Jump to content

Featured Replies

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

Interesting that we are now a destination club, but we don't seem able to take advantage of it and get a FA, well at least not so far.

Maybe there are no FA's we're interested in.

 
4 hours ago, Sadler said:

That’s great but it’s one example.

I love it how one example always gets used as the be all and end all to an argument. Critical mass is what I want. How many list changes did the last 10 premiership teams have? 

You're welcome to do the research. I'm not your intern.

 
26 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

You're welcome to do the research. I'm not your intern.

Seems as I stuffed everyone around with the Garlett quiz last night, the answer (for the last six years) is an average of 9.17 

And that includes a Hawthorn three-peat.  

But we're heading towards ten list changes so it'll probably cost us a premiership with four fifths of one our players being not so familiar with our game-plan. 

Edited by Skuit

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

Seems as I stuffed everyone around with the Garlett quiz last night, the answer (for the last six years) is an average of 9.17 

And that includes a Hawthorn three-peat.  

But we're heading towards ten list changes so it'll probably cost us a premiership with four fifths of one our players being not so familiar with our game-plan. 

Outside the best 28, and a few younger project players, could nearly rotate out rest of list each. 

Probably leaves about 10 spots to move on. Sounds a familiar number!


1 minute ago, D4Life said:

Outside the best 28, and a few younger project players, could nearly rotate out rest of list each. 

Probably leaves about 10 spots to move on. Sounds a familiar number!

That's almost exactly close to what I was saying D4Life, except for the bits about the other bits. 

Honestly, with the exception of Hogan, has any of the players who have left/are leaving, going to dent our premiership hopes? 

And if we end up getting a rock solid defender in May, and some outside pace in KK and a backup ruck, does anyone really care if we replace the others who left with more speculative draft picks or discards from other clubs? How will they be any worse than the players we let go, who are clearly not good enough to make it?

No point holding onto players who can’t crack a game for the sake of limiting list changes. As for Tyson and AVB, we won’t let them go for nothing. We will try to get decent compensation, which will balance them leaving. 

13 hours ago, Redleg said:

Is it selling the farm to pay what others offer if it costs you nothing to get a top player? I understand there is a cap, but other clubs seem to manage or are true destination clubs.

Would we have matched Nuffs money for gaffe ? I'm not sure

 
16 hours ago, Redleg said:

Is it selling the farm to pay what others offer if it costs you nothing to get a top player? I understand there is a cap, but other clubs seem to manage or are true destination clubs.

Interesting to see if things change with FA. To date it has been used by the power clubs to attract players from the lesser clubs at much the same salary. The lesser clubs don't scream that much as they get a good draft pick in return.

I sense that the wheel is now slowly turning with the lesser clubs offering big money to the players from the power clubs. And moreover the power club gets comparatively little by way of compensation.

It is yet another subtle manipulation of the system a la the way Sydney used the so called "interstate supplement" to pay its top players that much more.

Imagine the fun of the trading season if they move the FA requirement down to five or six years.

Richmond and Lynch are an interesting exception on the money side of things

Edited by Diamond_Jim

3 hours ago, Jaded said:

Honestly, with the exception of Hogan, has any of the players who have left/are leaving, going to dent our premiership hopes? 

And if we end up getting a rock solid defender in May, and some outside pace in KK and a backup ruck, does anyone really care if we replace the others who left with more speculative draft picks or discards from other clubs? How will they be any worse than the players we let go, who are clearly not good enough to make it?

No point holding onto players who can’t crack a game for the sake of limiting list changes. As for Tyson and AVB, we won’t let them go for nothing. We will try to get decent compensation, which will balance them leaving. 

Good post.

Also with those that are NQR that have left, the hope is to get 1 or 2 that are better than them, not just to replace them. That is always the aim of list changes.


6 hours ago, Skuit said:

Seems as I stuffed everyone around with the Garlett quiz last night, the answer (for the last six years) is an average of 9.17 

And that includes a Hawthorn three-peat.  

But we're heading towards ten list changes so it'll probably cost us a premiership with four fifths of one our players being not so familiar with our game-plan. 

It was a good quiz just slightly out of context which made it harder.  Still someone got it so that's a plus.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Good post.

