Skuit

Fantastic post ATBOG. It's too small of a sample size to draw any solid conclusions outside of a comparison between the MCG and Marvel, and the post- and pre-bye record challenges most hypotheses - except Collar-Jazz-Knee's intriguing contribution. Goodwin and the players have mentioned a few times that it's good to get on the road - with an insular team focus - and we have a decent away record, but again, this is undermined by our Marvel history as measured against the MCG. I've reordered the list to reflect width (probably more of an issue than length but cant be bothered calculating area) courtesy of Rusty's data where available (I had collected all the dimensions last year but can't also be bothered retrieving). The easiest answer would be to point to the game-plan, and we certainly looked different this season when we were at the SCG and had the Swans pinned-in their defensive half for long stretches. But then we were pantsed by the Cats at Kardinia. I floated the theory last year that rather than size, we preferred hard and fast tracks - as evidenced by our dominance over the (admittedly undermanned) Crows at Traeger - but I'm not sure how this correlates with other grounds. I think @Collar-Jazz-Knee has floated the best theory to date to account for the pre- and post-bye anomaly, as well as our differing record at Marvel vs the MCG, but I'm looking forward to more ideas from the Demonland brains-trust.

Can we merge with the sack everyone megathread? I'm looking forward to tallying up the 2019 scapegoats and it will be much easier if they're all under the one roof.

I think you may be colour-blind DV8. Do you ever find yourself yelling at the Demons on TV and for some odd reason the commentators won't stop blabbing on about Patrick Cripps?

I haven't searched but it was definitely in the media - as a more interesting subtext to a different lead from memory. Edit: And to clarify, from a media source, but not as speculation. As perhaps supportive evidence - I think the last time the club spoke out loud - maybe in the Lever year - we had room for two big fish. Lever may have been one but Hogan and May probably cancel each other out. Ergo: room for at least one more. Also, I don't know why I/we collectively stress so much about the cap: every other club when they land someone big seem to fit it in just fine. Some of them over and over again. I think we the supporters overthink it as tighter than what it really is.

I like how you pretended to be balanced and objective until almost right at the end and then you couldn't help yourself.

Sounds like you're still stuck in denial Nash.

The strangest thing is the number of posters on here who have just skipped straight to 7. There's the usual suspects at 2 - some of those who have managed to blend their 2 with the comfort of 7 - a very low-level all-pervasive 5, a few nut-jobs at 4 who feel guilty for some self-bathwater fan-influence notion and project that onto the players, and then the majority who are stationed somewhere between 6 & 7. Technically, 'blame' falls under anger and bargaining, but I believe casting for culprits, or searching randomly for answers (is it you God?) deserves its own grief stage, and that it's otherwise a step toward acceptance. As for me: a mix of denial and acceptance without any of the interim stages.

Bring back the Danial Cross magic cream. The saddest thing about the the Stack affair is the reminder that one Demonland's greatest ever threads has slipped into the aether. For the newbies:

Not a free agent = Brainer. Sell the farm for Cameron as a 'pre-agent' a la May or compete in a crowded market? We don't have the draft credits to get it done so would have to trade out. Weid to Collingwood would be a start: may as well capitalise on McGuire's grand-pa/grandson fetish while he still has some influence. Pick 18 & 19 (exaggerated estimated Collingwood first and MFC second-rounder before adjustments) for Cameron might get it done a year ahead of f/a. Would you pay that?

I wasn't actually referring to you specifically (and didn't see your later exchange). And I respect that you have acknowledged it was a mistake rather than deflecting it. But presumably you were on the internet when you posted it? Not a nasty criticism directed at you, but perhaps if there was a specific thread collating deliberate or careless inaccuracies as suggested then posters might be discouraged from making false statements or spreading mistruths.

We should start a thread collating posts with deliberate or careless false claims that can be factually proven to be so. A Demonland shame file. Some of the same names will start cropping up pretty quickly I imagine - and maybe that will help to clean up the issue a fraction.

And be outraged if one of our own copped a soft chicken-wing fine.

