Jump to content

Featured Replies

9 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Just waiting for the re-signing interview to drop now where Petts says he never seriously considered leaving. 

Rumour is it’s potentially to 2028-29 — let’s hope it is as he’s shown now that he now comfortable again on the leaping-foot & that’s HUGE! Anyone still not convinced he’s a fwd is absolutely kidding themselves (yes, he’s also a defender, but my point remains — he’s also a fwd & right now that’s where he’ll be until something major changes in personnel. I do like fact that Rooch backed it up later with specifics by stating he’d heard it from two crows recruiters which does paint a narrative you can imagine ie call comes & clubs recruitment team was flat..
 

The worst parts about him leaving was that we’d lost our obvious May replacement in 2-3yrs but if he keeps the dukes firing like Sat night we MAY have lost him as The replacement anyways (pun may or may not of been intended, I can’t actually remember) — I know things change fast in footy but for now it’s good news & like to think it’s fact we stood by him through all the prev injuries & showed faith again by sticking fat this year as he wants to play fwd, maybe he feels it was a tipping point for loyalty or who knows maybe crows seemed like he’d be more a back man?  Either way let’s hope he stick around as his trade value was at MAX lvl LY especially in terms of maybe getting Harley (which if we had traded him LY, would’ve been 💯  ON & meant we likely had enough to get deal done) can’t see us getting anything like that as a return again (whatever we got for Petty +other early picks could’ve netted us Harley not JUST what we got for Petty, just getting in early for anyone poised to comment) and seeing Harry taking grabs like that just felt RIGHT — would’ve been REAL close to a flag if not for one errant pass by ___  (not giving it away free — who recalls???) but thems the breaks I suppose.

Edited by Tolstoys Nudge

 
42 minutes ago, Tolstoys Nudge said:

Rumour is it’s potentially to 2028-29 — let’s hope it is as he’s shown now that he now comfortable again on the leaping-foot & that’s HUGE! Anyone still not convinced he’s a fwd is absolutely kidding themselves (yes, he’s also a defender, but my point remains — he’s also a fwd & right now that’s where he’ll be until something major changes in personnel. I do like fact that Rooch backed it up later with specifics by stating he’d heard it from two crows recruiters which does paint a narrative you can imagine ie call comes & clubs recruitment team was flat..
 

The worst parts about him leaving was that we’d lost our obvious May replacement in 2-3yrs but if he keeps the dukes firing like Sat night we MAY have lost him as The replacement anyways (pun may or may not of been intended, I can’t actually remember) — I know things change in footy but for now it’s good news & like to think it’s fact we stood by him through all the prev injuries & showed faith again by sticking fat this year as he wants to play fwd, maybe he feels it was a tipping point for loyalty or who knows maybe crows seemed like he’d be more a back man?  Either way let’s hope he stick around as his trade value was LY in terms of getting Harley (which if we traded him LY would’ve been 💯  ON) I can’t see us getting anything like that as a return again (whatever we got for Petty +other early picks could’ve netted us Harley not JUST what we got for Petty, just getting in early for anyone poised to comment) and seeing Harry taking grabs like that just felt RIGHT — would’ve been REAL close to a flag if not for one errant pass by ___  (not giving it away free — who recalls???) but thems the breaks I suppose.

Who is LY?

 
39 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

That doesn’t make sense. You mention LY was on. What does that mean? 

Lewis Young??? Or last year????

Edited by Guest
not enough question marks


9 hours ago, JJJ said:

He definitely asked us to facilitate a move. We’d just struck out on one of our targeted players from Carlton and were not ready for a trade request from a player that we thought was not a flight risk. 
He made a mess of the situation by allowing the Crows to setup that awkward golf course interview. 
We held firm. As we should’ve. We can’t win a flag this year with him not on the list. No matter which end he plays at.

Any reason this player isn't mentioned specifically? Very intriguing.

42 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

That doesn’t make sense. You mention LY was on. What does that mean? 

Last year...

  • 4 weeks later...

Good lord get him out of the forward line forever.

Half way through the last quarter and he's had 2 disposals next to his name.

Experiment needs to end immediately and he needs to either be dropped or go back down to the backline. 

 
25 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Half way through the last quarter and he's had 2 disposals next to his name.

