Jump to content

Featured Replies

13 minutes ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Just off the top of my head

Bulldogs in 2016 only had Boyd

Hawks 2015  only had Roughhead.

HF: Jack Macrae, Zaine Cordy, Jake Stringer
F: Tory Dickson, Tom Boyd, Clay Smith
Fol: Jordan Roughead, Luke Dahlhaus, Tom Liberatore
Int: Toby McLean, Fletcher Roberts, Josh Dunkley, Caleb Daniel

Dogs had Boyd and Cordy and Stringer 192 cms and Dunkley 190 cms.

HF: Cyril Rioli, Ryan Schoenmakers, Isaac Smith
F: Luke Breust, Jarryd Roughead, Paul Puopolo
Foll: Ben McEvoy, Luke Hodge, Jordan Lewis
I/C: Matt Suckling, Taylor Duryea, David Hale, Jack Gunston

Hawks had Roughead, Schoenmakers, Gunston and Hale in their forward line.

BTW they also had some pretty good small forwards.

 
4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

HF: Jack Macrae, Zaine Cordy, Jake Stringer
F: Tory Dickson, Tom Boyd, Clay Smith
Fol: Jordan Roughead, Luke Dahlhaus, Tom Liberatore
Int: Toby McLean, Fletcher Roberts, Josh Dunkley, Caleb Daniel

Dogs had Boyd and Cordy and Stringer 192 cms and Dunkley 190 cms.

HF: Cyril Rioli, Ryan Schoenmakers, Isaac Smith
F: Luke Breust, Jarryd Roughead, Paul Puopolo
Foll: Ben McEvoy, Luke Hodge, Jordan Lewis
I/C: Matt Suckling, Taylor Duryea, David Hale, Jack Gunston

Hawks had Roughead, Schoenmakers, Gunston and Hale in their forward line.

BTW they also had some pretty good small forwards.

You'd probably take either of them right now.

23 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Can you name the last Premier who didn't have at least 2 reasonable tall key forwards.

Richmond 2017 only had Jack Riewoldt, and he's only 195cm. Lynch arrived the following year.

 
20 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Richmond 2017 only had Jack Riewoldt, and he's only 195cm. Lynch arrived the following year.

Yep you got me, that seems to be the outlier. They only played one ruckman as well.

 

Edited by Redleg

46 minutes ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Just off the top of my head

Bulldogs in 2016 only had Boyd

Hawks 2015  only had Roughhead.

Richmond before Lynch?


Who’s Fletcher Roberts?

As to whether any KPF wants to come to our club, it's not so much whether they see the club as a destination but more so if they're available and at what price?

For the player himself and the club that currently has possession of that player

As an example, would we entertain the thought of trading Ben Brown or T-Mac? (or both) I doubt it, even though both players are injury prone and are entering their 30's

We're looking for add-ons, better versions or replacements you'd reckon.  The draft means a fair wait ... sometimes at least 3 years.  Or we trade and almost certainly pay overs

That's the market and it's why Hogan just got recontracted (good on him) These players are in demand

We've got our fingers crossed with JVR but we need at least 1 more KPF to fill the ranks.  Same goes for ruckmen but we'll need at least 2 with the departure of Majak and with Jackson (?) being on the move

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

HF: Jack Macrae, Zaine Cordy, Jake Stringer
F: Tory Dickson, Tom Boyd, Clay Smith
Fol: Jordan Roughead, Luke Dahlhaus, Tom Liberatore
Int: Toby McLean, Fletcher Roberts, Josh Dunkley, Caleb Daniel

Dogs had Boyd and Cordy and Stringer 192 cms and Dunkley 190 cms.

HF: Cyril Rioli, Ryan Schoenmakers, Isaac Smith
F: Luke Breust, Jarryd Roughead, Paul Puopolo
Foll: Ben McEvoy, Luke Hodge, Jordan Lewis
I/C: Matt Suckling, Taylor Duryea, David Hale, Jack Gunston

Hawks had Roughead, Schoenmakers, Gunston and Hale in their forward line.

