Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
23 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Are you a lawyer?

Relating to another human being is a totally different comparison from a Club.

As for others re the new binary that’s nothing to do with we or they as part of a group. 

You obviously are part of a group if you call yourselves a THEY  it a Dees supporter is a WE. It doesn’t matter about sub groups. 

MFC has differing sub groups ie Board Coterie Football Dept 
Members fans but we are all supporters. The team is not a they like we   are not a they as we belong to the MFC all of us. 

I am not a lawyer nor a wordsmith just a proud Demon supporter of 66 years that is part of our club and involved so a WE fits perfectly. 

But if you don’t like my  opinion and prefer to be a THEY so be it. 

BTW We are all Australians who are nationalised THEY are NOT  who ain’t. 
Pretty simple isn’t it You either belong or you don’t. 

Try to think about it Am I  a Demon supporter ? YES then I am a WE That’s the  bonding not whether I am. Cotorie Army or member or fan. 

The THEY are other  teams club  members or AFL staff or filth trajics. NOT the Melb team who might miss a certain player if he is injured. 

OUR team will miss him. WE will miss  him.

Some of  you will get it but others will be stubborn and try an alternative view that does not fit the we or they terminology or category. 


 

 

 

 

On 21/04/2024 at 06:49, IRW said:

The Melbourne Football Club .

Conflating the Team with its supporters is like sixteen year old girls dressing up as Taylor Swift 

 

 

 

On 21/04/2024 at 12:09, leave it to deever said:

Are you a lawyer?

or maybe a 15 yo girl waiting to be 16 Taytay lookalike?

 
1 hour ago, 58er said:

Relating to another human being is a totally different comparison from a Club.

As for others re the new binary that’s nothing to do with we or they as part of a group. 

You obviously are part of a group if you call yourselves a THEY  it a Dees supporter is a WE. It doesn’t matter about sub groups. 

MFC has differing sub groups ie Board Coterie Football Dept 
Members fans but we are all supporters. The team is not a they like we   are not a they as we belong to the MFC all of us. 

I am not a lawyer nor a wordsmith just a proud Demon supporter of 66 years that is part of our club and involved so a WE fits perfectly. 

But if you don’t like my  opinion and prefer to be a THEY so be it. 

BTW We are all Australians who are nationalised THEY are NOT  who ain’t. 
Pretty simple isn’t it You either belong or you don’t. 

Try to think about it Am I  a Demon supporter ? YES then I am a WE That’s the  bonding not whether I am. Cotorie Army or member or fan. 

The THEY are other  teams club  members or AFL staff or filth trajics. NOT the Melb team who might miss a certain player if he is injured. 

OUR team will miss him. WE will miss  him.

Some of  you will get it but others will be stubborn and try an alternative view that does not fit the we or they terminology or category. 


 

 

 

 

What?


2 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

or maybe a 15 yo girl waiting to be 16 Taytay lookalike?

No I'm an overweight 75 year old wadling around in a MFC jumper with number 6 on the back.

This is pathetic and I expected better from you

Hoping for a solid supporting effort from petty, JVR to kick his highest tally yet and petty to chip in with a couple. Some good blocks and forward line cohesion would be great 

 

Either plays back and a direct swap for T. Mac going forward or back to Casey Woeful last night!


38 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Either plays back and a direct swap for T. Mac going forward or back to Casey Woeful last night!

That looks the way to go, swap with T Mac.

He is either still injured, horribly out of form, or simply not a natural key forward, despite some good efforts there.

Petty has played his best footy down back and Tom certainly has forward craft.

56 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Thanks Captain Obvious Jenkins.

Play him down back or play him at Casey. We are not good enough to carry a player who is a net negative. 

chaplin in the pre-game interview was clear - he's a forward

they love his ability to get to contests and at a minimum get the ball to ground

i don't think he's at risk of being dropped, and as long as he's not injured he'll remain in our starting 22

I've listened to Jenkins a few times on SEN. Loves to make controversial comments. I think he's a Kane Cornes wannabe but doesn't possess Cornes understanding of the game. wouldn't pay too much attention to him.

On 22/04/2024 at 17:50, leave it to deever said:

I'm backing Petts for a big one against the tigers.

Perhaps against the Cats.


21 minutes ago, BDA said:

I've listened to Jenkins a few times on SEN. Loves to make controversial comments. I think he's a Kane Cornes wannabe but doesn't possess Cornes understanding of the game. wouldn't pay too much attention to him.

Based off his season so far he isn't wrong.

49 minutes ago, JJJ said:

Thanks Captain Obvious Jenkins.

Play him down back or play him at Casey. We are not good enough to carry a player who is a net negative. 

Even assuming your assessment is accurate (which it's not), we were last night.

Edited by Queanbeyan Demon

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Even assuming your assessment is accurate, we were last night.

It is accurate. We have less depth than last year and against the Cats and Blues over the next fortnight and other contenders later in the year we can’t carry players. Couldn’t care less about teams like the Tigers. 

The window for us is closing so we need to make every post a winner.

8 minutes ago, inanunda said:

Based off his season so far he isn't wrong.

And based on Petty's output in the forward line last year he is wrong.

He's coming off a 6 month injury, I think judgement needs to be held until the mid way point of the season 


1 hour ago, Redleg said:

That looks the way to go, swap with T Mac.

He is either still injured, horribly out of form, or simply not a natural key forward, despite some good efforts there.

Petty has played his best footy down back and Tom certainly has forward craft.

Tom still can’t change directions or get off the ground. The moment you throw him forward he’ll turn back in to a witches hat. A few errant kicks aside he’s playing well down back. Why move a player in form who hasn’t been good forward since early 2021?

Petty:
Hawthorn: 9 marks, straightened us up
Port: played a role forward in the second half
Adel: 1.3 

He looked every bit a forward until whatever happens when he plays Brisbane. And whatever happened to the rest of the side too.

Even last night, took 3 marks, dropped at least 3 more simple ones. Confidence isn’t great but otherwise putting in the effort, his pressure and chasing makes a big difference and allows us to get the zone right.

Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and back him in. I see nothing but a player who’s lost some touch and confidence. 

By the way, they same issues are hampering him when he’s been down back the last 2 years. 

A but of continuity, sports psychology and some better ball use and he’ll be back marking everything at CHF

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Jenkins wouldn’t know what a key forward is if he tripped over one.

The man loved a handball in to the open goal so much he makes Fritsch look honest. 

 

Looks well out of touch fort he game at the moment.  I think we brought him in too early. More games at Casey to get his mojo back. 


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.

      • Like
    • 197 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? 

    • 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?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 517 replies