Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Author

Lol Lever hey...

Its half time and Lever has racked up 2 disposals 0 marks 0 tackles.

Yeah nah sorry, the guy is ridiculously overrated and a joke that he's currently clogging up our salary.

 

Bloke cost us 2 first rounders and had spent all of his time at adelaide guarding grass. Is useless. Omac is better

 

Of [censored] course this thread shows up.

The anti-Lever bias is insane on this board.

If you think Lever was the problem today, or even a top 10 problem, you don't get it.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Lol Lever hey...

Its half time and Lever has racked up 2 disposals 0 marks 0 tackles.

Yeah nah sorry, the guy is ridiculously overrated and a joke that he's currently clogging up our salary.

Why the [censored] should we care about Lever only having two disposals. He's not in the side to get disposals.

  • Author
1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

Of [censored] course this thread shows up.

The anti-Lever bias is insane on this board.

If you think Lever was the problem today, or even a top 10 problem, you don't get it.

Why the [censored] should we care about Lever only having two disposals. He's not in the side to get disposals.

You simply don't get it.

I am not surprised really.


Agree Lever is hopeless but who was the architect of this disasterous recruiting

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Of [censored] course this thread shows up.

The anti-Lever bias is insane on this board.

If you think Lever was the problem today, or even a top 10 problem, you don't get it.

Why the [censored] should we care about Lever only having two disposals. He's not in the side to get disposals.

What is he in the side for? To play a negating role on Castanga? You really don't seem to get it. He either plays on the best forwards as a negater or he needs to generate offense.

What is his role?

  • Author
1 minute ago, Watts the matter said:

What is he in the side for? To play a negating role on Castanga? You really don't seem to get it. He either plays on the best forwards as a negater or he needs to generate offense.

What is his role?

Its all about the intercepts remember?

 

The guy looks like he struggles to run at times. Genuine question, is he still suffering some kind  of knee problem? He was being managed a few weeks ago. 

5 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

You simply don't get it.

I am not surprised really.

You have a habit, dazzle, of taking your anger out on previous drafting/trading decisions. 

If you watched today's game and thought "we lost because Lever was poor", you don't understand the fundamental problems we're having through the middle and forward of centre.

2 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

What is he in the side for? To play a negating role on Castanga? You really don't seem to get it. He either plays on the best forwards as a negater or he needs to generate offense.

What is his role?

His role, like every other defender's role, is to defend.

Our defensive set up wasn't our problem. Like most weeks, we put our defenders under insane pressure with our repeat turnovers across half-forward.

I'm not suggesting Lever stood out in a positive way, but there are obvious, glaring problems in the other two thirds of the ground that are vastly more problematic than whatever you don't like about Lever.


The worst recruit we have ever had had enough of him drop him doesn't deserve his spot.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

You have a habit, dazzle, of taking your anger out on previous drafting/trading decisions. 

If you watched today's game and thought "we lost because Lever was poor", you don't understand the fundamental problems we're having through the middle and forward of centre.

His role, like every other defender's role, is to defend.

Our defensive set up wasn't our problem. Like most weeks, we put our defenders under insane pressure with our repeat turnovers across half-forward.

I'm not suggesting Lever stood out in a positive way, but there are obvious, glaring problems in the other two thirds of the ground that are vastly more problematic than whatever you don't like about Lever.

If you are focusing on just the game yes.

If you are focusing on the trade, a disaster, for the salary we are paying and the draft picks we gave up. As you rightly point out we have many issues. We can't address some of these because we wasted our assets on a medium defender with average pace and skills.

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

You have a habit, dazzle, of taking your anger out on previous drafting/trading decisions. 

If you watched today's game and thought "we lost because Lever was poor", you don't understand the fundamental problems we're having through the middle and forward of centre.

His role, like every other defender's role, is to defend.

Our defensive set up wasn't our problem. Like most weeks, we put our defenders under insane pressure with our repeat turnovers across half-forward.

