Little Goffy

Looks like someone is trying a different brand of bathwater. Is it an omen that in Sydney this week I've had multiple sightings of other Demon supporters in team gear? There's clearly some pride and determination still to be found. Possibly stung by the irritation of being around Swans supporters.

Anything to raise the tone here. I swear there are some fingers around here that I genuinely doubt could ever be pointed again, after the things they've done. As for 'if we beat Wet Toast'... hmm... I may just let loose and become mildy inebriated. Though I'm trying to think of something I haven't done since 2006, surely that is a worthy theme.

Bring someone back with you, ok.

No contact between the senior coach and a star player, while the star player is in crisis, and you're planning to include the player in coaching duties... Either it is just not the truth (a West Coast coach lying? Shock!) or Gaff is surely gone.

Definitely, and I'm sure a few other clubs (North, for example) would jump at any chance to get him. But we can offer him 'the dream' as well as the cash! The more I think about it, the more I drool at the prospect of our half-back flanks being Hibberd and Lloyd, with Lever in between.

I have a bucketload of respect for Hannebery but surely he is not the role we need filled, when we already can't fit all our midfielders into our midfield, even with Viney out? If I were looking at grabbing a Swan surely a dependable hard-working team-oriented half-back who reads the play well and rebounds effectively, is 24 years old with 100 games under their belt and who is unhappy with their most recent contract offer and is originally from Victoria would be the prime choice? Not to mention, he was probably the proverbial 'difference' on Sunday, picking off our wayward inside-50s and calmy using the disposal. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-11/im-in-no-rush-swans-gun-puts-off-contract-talks#/ https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-sydney-swans--jake-lloyd

I could deal with him being slow, on the grounds that he was providing leadership, maturity and a bit of grit. But now there is a real question mark on those contributions, and I've found myself wishing he wasn't contracted for next year. Along with Garlett, who unfortunately seems to have returned to his old Carlton career path of getting new contracts of surges of form and then fading away for a couple of years, with maybe one game in 5 actually being worth mentioning. Garlett I can actually see us paying out the contract early to clear the decks. Lewis is a bit more awkward, as a respected true champion of the game and all that. I wonder, if the writing were on the wall that he would spend most of 2019 at Casey, would he prefer to retire?

Wow, that stat of he goal accuracy falling away against top opponents, particularly that the set shot accuracy collapses, is just mind-melting. Wait, is it mind-melting, or is it just evidence of our forward's minds melting? I'm sure part of it is that the better teams do a better job of closing up our quick slice into the forward line so our shots are from less ideal spots, but really... can there be any more clear evidence of a problem between the ears?

Actually, I'd argue that Gaff in would probably make Nibbler more effective as his role would become a little more focused and we wouldn't be worrying so much about Nibbler's clangers. Oi vez, I just for a moment pictured our inside-50s being dominated by Melksham (the most effective inside-50/goal assist player in the game at the moment), Gaff (the best 'true' winger in the game at the moment) and Brayshaw with a bit more space from clearances once Viney is back in. I may have just had a 'moment' where I swing to the yes vote on getting Gaff. Lots of people like to point to Richmond as the target to match, well, their triumph was built on a core of really excellent and experienced players who'd been together for as much as a decade, supported by a swarm of hard-working but only really 'good-average' players who provided the pressure and created steady opportunities. Nibbler is not a star or part of the 'core of really excellent players' but he is most certainly in that layer of 'good-average hard workers' that fill out a team and, importantly, don't take up a whole lot of salary cap space while they do it.

Well, if we win either game in the next two rounds then we will have beaten a top-4 team, and thus be 'deserving' of a finals spot by 'not default'. Coincientally, if we win either of our final two games, we will definitely be in the 8. So, one way or another, it is not something we have to think about during the finals. Wow, we're really taking the 'you're only as good as your last game' expression to the limits!

He's just in a good mood because he knows he doesn't have to tag Gaff next week.

I expect by then we'll be widely seen as the custodians of the deeper soul of football, using our extreme ability to play a graceful and tough style and using our overwhelming footy-political influence to prevent idiot rule changes and to drive support for the lower tier competitions. Hmm, I guess that's pretty arrogant too, but at least we wont be spoiling it for others, because they'll feel good just knowing they've put up a good showing against the greatest team of all time. And we'll still clap their good play, because that's the proper way, ol' chap.

I'm glad it wasn't just me who sat near some absolute smug git swans. That said, I was in Sydney. The combination of cluelessness and entitelment is particularly galling.

Yeah, bugger it, we're no good, trade veryone with currency, time for a rebuild.

50/50 chance of being there for the day we secure a finals spot. I'd go if I had the option. Enjoy!

Well, now it is all very simple. Win at least one game of the remainign two, we play finals, guaranteed. Lose both, we miss finals, guaranteed. If it is any comfort, I've been running the squiggle auto-tip over and over and so far none of the results have shown us dropping both games... on balance of probability, of course. The simulator doesn't account for Melbourne being Melbourne, though. I had really hoped we wouldn't have to think about rushing players back in, but right now it is every possible player 'in', which specifically means Melksham and Hibberd who between them can transform our half-forward and half-back lines. One win. Just one win.

