Jump to content

WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - HARLEY BALIC

ignition.
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Last year our list was made up of 40 primary, 4 cat a rookies and 2 cat b rookies. 46 is the list limit, which includes 2 cat b rookies. You can have 38 on primary list and 6 cat a rookies if you please,

The max on primary list is 40, which means you can have 4 cat a rookie listed players like we did last year (Keilty,TSmith,White,Filipovic. You can also add 2 cat b rookies, we had 2 last season (Maynard,JSmith).

I hope that makes sense mate

At the moment we have 3 spots on the primary list, 0 cat a rookie spots and 2 cat b rookie spots

 

48 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

We don't have any cat a rookie spots left. Maynard & Joel Smith are cat b rookies. After promoting Maynard to a cat a rookie and Smith to the primary list we have 0 cat a rookie spots and 2 free cat b rookie spots which cannot be filled by going to the draft. All players selected in the rookie draft are cat a rookies.

 

41 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Hopefully someone can explain it a lot better than i have mate but we will not be having any rookie draft selections this year

Hmmm.

I read the rule differently.  But I stand to be corrected.

  • Quote
    •  
    1 minute ago, MadAsHell said:

    Hmmm.

    I read the rule differently.  But I stand to be corrected.

    Apologies if my posts don't make a great deal of sense MAH :)

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    33 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

    Hopefully someone can explain it a lot better than i have mate but we will not be having any rookie draft selections this year

    Here's an explanation of how many players permitted on a list from the minimum on a Primary list of 38 to max of 40 and the consequent number of Rookies you can have making a max total on the list of 47. 

    Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
    38 (Minimum)
    6
    3
    9
    47
    39
    5
    3
    8
    47
    40 (Maximum)
    4
    3
    7
    47

    We had a Primary list of 39 this season. If Watts goes we have 4 out and likely 2 in. So our list will be 37.

     Departures so far should be Watts, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy and ins should be Lever and Balic.

    A team has to have 3 draft picks in a draft which would increase our primary list to 40. So we can't use more than 2 decent picks anyway.  We can use pick 100 or whatever for a Rookie upgrade for Smith. 

    We had 4 A's & 2 B's this year.  Mitch White is the only A lister delisted so far. Maynard has been elevated onto that list and Smith we assume will be elevated onto the primary list. So we can potentially take on 2 more Rookie A players and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A and 2 Rookie B's. 

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    Just now, It's Time said:

    Here's an explanation of how many players permitted on a list from the minimum on a Primary list of 38 to max of 40 and the consequent number of Rookies you can have making a max total on the list of 47. 

    Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
    38 (Minimum)
    6
    3
    9
    47
    39
    5
    3
    8
    47
    40 (Maximum)
    4
    3
    7
    47

    We had a Primary list of 39 this season. If Watts goes we have 4 out and likely 2 in. So our list will be 37.

     Departures so far should be Watts, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy and ins should be Lever and Balic.

    A team has to have 3 draft picks in a draft which would increase our primary list to 40. So we can't use more than 2 decent picks anyway.  We can use pick 100 or whatever for a Rookie upgrade for Smith. 

    We had 4 A's & 2 B's this year.  Mitch White is the only A lister delisted so far. Maynard has been elevated onto that list and Smith we assume will be elevated onto the primary list. So we can potentially take on 2 more Rookie A players and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A and 2 Rookie B's.


    I thought 2 cat b rookies was the Max, thanks for the info. You explained it a hell of alot better than i did. thanks IT :)

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    5 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:


    I thought 2 cat b rookies was the Max, thanks for the info. You explained it a hell of alot better than i did. thanks IT :)

    That's correct. Both our current ones are going off that list so it will be empty and therefore can take up to 2.  

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    9 minutes ago, It's Time said:

    Here's an explanation of how many players permitted on a list from the minimum on a Primary list of 38 to max of 40 and the consequent number of Rookies you can have making a max total on the list of 47. 

    Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
    38 (Minimum)
    6
    3
    9
    47
    39
    5
    3
    8
    47
    40 (Maximum)
    4
    3
    7
    47

    We had a Primary list of 39 this season. If Watts goes we have 4 out and likely 2 in. So our list will be 37.

     Departures so far should be Watts, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy and ins should be Lever and Balic.

    A team has to have 3 draft picks in a draft which would increase our primary list to 40. So we can't use more than 2 decent picks anyway.  We can use pick 100 or whatever for a Rookie upgrade for Smith. 

    We had 4 A's & 2 B's this year.  Mitch White is the only A lister delisted so far. Maynard has been elevated onto that list and Smith we assume will be elevated onto the primary list. So we can potentially take on 2 more Rookie A players and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A and 2 Rookie B's. 

     

     

    Thanks for that IT

    Graphs and everything is above and beyond!

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    7 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

    Thanks for that IT

    Graphs and everything is above and beyond!

    Thanks MAH. Can't take the credit for the graph. It's actually from the AFL's official rules book. 

    Edited by It's Time

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    17 minutes ago, It's Time said:

    Here's an explanation of how many players permitted on a list from the minimum on a Primary list of 38 to max of 40 and the consequent number of Rookies you can have making a max total on the list of 47. 

    Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
    38 (Minimum)
    6
    3
    9
    47
    39
    5
    3
    8
    47
    40 (Maximum)
    4
    3
    7
    47

    We had a Primary list of 39 this season. If Watts goes we have 4 out and likely 2 in. So our list will be 37.

     Departures so far should be Watts, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy and ins should be Lever and Balic.

    A team has to have 3 draft picks in a draft which would increase our primary list to 40. So we can't use more than 2 decent picks anyway.  We can use pick 100 or whatever for a Rookie upgrade for Smith. 

    We had 4 A's & 2 B's this year.  Mitch White is the only A lister delisted so far. Maynard has been elevated onto that list and Smith we assume will be elevated onto the primary list. So we can potentially take on 2 more Rookie A players and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A and 2 Rookie B's. 

     

     

    Not sure that's all correct.

    40 senior list players last season. Delisted 5 - Lumumba, Trengove, Spencer, Kennedy, Hulett = 35, add Lever = 36. Watts for Balic = 36.

    2 national draft picks will make our list = 38.

    Rookie list A = Keilty, T Smith, Maynard, Filipovic = 4. 

    Joel Smith - are we sure he's been promoted to the senior list or the Cat A rookie list? The numbers become 39 and 4 or 38 and 5 depending what we do with him. Then we can choose what do with our last list spot. We can choose to go 38/6, 39/5 or 40/4.

    Cat B = 0. With Smith and Maynard both moved on to other lists we'll have 3 spots regardless. Better start searching for some athletes.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    I'd like to see us add an experienced ruck to our rookie list if possible. Only as coverage if Gawn went down again.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    59 minutes ago, It's Time said:

    Here's an explanation of how many players permitted on a list from the minimum on a Primary list of 38 to max of 40 and the consequent number of Rookies you can have making a max total on the list of 47. 

    Primary List Size Category A Rookies Category BRookies Total Rookies (Maximum) Total
    38 (Minimum)
    6
    3
    9
    47
    39
    5
    3
    8
    47
    40 (Maximum)
    4
    3
    7
    47

    We had a Primary list of 39 this season. If Watts goes we have 4 out and likely 2 in. So our list will be 37.

     Departures so far should be Watts, Hulett, Spencer, Kennedy and ins should be Lever and Balic.

    A team has to have 3 draft picks in a draft which would increase our primary list to 40. So we can't use more than 2 decent picks anyway.  We can use pick 100 or whatever for a Rookie upgrade for Smith. 

    We had 4 A's & 2 B's this year.  Mitch White is the only A lister delisted so far. Maynard has been elevated onto that list and Smith we assume will be elevated onto the primary list. So we can potentially take on 2 more Rookie A players and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A and 2 Rookie B's.

