titan_uranus

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.

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.