Jump to content

Featured Replies

My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

Edited by beelzebub

 
On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:55 PM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

It was a skin condition on a small area, shouldnt have effected him one bit.

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all.

 

 
41 minutes ago, jane02 said:

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all. 

 

Okay thanks. i take it back, seems it would have effected him.

why don't we turn the table, play Preuss with Gawn still not 100 % and rough up Stanley who is hardly in Max's level. same with Ratugolea. They both love a nice clean run at the ball like Port so give them something to think about.

The amount of time Max was bumped or pushed outside the fall of the ball was a joke. if its goes unpunished then why not give it back in spades ?


5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

Most likely an infected cyst that they probably hoped would clear up with antibiotics but needed surgery at the last minute. 

Mid season with Preuss in good form in the 2's you'd either play both or rest Max entirely. Just bad timing that it happened in round 1.

Max didn't play well but we still did very well at centre bounces and we should be good enough to move the ball around the ground without the safety net of the long bomb to Max.

The off ball umpires should cop an absolute hiding in their reviews for missing copious blocks and holds miles from play from the first bounce and throughout the game. I actually like when a team targets a player but they should be copping free kicks for some of the stuff they did. You can't tackle a guy 100m from the play.

3 hours ago, jane02 said:

It was a bit more than that. The procedure did involve a GA, drainage, sutures, antibiotics etc that would have made him feel pretty disgusting. It was actually a significant area that was affected.

Before I get accused, I am not breaking any medical confidentiality. I actually know someone close to Max who told me and many others this last week well before the game. On going by what I was told, I was extremely surprised to see him out there at all.

 

Jesus, most people wouldn't go to their desk job after that, let alone play AFL in 32 degree heat while getting constantly smashed behind play.

No wonder he could barely move. And no wonder we lost. His lack of influence in the ruck and around the ground had a massive impact on our midfield's ability to win clean ball. No Gawn no Melbourne.

The fact that we chose to play him, and play him solo, says a lot more about Pruess than it does Gawn. 

Edited by Jaded

What we should have done is not played a bonafide ruckman. Just tried to shark 2 of the best ruckmen going around rather than play an unfit replacement or a recently-hospitalised Gawn. Throw Frost to the wolves for all I care in a situation like that.

 

I thought we were in trouble when I noticed him run on to the ground before the game with his beard having been obviously trimmed to half its usual length. Haven't we learned anything from the story of Samson?

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

 

The fact that we chose to play him, and play him solo, says a lot more about Pruess than it does Gawn. 

To me it speaks more about our FD and very odd selection criteria.

For mine it's reprehensible that Gawn played.


7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

My curiosity goes to two things.

What exactly is the condition that ailed him requiring a procedure ( inclusive of a general )....and is he fully clear of this now ?

Why didn't this receive attention sometime earlier than the week before round1 ?

Edit...have these been answered here or elsewhere prior ?

Something nqr about all of this.

The skin ailment  "boil"  or other, was infected enough to warrant a surgery under general anesthetic...  it could only be that the infection was spreading into his blood.

So he should not have played that same week,  or he should have had support via a 2nd ruck partner,  or Max should have played forward... or taken the match off,  and we go in with Preuss and Keilty.?

57 minutes ago, Chook said:

What we should have done is not played a bonafide ruckman. Just tried to shark 2 of the best ruckmen going around rather than play an unfit replacement or a recently-hospitalised Gawn. Throw Frost to the wolves for all I care in a situation like that.

Yeah... I like that, we could have sprung a surprise on them RE Maxy being out,  and the others in, would have thrown Ports planning astray.

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?

      • Love
      • Like
    • 69 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? 

    • 4 replies