4 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Play him as main Ruck and play Max full forward with Kossy at his heels and clear the forward 50 

Do you have amnesia? We tried that. It didn’t work. 

1 minute ago, BDA said:

Do you have amnesia? We tried that. It didn’t work. 

We tried it for about 45 minutes….and gave up

30 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Hnmm so Why WHY would not have we gone with BG as the main man, with Max chop out and play MAX more forward???????

Because that is precisely what was proposed. Problem was that Max proved to be a great ruckman, but not a great forward.  It was not a bad idea, but it failed. He is a terrific bloke and I wish him well at Swans 

It's not a franchise sport where we gave away our key piece like a star point guard in NBA or defensive end in NFL.

It might not be pleasant for some seeing him do well but what can you do? Would Max be doing as well if Brodie was still there? Got no idea, and don't want to waste time thinking about it.

15 minutes ago, BDA said:

Do you have amnesia? We tried that. It didn’t work. 

For about 5 mins!

3 minutes ago, layzie said:

It's not a franchise sport where we gave away our key piece like a star point guard in NBA or defensive end in NFL.

It might not be pleasant for some seeing him do well but what can you do? Would Max be doing as well if Brodie was still there? Got no idea, and don't want to waste time thinking about it.

Why? 

23 minutes ago, BDA said:

Do you have amnesia? We tried that. It didn’t work. 

When?

I hardly recall any games where at the start of the game Max started forward and Grundy as a starting ruck.

If anything it was always Max starting in the ruck and Grundy on the bench.

10 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Why? 

I don't know, because I'm a grump and I'm tired maybe.

I would like to have seen us trial it out a bit more but it didn't seem like we were ever keeping him post mid year. Hardly anyone here even wanted him in the final against Collingwood.

According to Razor you can't move (take a step or more) into the path of a player to prevent them from getting to the ball.

This includes...

👉🏼  Blocking in general field play off the ball.  Example... Max a few weeks back, was blocked way behind play heading through the middle of the ground and received a free kick.

👉🏼  The above also applies to contests in the goal square where a forward tries to prevent a defender from touching a ball that's heading for a goal.  He can hold his ground to protect the drop but is not allowed to step across into the path of an oncoming defender.

👉🏼  It also applies to ruck contests.  A good example of a player who often contravenes this rule is Tomahawk.  He doesn't get pinged every time but occasionaly he does by moving across, pushing back and blocking the oppo ruck as he runs towards the drop of the ball up.

The Swans version of Reg is now doing the above on a regular basis at the bulk of the around ground stoppages and never gets pinged. 

Alot of the time he even takes his eyes off the ump and glances behind to make sure he steps across to take the line of the opposing ruck.

For some reason Reg is exempt and gets a free pass every week!

How is that?

Edited June 16, 2024Jun 16 by Demon Dynasty

18 minutes ago, layzie said:

I don't know, because I'm a grump and I'm tired maybe.

I would like to have seen us trial it out a bit more but it didn't seem like we were ever keeping him post mid year. Hardly anyone here even wanted him in the final against Collingwood.

I did!!

1 hour ago, Ollie fan said:

Don't be effing ridiculous. 

As for your original post: how many times does it need to be said?- he is a good ruckman when, and only when, he is the main man. The same is true of Gawn. And the idea of keeping him at Casey just so he didn't  go elsewhere: that is a really generous, good-culture thing to  do - not!  Not even Collingwood descended to that. Do you want us to be lower than them?

Taken a look at the ladder lately?

This will be an unpopular view but I think Max was somewhat culpable in Grundy wanting out. He fully embraced his recruitment and on multiple occasions said they would make it work. So, most of us had an idea neither were natural forwards. In that case perhaps it would have been a great idea to extend Max's career by giving him regular games off. Grundy was good when Gawn was injured. Problem with this was that Max always wanted to be the main man week in week out and, in my view, wasn't pleased at the prospect of watching on. I think he was part of the problem. He is rising 33 and can't have long left. Following the Geelong model was the way to go resting ageing stars. As for Grundy at the Swans that would be an issue if we were vying against them for a flag this year which looks highly unlikely now.

This old chestnut.  Gawn is having a brilliant season by any measure.  We are not.  Grundy's arrival in Sydney has coincided with brilliant seasons from pretty much the entire Swans team, but especially their mids.  There's a very good chance a couple of them will be on the podium for the Brownlow.  Grundy was going ok in the media's eyes up until the last two rounds, where he statistically dominated nobody from Geelong and a 6 gamer from Adelaide. His disposal efficiency in both games hovered around the 40% mark.  He wins contested footy but more often than not it doesn't actually advantage his team.  With a midfield as good as his he should just get out of the way.  Chris Scott saw through it and Longmire only rated him the Swans 4th best player against Geelong and I doubt he'll be rated much higher than that for his most recent outing. Grundy is a  good ruck, Gawn is a better ruck, a better mark, a better goal kicker and a better player and leader. These are all statistical facts.  If Grundy makes the AA team this year it'll be behind Gawn, unless some other disaster befalls him (and us).  In Gawn's most recent game, he blitzed Darcy Cameron.  In round 1, Darcy Cameron made a mess of Grundy (8 disposals and zero impact). Grundy has Briggs, Darcy/Jackson, Marshall and Xerri in his next 4 games.  Let's see how they go.

