I’m still nervous. Why help the Pies with their issue. It might work out but I’m cautious, anxious you know why! 
 
Dawes

Lamumba 

our wins from trades with the pies seem to be to help their problems not necessarily our solutions. 

 

 

I have a feeling we will all find out Tuesday on the Gus, Gawn & Grundy podcast. 😈

8 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still nervous. Why help the Pies with their issue. It might work out but I’m cautious, anxious you know why! 
 
Dawes

Lamumba 

our wins from trades with the pies seem to be to help their problems not necessarily our solutions. 

 

 

Past trades are not relevant. We should make a decision based on the merits of this potential trade.
I think Grundy can play an important role for us but the price needs to be right. I think a first rounder is overs and don’t want too much salary tied up in the deal. Our recruiting has been good recently so I trust them to make the right call 

 

13 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still nervous. Why help the Pies with their issue. It might work out but I’m cautious, anxious you know why! 
 
Dawes

Lamumba 

our wins from trades with the pies seem to be to help their problems not necessarily our solutions. 

 

 

Wayne Gordon (RIP), Henry Coles were about the only 2 ex Collingwood players who arrived at Melbourne who did us proud. Dawes and Lumumba tried their butts off, but Dawes was simply a one-dimensional footballer, Lumumba's attention drifted elsewhere.

You can add Phil Carman to the list of ex Colly Wobbler duds. Long may the Colly Wobbler curse span tonight.

4 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Wayne Gordon (RIP), Henry Coles were about the only 2 ex Collingwood players who arrived at Melbourne who did us proud. Dawes and Lumumba tried their butts off, but Dawes was simply a one-dimensional footballer, Lumumba's attention drifted elsewhere.

You can add Phil Carman to the list of ex Colly Wobbler duds. Long may the Colly Wobbler curse span tonight.

Add in Ben Kennedy ❌

Demons kick it to the forward left pocket must change for next season.

If you let Brown and co lead to left pocket, and Max or Grundy stand in the goal square with Kossie at their feet, if they don’t mark in a one on one Kossie can crumb it or defend it!  Fritsch could lead to the right in a one on one if he doesn’t mark is good on the ground and his tackling has improved re keeping ball in forward half.

Some quick ball movement into this structure would test defences! Gives us a three pronged attack!

1 hour ago, Demonsone said:

Understand getting a back up ruckman but our fwd50 issues want be solved by Grundy & Tmac foot issues have flared up again.

Getting Grundy clearly doesn’t mean we aren’t chasing key forwards as well.

.

Edited September 17, 20222 yr by Redleg

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Getting Grundy clearly doesn’t mean we aren’t chasing key forwards as well.

Or instead of.

1 hour ago, buck_nekkid said:

Look at the cats last night. Stanley dropped back after the centre tap and B iclivs roamed forward.  Seemed to work for the cats.  Perhaps max back, grunted forward/ around the ground?

Sounds great, where can we get a Blicavs? A capable back up ruck who predominantly plays as an on baller due to his elite fitness and mobility.

Oh crap, that’s Jackson, who were losing and sure isn’t Grundy. 

43 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Wayne Gordon (RIP), Henry Coles were about the only 2 ex Collingwood players who arrived at Melbourne who did us proud. Dawes and Lumumba tried their butts off, but Dawes was simply a one-dimensional footballer, Lumumba's attention drifted elsewhere.

You can add Phil Carman to the list of ex Colly Wobbler duds. Long may the Colly Wobbler curse span tonight.

And John Dellamarta 

Most of the Collingwood players we got were players which they did not need and unlikely to ever be All Australians past or future unlike Grundy.

Grundy is virtually a clone of Jackson but much older, provided the club does a check on his fitness and injury he should be good for at least 4-5 years.

Not that past trades matter at all, but Peter Moore.

2 minutes ago, A F said:

Not that past trades matter at all, but Peter Moore.

Dannie Seow, Paul Ridley & Robert Pyman

47 minutes ago, durango said:

Most of the Collingwood players we got were players which they did not need and unlikely to ever be All Australians past or future unlike Grundy.

