old55

Our experienced players aren't scarred, they are just flawed: Lewis' body is past it, he is a total liability when he doesn't have the ball and it's now physically beyond him to influence the outcome in a tight contest against good opposition Jones has always been just a good player who has got the most out of himself. Early in his career he was a ball butcher, in his prime a few years back he overcame this and became an effective user. Now he's over the peak, has lost a yard and is back to his butchering ways. He did everything within his limited abilities to get us across the line in the last quarter yesterday but he just could not hit a target often enough Garlett is a small forward - the hardest position on the ground to have an influence in pressure games. Even the elite like Stephen Milne struggled in maximum heat Our next 3 most experienced were TMac, who has won us a number of games off his own boot this year and last year and played well again yesterday but his usually reliable goal kicking is a bit off, Neville Jetta who is one of the best small defenders in the AFL and Dom Tyson who is a fringe player. It's just not a fearsome, deep set - yet. It's our supporters who are poisoned and scarred.

It's pretty straightforward: Lewis, Jones, Garlett vs. McVeigh, Franklin, Jack, Kennedy, Smith, Hannebury, Parker

We failed to capitilise on our opportunities and that's why we lost. It was pretty much a mirror image of our win against the Crows 2 weeks ago - of course that night we were champs and they were chumps and their fans were calling for Tex's head. But it's a fair call that we lack composure in big matches - we keep inventing new ways to lose. https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=9692 MFC 16 players < 100 games. Sydney 12 MFC 3 players > 150 games. Sydney 7. Our 3 > 150 are Lewis, Jones and Garlett - each is flawed in a different way and is unable to be the match winner we've needed. Viney and Lever will make a big difference in this area.

Hunt and Pedersen ins this week didn't help us. They looked like a compromise solution - Pedersen - what was his role? Swing man because Max could not play his usual ruck minutes (only played 80%) and we wanted an extra tall forward to stretch Sydney's defence? That's a pretty defensive approach. And then Hunt to add pace for Smith because we're bring in slow Pedersen? But I don't think my suggested alternatives, Wagner and one of Hannan/Kent would have made a difference on the day anyway. Hibberd and Melksham definitely would and I'd have them in for Hunt and Pedersen. If they had played I think we win against Sydney. Then it will be fascinating to see what the football department think about the rest of the fringe: AVB, Spargo, Garlett, JKH. FWIW I thought JKH was pretty good - composed and used it well and stuck his tackles. Kent and Hannan are the alternatives again - one of them for Spargo IMO.

Yes they can if Sydney also lose to GWS, but they can't make it ahead of us which is the key point. I should have said the loser of Sydney v Hawthorn cannot finish ahead of us. Adelaide d North is key I agree

Nope - still impossible for me - both horrible. I will give Roughead >>> Selwood though

Hawthorn v Geelong - both horrible.

Goodwin SEN interview definitely sounded like Hunt in for Joel Smith, and Max to play. I love Bernie but he looked terrible last week, I'd like Fritsch to play back and Kent (or maybe Hannan) for Bernie. SEN noted Buddy is 14-0 against MFC!

No because both Sydney and Hawthorn would have 13 wins going into R23 and they both can't win that game. Only a draw would put us out.

IMO the most likely safe path to the 8 with 13 wins: R21: MFC d Syd R21: Geel d Haw R22: Ade d Nth Then North and the loser of Sydney and Hawthorn in the last round cannot make it no matter what else happens in R22 and 23.

Richmond v Gold Coast could get ugly this week - the 190 points record in play. (edited - see post below)

If you look at this page: https://live.squiggle.com.au/#tower You need to click on TOWER in the top menu bar It shows the probability of finishing position based on running (10,000?) simulations Max Barry's footy data visualisation is 2nd to none

Big ask for Joel Smith

It's impossible to fathom the thinking of many posters here. "Viney upsets the balance of the midfield", "Viney's not that good anyway", "Viney will never play again". He's a bona fide star who won the 2016 B&F at 22. He makes us better and I am hope he is able to get back for finals as planned.

First week of VFL Finals coincides with the AFL week off. He could make it back for that and get game minutes. Viney is exactly who we need come AFL finals.

I picked up my bags, I went looking for a place to hide When I saw old Carmen and the Devil, walking side by side I said, "Hey, Carmen, c'mon, let's go downtown" She said, "I gotta go, but my friend can stick around"

You thought we'd lose to Gold Coast

I'm in favour of red card but it has to remain 18 v 18 on the field. Red card is only applied if the targetted player is out of the rest of the game - then it's 21 v 21.

That's true but 200 points is a big IF

IMO if we can beat Sydney we just need one of Hawthorn d Geelong OR Adelaide d North to make it on 13

For accuracy I believe we miss on 13 wins if ANY 5 of the following 6 occur: North wins all 3 Geelong wins all 3 Hawthorn wins 2 Collingwood wins 2 Port wins 2 Sydney wins 2 Because that puts them on 14 wins.

It only takes 2 of those 4 "2 win" scenarios for us to miss out on 13 wins (along win North and Geelong winning all 3). It's quite possible.

Not really: North and Geelong win all 3 2 of Port, Hawthorn, Collingwood and Sydney win 2

I think it should be Wagner in for Smith, we extended his contract, this is the type of situation he's required for. Bernie looked way off, I love him but he looks passed it, I'd have him out too and play Fritsch back. Back 7 - Jetta, Oscar, Wagner, Lewis, Frost, Salem, Fritsch. Melksham in or if he's not ready then Kent or Hannan. I think Frost is the preferred match up for Buddy.

The difference is you can't match the offer for an unrestricted FA and force a trade. In Lynch's case it probably doesn't matter because GC will finish low and their compensation pick after their first rounder - say pick 3 will be at around trade market value. However in Gaff's case it does matter because WC's compensation pick after is likely to be late teens and well below trade market value so they might take the option to match and force a trade at market value. If the AFL want to differentiate the RFA and UFA categories further they could remove compensation for UFA. http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/free-agency