Adam The God

There was a play in the final quarter that completely summed up our defence under Goodwin. It was ridiculous. Our press was so high that our last defender, besides the anchor outside 50, was within 40 metres of our own goal. Sure enough, they chipped the ball and broke to 50 and took an uncontested mark. Our organisation defensively was simply not AFL level. Even leaving Savage (their best kick) by himself 45 metres out and a St Kilda player chipping to him from a set shot. This was basic stuff and it happened more than once. Hibberd was the offender on this occasion, but Jetta, Smith and Petty all positioned themselves poorly for most of the day. And to top it off, Oscar McDonald gets beaten for body strength one out by a St Kilda player doubling as a little person (Jack Steven). This is not entirely on Goodwin, but our game style puts undue pressure on our backs IMO, by pressing far too high. How have we not yet addressed the ridiculously high press on the MCG? Today it was as high as it's ever been.

The essence of this article needs to be reemphasised here and pinned somewhere on Goodwin's forehead. All we did was go long to the top of the square and usually to a 1 v 2 disadvantage, a pack or the disadvantage of our forward. I noticed more than a few times that if we got the ball at high half forward, no one broke into the larger space behind that forward. Some of that space was usually manned by an Armitage (who's slow) and could have been exploited. Instead, we went long nearly every time. Our inside 50 entries were appalling and show that even against the weak teams (like St Kilda) that our game style breaks down dramatically and has been defeated. We must continue to evolve our brand and if it's not 'on' situationally, I'd bin that play. It's almost certainly a confidence thing, but Hogan is not the contested beast he was as a junior and in his first year. He doesn't lead up at the ball like he did and we're unlikely to take too many contested marks with that play. The other glaring problem with this continued play is that we're not inundated with crumbers. The only way this play is sustainable is if you've got guys that swarm with pace at the foot of packs (see Richmond). This either draws free kicks for markers or creates crumbling goals. At worst, it means your forwards can lock the ball in and reset for the stoppage and continue the territory battle to build pressure on the defence. Jeff Garlett has to play next week and if we're going to persist with this style of play, we must target 2 or 3 quick small forwards. It's inexplicable that Hannan is the only deep small forward (Fritsch plays a bit like a third tall). We need Spargo back in too. FWIW, I'd tinker with our tall set up as well.

What an absolute disgrace. We've completely reverted to the bomb it long to the top of the square on the MCG. We don't switch enough and our forwards don't look like taking a contested mark. At three quarter time, it's game over against a team that's won 2.5 games for the year. Gawn and Viney have tried hard to lift the team, but not enough leadership once again. Has Brayshaw had an effective disposal since quarter time? I don't think so.

His name is Petty. Going to be a very good player. Oscar, Lever and Petty supported by Hibberd, Jetta and Hunt are plenty for a few years yet. In the meantime, we desperately need fleet of foot players who deliver the ball nicely inside 50. How anyone could be meh on Gaff, mate, just isn't watching the game closely enough. Exactly the player we want and need.

I agree if we drop any of the next 3, it'll make the run for finals difficult and nail-bating. But I reckon we won't be the only team in the top 12 sides to drop a game or two that we are expected to win.

This is my last response as I really have no desire to derail this thread any further and I want to do you the courtesy of responding, but... Tyson has absolutely nothing to do with whether we should get Gaff or not.

What are you talking about? If you weren't allowed an opinion you would have been banned long ago and many of your posts deleted. I reckon I've read the same post from you over and over again in the past 5+ pages. You don't rate Gaff. Great. If you're going to post again, contribute something new or what's the point? (that's rhetorical)

A bit of a non sequitur but we're no better or worse than Collingwood who currently sit second. If you look at who they've beaten (beside from a Melbourne team who didn't turn up), they've beaten Bulldogs, Freo, St Kilda, Gold Coast and Carlton (who they limped over the line against). These are all bottom 6-8 teams. Yet, the hype surrounding Collingwood is probably larger than the hype that surrounded us going into the QB game. I guess my point is that there are really only 2 stand out teams this year (Richmond and Sydney) and even these teams have dropped games they shouldn't have. Anyone is beatable and as you say, we should play finals from here.

Yeah, yeah, we got it. Stop banging on about it.

You certainly know how to unite everyone, Saty.

These are all redonkuously ridiculous but I have us beating the Eagles in Perth and winning 14 games, while I have it coming down to the last round where Collingwood will play Fremantle in Perth for a spot in the top 4. They lose and we win, snatching a spot in the top 4 on percentage. Now that would be sweet.

No. He'll be back soon.

That's because he didn't watch it. Just said so in the presser, so he moved out of sight of the cameras.

His arrogance and ego does split through sometimes, but he reminds me of me haha. Absolute white line fever and then can have a very rational discussion in the aftermath.

On the replay, it looked like Bontempelli was marginally in front of Rourke to me.

Loving watching this press conference. He's actually relatively well behaved in this.

How was Chris Scott's celebration when Harry Taylor marked it? Bahaha. You absolute gronker. I wish there was a reaction shot.

Can't find what it is you're talking about mate. Any clues?

Go and interview the hamshaker. ?

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

It's easier to say now, but in the build up to the game with that [censored] Dangerfield strutting around with a fishing rod, I had a funny feeling that tonight's game could be the beginning of the end for the Geelong era. Ablett and Hawkins are almost done, while Dangerfield and Selwood are getting on too. They lose this tonight and I reckon they miss the top 8 and certainly miss the top 4.

Dahlhaus is back on. He has that outside pace and good ball use we need more of. I wonder if we've spoken to him as an alternative to Gaff.

I can see a legitimate reason for keeping PJ out of it though. One man is not a club. I would have consulted him, but I suspect there are many who wouldn't in that situation. If you want to forge a new direction ahead, a fresh slate in the selection process makes enough sense. My one concern about the article is Barlett's ego. I'd much prefer him as a figurehead. But, as previously mentioned, I'll reserve judgement on Pert's appointment until a later date.

Nothing wrong with Wilson's article. But let's wait and see. She's in the business of breaking news and is trying to here. SWYL, you're happy to stick the boots in about our onfield performance, but then not open to the possibility that the Pert appointment is a bad decision. I'm on the fence as I've no inside details and he hasn't even started at the club, so I'll reserve judgement a while longer yet.

Thank you, PD. Exactly what I would have said... I find the double standard that so many supporters seem to possess really hard to fathom. Some continue to completely miss the patterns that suggest we are clearly trending upwards and that our inconsistencies are certainly not unique for this stage of our list's age profile. We are not far off. That's not to say we'll win the flag this year, but very soon, if we can keep key players on the park, we'll break out.