Jump to content

Farewell Brodie Grundy

Ouch!
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

3 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

...or having one of our forwards ruck and having Gawn and/or Grundy marking outside 50 for repeat entries.

Somehow I don't think the plan is each of them plays 50% game time and they're never on the ground at the same time..

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    Grundy when fit is a very good ruckman, and he's a better kick than Gawn. Going for players like this will only solidify our chances even more for premierships in years to come.  Our forward line will be fine. TMAC back and Van Rooyen will get games in next season. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    At least if we get Grundy that will give us choice of either forward pocket to bomb it long too.

     

    You know, make us unpredictable.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 9
     
    2 hours ago, Steve13 said:

    Everyone assumes that a 2nd ruck must play fwd. we looked significantly better last year with Gawn behind the ball. Just a thought on how 2AA quality rucks could work. 

    I just can’t agree that is where footy is going. We have an amazing group of tall defenders and we want one of our ruckmen to sit with them? And where is the extra number coming from? The forward line. So that is then us playing a man short up front.

    I want to embrace this, I just don’t see the benefit outside of Gawn insurance, and I think that is such a pathetic way to spend some of the draft capital we get from the LJ trade.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    14 minutes ago, rpfc said:

    I just can’t agree that is where footy is going. We have an amazing group of tall defenders and we want one of our ruckmen to sit with them? And where is the extra number coming from? The forward line. So that is then us playing a man short up front.

    I want to embrace this, I just don’t see the benefit outside of Gawn insurance, and I think that is such a pathetic way to spend some of the draft capital we get from the LJ trade.

    It’s more about the salary cap space and the fit when both are on the field IMO than the draft picks.

    There’s no way Gawn or Grundy play in a 7 man defence. That would mean completely giving up on a forward half game.  

  • Quote
    30 minutes ago, Winter Dan said:

    Doubles our kick out options. Tough ask for opp to nulify both Gawn and Grundy targets. 

    Spoiling a mark is very easy when you know where the ball is going. No way Grundy and Gawn will be offering alternative targets.

    Did you see it with Gawn and Jackson for example

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    7 hours ago, Winter Dan said:

    Doubles our kick out options. Tough ask for opp to nulify both Gawn and Grundy targets. 

     

    6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    Spoiling a mark is very easy when you know where the ball is going. No way Grundy and Gawn will be offering alternative targets.

    Did you see it with Gawn and Jackson for example

    Yes, they will be in the same flooded pack area to try to overwhelm in the air.

    Getting excited that our Forward Pocket  (which is where a 2nd ruck spends most their time) will be competing for kick outs is baffling to me.

    If they do this, they only way it makes sense is if we now consider Gawn more of a forward than ruck. Unprecedented surely for a AA ruck to be shunted off to the forward line. And he is a terrible shot for goal. 

    I don’t understand this I’m sorry and certainly not for the mooted $700k and laughable first round pick.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    On 8/10/2022 at 11:39 AM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

    I see it more as him doing most of the ruck whilst Gawn spend more time forward

    Yes and Gawn has the capacity to kick lots of goals?

  • Quote
    On 8/11/2022 at 10:03 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

    I'm also confused by Goodwins presser yesterday.

    He stated that they have been really happy with Gawns progress in the forward line and could see this as something that could be used more often down the track.

    Checks notes and see that Gawn hasn't kicked a goal since round 12 against Sydney...

    Goody is a funny bugger. ...

    No he just looks dumb!

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
    8 hours ago, Mincho Mania said:

    Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

    Yeah, maybe this is the issue. Unfortunately, Brodie seems to have similar issues. Ultimately we all end up speculating with imperfect information in these matters.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    10 hours ago, Mincho Mania said:

    Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

    Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

    I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

    Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    14 hours ago, Steve13 said:

    Everyone assumes that a 2nd ruck must play fwd. we looked significantly better last year with Gawn behind the ball. Just a thought on how 2AA quality rucks could work. 

    This is about the best post on this thread.

    Max behind the ball frees up May, Lever and Petty significantly and brings their intercept into the game, as teams will need to avoid Max at all costs.

    It could also mean we could afford to shift Petty forward and play Turner in his place.

    If Grundy is fit, it could be a master stroke.

    Edited by A F

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

    I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

    Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon in future that it was in 2021.

    The new mantra to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

    Edited by Lucifers Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

    I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

    Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon going forward that it was in 2021.

