deejammin'

Yes, but the difference between us making the 8 and missing last year was losing to sides outside the 8 when we should win (North x2, Freo, Hawthorn, Collingwood). The first step for our club is simply to make the finals. Anything could happen from there. If we smash Carlton this week and continue beating teams outside the 8 we will have improved. FWIW if we beat all the teams in the bottom 4 it will be the first time in the Roos/Goodwin rebuild we have done so...

They might be being extra cautious with him as he has a history of longer term hammies?

Good that seems the smart move. My head says play him with controlled minutes in the VFL to make sure he’s cherry ripe for his return. My heart says geez it would be nice to see him rip up Gold Coast...... let’s hope we smash them without him.

I truly wish they would do the list chronologically by soonest to return. It’s so much more readable that way: Melbourne injury list: round eight Jack Viney (foot) – test Christian Salem (thumb) – test Harley Balic (platar fascia) – test Mitch King (elbow) – 2-3 weeks Dean Kent (hamstring) – 4 weeks Aaron vandenBerg (ankle) – 6-8 weeks Corey Maynard (hip) – indefinite Pat McKenna (hamstring) – indefinite

I was happy with today. I wanted a comfortable win and we got it. It was frustrating not to keep our 51pt margin but as long as we beat Gold Coast I’m thinking/hoping our first annihilation under Goodwin of another team comes against Carlton. The good: Hogan, Gawn, Brayshaw, Jones, Mcdonald bros, Lever, Hibberd, Jetta, Lewis, Clayton, Spargo. ok but below their best: Petracca, Weideman, Fritsch, Harmes, Vince, Tyson, Melksham. under pressure: ANB, Hannan, Hunt. also great to win all four quarters. It’s a small thing and yes the Saints could’ve kicked straighter but we are clearly working on our inconsistency within games. Keep on this trajectory and good times are ahead.

I think Salem is unlikely to get up and with Lewis putting in one of his best and Vince playing ok if Salem is still sore another week could be ok (I’m not convinced in playing all three of them off halfback/wing, it makes us look slow). I’d worry that if we bring Salem in for Hunt GC’s quicker players may tear us apart. For me it’s: ANB out for Viney Hannan out for Garlett (on this week’s form/ for fresh legs. if we give Hannan the benefit of the doubt because of his excellent game against Essendon I wouldn’t be upset).

If only Demetriou had called Bomber to let him know the cops were onto him... he could’ve destroyed the evidence and relied on being a hard done-by good bloke to get the lowest possible penalty....

It’s always dangerous to look past next week for us Demons supporters but I feel we are about to head into a crucial 3 weeks for the club and knowing where we are at. (St Kilda, Gold Coast, Carlton) There has been a sense of déjà vu about our first 6 weeks, a good hoodoo breaking win, a couple of flawed wins where we didn’t crush our opposition as we could have but got the 4 points, an honourable loss and a couple of deplorable losses where serious questions about our ability to stop opposition run ons and our forward line synergy have been raised. All very 2017. While most of us who were hoping for a genuinely good side this year would agree 3-3 is disappointing the reality is we are still right amongst it in a highly competitive season. With three games against sides we need to beat to make a serious push at finals ahead we have a genuine chance to set up our season and with a few important inclusions starting to come back we could be a serious threat in the second half of the year. I see it like this: 3 comfortable wins with at least one big margin: sets us up for a free hit at Adelaide with a healthy percentage well on track for a serious tilt at finals with a (hopefully) full list. Also should put both St Kilda and the Suns well back in the race for finals and hopefully out of our way. 3 close wins; sees us in a good position to push for finals but needing to put together some big wins in a harder second half of the year to seriously push for finals. 2 wins: not dead and buried, but in a similar position to 2017 needing a good win against a top 4 team team (Adelaide last year) and a few results going our way to scrape into the 8. 1 or 0 wins: in huge trouble, the media blowtorch will be applied to Goodwin in a way he is yet to experience. Unlikely to make finals and likely to hand over a decent first round pick to Adelaide. The club could still respond as we have a talented young list but it would be the first time in the Jackson tenure that there will be serious questions asked. Im hoping for 3 big wins but MFCSS has me suspecting 2 and 1, what do you reckon? Are these three as big as I think they are?

A win is a win. Lots of great things in the third, good kicking for goal, good structure in the forwardline, our mids giving the dons a spanking and our defenders all playing well. However, our first half was insipid, we lost a qtr and drew a qtr against a pathetic opponent. We still worked far too hard for too little and looked too easy to to get free in their forwardline against. Wwre back to parity and our season is still alive, must win the next 3 and improve our play significantly to make finals, let alone contend. We are still yet to play 4 quarters, we did finally play one excellent quarter, so little victories. I do wish Goodwin would try to bury a team rather than take valuable players off and tinker, our percentage is not good.

I am starting to accept that we are not a contender, we are not even good, we are an ordinary team with a stubborn coach who clearly has lost connection with his players. So sad. I’d like to see them prove me wrong but this is dumb, boring football played badly.

I took another look and I see what you’re talking about but I would still argue it wasn’t sufficient contact to be impeding Goldstein, it’s an ultra soft free if the arm is the issue. I’d like to believe I’d be arguing the same if it was the other way round. But I really hate north so I would probably be happy they were annoyed. happy to agree to disagree, go dees, I hope we don’t have a “free kick Hawthorn” game this week.

