I don't care much about hard or soft. The players I like best are the ones that do the most damage.

So that would be Salem, Oliver, Hogan, Petracca, Gawn, Hunt, Watts and Hibberd. That's a mix of hard, soft and in-between. I admit I put Salem up there in large part for his potential than his output so far, but when he plays well he's probably our most damaging player because of the quality of his ball use. He just needs a decent run of 20 or more games without interruption, he seems to struggle to get to 6-8 games.

I like the guys that the opposition tries to tag (Oliver, Hogan, Watts, Petracca) or to use negative tactics on to try to keep them out of the game (Gawn, Hunt). These are the guys that the opposition knows will really hurt them. 

Hardness is not much use unless it does damage. So I'm a bit 'meh' about Viney & Jones. I love their hardness, but they're rarely damaging. Oppositions know this and prefer to tag Oliver or Petracca, because they know who can hurt them more. For Viney to be more damaging, he needs to work as hard to improve his ball use as he does his body strength.

Similarly, Oliver would be much more damaging if he kicked it more. We need him in the Dusty-2017 role, I think he's somewhat wasted in the Prestia in-and-under role. 

14 hours ago, red&blue1982 said:

In my opinion there's a club bias towards clean cut players like Oliver, Watts, Trengrove,  and so on. Quicknote, I'm not slandering those players just mentioned.

How did we get three pages in without anyone directly questioning the bolded statement? Clarry clean-cut? 

Otherwise, I think there is something there deep down in the hypothesis. I'm not sure that Jack Watts would have had the level of defence that he has had with our supporters as compared to certain other clubs.

And we do turn against/shy away from any hints of impropriety rather quickly despite the potential upside. Garlett was a win with a checkered history. But mention someone with the level of latent talent as Stringer and most immediately balk as if he has the ability to poison the club at its very roots.

11 hours ago, Akum said:

I don't care much about hard or soft. The players I like best are the ones that do the most damage.

So that would be Salem, Oliver, Hogan, Petracca, Gawn, Hunt, Watts and Hibberd. That's a mix of hard, soft and in-between. I admit I put Salem up there in large part for his potential than his output so far, but when he plays well he's probably our most damaging player because of the quality of his ball use. He just needs a decent run of 20 or more games without interruption, he seems to struggle to get to 6-8 games.

I like the guys that the opposition tries to tag (Oliver, Hogan, Watts, Petracca) or to use negative tactics on to try to keep them out of the game (Gawn, Hunt). These are the guys that the opposition knows will really hurt them. 

Hardness is not much use unless it does damage. So I'm a bit 'meh' about Viney & Jones. I love their hardness, but they're rarely damaging. Oppositions know this and prefer to tag Oliver or Petracca, because they know who can hurt them more. For Viney to be more damaging, he needs to work as hard to improve his ball use as he does his body strength.

Similarly, Oliver would be much more damaging if he kicked it more. We need him in the Dusty-2017 role, I think he's somewhat wasted in the Prestia in-and-under role. 

I think I would add Melksham to your list. He is very damaging with his long kicking and ability to ptoduce important goals.

19 hours ago, Biffen said:

We got rid of him because he liked to drink beer in his undies when he wasn't training.

Leigh Matthews let him do it as long as he never missed a (training) session.

I heard Pikey ko'ed Balme's PA because she wouldn't let him see Balme at that moment. He was gone soon after.

players who are p.ss weak in the body are generally p.ss weak in the head,that's probably why j.watts is getting shunted. if those out there don't like physical players perhaps footy is not for you.

It is the lack of them that annoys me.

Love hard tough nut players. We probably just lacked them through the late 2000s and early 2010s which is probably why we get such little respect from opposition fans.

I think our current footy department and coach seem to have a love for hard contested players. I think as our list turns over the team will get harder.

I think dees fans are going to love following a team that plays unsociable football.

This topic made me laugh, because many on Demonland seem to love only tough, hard players. Which is great, provided they don't butcher the ball or have no vision. 

TMac, tough, hard, good intercept mark, always competes, but needs to play near the goals, where his straight kicking for goal works and he really just has to get ball and go for goal.

In the back half, you can almost see his mind slowly ticking over when he gets the ball, where should I go, and he often kicks astray or heads down the wrong path.

JWatts not tough or hard, but at least when he gets the ball almost always does something good with it! Looks like he is going, but Demons lack players who have skills and vision.

Kennedy hard & tough but a butcher!

 

On 27/09/2017 at 11:45 AM, red&blue1982 said:

To me there seems to be a trend where fans favorites are usually nice boys.

Players like Bugg, Kent, Silvia and Moloney to name a few, may have issues with club rules, but having had too passive a playing list for so long surely they should be encouraged not condemned.

In my opinion there's a club bias towards clean cut players like Oliver, Watts, Trengrove,  and so on. Quicknote, I'm not slandering those players just mentioned.

'When the going gets tuff, what do we sing!'

Thoughts? 

What utter tripe. Are you a Melbourne supporter? Really?

A 'trend' of fans to like 'nice boys', a 'club bias' towards 'clean cut' players'? Have you attended any Melb games this year, seen and heard what our fans respond to and are inspired by?

And throwing in Oliver, who is both (i) as hard/brave/competitive/desperate as they come and (ii) a huge Dees fan favourite, as an example of a 'clean cut' player - whatever that means - I mean, really, what are we talking about here?

2 minutes ago, Ben E said:

What utter tripe. Are you a Melbourne supporter? Really?

A 'trend' of fans to like 'nice boys', a 'club bias' towards 'clean cut' players'? Have you attended any Melb games this year, seen and heard what our fans respond to and are inspired by?

And throwing in Oliver, who is both (i) as hard/brave/competitive/desperate as they come and (ii) a huge Dees fan favourite, as an example of a 'clean cut' player - whatever that means - I mean, really, what are we talking about here?

Clean cut generally means well presented, orderly, predictable, trustworthy.

Yes i have attended games this year, even though i live interstate. What

Oliver is obviously one of your favorites, and many at Demonland it seems, so what? I used him as an example. I think he's good player.

My point is i'm worried that there may be a club bias that determines a imbalance between ''brains a brawn'. 

It's a provocative hypothesis that i'm making. 

 

On 9/27/2017 at 12:37 PM, The Chazz said:

There aren't many supporters that wouldn't love Nev Jetta.  He goes when it's his turn, he crashes packs, he puts his head over the pill.  He's not a superstar, and doesn't get the external accolades that most in the team get.

 

Agree, he would be one of the hardest 1 on 1 players in AFL