Adam The God

Everyone I sat with on Thursday felt Sparrow really lifted (irrespective of actual possessions) in the third quarter and that goal he kicked, gave us a sniff. But each to their own. We also have guys like Bowey and Rivers waiting in the wings. There's no reason both can't step into the midfield in the next 18 months IMV. Our midfield problems are overblown IMO, but I wouldn't mind adding a player like GWS' Callaghan to the mix as well as Bowey and Rivers.

We have a different method to Collingwood as @old55 and @binman regularly say. The way we move the ball given our territory dominance means we need good contested markers. This is why we rely so heavily on Max. Collingwood are very ordinary (aside from the first quarter) at contested possession (13th league wide). They rely on conceding territory, which leaves space in behind for their kickers and runners to penetrate into an empty forwardline. It's why they don't rely on a key forward. They play to their list's strengths, which is what we do too. However, without TMac, BB and eventually Petty to compete in the air forward of the ball, we aren't as potent. As a rule, TMac, BB and Petty are excellent set shots (TMac was unusually wayward, which was a factor in our loss), so IMO we need more genuine class in the air and at ground level. Petty, I think can be one of those dominant threats in the air, but I think we need a second in the short term that will relegate JVR to the third tall and leave Fritta as the 4th banana, and I reckon that'll elevate JVRs game.

I'd go Watson and O'Sullivan, and tempt Tom Lynch over for 2-3 years to partner Petty.

When we play in the wet, we can tend to play the percentages more, which means kicking long as our main mode of entry. I think if we'd tried to chip the ball around more and found a shorter target around the arc or inside 50, we'd have been super vulnerable to slingshot goals on turnover. Against Geelong for example, we constantly tried to chain out of contests by hand when we should have been more about getting territory. Tonight, we were more about getting territory. The problem with that in the modern game is you've got essentially the entire opposition camped in your attacking 50, which makes scoring tougher. At the end of the day though, we're not having these conversations if TMac kicks his 35m directly in front one or Fritta at least scores from his 35m, slight angle kick, Langdon kicks the one from the goal square he took advantage on and the 6 other out on the fulls from our guys tonight.

Demonland hugs then. It's pretty hard losing to that mob and even harder to take when we squandered so many gettable opportunities to not win the game comfortably by 2 or 3 goals.

Hope you're doing okay, @jane02. Maybe we'll get a chance to avenge tonight in the GF.

He might have to try and make it work next week. I can't see a world where Grundy doesn't come in if JVR gets suspended.

The rules are jargon haha. Righto mate.

I'm not sure it would have been a big factor either, although being able to throw Grundy into the ruck in the first quarter, when Cox won the first 9 hit outs of the game, could have shifted the momentum and kept us closer at quarter time. Whoever lost tonight were always going to look at selection and say what might have been.

Nah, you're not being balanced mate. That's silly. Just ask old mate Jimmy.

It actually doesn't matter whether it was a football action or not. Look up the rules mate. Grading can either be classed as intentional or careless. If you're saying it wasn't intentional, then it was careless. There are then four impact grades for careless conduct. 1) severe impact (high is 3+ matches). 2) high impact (high is 2 matches). 3) medium impact (1 match). 4) low impact (fine). Explain to me how that was careless and low impact.

No, I think he'll get off. I've already stated that. Just look at Cripps last year. The letter of the law should have seen him cop 3+ weeks, but he gets off and wins a Brownlow. If we were being balanced, we'd have the rules up and assess that play against those said rules. Now the grading can either be classed as intentional or careless. Let's say it was careless. There are then four impact grades. 1) severe impact (high is 3+ matches). 2) high impact (high is 2 matches). 3) medium impact (1 match). 4) low impact (fine). In what world was that low impact? As I say, to the letter of the law, he must cop at least 1 week. It's all well and good for you to feel something, and you like neggy thoughts and that's lovely, but when you're talking about something that you're clearly not across, there has to be a point where you put your hand and say you've got it wrong. Maynard should absolutely go for this, and you should absolutely put your hand up and say you're writing twaddle, but neither will happen.

It's funny. I went into the game confident and felt if we kicked straight we'd win, and we then had the golden ticket to the GF. My sister was leas confident going in and thought we'd lose. After the game, I felt season over and she is now saying we'll win the flag haha. Funny old game.

Ah, here is. I knew old mate would be back. Hasn't been sighted since our last loss and now he's back defending a guy who failed in his duty of care. He left the ground and make head high contact with another player that resulted in an immediate substitution of that other player. Only nuffies who don't understand the letter of the law here are defending this.

If you look at the rules, he has to go. High impact and careless, and he left the ground to make contact. Players have a duty of care. He has to go. On top of this, Gus' father in law took his own life with CTE (from acquired brain injury in sport), Gus may never player again and the AFL is currently engaged in a law suit with a group of ex players who have suffered similar repeated concussions. We've just had another player retire as a result of this in McCartin. Having said all this, the AFL couldn't give a stuff about anything but revenue. Maynard will get off when he absolutely shouldn't.

So my big fear came to fruition. We kicked ourselves out of it. TMac and Fritta miss montys they'd normally convert and that's the game. 'Win the big moments' and we didn't. I think we've cost us ourselves a shot at the 14th flag.

Sportsbet odds have come in even further this morning. Collingwood paying $1.88 and Melbourne paying $1.92. It's very likely they're even come the bounce of the ball. I've been a little nervous over the past week or so, but can't figure out whether it's more excitement or dread. I think my nerves will start to ramp up between 5-7pm, and my stomach will churn for probably the entire game. If we get our game right, we should win, but if we allow them to move the ball from half back and we're not on the entire night, I think they'll get us.

He did play for Hawthorn though.

Don't you mean "YEP BETTER THAN CHARLIE SPARGO"? Just for clarity...

Mate, you spent 3 days saying he was finished, he wouldn't be back in, he was a terrible human and should be sent to Azkaban. And now you don't have a problem with him returning? lol you funny guy.

"To me... to me... to me..." He was insightful, but he's less inventive than me with his vocabulary.

Because it's gonna rain mate. That completely takes away our intercept ability in the air and also helps nullify their talls in the air.

Here he goes again, shouting away. Pretty much every one of your posts these days, mate, I think of Abe Simpson shouting at the clouds...

It's ironic that we've gone back to this after Goody said they liked the three talls and wouldn't be reverting from this again. FWIW, I actually think it's the right call on this particular occasion. May and Lever rarely do well intercepting in the wet, just like Max, so having to worry about another tall around them potentially fumbling, is not something we need. Instead, we have smalls and mediums to mop up at ground level and hopefully keep their smalls at bay. I think this is a complete horses for courses move. If we were playing Brisbane this week, I suspect we'd have three defensive talls. What's unusual is we didn't try two talls on KB, we went with three. And it worked very well, but they were minus McStay. I presume we're banking on winning CP and territory, and on slow plays defending inside 50s, we'll drop Max behind the ball. While on fast plays, we'll be better with quicker smalls, rather than cumbersome talls, and the Collingwood talls are unlikely to clunk a lot in the rain/greasy conditions.

Yep, as I said in the Trades thread, I'm happy about this. More pressure on Chandler's spot and those other high half forward roles is a good thing.