Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

What's he been bought by the club for?a training partner for Max?He can clunk a few and also give max a rest up forward.

 

The one game Pruess played with Max, he/they were very good together and we beat Collingwood in the practice game. 

Who bloody well cares if Pruess isn’t fit enough to be our only ruck, as long as he tag teams well with Max? ..which he did and probably can do again!

Without Pruess playing now, the chances of Max getting injured are far higher. IMHO Pruess should be in now!    ..and he can still be working in his tank. 


Happy with Max arou d the ground tonight against Essendon. Played very well.

However, would like to see Preuss play to take a bit of pressure off Max and also TMac. Hogan was still good for 40 goals and the #1 defender. No reason why Preuss cant be like Mason Cox and ease pressure in the ruck, forward and kick out target from defence.

Max was fine tonight but Bellchambers is a spud and Clarke is even worse. Clarke was laughably bad, like seriously provided me with comic relief any time he went near it.

Point is, they're not Lycett/Ryder.

We can afford to take Gawn alone into some games, and this was one of them.

 

This is now looking more and more of a bizarre decision to trade a straight swap for Tyson. I would have rather a 3rd round draft pick on a small forward or outside runner then a north VFL ruckman.

Our list management over the past 2 years is looking extremely poor.

Oh please.

Would it not be extremely poor list management if we didn't have a half decent backup for Max?  If we went with a small forward or outside runner instead of Preuss, who are our genuine ruck options if Max goes down? 

Preuss will be fine once he gets fit, and he's got the best ruck in the comp to show him how.


15 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Max was fine tonight but Bellchambers is a spud and Clarke is even worse. Clarke was laughably bad, like seriously provided me with comic relief any time he went near it.

Point is, they're not Lycett/Ryder.

We can afford to take Gawn alone into some games, and this was one of them.

Max has been largely ineffectual this season...  but he looks like he might be adjusting to the new shape of the game.

He is being worked over by tandem rucks.

 

We need him taking more marks around the ground, and in more telling spots...  we need his help taking marks across the midfield mostly,  to help us get out of pressure.  So we can use the ball better going into F50. 

This is where we are missing TMc's and Pedo's marking.

 

Also there was one clear opportunity he missed last night, to take the ball from the ruck... where he could have grabbed it and kicked... but he didn't mess this rule change up last night, like he did against the Cats. 

 

I think It's time for Preuss.

16 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This is now looking more and more of a bizarre decision to trade a straight swap for Tyson. I would have rather a 3rd round draft pick on a small forward or outside runner then a north VFL ruckman.

Our list management over the past 2 years is looking extremely poor.

Let's not let hindsight get the better of us.

IIRC you were a fan of bringing Preuss in, and you certainly didn't like our 2018 back-up rucks. 

What was our sales pitch to Preuss ?, changing clubs is like a holiday ,you can play second fiddle for us rather than norf. Speaks volumes !

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Let's not let hindsight get the better of us.

IIRC you were a fan of bringing Preuss in, and you certainly didn't like our 2018 back-up rucks. 

I am a fan of bringing him in. The combination worked perfectly against Collingwood! So why have we not decided to run with something that worked so well? 

Using Weideman in the ruck last night was mind boggling. He is a forward, not a ruckmans [censored].

We [censored] didn't learn a thing from the Port debacle.

27 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I am a fan of bringing him in. The combination worked perfectly against Collingwood! So why have we not decided to run with something that worked so well? 

Using Weideman in the ruck last night was mind boggling. He is a forward, not a ruckmans [censored].

We [censored] didn't learn a thing from the Port debacle.

Weideman’s work ethic around the ground and once the ball hits the ground is as bad as I’ve ever seen from a big man.


If the thinking is bringing in Pruess is the answer, from what I’ve seen of him so far, we are in very very deep trouble. 

needs to get a run , 

time to play him and Max together 

54 minutes ago, Smokey said:

If the thinking is bringing in Pruess is the answer, from what I’ve seen of him so far, we are in very very deep trouble. 

As much trouble as the bummers with their rucks ?

It's not the Rucks, its the pacy runners... the ball carriers. they are the ones who carved us up and served us out last night.

Preuss will be a target deep F50,  and help Maxy out, then Max will be a target deep F50.  The pacy smalls can feed at their feet.

We should have played him Rd 1. 

It does my head in he is in the reserves. 

Fitness is obviously an issue but it is for half the bloody team and they are playing. 

8 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

We should have played him Rd 1. 

It does my head in he is in the reserves. 

Fitness is obviously an issue but it is for half the bloody team and they are playing. 

If we had enough small pacy players to accompany him, I reckon we would have.    We are paying now for recruiting sloths instead of goeys.

We started 2017 draft, & last season for pace,  but not much top end stuff.


38 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

Good luck Big Fella!

Let's hope the big guy gets in and ruffles some Swan feathers. The time is ripe to make some opponents uncomfortable.

Preuss will acquit himself well.

Personally, don't think he's earned a call-up but good luck to him and hope he goes better than I expect 

If he can do more than 50% of the ruck duty, earn his fair share of hit-outs, take a few grabs around the ground and allow Max to sit deep in attack it will be a boost to our chances 

We need something to go right - right now - so fingers crossed 

 

With 666 it is imperative to be able to compete in the air and in the clearance, both of which Pruess will help us out with. Playing two rucks (& having the best tap ruck men in the league) we will win 70-80% of the taps which goes a long way to getting more clearances than your opponent. If our resting big man, plus Weid plus Tmac compete in the air (not all at once for the love of god) we wont get rebounded as easily Ala the Geelong game. I actually think the inclusion of Pruess will help out Weid and Tmac and allow them to play their natural games. 

Hunt seems to be working as a forward thus far and I have really liked the intensity and goal sense of the new boys in Lockhart and C Wagner. 

I am quite excited to see how this set up will go for us tonight. & as I said in a previous post I think Weid will play a blinder tonight, he can focus on his forward craft, jump at the ball, crash packs and do other Weid (v Geelong elimination final) things. 

I am actually shocked we didn't run with this combo in round 1, dare I say this might have changed that result... 

Best of luck big fella! Play your role and it will go a huge way in getting us the points. 

I believe I have realistic expectations Preuss in his first match for the club.  I'm hoping he can play a role and reduce the burden on both our KPFs and, of course, on Gawn.

What I'm really hoping for , however, is for him to apply some physical pressure and fear in the opposition defenders.  Not since David Neitz have we had a power forward that has made opposition defenders think twice about standing under a high ball.  The way Preuss has shown he can attach the ball in the air will hopefully make for a pretty stressful night for Sydney's talls. 


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

  • 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 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? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • 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?

      • Thanks
    • 528 replies