It was Nibbler's turn at the bathwater, with the extra praise and publicity recently. He'll learn from it. He'd bloody better.

Ok, I'm just going to forget all about wanting certainties and slots and start hoping for whatever the most EPIC results would be. Obviously that still means Melbourne beating Sydney, because it makes both our remaining games EPIC clashes in the top 4. Brisbane still should do football a favour and beat Collingwood, so the Magpies can cr4p their pants for a couple more weeks. And I think what this round really needs is a draw. Adelaide v Giants should do the trick. Keeps Adelaide mathematically in the race (as one of their wins was needed just to get over their gobshite percentage) and actually just close to nothing to help the Giants, since they already have a draw and their percentage is below every other team competing for top 4. And for a laugh, right at this moment the Lions are ahead of the Magpies, and the Crows-Giants are clearly set on a wild ride to a draw.

Plus some additional injuries to key players. You'd have to say they are cooked now. Not a moment I'd want to be a Port supporter. In a sympathetic way, not in the general "I wouldn't want to be a Port supporter" sense.

Yeah, but all 14 will be just junk-time goals. Even the one he kicked in the second minute...

I was worried enough to test that in the ladder predictor. If Geelong lose today even by a point, they would need to pick up 200+ points margin on us in the final two rounds to make the difference. As in, we lose both our games by ten goals and they win both their games by ten goals. If Geelong lose today, they are still credible for slipping into the 8 but they are no chance of chasing us down (if we beat Sydney).

Processing out loud, just trying to work out best results. From a safety-first perspective on the udnerstanding that we beat Sydney. Games of interest to us are - North v Foosctray. North only have the 11 wins. Any loss makes it impossible for them to pass us. So if they lose to the Bulldogs on Sunday they cease to be a threat. This also means that only one more team needs to be eliminated from the possibility of passing us, for us to be secure in the 8. Hawthorn vs Geelong Geelong are currently on 11 wins. And while their percentage is a bit better than North's, realistically* any loss would prevent them getting to the 14 wins they'd need to pass us. The asterix is a note acknowledging MFCSS. Hawks play Sydney in rnd23. Thus, after this round, only one of Hawks/Swans can get both wins in the remaining two rounds. So if Geelong lose, they stop being a threat to us, and if Hawthorn lose then only one of Sydney/Hawks can pass us. Ergo, therefore, y'know what... if we beat Sydney, it doesn't really matter who wins out of Geelong/Hawthorn because one of the three (Sydney/Hawks/Geelong) won't be able to pass us, which means our lowest credible* result is 8th. If you are really anxious, then probably the 'best' result is for Hawthorn to smack Geelong and take a slice off their percentage. Even as it is, if Geelong lose to the Hawks by, say, a kick after the siren, then they would still need to be pick up about 150+ points of margin on us in each of the final two rounds. Collingwood vs Brisbane and Port vs West Coast. Collingwood play Port in rnd 22. So again, only one of these two can get a full board in the last two rounds. If both lose this round, then one additional team gets added to the 'no threat' category. And for the optimist's perspective, again on the understanding we beat Sydney - Giants vs Crows If the Giants manage to fluff this game, then in rnd 23 that 14th win we'd be playing for would guarantee finishing ahead of all of North, Geelong, Sydney, GWS, and one of Port/Collingwood. Hawks v Geelong For the optimists a Geelong victory is the preference as this would peg Hawthorn a game and % behind us, meaning that only one more win is necessary to guarantee finishing ahead of them. Which in turn means that the rnd 23 game against the Giants would be playing for a certain top-4 finish. Collingwood vs Brisbane and Port vs West Coast. Much the same situation for the optimists as the pessimists. However, if you are feeling really, really optimistic (that we'll win both the final rounds) then you want West Coast to drop this game because that opens up the possibility of a top-2 finish. So there it is. Very simple for the pessimists. A bit more complicated if your heart is still reaching out for top 4 or even the suddenly possible top 2! I'll be happy for the Hawks to just whack Geelong to put everyone here in a good mood.

Trouble is, not sure Vince really is a solution for that problem. Meanwhile, with Lever, Hibberd, and now Smith all missing from our backline, Vince has been dropped. Compared to himself in 2017, Vince's 2018 stats are down in basically every category, most notably a pretty serious drop from 21 disposal a game to just 16. I hate letting players go and I am still stung by the memories of the botched purged of veteran players under Schwab's agenda, but I've drifted to the side of a respectful delisting/retirement for Vince. With full respect to him - he gave us a lot more than I expected and was without doubt a part of turning this club around.

'Blockbuster' seems to now just be the socially acceptable way of saying 'we want to guarantee as many games as possible against teams in the same state while also trying to give our fixture-f-ing desires priority status so other teams have to cop the 6-day turnaround'.

Only trouble is they may be getting Rohan back, which makes their forward line that little bit more complex. But the case is pretty clearly there for having an extra in defence to at least break even and mop up the mess. In what is likely to be a grinding game the last thing we want is for too many easy goals to slip through against us.