Experiment needs to end immediately and he needs to either be dropped or go back down to the backline. 

In fairness, his 2 disposals today was only marginally less than the 6 disposals he’s averaged over the last six weeks. 

27 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Good lord get him out of the forward line forever.

Half way through the last quarter and he's had 2 disposals next to his name.

Experiment needs to end immediately and he needs to either be dropped or go back down to the backline. 

Goodwin turned a premiership winning defender into a hapless forward.  Hes a key back.  wtf Goodwin.  It worked once v tigers.  He’s not a key forward. Do you want him to go to the Crows.  Send Petty back NOW!!!  he is going back to Casey at this rate!!! 


He is such a lazy footballer. And a bit of a pea heart. 

Trade him come years end. He gives us absolutely nothing.

I also reckon Turner isn’t much chop either and is a list clogger. JT has no idea when it comes to tall players.

5 minutes ago, M_9 said:

In fairness, his 2 disposals today was only marginally less than the 6 disposals he’s averaged over the last six weeks. 

Get rid of him, how Goodwin is gifting him games is outrageous.

Play Jefferson or Fullerton, anyone!!!

Its beyond embarrassing how he is getting a game

4 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Goodwin turned a premiership winning defender into a hapless forward.  Hes a key back.  wtf Goodwin.  It worked once v tigers.  He’s not a key forward. Do you want him to go to the Crows.  Send Petty back NOW!!!  he is going back to Casey at this rate!!! 

He should’ve been at Casey all year

30 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Good lord get him out of the forward line forever.

Half way through the last quarter and he's had 2 disposals next to his name.

Experiment needs to end immediately and he needs to either be dropped or go back down to the backline. 

Ditto ditto ditto 👏👏👏

totally disinterested at the moment.

I would trade him for picks to the Crows and be done with it. Use the picks on some young talent.


3 minutes ago, BDA said:

totally disinterested at the moment.

I would trade him for picks to the Crows and be done with it. Use the picks on some young talent.

He’s not worth anything now. 
Should have been done last year when he was in demand 

I thought he had potential forward and we'd see more games like he had against Geelong. Sadly it hasnt been the case and we can't persist with this much longer. Get him back to at least regain some touch.

I have been a defender of Petty's but I was particularly disappointed in his pea hearted effort in the ruck.  The aim was to give Max a chop out, but all he did was enable Darcy and Jackson to increase confidence and influence.  Did anyone else notice Max did the entire last quarter on ball?  A shocking effort by Petty given how little influence he'd had in any other spot.  Hopefully JVR is back next week.  His contest work is underrated and a template for blokes like Petty.

If we trade him this year we won’t get anything near what we were offered on the last day of trade period last year, two first rounders, might as well keep him and turn him into a full back like we know he can be 


42 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Goodwin turned a premiership winning defender into a hapless forward.  Hes a key back.  wtf Goodwin.  It worked once v tigers.  He’s not a key forward. Do you want him to go to the Crows.  Send Petty back NOW!!!  he is going back to Casey at this rate!!! 

The problem is we have plenty of tall defenders. Tommo covered well for Lever today but when Lever's fit Tommo will be straight out. Unless TMac is going forward again there'll be no room for Petty down back. However, as he has not fired up forward TMAC forward to go alongside JvR is probably all we have left. Then yes, Petty can be banished to defence.

6 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

If we trade him this year we won’t get anything near what we were offered on the last day of trade period last year, two first rounders, might as well keep him and turn him into a full back like we know he can be 

We aren’t keeping him. He will be traded at years end while he’s still under contract. 

He was obviously brought back into the side underdone, lacking form and fitness but there's something going on with him , that was a while ago now. It's inconceivable how he can play the way he did against Geelong and then serve up the dross he's putting up now. Put him back or send him to Casey.

 

He’s a liability right now, and rightly so. Many players never recover from the injury he’s endured, but it’s time to give him some time at Casey to build some confidence and fitness. It’s doing him no good to go out each week and not be able to give anything to the team. It’s not thru lack of trying either. His body is clearly not up to AFL standards right now. 
JVR and Disco should play forward together for the next month while Petty goes to Casey and get some time just playing as a forward without pressure. 


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?

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 66 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.

    • 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.

      • Haha
    • 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? 

    • 4 replies