    The new adage to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

    we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

    Edited by chook fowler

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1
    1 hour ago, old55 said:

    Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

    I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

    Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

    Yeah, it has to be the Max is nearly done. Such a shame. 

    Now we have to try and fashion a forward line with Gawn in the square. BBB can’t play with that then. We will have to stop flooding back ANB and Spargo (or the people who play their roles) so deep as Gawn can’t be up that high and run back into space. I would actually prefer to not flood so far back from the forward line so that I will like. I hope it means more leading at the footy from JVR and Fritsch INSIDE the 50.

  • Quote

    Gotta feel for Grundy, signed a long term deal and doesn't want to leave his club.  The Pies are looking after their stars on long term deals as usual!  they are not worth the paper they are written on

    Grundy will have to wait until the LJ trade gets done which will last until the last couple of days of the trade period.  So he will not know where he is playing for weeks and weeks

  • Quote
    5 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

    we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

    My theory on Bowey is he, understandably, ran our of puff and couldn't hold his ground against bigger bodies.  Geelong rag-dolled him.  He was dropped the next week. 

    If my hunch is correct he will be bulked up a bit over the preseason.

    I expect to see a bigger, stronger, better Bowey next year.

    Edited by Lucifers Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    The set up of our defence will be just as interesting as our fwd line next season in my opinion. The elephant in the room might be Jake Lever if teams continue to play against us as they did, his season while interrupted was pretty poor, not a player in the competition relies more on the team playing the way Melbourne do and holding the opposition up. We didnt do that last half of the season.. he was rendered useless at times. 

    In saying that,  i still think Grundy will be a good addition.

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, old55 said:

    Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

    I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

    Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

    I think you're right - and maybe Max also wants to prolong his career and playing with another ruckman is the only way.  With Trac and Clarry signing long term deals he prob wants to stay in the team as long as he can.

    Re the strategy though, while it makes sense, isn't this making it a little easy for the pies.  They are a rival next year (not to mention beating us twice this year).  Grundy has barely played for them - is not in their finals side or the sides that beat us twice.  By paying 70% of Grundy's salary and locking that in, it allows them to go after players that will plug holes in a side that has already overtaken us.  Geelong and Port are (reportedly) out of the race for Grundy and the pies want to move him on to sign De Goey and bring in McStay/Hill and whoever else they're chasing.  What's the rush?  If the cap is so tight for them then we hold all the leverage.

    Having said that, I feel like this is already a done deal with most of the details nutted out - it's just a matter of waiting for the pies season to finish / trade period to start to announce.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
    18 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

    we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

    Because Salem and others were 'untouchable'. One of the worst things this season was our coaching staff seemingly rewarding players down on form or hampered with injuries based on their 2021 output.

  • Quote
    • Like 8
     
    20 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

    I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

    Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon in future that it was in 2021.

    The new mantra to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

    I know that you're talking about this like it's a bad thing but I see it as the opposite. 

    We are forcing teams that are used to playing a particular way, to play a way that's different to how they want to play. If we are forcing Geelong to kick the ball away from Hawkins and Cameron then that's a win. It also means that we are forcing shallower entries and slower entries, which helps us to counterattack more easily. 

    What Max allows us to do is to troubleshoot. If we are dominating the defensive aerial contest or struggling up forward then we can swing him forward, and vice versa. Max has gravity - wherever he goes the opposition's focus will follow. By bringing in a big ruckman to bully the ruck contest it allows us to use Max to exploit his league leading asset .... his contested marking ability. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    9 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

    I know that you're talking about this like it's a bad thing but I see it as the opposite. 

    We are forcing teams that are used to playing a particular way, to play a way that's different to how they want to play. If we are forcing Geelong to kick the ball away from Hawkins and Cameron then that's a win. It also means that we are forcing shallower entries and slower entries, which helps us to counterattack more easily. 

    What Max allows us to do is to troubleshoot. If we are dominating the defensive aerial contest or struggling up forward then we can swing him forward, and vice versa. Max has gravity - wherever he goes the opposition's focus will follow. By bringing in a big ruckman to bully the ruck contest it allows us to use Max to exploit his league leading asset .... his contested marking ability. 

    I didn't see much evidence of us counter attacking from the back half. I haven't got the stats in front of me, but I recall seeing that our scores from defensive rebounds was pretty low.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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...
    Go to topic listing

    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
      • 25 replies
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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
      Demonland

    • 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?

        • Clap
      • 232 replies
      Demonland

    • 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/

        • Clap
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All