I have now watched that replay multiple times, freeze framed several shots and I see nothing that consitutes front on contact from Lever, his arm is out across Goldstein, but isn’t touching him, you are allowed to do this, it’s called framing, Defenders are coached to do it, it doesn’t constitute contact unless they hit them with the arm or hold them. The only part of Lever that contacts Goldstein is his head and shoulders when Goldstein pushes his elbow into them, that does not constitute front on contact and would likely be deemed insufficient contact in Basketball let alone footy. Goldstein also drives his knee into Lever, but again it is minimal and the contact is initiated by Goldstein, after he has elbowed Lever in the head. The major contact is Goldstein’s elbow to the head, that’s it. For it to have been a block Lever would’ve needed to actually have his arm, chest, side, leg etc actually bump into Goldstein. It’s a high free kick or play on. That’s it. Also the front on contact rule would only apply if Lever hit Goldstein’s front, Lever’s head/shoulders hit Goldstein’s side, his arm, that is not front on contact.

No it hasn’t, if you take your eyes off the ball, and THEN make body contact blocking an opponent from the marking contest then it’s a free for blocking. The only part of Lever’s body to make contact with his opponent is his head, with his opponents elbow. It has to be a high free to Lever, high contact is not allowed in marking contests, if the umpire missed the contact between Lever’s head and Goldstein’s elbow then it is play on as there is no other contact to constitute blocking. The only option it can’t be is free kick North, which of course the pathetic excuse for an umpire payed. You are implying you can’t look at your opponent in a marking contest, that is totally wrong, you can look at them as long as you then go for the ball. If you look at your opponent and then mark the ball, or punch the ball away it’s totally fine, if you look at your opponent and then both miss the ball and don’t make contact with each other, play on. The only way it’s a free is if you take your eyes off the ball then impede your opponents ability to contest the mark.

So happy to finally beat North, I had forgotten how much I hate them and how great it feels to beat them. On the other hand we still haven’t put 4 quarters together. I worry about our forward set-up and the way we are passing into it, as well as being very predictable to defend. Also our backline still has holes and we get cut up far too easily by quick players on transition. I hope we can rectify these things moving forward. How great is it to beat North!!!

I hope so, Geelong aren’t looking that good either atm.

Marshall got the second defender because of Watts, he’s definitely a talent and Watts is definitely playing a role in the form side of the competition.

See the post right above yours.

Bang on, Ken Hinkley agreed with you, from AFL.com: In the past, Dixon playing on the ball would leave a gaping hole inside Port's forward 50. But Hinkley said Saturday night's slippery conditions, as well as the addition of Jack Watts, who arrived from Melbourne in the off-season, meant Dixon's absence was less important.

I’d be ecstatic if we beat Sydney. That’s the point. JW played a role in Port doing that, we haven’t done it in 8 years! Your lack of comprehension astounds me.

10 Possesions, 5 tackles, 0 goals playing a role in a team that beat Sydney in Sydney. If Bayley Fritsch does that for us I’ll be ecstatic. Hell I’ll be happy if Bayley plays any role in us beating Sydney anywhere!

I know. I get it fine. I was responding to a poster suggesting that he was moved on to gain cap space for Lever, I agree the reasons you give are the reasons the club gave for moving him on, I was arguing exactly what you are.

That is exactly what I had heard we were paying, and on top of paying Fritsch base salary we are not saving so much that our cap was so tight that it made the Lever deal happen. Let me ask you, I’ve asked this question directly to both senior members of our list management team and both said it had nothing to do with it. Why would they do that? What do they stand to gain by giving themselves less outs for why a popular player is gone? You believe what you want to believe, I’m done talking about it. I hope we made the right decision, I am yet to believe we did, I do not believe it and see no convincing evidence it had anything to do with Lever. The argument you are making is the equivalent of arguing we delisted Jack Trengove to get Lever, it freed up space, were the two things directly related in any way, no, but hey you could make the same ludicrous argument about cap space!! I’m not going to comment on this til the end of the season as I’m sure I’m annoying people by constantly posting in this thread.

If the goal in getting rid of Watts was salary cap space we would’ve fought harder in the negotiations with PA for them to pay more of his salary, possibly even resulting in us taking a lower pick. We didn’t, we are still paying a significant portion of JW’s salary. Salary cap management is complicated, no doubt, and little things can make a difference, but this was not the case here, we had the space for Lever and Watts, we chose to get rid of Watts. You can not believe me if you want to, but anyone from the club will tell you the same, if the only way you guys can reconcile getting rid of Watts is that it helped get Lever then you’re clutching at straws.

Paul Connors was positioning his client the best way he could after MFC publicly trashed Watt’s reputation during trade period. If this was the reason the club would’ve used it to appease fans like me. They didn’t, because it’s not true. Go to a members function and ask any of the list management team, they will openly tell you as much. The reasons ProDee has stated are the reasons he was let go, Lever has nothing to do with it.

There’s no truth to this. Mahoney said as much during trade week, we could have easily paid both salaries and kept both. We’re still paying a proportion of Watts’ salary on top of paying Fritsch a base listed player salary. There’s is a small amount saved but not enough to be the difference between getting Lever and not. Ask anyone from the club, it is categorically not true.