I'm not suggesting Lever stood out in a positive way, but there are obvious, glaring problems in the other two thirds of the ground that are vastly more problematic than whatever you don't like about Lever.

Yes, but Lever has cost us the opportunity to fix forward problems due to his cost in dollars and draft picks. Defensive half backs are a dime a dozen.

13 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

The guy looks like he struggles to run at times. Genuine question, is he still suffering some kind  of knee problem? He was being managed a few weeks ago. 

Probably. He has done his ACL twice. He had already did his ACL once prior to our diligent football department paying overs for him (and somehow not factoring that in). We kind of get what we deserve in that sense. Lever was only ever a third man up at Adelaide, an unaccountable defender, who whilst great to have, should never be acquired at the cost of your future. 

Edited by KingDingAling


  • Author
7 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

You have a habit, dazzle, of taking your anger out on previous drafting/trading decisions. 

If you watched today's game and thought "we lost because Lever was poor", you don't understand the fundamental problems we're having through the middle and forward of centre.

His role, like every other defender's role, is to defend.

Our defensive set up wasn't our problem. Like most weeks, we put our defenders under insane pressure with our repeat turnovers across half-forward.

I'm not suggesting Lever stood out in a positive way, but there are obvious, glaring problems in the other two thirds of the ground that are vastly more problematic than whatever you don't like about Lever.

Did I say we lost because of Lever??

Looks like he doesn't know when to go up and when to stay down, when to man up and when to guard the space. Always choosing the wrong option. Really poorly coached IMO and the defensive structure not working and not suiting his game

Our coaching team needs to coach to players strengths, they seem obsessed with everyone being able to fill multiple roles to the detriment of their natural game

It's not all Lever's fault.

What idiot would pick a similar role player to go up with him when what we need is a one on one defender.

Oh that's right, the idiot who coaches us.

OMac in for Smith, get back to the mix that works then start to judge Lever once he's playing the role he's meant to.

 

10 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Did I say we lost because of Lever??

Why are you having a go at him in a thread all about him immediately after the game?

Why is the focus on him at all, given what we saw today?


When you start to think OMac would be a better option than Lever then there definitely is a problem with the way Lever is playing.

Not our worst but he was poor today; rarely read the flight of the ball correctly and made no second efforts. 

He is terrible below his knees and that is not knew.  He cannot bend down which may be his past knee issue but today it looked like poor motivation.

16 minutes ago, Hellish Inferno said:

Looks like he doesn't know when to go up and when to stay down, when to man up and when to guard the space. Always choosing the wrong option. Really poorly coached IMO and the defensive structure not working and not suiting his game

Our coaching team needs to coach to players strengths, they seem obsessed with everyone being able to fill multiple roles to the detriment of their natural game

Agree. need to move him somewhere where he attacks the ball to take a mark. One time today forward of the wing the ball waas kicked to him by a Tiges player. he punched it rather than tyake the mark forward of centre for us.

 
1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

The guy looks like he struggles to run at times. Genuine question, is he still suffering some kind  of knee problem? He was being managed a few weeks ago. 

Apparently he was winning all the time trials over the pre season... shows you how bad the clubs running ability is

3 minutes ago, Elegt said:

Apparently he was winning all the time trials over the pre season... shows you how bad the clubs running ability is

He wasn’t winning from what I recall however he was running in the strongest running groups.

Its interesting that they got so many miles into his legs. Obviously we need guys fitter but I thought his training would involve more strength and power for contest work and defending one on one.

Ill go on the record and say I was all for recruiting him. He was in the best U/21 team (or whatever that is) a couple times and playing good footy for the Crows. The fact that this “key position” defender wanted to come to our club was amazing in my mind. Couldn’t give a stuff about the price.

Right now he’s a long way off the “key position” player I thought he’d be and is struggling to be in our starting squad.

Id be interested to know what his relationship is like with the playing group. Obviously he came across on big coin and I wonder if that would bother other players - especially when he’s battling at present 


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.

      • Thanks
    • 25 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
    • 233 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/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies