Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Back off charlie. We're making a lot more progress on the classification of biscuits than you are on your precious Hogan trade.

Would love to hear a 4-way roundtable between Andy, Grapeviney, PJ & Special Robert this wednesday. Podcast #1 was a classic

Edited by johndemonic

 
6 minutes ago, johndemonic said:

I don't actually think the question of how Hogan goes against top sides has been answered yet. How did Weid go in that period while our midfield, defence and our coaches box were being crushed? He didn't play. But at the end of the year he got the opportunity and stepped up. Hogan never got that opportunity. It's only fair that he be assessed next year properly like Weid was, or not assessed at all.

Hogan was a 23yo 60+ gamer with a mature body going into the 2018 season.

Weid still a baby in KPF terms.

Silly comparison.

Edited by EnterTheDragon

1 minute ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Back off charlie. We're making a lot more progress on the classification of biscuits than you are on your precious Hogan trade.

Is Monte Carlo a RFA after the next packet of family assorteds is shared at morning tea tomorrow?

 
3 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

Hogan was a 23yo 60+ gamer with a mature body going into the 2018 season.

Weid still a baby in KPF terms.

Silly comparison.

You're missing the point. Weid got into the team right at an opportune moment when we had our backs against the wall and we responded. I don't think his inclusion was a defining factor in us beating WCE and GWS. So how would Hogan have gone in those games? Maybe he would have stepped up and made a big impact. The point is that Weid got the opportunity and Hogan didn't. Concluding that he can't play against top 8 teams, is the same as concluding Weid couldn't pre round 20, until he did.

Edited by johndemonic

12 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

Hogan was a 23yo 60+ gamer with a mature body going into the 2018 season.

Weid still a baby in KPF terms.

Silly comparison.

How did Hoges go in his first game against Rance again?


32 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

How did Hoges go in his first game against Rance again?

Kicked two goals and had 13 touches.

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

45 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

 Did you watch replays of our 8 games against the top 10 clubs where he kicked a paltry 9 goals, going missing in virtually all of them? 

Accurate perceptions are great but only if they actually are accurate.

I don't understand why we don't just delist him...

It's obvious on your reading that the kid can't play.

 
30 minutes ago, Deevout said:

Might have to wait until Wednesday night before we can break out the cigars, One way or another.

I've just been over to Freo's site on a footy forum, doin' some recon'.... and I've had another thought, since being O' there.

... seems they are moving some players on... and the thought cropped up.. are they clearing some salary cap space ???   Just guessing, as things just don't feel to add up.

If so, for whom ?

It aint over,  'til the fat lady has sung.

40 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

 Did you watch replays of our 8 games against the top 10 clubs where he kicked a paltry 9 goals, going missing in virtually all of them? 

Accurate perceptions are great but only if they actually are accurate.

R1 v Geelong, 3.0 goals (MFC top scorer), 16 disposals (10th highest for MFC), 3 marks

R4 v Hawks, 1.1 (2nd highest for MFC), 24 disposals (2nd highest for MFC), 3 marks

R5 v Tigers,  2.2 (2nd highest for MFC), 22 disposals (5th highest for MFC), 9 marks

R12 v Pies 0.1, 17 disposals (=7th for MFC), 3 marks

R18 v Geelong 1.1, 14 disposals, 4 marks

R21 v Sydney 1.3 (=most scoring shots,  3rd highest scorer), 19 disposals (9th for MFC), 4 marks

 

Those are his 6 games against top 8 sides. Averaging 18.6 disposals, 1.3 goals, 2.6 scoring shots, and 4.3 marks.

I would hardly call 18.6 disposals and 2.6 shots on goal "going missing" given lost all those games (and were thrashed in three of them). 

 


1 hour ago, sue said:

They may engage in shenanigans but are you so naive as to think that would affect a pro team of opponents?

You're not reading my posts mate. I certainly didn't say it and I don't believe I read that Drags had said it either.

I think what we're both saying is that Freo are such a basket case (Exhibit A the alleged Kelly trade attempt and Exhibit B the backflip on the alleged agreement between Jesse's management, the MFC and FFC of pick 6's involvement in the Jesse trade) that they might be naive enough to think those sort of shenanigans would affect their pro opponents in trade negotiations.

54 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

How did Hoges go in his first game against Rance again?

Referring back to one game three years ago doesn’t exactly sell your argument.

33 minutes ago, deanox said:

R1 v Geelong, 3.0 goals (MFC top scorer), 16 disposals (10th highest for MFC), 3 marks

R4 v Hawks, 1.1 (2nd highest for MFC), 24 disposals (2nd highest for MFC), 3 marks

R5 v Tigers,  2.2 (2nd highest for MFC), 22 disposals (5th highest for MFC), 9 marks

R12 v Pies 0.1, 17 disposals (=7th for MFC), 3 marks

R18 v Geelong 1.1, 14 disposals, 4 marks

R21 v Sydney 1.3 (=most scoring shots,  3rd highest scorer), 19 disposals (9th for MFC), 4 marks

 

Those are his 6 games against top 8 sides. Averaging 18.6 disposals, 1.3 goals, 2.6 scoring shots, and 4.3 marks.

I would hardly call 18.6 disposals and 2.6 shots on goal "going missing" given lost all those games (and were thrashed in three of them). 

 

Also it needs to be noted that the delivery to our forwards in those games was substantially poorer than our usual low standard due to the increased pressure on our midfield.  No forward in the History of the game can kick goals when the pass he's supposed to get on the end of goes 30m astray and lands in the arms of an unmarked defender. 


