praha

After the ANZAC eve game this year was tough. Ended up avoiding Richmond station and getting am uber home.

Relative to what we need, though, Salem was probably still better in hindsight. We had a distinctive lack of class and skill and Roos and Co. acknowledged that with this pick. That's not to say the aforementioned players don't have class, but Salem was the right pick for what we needed at the time. He immediately became one of our most reliable with the ball. We desperately need that.

This was bound to happen. Just share the gate takings as they do for ANZAC Day.

Not where I went to school...all Carlton!

The next time someone jokes about going to the snow, the simplest way to respond is to highlight the expense of the trip. As soon as you admit it and say something along the lines of, "At least I can afford to go to the snow..." they tend to shut up.

I'm talking the Preston-Reservoir-Thomastown-Lalor quad of dead. Carlton bandwagon heartland.

Good thread. Mentioned something similar in another thread. Consistently winning by 30-40 points leads to a healthy percentage. The problem is that we had a string of a month and a half where only one win was truly percentage boosting (Bulldogs) but two losses (Sydney and Adelaide) essentially undid the percentage gains. If we close out the season with 3-4 wins of 30-40 points and keep our losses to less <20 then we stand to be close to the 120% mark. At the end of the day, big winning margins mean squat if you can't defend as well as you attack. That is why percentage is such an important metric.

Live in and grew up norf of the Yarra. Can confirm it's hostile territory for Melbourne supporters. Mates are split between Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood.

Source.

I guess the silver lining is that this happened on Tuesday and not on a Thursday or pre-game session. Fingers crossed!

And 1997 I believe was Round 1, North were hot favourites, we came out raring to go and beat them. The following week we lost to Collingwood by 100 points.

That is truly amazing. Can't think of any other team having such a bizarre statistic. For another Melbourne-based team, it fits firmly in the "embarrassing record" basket.

If we win the games we're supposed to (North, Brisbane, Saints, Pies), then it's game on for fourth. Sydney plays: Hawthorn (A) Geelong (A) Freo (H) Adelaide (A) Carlton (H) Port: St Kilda (H) Adelaide (A/H) Collingwood (H) Bulldogs (A) Sun (A) My ladder predictor has us finishing 5th pending Richmond take care of St Kilda in the final round, but the Saints could be playing for a finals spot, depending on how Essendon goes. 4th spot you would think is between Melbourne, Richmond, Port and Sydney.

But if you have a go at the crowd you're having a go at members that can't attend. As I've mentioned there are many variables and gauges and 27k is a reasonable, admittedly not fantastic, crowd. We've drawn consistently good crowds relative of the opponent and location.

BUT BUT BUT YOU'RE LETTING THE CLUB DOWN!

Let's also not forget that Hawthorn got 27k vs GC. This is the Hawthorn team that has won 4 flags in 8 years. Meanwhile we've lost games by 180 and 140 points and still have a higher attendance than they do. Next negative thing to talk about?

25k-30k was to be expected. The Port turnout was pretty average. We've had good crowd numbers all year and almost 30k against a traditionally low-drawing interstate club is imo not as bad as some are making it out to be. We got 47k vs Sydney and almost 30k vs Freo. We're going okay. RE member intake and comparison, membership figures are a bad gauge because you're not factoring in rise of interstate memberships, 2, 3, 5, 11-game memberships. There would be significant rises in those areas of membership since the Daniher era. We would get 16k to matches against interstate teams in 2000-2006, even when we were travelling okay. We've seen the likes of Richmond and Collingwood memberships go through the roof yet there attendance has barely if it all increased in matches like this: Richmond attracted 35k against GWS despite having almost double the membership we do, and playing for a spot in the top 4. We have a very good ratio of fan:attendance, which is a better gauge than member:attendance because some members sign up without the intent of going to matches. People are being way too harsh here. We've been rubbish for ten years and have cracked 25k against traditionally low drawing sides twice this year, and managed 47k against the Swans. I'm not sure what you expected. Realistic expectation was always in the 25k-30k range. If 3-4 years ago you said we'd get more than 20k to a Port game on a freezing cold day at the MCG this late in the season, you'd be laughed out. It seemed impossible. We're doing okay. And we will continue to rise.

He appeared to think Jetta fell at the knees and ducked. Watching the replay though and it's clear Jetta is going full on at the contest with the ball and Dixon being the typical lazy player he is clipped him high. Embarrassing for Dixon.

For yourself or her?

Good turnout imo. Considering we struggled to crack 20k against the likes of Port and Freo during our finals years in the 00s yet have managed 27k against both this year despite not playing finals for a decade says we're doing okay. Collingwood a so called powerhouse managed 35k against them. I'd say that's a good ratio relative to membership and support numbers.

Definitely. He's a smart footballer, never panics, and has a real go. He's as reliable with the short kick as Jetta is, I'm never worried when he has the ball. He's a top draft pick that is highly respected by the football community for a reason. I thought he was done purely on the back of us having so many blokes that play his role but now that he's got the run he'll be better for it. The club would be crazy not to retain him purely on the back of his football IQ, which is high and valuable. There's a reason Richmond was willing to part with pick 12 for him. He's an asset for depth purposes.

Disagree. Our intensity and defensive accountability was top notch from the start. Generally when we fall off we start defending poorly. Never happened. Port got a little bit of a run on bit hardly worth worrying about. We had a great first half score wise and then kept up the intensity throughout. It was very tough conditions and we always seemed to have run and drive

People are way too harsh on Trengove. He played the team game, defended superbly, gave us a little drive, and was calm and collected with the ball. It was a Jetta-esque game. I reckon he can find a place in the squad as a small wingman and loose defender. Not sure he keeps his spot when Jones comes back but he needs a string of 3-4 games to cement himself.

We were never going to lose that.

How much time left.