Also with those that are NQR that have left, the hope is to get 1 or 2 that are better than them, not just to replace them. That is always the aim of list changes.

Yep. But even if worst case scenario happens, and we replace them with equal amounts of talent (or lack thereof), we have lost absolutely nothing. 

People talk as if we will go into next year short of players. 

Are we out of the running for one of the Irish boys as a category B rookie?

I know we have Bradtke as one.  Do we have another one?

Sad when we started this and one of the boys is the talented 198 cm Anton Tohill, son of Anthony, who played Reserves for us in the 80's.

Edited by Redleg

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Are we out of the running for one of the Irish boys as a category B rookie?

I know we have Bradtke as one.  Do we have another one?

Sad when we started this and one of the boys is the talented 198 cm Anton Tohill, son of Anthony, who played Reserves for us in the 80's.

Got the answer Walker and Bradtke.

40 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Got the answer Walker and Bradtke.

is the limit 2 for cat b rookies?


21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

is the limit 2 for cat b rookies?

A poster Theo, on Tohill thread said you can have 3.

If so, I hope we are into Tohill, or one of the others, if of course they are good enough or showing potential.

Edited by Redleg

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

A poster Theo, on Tohill thread said you can have 3.

If so, I hope we are into Tohill, or one of the others, if of course they are good enough or showing potential.

Correct - you can have 3 category B rookies (but only one can be in the Irish recruit category). Problem is that Melbourne has shunned the Irish experiment that produced such greats as the late Jimmy Stynes and Sean Wight. I raised it a couple of years ago at a club function about recruiting and was told that at least at that time, there was little interest.

I wonder if Lobb is angling at the new ruck/forward position recently open at West Coast. If you were a Western Australian wanting to go back to your home state, surely you'd prefer to go to West Coast if you could contribute to their side. With Port lodging the FA paperwork for Lycett, if I was West Coast I'd be playing Lobb ahead of Vardy and playing him alongside NikNat.

Only seen this on Facebook so don't know the strength of this, but apparently Robbie Gray may be put on the trade table. Apparently, we're in for his services.

Grain of salt but depending on the cost, he'd be a great get. Not sure why we've been linked to him other than being a Victorian.


6 minutes ago, A F said:

Only seen this on Facebook so don't know the strength of this, but apparently Robbie Gray may be put on the trade table. Apparently, we're in for his services.

Grain of salt but depending on the cost, he'd be a great get. Not sure why we've been linked to him other than being a Victorian.

Gee that would throw a spanner in the works! Wonder what it would take to prize him away..

6 hours ago, A F said:

Only seen this on Facebook so don't know the strength of this, but apparently Robbie Gray may be put on the trade table. Apparently, we're in for his services.

Grain of salt but depending on the cost, he'd be a great get. Not sure why we've been linked to him other than being a Victorian.

Maybe Port are trying to bait St Kilda into giving up pick #4 to get one of the prized SA draftees!!!

7 hours ago, A F said:

but apparently Robbie Gray may be put on the trade table. Apparently, we're in for his services.

 

7 hours ago, layzie said:

Gee that would throw a spanner in the works! Wonder what it would take to prize him away..

Love Robbie Gray but at 31yo start of next season if you look at the Lewis & Mitchell trades he would be worth peanuts on the trade table.

Pick 51/87 or a trade for Garlett should get it done...

...and yes I'm not serious but I don't think Port are either.

Edited by rjay

 
13 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

Love Robbie Gray but at 31yo start of next season if you look at the Lewis & Mitchell trades he would be worth peanuts on the trade table.

Pick 51/87 or a trade for Garlett should get it done...

...and yes I'm not serious but I don't think Port are either.

Eep, 31 was a surprise. Thought maybe 28. 

Likely Dees will look at 1-2 delisted free agents to top up given likely turnover of 10-12 players.  

List to date of such players doesn’t quite excite.

Or Maybe some late trade action might see MFC offering picks in 60-70s to grab someone as a 11th hour deal. 


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...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Sad
      • Like
    • 720 replies
  • 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.

      • Like
    • 4 replies
  • 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.

    • 216 replies
  • 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.

    • 1 reply
  • 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.

    • 1 reply
  • 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