Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 minute ago, Sydney_Demon said:

At this stage, all that Melbourne has done is rest Grundy for a week (Casey have the bye) and boosted our forward line (JVR to ruck up forward). Far too early to read anything into it long-term, but I guess that's what journalists are paid to do. In particular I don't listen to anything Damian Barrett says ever.

Agreed. It may just be a tactical change for Brisbane. We may see a Gawn + Grundy tage team against other opponents. 

Also, Gawn will retire before Grundy. Grundy may well be prudent succession planning for the ruck stocks.

 

Grundy has been at least as good as Gawn, he impacted last week but to be honest looked out of form, fumbling a fair bit and dropping marks. I hope this is a rest. 

When playing for Casey, I hope they play Brodie as a forward. Let the young rucks develop as rucks and Grundy develop as a forward

 
16 minutes ago, adonski said:

Grundy to Norf to coincide with Goldy's retirement. A good kulcha setter for Norf, too.

Lobb to the Dees for cents on the dollar.

 

A decent example to start the thinking.. I thought Lobb said on leaving the West he didn't want to ruck

On 9/13/2022 at 6:42 PM, rpfc said:

Yes, this fascination to make our AA ruckman a forward is lost on me, I can understand him training his replacement but Grundy is only a year younger. We should either target a young developing ruckman who can also get better as a target or a forward who can ruck. 

I don’t understand investing in another established ruckman in their last 4 years of AFL footy.

Why don’t you say this before the trade then?

Oh wait…

Apologies, you prescient handsome devil.


Stupid me thought we would occasionally use them both as part of the kick out strategy with one either side or similar but we didn't even try that.

You're not going to develope forward craft all of a sudden at 29 years of age at VFL level.

I was always against the move from the start and was worried we'd get to this point where it simply hasn't worked and we have to leave one out to get team balance right.

I must admit, I have felt Brodie's ruck work and follow up at ground level was much better then Gawns. I know they can't drop a captain but I had to pick between the two on form then I'm picking Grundy.

Intrigued to see how we'll go tonight. Only takes Gawn to go down and then we're left with JVR as our main ruckman.

Grundy has given us what I expected this year. Last week, he dropped a few easy marks he should have gobbled up and he was not moving as well as earlier in the season.

The issue with playing two ruckmen we have is that Gawn is no longer playing like an elite AFL player. We can play both if he gets his form back and starts dominating the air. I am also not convinced Gawn, Grundy and Brown works because it makes us too slow.

 
21 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Why don’t you say this before the trade then?

Oh wait…

Apologies, you prescient handsome devil.

Do you hold scheduled meetings...or just ad lib between yourselves......    asking for a friend....

19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Stupid me thought we would occasionally use them both as part of the kick out strategy with one either side or similar but we didn't even try that.

I think we did in some of the praccies...   it was just to oobvious a ploy not to try I would have thought...silly us eh...


28 minutes ago, adonski said:

Grundy to Norf to coincide with Goldy's retirement. A good kulcha setter for Norf, too.

Lobb to the Dees for cents on the dollar.

 

Why would we want Rory Lobb? He turned 30 in February this yearand has failed as a forward. Grundy hasn't worked as a forward option this year but he's still a high level ruck (unlike Lobb) and is 14 months younger. 

22 minutes ago, No. 31 said:

Also, Gawn will retire before Grundy. Grundy may well be prudent succession planning for the ruck stocks.

Definitely that's partly why we brought Grundy in. He's 2 yrs 4 mths younger than Max. Who knows how much longer Max will be playing for?

11 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

When playing for Casey, I hope they play Brodie as a forward. Let the young rucks develop as rucks and Grundy develop as a forward

Disagree. Grundy hasn't worked as a forward for us so far. He probably hasn't been demoted long-term and when he plays for Melbourne again it will be combined ruck/forward so he needs to keep doing both. Also, Casey have both Schache & Jefferson up forward and it's particularly important that they keep developing (especially Jefferson). Scache is not far away from senior selection IMO. Casey aren't playing this week and Grundy may not even get to play for them! 

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Do you hold scheduled meetings...or just ad lib between yourselves......    asking for a friend....

Look I won’t lie; my present self and my past self have a pretty strained relationship. 

Wherever I enter a room he immediately leaves, and it’s probably best that way.

38 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Stupid me thought we would occasionally use them both as part of the kick out strategy with one either side or similar but we didn't even try that.

My thoughts exactly 

I'm hoping they set Grundy up against Tomlinson and Turner (if fit) in a fair session over the weekend. They don't need to teach him leading patterns, but body positioning. Our rucks should really be leading up forward, but making sure they are crashing packs and not getting out marked, which I think Grundy gets too often as he hasn't played a heap forward and it's a different kick than what you get around the ground. 

If it works, they could potentially give Gawn a week off as well to do the same (say against Nth), then have 3 weeks to get the 2 of them back in the team together. Gawn is a better lead to the kick than Grundy but that doesn't mean they can't both be effective forward targets, which means more time on ground for both giving the rest time to the explosive mids.  


Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. Two AA ruckmen has proven to be one too many in any team.

