Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 minutes ago, McQueen said:

People who don’t have Oliver in their six.

Frustrated Ryan Gosling GIF

 

Sorry. Only reason  why I didn't have him is that he handballs over the head to opposition countless times.

 

6. Salem

5. Oliver 

4. TMac

3. Lever

2. May

1 Fritsch 

 

Thought the top 4 were pretty clear. You might argue about the order.

 

6.  Salem.   Cool calm collected

5.  Lever.  How many saving marks helped by Salem and May

4. Tmac.   Great goals and important marks

3. Oliver.   All over the ground

last two votes. Could have gone to almost any of about 6 or 8

2. Spargo.  See Oliver above all over the ground and a couple of clutch goals. Involved in many scores

1. May.  We have a fantastic backline

AnB. Hunt Langdon Harmes Hibberd Rivers Jordan Weid Kossy Brayshaw Frittata all deserved a vote

Edited by 640MD
Frittata

 

6.Lever

5. Oliver

4. TMac

3. Salem

2. Neal-Bullen

1. Gawn


41 minutes ago, gOLLy said:

Sorry. Only reason  why I didn't have him is that he handballs over the head to opposition countless times.

Harsh mate. I thought he was at the coal face all game. 

25 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Harsh mate. I thought he was at the coal face all game. 

Re : Oliver

It’s his role in the team to be “at the coal face all game”.

What he does when he’s at the “coal face” then decides how well he has played.

 
7 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Re : Oliver

It’s his role in the team to be “at the coal face all game”.

What he does when he’s at the “coal face” then decides how well he has played.

Gee thanks for the enlightenment. 

8 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Re : Oliver

It’s his role in the team to be “at the coal face all game”.

What he does when he’s at the “coal face” then decides how well he has played.

I'm sometimes critical of Oliver especially the hot potato handballs but today he was superb. Great four quarter effort with 10 tackles, 7 clearances and plenty of hard work.

Edited by dee-tox


1 hour ago, McQueen said:

People who don’t have Oliver in their six.

Frustrated Ryan Gosling GIF

 

I know right.

I never comment on votes but seriously...

I missed the first quarter but I think this should still be about right:

6 TMac - immense, yet again

5 Lever - on a difficult marking day he yet again shon

4 Langdon - he just keeps on keeping on

3 Oliver - he’s so important to our team, I just wish he could improve his finishing on goal

2 Hunt - his run and tackling was massive

1 Chandler - for copping the Gatorade and milk in the song (WTF guys?!)

5 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Re : Oliver

It’s his role in the team to be “at the coal face all game”.

What he does when he’s at the “coal face” then decides how well he has played.

23 touches (2nd most for melb)

16 contested possessions (most on ground)

14 kicks (only 9 handballs, so can't be that many wasted)

10 score involvements (most on ground)

6 clearances (2nd on ground)

10 tackles (2nd most on ground)

348 m gained (9th on ground)

2 goal assists (most on ground)

1 goal, 2 behinds

26 pressure acts (4th most on ground)

4 inside 50s (=6th on ground)

 

He was at the coalface, and was probably the most damaging player on field.

That Carlton had more inside 50s than us and we repelled them is why Lever was higher rated in my opinion.


18 minutes ago, deanox said:

23 touches (2nd most for melb)

16 contested possessions (most on ground)

14 kicks (only 9 handballs, so can't be that many wasted)

10 score involvements (most on ground)

6 clearances (2nd on ground)

10 tackles (2nd most on ground)

348 m gained (9th on ground)

2 goal assists (most on ground)

1 goal, 2 behinds

26 pressure acts (4th most on ground)

4 inside 50s (=6th on ground)

 

He was at the coalface, and was probably the most damaging player on field.

That Carlton had more inside 50s than us and we repelled them is why Lever was higher rated in my opinion.

It’s Clarrys 11 clangers that consistently lets him down. Had a great game for getting the footy and driving us forwards.  I still put him in the votes but his disposal and decision making can still improve him and the team. 

Edited by spirit of norm smith
C

18 minutes ago, deanox said:

23 touches (2nd most for melb)

16 contested possessions (most on ground)

14 kicks (only 9 handballs, so can't be that many wasted)

10 score involvements (most on ground)

6 clearances (2nd on ground)

10 tackles (2nd most on ground)

348 m gained (9th on ground)

2 goal assists (most on ground)

1 goal, 2 behinds

26 pressure acts (4th most on ground)

4 inside 50s (=6th on ground)

 

He was at the coalface, and was probably the most damaging player on field.

That Carlton had more inside 50s than us and we repelled them is why Lever was higher rated in my opinion.

Re: Oliver

We can all see the game differently.

I base my opinions on what l see in a game.

l also give my votes without referring to the AFL live app for the stats.

Stats can be misleading, ie Inside 50’s.

Oliver was OK, rated him just outside the top 6.

Agree with you on Lever, rated him 2nd best.

7 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

It’s Clarrys 11 clangers that consistently lets him down.  I still put him in the votes but his disposal and decision making can still improve him and the team. 

I understand where you're coming from but there is a clear correlation between high disposal players, and high contested possession winning players and high "clanger" players. His average clangers is high but not out of the ordinary.

Also remember that while he had 11 clangers, 5 of the clangers were "free kicks against".

His extreme value today was the fact he won the ball 16 times in close quarters, and he had 10 score involvements.

 

His career clanger average isn't much different than Cripps, Fyfe, Dusty, Tim Kelly etc. Cleaning this up won't be what makes the difference in his career. It will be when he has the scoreboard impact he had today every week.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Re: Oliver

We can all see the game differently.

I base my opinions on what l see in a game.

l also give my votes without referring to the AFL live app for the stats.

Stats can be misleading, ie Inside 50’s.

Oliver was OK, rated him just outside the top 6.

Agree with you on Lever, rated him 2nd best.

I gave my votes first; the stats are supporting this argument though.


6. Lever

5. Salem

4. Oliver

3. McDonald

2. Jordan

1. Langdon

 

6 Salem

5 Lever

4 Oliver

3 TMac

2 Langdon

1 Hunt

Apologies to Jordon

 
2 hours ago, McQueen said:

People who don’t have Oliver in their six.

Frustrated Ryan Gosling GIF

 

I was about to say the same thing as I scanned through the first page of posts.

It honestly makes me wonder if I’m watching the same game.


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?

      • Haha
    • 719 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.

    • 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.

      • Thumb Down
      • Haha
    • 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