1 hour ago, deanox said:

R1 v Geelong, 3.0 goals (MFC top scorer), 16 disposals (10th highest for MFC), 3 marks

R4 v Hawks, 1.1 (2nd highest for MFC), 24 disposals (2nd highest for MFC), 3 marks

R5 v Tigers,  2.2 (2nd highest for MFC), 22 disposals (5th highest for MFC), 9 marks

R12 v Pies 0.1, 17 disposals (=7th for MFC), 3 marks

R18 v Geelong 1.1, 14 disposals, 4 marks

R21 v Sydney 1.3 (=most scoring shots,  3rd highest scorer), 19 disposals (9th for MFC), 4 marks

 

Those are his 6 games against top 8 sides. Averaging 18.6 disposals, 1.3 goals, 2.6 scoring shots, and 4.3 marks.

I would hardly call 18.6 disposals and 2.6 shots on goal "going missing" given lost all those games (and were thrashed in three of them). 

 

You’re reaching deanox. 

9 goals in 8 games against top 10 teams. 

That tells me he was comprehensively pantsed by the better defenders in the league and went kick chasing to wide positions upfield out of frustration.  Check his heatmaps you will see. 

I understand it doesn’t gel with the whole “generational player” schtick but there it is.

The FD see what I see. Which is why we’re not bending over backwards to keep him. 

Okay to good player but something’s missing.

Edited by EnterTheDragon

14 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Also it needs to be noted that the delivery to our forwards in those games was substantially poorer than our usual low standard due to the increased pressure on our midfield.  No forward in the History of the game can kick goals when the pass he's supposed to get on the end of goes 30m astray and lands in the arms of an unmarked defender. 

Poor bugga didn’t get it lace out at hip height into the breadbasket enough. Got it.

What else have you got in your excuse Rolodex?

Edited by EnterTheDragon

11 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

You’re teaching deanox. 

9 goals in 8 games against top 10 teams. 

That tells me he was comprehensively pantsed by the better defenders in the league and went kick chasing to wide positions upfield out of frustration.  Check his heatmaps you will see. 

I understand it doesn’t gel with the whole “generational player” schtick but there it is.

The FD see what I see. Which is why we’re not bending over backwards to keep him. 

Okay to good player but something’s missing.

Do you think he chose to chase kicks because he was losing the defensive battle,  or do you think he was utilized further upfield because we were getting pantsed in the midfield, we needed someone to try and change the game,  and his field kicking is high quality?

 

I suspect it's a bit of both, but we were deliberately playing him upfield early in the season where he was having a great enough impact that he was being discussed as AA CHF at the half way mark of the season.

Garry Lyon had him there mid season based on 19.7 disposals and 2.6 goals.  https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/allaustralian-2018-afl-squad-garry-lyon-released-midseason-best-22/news-story/a5e4190718a3502ccab8205dc2c42911

Afl.com.au did too http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-07/who-makes-our-midseason-all-australian-team

 

Yeah I agree his output was lower in those games, but do you really think it is purely because he isn't good? Or that he is a "bully" or a down hill skier? Or do you think other factors like "we lost all games against the top 10 teams while he was playing" come into it?

I mean he featured in mark of the year, while on a beautiful lead in stacks of space but Pedo kicked it over his head. Fix that terrible kick and he scores. That's why Hawkins kicked 7 in round 18: midfield service. And Hogan rarely gets that kind of service.

1 hour ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Is Monte Carlo a RFA after the next packet of family assorteds is shared at morning tea tomorrow?

How many [censored] times do we need to go over this?

He's not a free agent. His contract runs out at afternoon tea tomorrow, and if no trades are done for him, he'll be available on the tearoom bench. If nobody picks him up, he'll be de-plated and go back in the cupboard, at which time he can move to anyone with the munchies.

There were early rumours that Phil Scully was looking to do a trade for him, but suddenly some KFC became available and all his decent picks are going on that. Regardless, I can't see him getting through the pre-work session, Phil's generally first in the kitchen of a morning.


32 minutes ago, EnterTheDragon said:

You’re teaching deanox. 

9 goals in 8 games against top 10 teams. 

That tells me he was comprehensively pantsed by the better defenders in the league and went kick chasing to wide positions upfield out of frustration.  Check his heatmaps you will see. 

I understand it doesn’t gel with the whole “generational player” schtick but there it is.

The FD see what I see. Which is why we’re not bending over backwards to keep him. 

Okay to good player but something’s missing.

The FD see what you see.

A serious question. Is that a joke?

9 minutes ago, binman said:

The FD see what you see.

A serious question. Is that a joke?

A joke reply. Are you questioning my seriousness? 

8 hours ago, phoenix said:

Careful buddy. 

70 posts in 13 years. ETD makes that many per hour.

Quality over Quantity?

Edited by Fifty-5

 

The Jesse goes missing against the top teams argument is a chicken or the egg argument. We were beaten in those games in the midfield (except the first Geelong game where he played well), so does it stand to reason that in order for him to have a good game that the midfield is able to deliver it better into him and the other forwards to maximise their opportunities?

I’m not denying his lower output against better opposition but it’s like pointing out that Weids had a bad game vs WC in the prelim final, of course he did! The midfield was pantsed so he never got any opportunity. 

One thing I feel he needs to work on is staying in the contest longer against better teams, he seems to give up a bit (at least body language wise) when the good teams are able to set up denying him good one on one opportunities. But here’s the good news, he’s still young so he can keep working on these things and I truly believe that at some point in his career (whether it’s with us or someone else) he will clearly be the best KP forward. 

5 hours ago, Nasher said:

I’m confused about what’s confusing. Gist of post: pick 5 and 14, or 5 and 23 = not an enormous difference. Is that a bewildering proposition?

On points 14 = 23 + 45.  When your first two picks are 36 and 46 it probably does make a difference.


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

  • 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.

      • Haha
    • 27 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? 

    • 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?

    • 235 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 47 replies