As for their forward craft, neither are convincing. It makes if worse when both are in the forward line contesting for marks with JVR or BBB. Unless Grundy can show that he is able to fill a tomahawk style role (take marks, kick the occasional goal, contest ruck contest in the forward line) he might be redundant.

Not too late to rejig our ruck and forward strategy. One dominant ruckman around the ground and a selection of contesting ruckmen in the forward line (eg JVR, BBB) to prevent the oppos getting easy access.

If Maxie needs a rest, JVR has shown that he can compete as well as take marks. Let it rip.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Why don’t you say this before the trade then?

Oh wait…

Apologies, you prescient handsome devil.

Yeah look, I had this exact same feeling around trade time as well.

We're spending 650k on a ruckman to learn forward craft at VFL. 

Even if we couldn't get a forward at the time I too would have preferred to get a young back up ruckman and save the 650k for extra cap space to go hard for a Ben King or even Aaron Naughton.

Anyway, it is what it is.

 

It will definitely be interesting to see how many minutes Brodie plays forward for Casey and how many minutes he rucks.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Do you hold scheduled meetings...or just ad lib between yourselves......    asking for a friend....

You could say that friend is your other self amirite! 

22 minutes ago, old55 said:

It will definitely be interesting to see how many minutes Brodie plays forward for Casey and how many minutes he rucks.

He shouldn’t take any ruck contests outside of the forwardline. What’s the point then? We know he will dominate the ruck at Casey. I don’t need an AA ruckman getting ruck practice against low quality rucks. He can practice ruck craft at training with Gawn. 
He has to play forward for the whole game or this whole exercise will be pointless. 

If anything I’d be working hard on getting Schache to do more rucking. It’s the only way he is getting a regular senior game. 

Edited by Jaded No More


40 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

very disappointing

when it's worked it's been good

why he wasn't 'managed' for the super wet games i don't know

Couldn’t agree more. The absolute frustration for me is that they played them both in games against Geelong & GWS that were played in really wet, slippery conditions that Max was never going to take a mark, and he didn’t, yet tonight which is perfectly dry, they pull the trigger. 
Brodie’s style of ruck play is much more suited to wet/slippery conditions, but they didn’t have the courage to make the right call which would’ve been to manage Max, or make him the sub, in case of an early injury to Brodie. 
The original plan was for Brodie to play predominantly on-ball and Max play predominantly up forward, but as no surprise to knowledgeable supporters, the Club and Max has belatedly realised that Max isn’t a 65% forward. 
It is also just as certain that Brodie hasn’t been, and will never be an impact part game forward. 

Max’s body language has appeared to be a little dispirited lately, really looking forward to seeing how he responds in a lot of different ways tonight  

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

You're not going to develope forward craft all of a sudden at 29 years of age at VFL level.

I was always against the move from the start and was worried we'd get to this point where it simply hasn't worked and we have to leave one out to get team balance right.

I must admit, I have felt Brodie's ruck work and follow up at ground level was much better then Gawns. I know they can't drop a captain but I had to pick between the two on form then I'm picking Grundy.

Intrigued to see how we'll go tonight. Only takes Gawn to go down and then we're left with JVR as our main ruckman.

Port dropped their captain. 

2 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

Grundy has been at least as good as Gawn, he impacted last week but to be honest looked out of form, fumbling a fair bit and dropping marks. I hope this is a rest. 

Maybe, given that Casey ain’t playing, this is a rest and just maybe Max will get a rest in coming weeks depending on match ups. 

2 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

When playing for Casey, I hope they play Brodie as a forward. Let the young rucks develop as rucks and Grundy develop as a forward

 

41 minutes ago, old55 said:

It will definitely be interesting to see how many minutes Brodie plays forward for Casey and how many minutes he rucks.

I can tell you now - zero minutes as a forward, a ruckman or as a water boy   
Thanks to the bloody VFL specialty bye but coming our way AFL thanks to Gil and his Tasmanian obsession. 

Edited by monoccular

 
6 minutes ago, ANG13 said:

Port dropped their captain. 

The Port Captain doesn’t quite have the credibility of Max, in fact, he doesn’t have the credibility of any AFL captain. 

Dropping Grundy to work on his forward craft at Casey WHEN THE VFL HAS A BYE is the epitome of stupidity and sums up our selection committee this year.

I don't think the Gawn and Grundy partnership has been great, but we've also not played to either of their strengths. Grundy has been better than Gawn this year. It's Gawn who's had a big drop off in form and probably needs a spell. He's been ineffective both up forward and in the ruck, where as Grundy has been decent in the ruck.

Our midfield has performed better when Grundy has been around the ball too with our contested numbers being the best we've seen since our 2021 peak. That tells me we need to find a different role for Max, not Grundy. Why they haven't tried other tactics with the pair such as one front half one back half, Gawn ruck Grundy mid, or Max behind ball and smaller forward line etc is beyond me. It appears we've wasted the year to experiment and now we're just going to hope for the best come finals time. But hey what do I know!

Edited by Lord Travis


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

  • 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.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 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.

      • Like
    • 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.

      • 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? 

      • Like
    • 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?

      • Like
    • 528 replies