brown is best as our deepest tall forward. Both TMac and Weid are at their best when they push up the ground.

Assuming Geelong beats Hawthorn tomorrow, there will be a two game gap between 7th (likely Carlton given its percentage) and 8th (Collingwood). Five weeks in, we are getting close to the point where the top 8 starts to take shape. There is a reasonable argument the top 7 will be playing finals this year. You'd think the 8th side will be the Dogs, with Collingwood, Richmond, Adelaide, Gold Coast and GWS mid-table sides who will win some good games but not enough.

This was the game many (me included) realised we were the real deal. They jumped us early, I think it was 2.3.15 to 0.0.0, and were all over us with their 2017-20 pressure. We absorbed it, limited the damage from their momentum, and then flipped it on its head. And they absolutely crumbled. All whilst Hibberd gave Dusty one of the best baths Dusty's ever had (there haven't been many). It was joyous to watch.

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. The game moves too quickly. It can't be stopped because a team doesn't like a decision. This isn't cricket or NFL where there is down time between plays and a chance to review discrete decisions. The umpiring was poor last night, and I am of the view the AFL needs to pump significantly more money into investing in better umpires, better conditions for them (i.e. make them FT and pay them well enough to attract new umpires) and better training. Simplifying some rules and removing others altogether would assist. But a captain's challenge is wholly unworkable and at any rate would turn into a tactic - captains would call it at a strategic moment to stop the game.

Look, we know, you don't want to see Brown in the side. This is not a good argument in your favour, though. Tomlinson did completely fine, but Petty's better and got the spot back accordingly.

Third game out of five where Carlton have come out of the blocks looking a million bucks and then ground to a halt. Round 2 vs the Dogs they kicked 12.4 in the first half but then only 4.2 in the second, having a 38 point lead whittled down to 12. Round 3 vs Hawthorn they kicked 9 of the first 11 goals but then only 2 more, going from 42 points up to behind in the last quarter. Then today they were 50 points up just before half time and at one stage had just a 1 point lead. They've won 9 quarters for the year (out of 20), but 7 of those have been in the first half (i.e. 7 out of 10).

How would you feel seeing this as a Brisbane fan? Andrews cops it for doing arguably less than Hewett does here. The spotlight's been on this exact thing since Friday night. But this umpire doesn't pay it against Hewett.

The Langdon push on Petracca's goal was 100% the correct decision.

33,433 at today's Carlton v Port Adelaide game, for comparison.

Ok interesting, will have to try to see it on replay. At the ground it is sometimes impossible to tell. I saw Sparrow lose it but he may have been sledging Hill for exaggerating the contact.

That’s true, but who else would make way? Jordon’s doing really well on a wing IMO, and I reckon Brayshaw’s now really settled in defence.