Jump to content

Featured Replies

What a load of crap next one of these coaches will suggest that they should be allowed an opposition sub to be used for them if they have more than 2 injuries to even up the bench how about this coaches coach and the AFL screw up the game with rule changes.....

 

Being a successful takes a holistic approach, it’s not just winning games on the field, it’s also list and injury management etc. This is one of the more poorer suggestions I’ve heard in a while, so that’s saying something. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

I just don’t think footy is big enough for it. In soccer, it is either loaning a young player to a lower division (or completely different country), or loaning a player you don’t want any more with an agreement to sell them at the end of the loan. Basically, it’s rare for a player you want and you are developing to be playing against you in the same league for one of your direct rivals.

 

Absolute no from me. You play for a club, not a team. Enough of this "injuries ruin football". It's part of the game. Move on. 

A win win situation would be very rare. How many players would you loan out that aren’t in your best 26-28 but would make another sides best 22?  
 

I think the AFL should increase list sizes to then allow clubs to have enough quality players in reserve should injury happen.  Then create a national reserves competition so all players can play competitively at a high level. 


9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

so I have only one ruck on my list knowing that I can get a backup from another club?

Why reward bad planning

Loaning out players in the EPL is completely different as the top 6 aren't really competing with the teams who are the beneficiaries of the loan

Agree, and most teams loan out players to different leagues around Europe. 

1 hour ago, Forest Demon said:

I just don’t think footy is big enough for it. In soccer, it is either loaning a young player to a lower division (or completely different country), or loaning a player you don’t want any more with an agreement to sell them at the end of the loan. Basically, it’s rare for a player you want and you are developing to be playing against you in the same league for one of your direct rivals.

And il add the players wages are paid by the loanee, so wouldn't work with salary cap in Afl

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

Anyone in favour of this?

Yes I am 

Give me Dusty pls on loan

 

There’s no reason for clubs to carry more than 3 rucks and a forward/ruck. 

All 4 of those are out for the Suns.

There absolutely has to be a system to allow them to add a ruck until the mid season draft. 

If a loan is the best way for that to happen then so be it.

Id happily send Austin Bradtke up there for a chance to play for 7 weeks or so. 

58 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

If a loan is the best way for that to happen then so be it.

To many problems associated with way.

Loyalty, injury and not being managed well, reduced development, relocation costs and related family/friends upheavals, losing time with the primary club and so losing intimacy and bonding periods.

Only benefit I can see is the experience a player will gain.

The team in need could pluck a ~27 year old from the country or lesser leagues (if the rules allowed it), who has some craft already developed. Making for someone's dream to come true.  


the flipside which no one seems to have acknowledged including dimma is what happens when for example richmond loan out RCD and Thomson Dow to a NM/carlton or whatever and that player plays 22 games that season and the senior coach says how would u like to join on permanently heres a 3yr deal and ur clearly in the 22 as you proved this season, now you've just generated a process that allows you to have your youngsters tapped up and stolen undoing any previous developmental work you've put into them and setting u back as it always eventually catches up with you - see gws who consistantly lost players 23-27 each season meaning players 30-35 are now 4th year players who are not at the level required for senior footy but have been granted season upon season due to exits in the fringe bracket above them year on year.

12 hours ago, kev martin said:

To many problems associated with way.

Loyalty, injury and not being managed well, reduced development, relocation costs and related family/friends upheavals, losing time with the primary club and so losing intimacy and bonding periods.

Only benefit I can see is the experience a player will gain.

The team in need could pluck a ~27 year old from the country or lesser leagues (if the rules allowed it), who has some craft already developed. Making for someone's dream to come true.  

Pretty much all of those issues you mentioned were tackled with COVID changes last year. Majak played a scratch match with us last year! 

If the player agrees to go and the club agrees to let another side manage them for a period of time the benefits outweigh the negatives. 

State league call ups are probably the safer choice but you’re then impacting a state league club and you’re also having a mid season draft type exercise that could be harder to police.

Purely for rucks I think the loan makes sense. 

Why can’t they make do with pulling a player from affiliate club/metro zone/country zone as in old days. 
isn’t that how Mick Nolan got a game?


3 hours ago, radar said:

Why can’t they make do with pulling a player from affiliate club/metro zone/country zone as in old days. 
isn’t that how Mick Nolan got a game?

Radical thought ... but what if there was some kind of system of "reserve" players? You could have a bunch of players of all kinds, held in reserve ... rucks, mids, KPF/KPD, the lot ... ready to fill in at a moment's notice. You could even have entire teams of these "reserve" players. To go a step further: you could take a team of "reserve" players and affiliate them to a club. You could even have EVERY club have a "reserve" team of players -- as if they were PART of that club. These "reserve" teams could play each other every week, just like the main or "senior" teams do. As a curtain raiser maybe? When a "senior" player gets injured -- or even just loses form! -- you could swap in a "reserve" player, just like that. With the "reserve" team being part of the club as a whole, the "reserve" players could enjoy the same coaching & fitness benefits ... learn the "senior" game plan ... a lot of upside in this crazy idea of mine.

 

No, forget it. I'm dreaming. Let's **** over our native game and dilute its uniqueness by importing more ideas from soccer & gridiron, just because it suits one coach of one club.

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Radical thought ... but what if there was some kind of system of "reserve" players? You could have a bunch of players of all kinds, held in reserve ... rucks, mids, KPF/KPD, the lot ... ready to fill in at a moment's notice. You could even have entire teams of these "reserve" players. To go a step further: you could take a team of "reserve" players and affiliate them to a club. You could even have EVERY club have a "reserve" team of players -- as if they were PART of that club. These "reserve" teams could play each other every week, just like the main or "senior" teams do. As a curtain raiser maybe? When a "senior" player gets injured -- or even just loses form! -- you could swap in a "reserve" player, just like that. With the "reserve" team being part of the club as a whole, the "reserve" players could enjoy the same coaching & fitness benefits ... learn the "senior" game plan ... a lot of upside in this crazy idea of mine.

 

No, forget it. I'm dreaming. Let's **** over our native game and dilute its uniqueness by importing more ideas from soccer & gridiron, just because it suits one coach of one club.

 

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
    • 134 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
    • 407 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