BTW they also had some pretty good small forwards.

Out of all the names mentioned in those two teams I consider Roughhead the only genuine KPF on those lists.
 

 
39 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Who’s Fletcher Roberts?

An AFL Premiership player.


1 hour ago, JimmyGadson said:

Great key forwards obviously help. Obviously. 

But we're a hybrid model. And if we're going to continue playing Brown, T Mac and Gawn then we need to change our smalls up. Simple as that. More dynamic players with real forward craft and an ability to kick goals.

 

Yes, I think great tall forwards are a luxury in todays game. Although 6-6-6 is changing that to some degree; they are dependent roles. Dependent on quick ball movement, kicks to ever decreasing space, and dependent on having teammates worth playing on otherwise you be double teamed and rendered ineffectual. 

The hybrid model is an interesting name for it; it’s just one less tall replaced for a medium player who can hit up and hit people up while also not being a problem when we are defending the ground. Melksham is a limited player in his last season most likely but has made a difference because he knows where to be and is a smart operator when given a negating role.

I think we have to freshen up that forward line a little next year and give it back a point of difference. It’s trying to be all things I feel - talls for slow play, a small distributor, a small speedy pressure player, a defensive run with midfield adjunct to help Petracca, etc. 

This is all eye of the beholder but I would de-emphasise talls for slow play, have Brown deeper, layer on help for Kozzie in the pressure department, and partner Fritsch with another lead up player to catch the eye of our mids. So this assumes we move it quickly and less to pockets and will put us more at risk of turnover and slingshot but we have a stable of Rolls Royce’s in the midfield - let’s see some revs. And I am assuming the bench is a flat 5 for the resting ruck to spend some time on the bench.

So moving Melksham, ANB, and some of the resting rucks time to accomodate the above. I would put ANB on the wing.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Can you name the last Premier who didn't have at least 2 reasonable tall key forwards.

 

2 hours ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Just off the top of my head

Bulldogs in 2016 only had Boyd

Hawks 2015  only had Roughhead.

And Richmond 2017 - only J.Riewoldt

It's probably our colours, understandably they all want to go to Hawthorn and Gold Coast.

18 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Would we take Max King ... Hard to say yes with his poor kick, it's worse than our own Max 

How about Ben King from the suns? He has fantastic upside.    A Jackson pick should get it done. 


14 minutes ago, Razor said:

How about Ben King from the suns? He has fantastic upside.    A Jackson pick should get it done. 

It would take all of what we get for Dogga to even have a chance of prying BK away from GC

Memo to Goodwin- for god sake, find a key forward that can mark. 💩Weid 🤡Brown are not the answer. And Mids who can setup a kick to a forward!!! 

14 hours ago, Jontee said:

Max King is straight out of a Shakespearian Tragedy.  Still kicked 40+ goals though.

(if you want your son to be a good kick dont name them Max)

*Shankspearian Tragedy.

Realistically we cannot plan or depend on anything involving TMcD in 2022, which means we will have to make do with one flimsy tall and Frittata and or Melksham unless they choose to grit the teeth and throw in Joel Smith (if fitness allows) or, less likely, JVR. 

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Realistically we cannot plan or depend on anything involving TMcD in 2022, which means we will have to make do with one flimsy tall and Frittata and or Melksham unless they choose to grit the teeth and throw in Joel Smith (if fitness allows) or, less likely, JVR. 

JVR is not ready from what I have watched of him. He definitely has a competitive spirit in him but his physique is not AFL ready yet. That would be brutally exposed in a finals intensity game. 

He actually looks quite short as well, I’m not convinced he can be a KPF. Definitely a general forward, but he may need to play more of a roaming HF / wing type role IMV. 
 

Need one desperately and you’d hope we can pry someone in this years trade period. 


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?

      • Clap
      • Haha
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 38 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.

      • Like
    • 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.

      • Vomit
      • 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.

    • 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? 

      • Haha
    • 4 replies