Grundy is virtually a clone of Jackson but much older, provided the club does a check on his fitness and injury he should be good for at least 4-5 years.

Grundy is under contract, and the Pies want him gone. That's the definition of a player they do not need.

And Grundy is nothing like Jackson. Jackson can sprint forward of the contest, which is something that Grundy cannot. Under Buckley, it was easy for Grundy to accumulate possessions. The only thing they have in common is that neither are good contested marks.

6 minutes ago, 2021 Premiers said:

Dannie Seow, Paul Ridley & Robert Pyman

I forgot Steven Pitt. I still think he should have been a late inclusion in the 2000 GF instead of Ben Beams.

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still nervous. It might work out but I’m cautious, anxious you know why! 
 
Dawes

Lamumba 

our wins from trades with the pies seem to be to help their problems not necessarily our solutions. 

You could list 100 chronological events of the past and they would mean precisely nothing when evaluating this potential trade.  It's a non sequitur argument.

There are legitimate reasons why some aren't sure of a Grundy trade; Lumumba, et al, isn't one of them.

As for the trade ?  I'm open-minded.  

The idea that the competition's best core midfield is serviced by multiple AA calibre ruckman for 100% of game-time is somewhat compelling.  In and of itself it's a tremendous advantage going into any game.

But how would it work ?  For the longevity of both players, as well as integrating a workable system, I suspect you'd look to play both for approx. 75% game-time.  It feels like Grundy would be the main ruck and perhaps play 60% ruck with Max at 40%.

If both are playing 75% game-time then they're on the ground for roughly 90 of 120 minutes, i.e. Grundy 54 minutes as main ruck and Gawn 36 minutes.

This would then leave Grundy with 36 minutes not in the main ruck position and Gawn with 54.  

Btw, this isn't meant to be a precise exercise and their time on ground together would be staggered across 120 minutes.

Under the above scenario Gawn has approx. 13.5 minutes per quarter of game-time where he's either in the forward half or behind the ball - just under half a quarter while he's not the main ruckman.  The corresponding time for Grundy is 9 minutes per quarter.

Is it workable ?  Can either hit the scoreboard enough to concern the opposition ?  Or are they a liability while they're not the main ruck ?

What other tactics does Goodwin have in mind ?

For me it's workable IF the forward-line is potent without either player's presence up forward.  If the connection is much better, if McDonald gets back to his best, if van Rooyen is somewhat of a revelation, if a key forward trade target comes to fruition, or if Brown returns to form (I have dounts).  One expects more of the same from Fritsch and Pickett.  But general ball movement from defence to the F50 needs to improve a heap.  It can.

There are pros and cons for me, and I fully understand the skepticism, but I also see a pretty exciting upside.  Imagine it worked while we're in our flag window.  Some times you have to take a risk.

*I'm assuming both Grundy and Gawn have no ongoing injury concerns.  They're both in their prime as ruckman.  Many rucks play to 34-35 years of age.

Plenty of smart people can't see it working, plenty of smart people can and plenty have an open-mind.

I'm choosing today to be totally closed minded. I think this is a crap idea. 2 square pegs and 1 round hole. You're all nuts for thinking this is a good idea and you would all be the worst list managers in the world. 

Stay tuned for the open minded version.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Getting Grundy clearly doesn’t mean we aren’t chasing key forwards as well.

Pretty much. Means in terms of having a tilt at next year we'll be working with what we've got most likely. 

I take a little comfort from Collingwood though in that they had this issue last year and badly needed a key forward but they've re-worked it in a way with little personnel change. 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

You could list 100 chronological events of the past and they would mean precisely nothing when evaluating this potential trade.  It's a non sequitur argument.

There are legitimate reasons why some aren't sure of a Grundy trade; Lumumba, et al, isn't one of them.

As for the trade ?  I'm open-minded.  

The idea that the competition's best core midfield is serviced by multiple AA calibre ruckman for 100% of game-time is somewhat compelling.  In and of itself it's a tremendous advantage going into any game.

But how would it work ?  For the longevity of both players, as well as integrating a workable system, I suspect you'd look to play both for approx. 75% game-time.  It feels like Grundy would be the main ruck and perhaps play 60% ruck with Max at 40%.

If both are playing 75% game-time then they're on the ground for roughly 90 of 120 minutes, i.e. Grundy 54 minutes as main ruck and Gawn 36 minutes.

This would then leave Grundy with 36 minutes not in the main ruck position and Gawn with 54.  

Btw, this isn't meant to be a precise exercise and their time on ground together would be staggered across 120 minutes.

Under the above scenario Gawn has approx. 13.5 minutes per quarter of game-time where he's either in the forward half or behind the ball - just under half a quarter while he's not the main ruckman.  The corresponding time for Grundy is 9 minutes per quarter.

Is it workable ?  Can either hit the scoreboard enough to concern the opposition ?  Or are they a liability while they're not the main ruck ?

What other tactics does Goodwin have in mind ?

For me it's workable IF the forward-line is potent without either player's presence up forward.  If the connection is much better, if McDonald gets back to his best, if van Rooyen is somewhat of a revelation, if a key forward trade target comes to fruition, or if Brown returns to form (I have dounts).  One expects more of the same from Fritsch and Pickett.  But general ball movement from defence to the F50 needs to improve a heap.  It can.

There are pros and cons for me, and I fully understand the skepticism, but I also see a pretty exciting upside.  Imagine it worked while we're in our flag window.  Some times you have to take a risk.

*I'm assuming both Grundy and Gawn have no ongoing injury concerns.  They're both in their prime as ruckman.  Many rucks play to 34-35 years of age.

Plenty of smart people can't see it working, plenty of smart people can and plenty have an open-mind.

You need to post more.

Agreed, that was a great post @Hannibal Inc..

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Plenty of smart people can't see it working, plenty of smart people can and plenty have an open-mind.

I am not a smart person but am definitely jumping sides on a daily occurrence aha

Maybe we should ask Clarry, Tracc, Viney, etc in the middle and maybe Kozzie and Spargo in the forward 50, if they would be happy with Grundy rucking for them.

9 hours ago, Skuit said:

Like almost the rest of the AFL watching and commentating world I've been confused by Grundy as a trade target as well. But regardless of where they specifically lined up, the Gawn-Jackson combination delivered us a flag in 2021. Maybe the forward craft isn't as important to Goody and the footy department as having two fresh rucks available at their disposal?

Neither Grundy nor Jackson contribute all that much in terms of around-the-ground contested marking, but Grundy is noted as a follow-up specialist at ground level post-tap - exactly what Jackson excelled at - except Grundy is still probably better.

People speak of Jackson's influence in the third quarter of the grand final. Max wasn't at full forward at the time. It was a change out and fresh legs. Grundy is currently a much better player than Jackson by almost any objective measure - who cares where he and Max line up and fit in together? And who knows what influence fresh legs have in the middle? 

Honestly, I don't even know where Jackson was playing most of the time. I want to see more flags in the next five years. Having a ruck like Grundy on board will help with that, and his cost is the same as what it would have been to retain Jackson. 

I don’t mind having Grundy in the 22 at all. I am just worried about his injury. He hasn’t played a game since Anzac Day. 
Why is he going to be ready to play Senior Footy by Round 1.

We have heard nothing 

Huge Risk for 5 years 

1 hour ago, A F said:

You need to post more.

Our problem wasn't the rucks, which by the way seem less important in modern footy, its our seeming inability to kick gettable goals form our large number of inside fifties. We are way to defensive and  teams like Collingwood just push through usz>

Please address this in the off season

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

I forgot Steven Pitt. I still think he should have been a late inclusion in the 2000 GF instead of Ben Beams.

Played that great game against North in Rd 2 from memory? At least he helped Sandy to the flag that year.