    We wiill have a primary list of 40 and we already have 4 cat a rookies which is the max when you have 40 on your PL. I might be mistaken but i'm sure we we only have 3 rookie b spots left.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    40 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    Not sure that's all correct.

    40 senior list players last season. Delisted 5 - Lumumba, Trengove, Spencer, Kennedy, Hulett = 35, add Lever = 36. Watts for Balic = 36.

    2 national draft picks will make our list = 38.

    Rookie list A = Keilty, T Smith, Maynard, Filipovic = 4. 

    Joel Smith - are we sure he's been promoted to the senior list or the Cat A rookie list? The numbers become 39 and 4 or 38 and 5 depending what we do with him. Then we can choose what do with our last list spot. We can choose to go 38/6, 39/5 or 40/4.

    Cat B = 0. With Smith and Maynard both moved on to other lists we'll have 3 spots regardless. Better start searching for some athletes.

     

    DS you're right on Lumumba & Trengove. Shame on me for forgetting them. But I think you'll find our primary list last year was 39. I just rechecked again. Not sure where I've got that wrong if I did. 

    So  far we have 6 out 2 in. So primary list of 35 plus Smith upgraded in the draft. 

    If there's no more trades that would leave a min of 2 or max of 4 draft picks. If that smokey player Siren has mentioned is traded in it would be 1 less. This all still leaves the potential for up to another 2 Rookie A's and 1 Rookie B or 1 Rookie A 2 Rookie B's. Or no more Rookies. 

    Clear as mud.

  • Quote
    19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    If you have to chose between Balic and Fritsch which player would people favour?

    I would say  Fritsch but in the FD I trust 

  • Quote
    28 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    If you have to chose between Balic and Fritsch which player would people favour?

    We will get Balic for 66 or whatever, but Fritsch probably wouldn't be there at that pick.

  • Quote

    33 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    If you have to chose between Balic and Fritsch which player would people favour?

    With that kind of surname, how could anyone go past Fritsch?

  • Quote
    24 minutes ago, Redleg said:

    We will get Balic for 66 or whatever, but Fritsch probably wouldn't be there at that pick.

    Agree ... just a hypothetical that I am putting out there... let's say the pick is 46 (or whatever we have around that number).

    Personally I think Fritsch will go late second round but others think he could be top half of the third which is not too far from 46

  • Quote
    3 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

    I'd like to see us add an experienced ruck to our rookie list if possible. Only as coverage if Gawn went down again.

    Me to.  Jon Griffin or Shaun McKernan (if he gets delisted) fit the bill for mine.

    2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    If you have to chose between Balic and Fritsch which player would people favour?

     

    old-el-paso-girl-why-not-both.jpg

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    13 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    Agree ... just a hypothetical that I am putting out there... let's say the pick is 46 (or whatever we have around that number).

    Personally I think Fritsch will go late second round but others think he could be top half of the third which is not too far from 46

    I would give 46 for Balic. It isn't ideal but in all likelihood Balic ends up a better player than the average player available at 46. I would use our pick 36 for Fritsch. I would also try and package our pick 28 up with Jack Watts for Geelongs pick 19.

    Edited by KingDingAling

  • Quote

    I just hope this Balic is better than the last opertunity starved midfielder we picked up from Freo.  I've had enough of recruiting recycled players that are champions for Casey.

    Edited by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Some pre-draft reading for those who want to know more about Balic.  You'll note that they all have him well below the pick 38 he went at due to concerns over his scaphoid injury.

     

    Snoop Dog
    Pick 13 Adelaide - Harley Balic (Sandringham Dragons / 186cm / 80kg)

    Lovely looking player who just glides around the park and looks pretty effortless. Basketball background and has that spacial awareness, time and poise kids from that background often have. Does all things pretty well but its his work rate that I like. Clean at the stoppages and very sure with his hands. Ball use is good and he is very good in the air. Has played HF and HB as well but I think he will start more as a HF type who when they body is right will push up. His ability to do special things is evident and he could be attacking near goal.