1 hour ago, BDA said:

What would you do with Grundy if he was still with us?

Maybe use him as a follower/ruck rover type with Max playing a defensive ruck (ie playing ruck but drifting more down back up to the wing) and letting Grundy have more freedom to play around the ground? Have them take one side of the ground each (ie a wing each floating into the corridor depending which side the ball is) creating targets down the line on each side of the ground? Similar to what we did when we had Hogan/TMac leading up from deep forward on alternate wings as marking targets.

28 minutes ago, Deelectable said:

This will be an unpopular view but I think Max was somewhat culpable in Grundy wanting out. He fully embraced his recruitment and on multiple occasions said they would make it work. So, most of us had an idea neither were natural forwards. In that case perhaps it would have been a great idea to extend Max's career by giving him regular games off. Grundy was good when Gawn was injured. Problem with this was that Max always wanted to be the main man week in week out and, in my view, wasn't pleased at the prospect of watching on. I think he was part of the problem. He is rising 33 and can't have long left. Following the Geelong model was the way to go resting ageing stars. As for Grundy at the Swans that would be an issue if we were vying against them for a flag this year which looks highly unlikely now.

I guess it goes against human nature for two massive egos honed by many seasons of elite success to willingly defer to each other. Hindsight would have shown that Grundy was never really going to be happy being a second fiddle ruck or forward given he wasn’t going to accept that arrangement whilst still at Collingwood. It appears everyone was struck by naivety. One of those dumb left field ideas that turned out to be a dumb left field idea. Collingwood and Swans turned out winners whist we lost big time in the Grundy saga.

Edited June 16, 2024Jun 16 by John Crow Batty

Oh, Picket... you shouldn't be hitting the scotch this late on a school night!

🥃🥃🥃

10 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

I guess it goes against human nature for two massive egos honed by many seasons of elite success to willingly defer to each other. Hindsight would have shown that Grundy was never really going to be happy being a second fiddle ruck or forward given he wasn’t going to accept that arrangement whilst still at Collingwood. It appears everyone was struck by naivety. One of those dumb left field ideas that turned out to be a dumb left field idea. Collingwood and Swans turned out winners whist we lost big time in the Grundy saga.

Can't argue with any of that.  If only we'd picked up a decent mid instead.

Lethal on the TV just said he'd have Grundy in his team before Max.

He's chanelling picket fence!

Whoda thunk it! 

This thread is a waste of data. Yikes. 

Only think I would have loved us to do slightly differently was trade him out to a [censored] club rather than contender!

Honestly Grundy has played a handful of good games this year, most of them against D list ruckmen. His game against Max needs to be viewed with the understanding that Gawn was very unwell, and probably shouldn’t have played.

If anyone reckons Grundy should still be at the club, and rucking for us, go watch the replay of our gather round game last year against Essendon when Max was injured. Draper absolutely annihilated Grundy, and made him look unfit and lazy. Draper kicked three goals on Grundy purely from out working him. 

Grundy wasn’t in good form for us last year. It’s not the clubs fault he didn’t do the preparation or have the desire to make it work. He’s a different player this year purely because he wants to be. He was happy to sign the contract last year, but not do much to make it work.

It’s boring having to discuss him. Go watch the replays of how he played last year for us. He was poor.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

When?

I hardly recall any games where at the start of the game Max started forward and Grundy as a starting ruck.

If anything it was always Max starting in the ruck and Grundy on the bench.

who cares about the start of the game?

Gawn played plenty of time fwd last year. He had zero impact

2 rucks was a disaster. i can’t believe i need to argue this 

3 hours ago, picket fence said:

He is killing it this year! Thats all I have to say, take ur blinkers off!

he is doing very well. good on him

weird thread

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

I guess it goes against human nature for two massive egos honed by many seasons of elite success to willingly defer to each other.

You guessed right. 

1 hour ago, Deelectable said:

This will be an unpopular view but I think Max was somewhat culpable in Grundy wanting out. He fully embraced his recruitment and on multiple occasions said they would make it work. So, most of us had an idea neither were natural forwards. In that case perhaps it would have been a great idea to extend Max's career by giving him regular games off. Grundy was good when Gawn was injured. Problem with this was that Max always wanted to be the main man week in week out and, in my view, wasn't pleased at the prospect of watching on. I think he was part of the problem. He is rising 33 and can't have long left. Following the Geelong model was the way to go resting ageing stars. As for Grundy at the Swans that would be an issue if we were vying against them for a flag this year which looks highly unlikely now.

Correct. 

The only way Gawn/Grundy was going to work was if Gawn - by far the better mark and reader of the play - was the  forward and Grundy played at least 65% ruck.

And Grundy was half fit and routinely out of position around the ground, so there was little incentive for Max to give up the position.

Plus Gawn forward was somewhat flawed because we didn't have the right mobile talls to play alongside him. 

The Dogs have used Darcy in way we could use Gawn, but that's because JUH and Naughton are both super athletes and Naughton especially has played way up the ground.

1 hour ago, Deelectable said:

This will be an unpopular view but I think Max was somewhat culpable in Grundy wanting out.

Probably unpopular, but that doesn’t mean there’s no truth to this.