1 hour ago, SthSea22 said:

Is Grundy a better option than Hickey?

I think the media are overvaluing the Grundy post injury, looked slow and could not jump in the ruck contests

 

No more Hickey I'm afraid. 

Definitely what Sydney needs. 

5 hours ago, old55 said:

No, the reason it failed was not to do with Grundy. It was because the FD and Max thought that Max could play an effective role forward, which he couldn’t do. Grundy was there to fill the ruck hole effectively. That's it.

Yes, the shade being given to Brodie is rich considering he had NO FORWARD CRAFT before we recruited him. Goodwin and co thought Gawn was ready for his next and finals phase of his career but he wasn’t and maybe never will be - I fear Max will go out of the game in the blink of an eye and a turn of the knee and not gracefully from a forward pocket years later…

Just now, rpfc said:

Yes, the shade being given to Brodie is rich considering he had NO FORWARD CRAFT before we recruited him. Goodwin and co thought Gawn was ready for his next and finals phase of his career but he wasn’t and maybe never will be - I fear Max will go out of the game in the blink of an eye and a turn of the knee and not gracefully from a forward pocket years later…

Agreed.

Gawn did not hold up his end of the bargain. It also did not help that he got injured early, was slow to get back to full fitness, and when he played forward it was wet and windy.

I actually thought he impacted the contest up forward against Carlton, but his goal kicking is an abomination. He is just not a forward. Neither is Grundy.

Our desperate need to get a tall forward working, thanks to injuries to Tmac, BB and then Petty and then Melksham, meant that we tried to force a square peg into a round hole. 

It did not work, and having a million dollar bench player who can't do much else but ruck, is a luxury we cannot afford. 

Grundy can't play forward, but he also can't play behind the ball or take a contested mark like Gawn. Which means he can only do one thing, and that is be a first choice ruck. But is he as good a first choice ruck as Gawn? No he is not.

Having said all that, the reality is that Gawn is 32 next season. He has had a long history of knee issues. He cannot go on forever, and the irony is that if Grundy did not choose to leave, he would probably end up getting a lot more game time next year. 

34 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Agreed.

Gawn did not hold up his end of the bargain. It also did not help that he got injured early, was slow to get back to full fitness, and when he played forward it was wet and windy.

I actually thought he impacted the contest up forward against Carlton, but his goal kicking is an abomination. He is just not a forward. Neither is Grundy.

Our desperate need to get a tall forward working, thanks to injuries to Tmac, BB and then Petty and then Melksham, meant that we tried to force a square peg into a round hole. 

It did not work, and having a million dollar bench player who can't do much else but ruck, is a luxury we cannot afford. 

Grundy can't play forward, but he also can't play behind the ball or take a contested mark like Gawn. Which means he can only do one thing, and that is be a first choice ruck. But is he as good a first choice ruck as Gawn? No he is not.

Having said all that, the reality is that Gawn is 32 next season. He has had a long history of knee issues. He cannot go on forever, and the irony is that if Grundy did not choose to leave, he would probably end up getting a lot more game time next year. 

The imagery of this with respect to Gawndy had destroyed my day.

48 minutes ago, layzie said:

No more Hickey I'm afraid. 

Definitely what Sydney needs. 

That's my point

He is going to a FC who he has no competition 

10 minutes ago, SthSea22 said:

That's my point

He is going to a FC who he has no competition 

Gotchya. 

Guess we'll see if he can still cut it as a no.1. 

Gee, it seems like only a year ago we............

10 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Not just his/hers/theirs. Mine too.

yep..prob mine too. 

 

New heading? 

Farewell Brodie G?

Goodwin did say that they kept Tommy Mac in there, ‘for the bigger body’

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

She’s also going to the VFL grand final on Sunday to help the Gold Coast Suns with their banner. 🤭

So, she’s also a sucker for a sob story. (Can’t leave another banner crew in the lurch.)

Thanks for your support, THBT and @Rob Mac....... 😘

See what happens when one gets to know someone before questioning everything they say?! 

As a Melbourne supporter I would hope that trip is a tax deduction 

55 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

New heading? 

Farewell Brodie G?

Goodwin did say that they kept Tommy Mac in there, ‘for the bigger body’

The Titanic had a bigger body as well. The similarity is T Macs same turning circle!

 Off to Sydney … goodbye and well yeah just goodbye 

Let’s stay on topics folks and please refrain from personal attacks. 

So given Sydney looks like a foregone conclusion what’s realistic to expect back?

What did we pay in points value to get him?

2 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

So given Sydney looks like a foregone conclusion what’s realistic to expect back?

What did we pay in points value to get him?

I think it will be a 2nd rd pick 

4 hours ago, layzie said:

No more Hickey I'm afraid. 

Definitely what Sydney needs. 

No Hickey.

That sucks!!!!

15 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

So given Sydney looks like a foregone conclusion what’s realistic to expect back?

What did we pay in points value to get him?

The club already has a great draft hand. If it’s not a player or to pluck a player from a third party, it will be for a better draft hand. 
 

My gut feel is the club will be looking for a future pick to satisfy GC with an upgrade to grab pick 4 this draft. 

Maybe goody will try Goldstein 😂

Just now, dees189227 said:

Maybe goody will try Goldstein 😂

gawstein 2024; make it happen, you cowards

1 hour ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

No Hickey.

That sucks!!!!

I'd prefer no Hickey just quietly.

6 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Agreed.

Gawn did not hold up his end of the bargain. It also did not help that he got injured early, was slow to get back to full fitness, and when he played forward it was wet and windy.

I actually thought he impacted the contest up forward against Carlton, but his goal kicking is an abomination. He is just not a forward. Neither is Grundy.

Our desperate need to get a tall forward working, thanks to injuries to Tmac, BB and then Petty and then Melksham, meant that we tried to force a square peg into a round hole. 

It did not work, and having a million dollar bench player who can't do much else but ruck, is a luxury we cannot afford. 

Grundy can't play forward, but he also can't play behind the ball or take a contested mark like Gawn. Which means he can only do one thing, and that is be a first choice ruck. But is he as good a first choice ruck as Gawn? No he is not.

Having said all that, the reality is that Gawn is 32 next season. He has had a long history of knee issues. He cannot go on forever, and the irony is that if Grundy did not choose to leave, he would probably end up getting a lot more game time next year. 

Yes. In reality, Grundy is just a really tall midfielder. 

2 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Yes. In reality, Grundy is just a really tall midfielder. 

and a really, really good one

unfortunately, doesn't suit our structure

My only interest is what we can get from the Swans in exchange. 

10 minutes ago, old dee said:

My only interest is what we can get from the Swans in exchange. 

You should hope Tony Sheahan was right, he said 11. Maybe more to the deal,  but getting 11 would be sensational for us. It is sounding like a deal that was done a while ago, as Sheahan suggested.