    Why: Be a nice addition to the Crows mids but you could realistically see so many kids in this spot. Burton could be but I think he will be there at the next. Bonner as well is a type they want but with Seedsman and Hampton they may be covered.

    Knightmare
    Pick 17. Harley Balic (VIC – MID/FWD)
    Height: 186cm, Weight: 80kg, DOB: 05/01/1997
    Recruited from: Sandringham Dragons
    Reminds me of: Poor man’s Jackson Macrae
    Brief bio: Balic has some tricks and plays with that basketballer several other recent draftees have. Balic stands out most with his decision making ability and vision with ball in hand. He consistently chooses the right option and often finds some really damaging targets. In terms of execution while he has the vision and decision making ability by hand and foot it can be a mixed bag as sometimes he will hit his targets, and other times miss. Similarly finishing from set shots and field kicks at goal further improvement is required as he lacks consistency in front of goal. He is also more of a short-medium distance kicker as someone with only average penetration. A further strength of Balic’s is his strength of marking overhead with his leaping ability making him a threat in the air which gives him potential to play forward of centre. Athletically Balic is good overall. He is not a linebreaking threat but moves well, has strong endurance and excellent leaping ability. As a contested ball winner Balic at this stage is not a factor as someone who is a receiver at this point.

    Emma Quale
    Pick 22 (Sandringham Dragons. 187cm. 82kg)
    Smooth-moving midfielder who gets involved all over the ground.

    The rationale: The Roos have a strong crew of inside midfielders. Balic would provide a point of difference. He can move through all three parts of the ground and slides easily through traffic.

    Big Footy Phantom Draft 

    Pick 8 Gold Coast
    At the moment Harley is a talented prospect who has a lot of upside. His performances have been good this year and he has really improved this year. You look at some of the good afl players and a lot of them have had draft years where they have really improved. I look at Harley and see a kid who has a ton of improvement left and has the potential to be a very good midfielder. His awareness is excellent, he has time with the ball, good vision and makes good decisions. He is an above average athlete yet not elite and he moves well. The upside is his disposal is improving and he is good above his head. He wins clearances yet not at a great level yet, he is not soft and is strong over the ball. He finds the ball well and his ball use improved. He is not an elite kick, they float a little and he is not proven as a mid so he is a risky pick. He does have the tools to be an A grade player. I was hoping Francis or Parish slid to this pick but alas it was not to be.

    Lemming 
    Pick 8. Harley Balic - VM (186.0 cm, 80.0 kg - Midfielder)
    Reminds me a little of a younger Mundy. Looks like he is only going at half pace and you want him to look more active. He has grown on me as a player. (He may get adjusted down in my rankings at some point)

    Yabadoo 
    Pick 18- st.kilda
    The saints are crying out for midfielders, and I can see Balic developing into a smooth moving classy midfielder. Will start his career as a high half forward and build up his tank. Strong overhead.

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1

    I watched the Melb v Freo game at the MCG again - he looked pretty slow to me. On that effort alone I can't get excited - not sure what he adds really - happy to be proven wrong though.

  • Quote

    Often when players are sought in this manner, second chance and not expensive, there is someone in a club flying his flag.

    Id be dead curious to know who his champion is at the Dees.

    I really dont see much here. That's my opinion of course.

  • Quote
    •  
    3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

    Often when players are sought in this manner, second chance and not expensive, there is someone in a club flying his flag.

    Id be dead curious to know who his champion is at the Dees.

    I really dont see much here. That's my opinion of course.

    Justin Plapp coached him in his first year at Sandringham u18's. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

    Often when players are sought in this manner, second chance and not expensive, there is someone in a club flying his flag.

    Id be dead curious to know who his champion is at the Dees.

    I really dont see much here. That's my opinion of course.

    Probably Taylor.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Collingwood

      It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
      The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
      Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 216 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 528 replies
      Demonland
    View All