If you head to the Dusty Martin assault thread our accountant has already gone down.

Love it. TU on some manic warpath of truth in an era of fake news. Good luck mate. Wish I had your stamina.

Gaslighting is a psychological act to undermine another's belief in their own memory, perception, etc. I have no idea how it relates to your post. You have to keep in mind I drown my sorrows in a different time-zone to most. I think my point was that all of your reasonable qualifying statements were in parentheses. As if mumbled under your breath - so as to be truthful but still appeal to the baying masses. Best to just ignore.

I think I agree with most of the above but still can't help but feel that you're gas-lighting LH.

Two points alone worth repeating here. And those positional changes were half inspired. Indeed, I had the sense that Goodwin had been reading Demonland during the week. Didn't someone here raise the wacky notion of Hibberd or the like going to Dusty? I've given grief to Richmond for being an ordinary team over the past few years, but they do a few things well, and they did them exceptionally well against us: keep knocking the the ball forward and again and again and keep up the pressure. They were also super-sharp at handballing out of congestion. We tried. Goodwin tried. We were inferior on the night. This wasn't the same loss as in recent weeks. I agree with Max or whoever said we showed improvement, but as to an altered game-plan.

So we need to implement a Hawthorn chip-pass style game-plan and also do away with following Richmond's manic premiership winning style, except for their manic example of getting rid of all their coaching assistants?

Pruess or Keilty for Weid. That is all. A bunch of folk lucky. Keep playing with positions. Fritsch forward for one.

This is the best thread ever! But I'm afraid that with Taylor already going down it'll only be a week or so before we run out of fresh supplies - and I'm not sure how long our former employee back-up stocks can tide us over. Can we bring in some work experience kids to blame as a stop-gap solution, or is that like some labour rights breach?

I've given serves to both in recent weeks and both can hold their heads high - with Goodwin given some credit for recognising the issues and trying to reinvigorate the pair with fresh assignments. Dusty picked up 17 touches and had very little impact, while Melksham started out at absolute upper elite level before fading. If he stayed in the centre and could maintain that impact across quarters and games he would push for a Brownlow. Potentially so damaging - but needs to be stripped of an incentive/opportunity to cruise.

At least we lost our old fashioned way: over-handballing through the middle and kicking it straight to a sweeper. Who said Goody can't change it up.

Wish we had some Glenjackovich we could tap into for this one.

It's a good question. I suppose coming out and saying we were completely schooled by another AFL team of which we would have considered one of our primary competitors for the season ahead - and that we were desperately trying to work out what happened - isn't the extra shot of confidence you want to give to that opposition team - or, the right messaging to our own players if you want to persist with the system. I think our game-plan currently stinks without tweaks and I've had wariness about it for some time like many on here (although more patience than most). But I didn't lose any extra faith due to the prelim and agreed with Goodwin's appraisal: we didn't play like we had in the weeks prior or were capable of. We were sloppy and overawed to start the match and it slipped away from us before we could settle. In hindsight, there may have been further evidence of cracks. For those in the camp who firmly believe Goodwin and the footy department just threw the tape in the bin, do you think if they sat down and actually watched it they would have suddenly seen the light? Do you think they also didn't review the other games during last season where we were picked apart? As in, that they have no idea about football whatsoever and are completely blind to our weaknesses in personnel and the pain points of our game-plan? We are stubbornly backing in our game plan because we have assessed it against whatever measures we deem important over the long run and have made the decision to do so. We are evidently of the belief that if we came out and hunted in packs and ran forward in waves against WC like we had been doing we would have overcome the tactics used against us. It may be the wrong judgement. But reviewing the prelim or not isn't some smoking gun. TLDR: They may be the wrong decisions but we are making them with our eyes wide open.

Too early to start an Ollie Wines lounge on this one @stevethemanjordan? Spargo, Fritsch and Petty all taking precedence. Liam Ryan meanwhile landed before our first pick but I think a bit of run-of-the-mill draft tampering could have swung things in a few different directions. Although I like Fritsch - in position - and I think that was our major chip. Still: Petty v Petrucelle . . .