Jump to content

Featured Replies

26 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

TMac's form must beg the question. Does the team persist with Petty forward and allow TMac to play as the third tall in defence? I realise Petty's form last season wasn't great but he was coming off no preseason and a nasty injury. I guess if TMac is able which he certainly appears to be then who becomes the best forward option out of Petty, Johnson and Jefferson? Personally I like Petty in defence and feel he's the obvious May replacement next year but TMac's inability to age keeps the question open I think.

It's fascinating isn't it.

Petty has been training with the backs all preseason, but has been talked about as a swing man.

I reckon Jefferson is the wild card in terms of where Petty plays. If Jefferson becomes a best 23 lock that would mean three key talls - jeffo, jvr and Turner.

And possibly 4 if AJ plays as a forward ruck.

AJ is another fascinating piece of the puzzle. I don't have a strong sense of whether he is AFL ready, but I really hope he is because I'd love jvr to be able to just focus on marauding inside 50 for at least the first half off the season rather than having to run himself into the grounf giving maxy a chop out (though long term I see him playing that role - I really rate his ruck ability).

Edited by binman

 

I'm not sure why McDonald's place in the team is in doubt. Lever is the one who should be made to earn his spot after his dismal 2024 season. I much prefer to play defenders who can beat their direct opponent.

1 hour ago, poita said:

I'm not sure why McDonald's place in the team is in doubt. Lever is the one who should be made to earn his spot after his dismal 2024 season. I much prefer to play defenders who can beat their direct opponent.

Very interesting comment. Lever does get a free pass. Its almost as if they're  a package, May and Lever.

Theres a lot to be said for close communication and familiarity and system but he had some stinkers last year.

Edited by jnrmac

 
2 hours ago, binman said:

It's fascinating isn't it.

Petty has been training with the backs all preseason, but has been talked about as a swing man.

I reckon Jefferson is the wild card in terms of where Petty plays. If Jefferson becomes a best 23 lock that would mean three key talls - jeffo, jvr and Turner.

And possibly 4 if AJ plays as a forward ruck.

AJ is another fascinating piece of the puzzle. I don't have a strong sense of whether he is AFL ready, but I really hope he is because I'd love jvr to be able to just focus on marauding inside 50 for at least the first half off the season rather than having to run himself into the grounf giving maxy a chop out (though long term I see him playing that role - I really rate his ruck ability).

Thank you Binman. Summed up in a sentence the way I've felt about JVR all along.

When I've moaned about him playing too much ruck time it's never been because I don't think he can do it or wouldn't be a valuable pinch hitting ruck asset down the track (I think he's more than capable in that area for that matter), it was purely because the kid was in his second full season and putting a lot of unnecessary wear on the tires early on. Whether people think JVR is the no.1 Key forward for our future or not, he's already a very important part of our forward line and he needs to be able to a) focus on developing his craft in that area and b) have minimised risk of injury as I don't believe we can afford to be without him. 

Edited by layzie

I’d pegged TMac as backup based solely on his age and my bias to playing 3 talks in defence. I can’t wait for the footy to start. Windsor still not training worries me as with McVee that’s our HB line out for the first 3-4 weeks. Not ideal 


Why is T-Mac considered to be the "4th tall" rather than Petty? Based on a combination of training reports and last year's form of both players, I can't see how McDonald is behind Petty. It seems to me that it might be Petty that misses out. Doesn't mean he can't be picked as a forward, of course, although he would also appear to be behind Turner, van Rooyen and possibly even Johnson, given that Johnson might be picked to help Gawn.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why is T-Mac considered to be the "4th tall" rather than Petty? Based on a combination of training reports and last year's form of both players, I can't see how McDonald is behind Petty. It seems to me that it might be Petty that misses out. Doesn't mean he can't be picked as a forward, of course, although he would also appear to be behind Turner, van Rooyen and possibly even Johnson, given that Johnson might be picked to help Gawn.

Thats a fair point

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why is T-Mac considered to be the "4th tall" rather than Petty? Based on a combination of training reports and last year's form of both players, I can't see how McDonald is behind Petty. It seems to me that it might be Petty that misses out. Doesn't mean he can't be picked as a forward, of course, although he would also appear to be behind Turner, van Rooyen and possibly even Johnson, given that Johnson might be picked to help Gawn.

The way I see it, we only use on or two key tall defender in the old school sense of a key tall who locks down an oppo tall forward.

May is the number one such player.

Lever plays an intercepting role and tmac was more a tall roamimg flanker than a traditional tall defender.

When we needed a second lock down defender last year we had to rely on Lever and/or Tmac, or sometimes Tomlinson.

The problem with using Lever or Tmac in that role is both are very average one on one.

Petty is a much better option as he is great one on one  but can also zone off and intercept.

 
40 minutes ago, binman said:

The way I see it, we only use on or two key tall defender in the old school sense of a key tall who locks down an oppo tall forward.

May is the number one such player.

Lever plays an intercepting role and tmac was more a tall roamimg flanker than a traditional tall defender.

When we needed a second lock down defender last year we had to rely on Lever and/or Tmac, or sometimes Tomlinson.

The problem with using Lever or Tmac in that role is both are very average one on one.

Petty is a much better option as he is great one on one  but can also zone off and intercept.

In modern AFL, a key defender might have a dozen true one-on-one contests in a season, but they will be in hundreds of contests where pace and mobility is more important. Petty is less mobile than TMac.

Petty is not "a much better option". It is marginal and I would go for TMac.

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.

      • Clap
      • 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.

      • Like
    • 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.

      • Like
    • 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? 

      • Like
    • 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?

      • Like
    • 528 replies