No10
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by No10
-
-
1 minute ago, OhMyDees said:
If not Fullerton then TMac as Ruck and bring in Tommo? Protect JvR at all cost.
Maybe TMac. If he can still jump?
Would be incredible if we sent in JvR and is injured as a result.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Travy14 said:
A lot saying Fullerton, surely it's Verral?
Personally I'd be bringing in Verral and Petty if he is good to go. Basically have Petty play up the ground for our marking option and Verral mainly focusing on stoppages and marking Draper if he pushes deep.
Definitely Petty now. He’s a needed marking target.
I’ve not seen Fullarton play, but if he was remotely considered an option then it should’ve been last week. It was clearly a game to rest Max with limited minutes. (I said this before the game, as did others)
I’d play Tomlinson. He’s rucked before and, more importantly, can cover the defensive role where Gawn is so vital.
He’s agile, which will make the midfield dynamic and he’s fit enough to nullify Draper and Goldstein around the ground.
-
5
-
-
-
3 hours ago, picket fence said:
I understand that But JvR has chopped out on occasions
Ess, Freo, GWS, Dogs, Port…
Not an easy run home. Can only afford to drop one of those.
Fact is, if we’re good enough to contend, these are the games Max should be put on ice early
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DemonWA said:
I think Fullerton could play and chop out for Max and play pettys role.
If that's the case them Melk as sub.
More than likely we play Melk in the Petty role and swing TMac forward if we need more tall targets up front
Agree on Fullarton, to give Max a rest.
But Melk is named on ground, doesn’t that mean he isn’t sub?
Think both Fullarton and Melk will play. TMac in defence.
Fullarton, Chandler, Turner and Salem (or Bowey)Tholstrup sub
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, picket fence said:
Fullarton instead of Jeffo!! Are we tanking? Explain how Jeffo travelling emergency last week played an excellent game in the wet last week and not even in the extended squad??
GOODWIN has lost the plot!
I have read your famous track reports, so I’m sure you have the better handle on the roles these players are capable.
But Jeffo surely doesn’t ruck well, at AFL level? And Gawn needs a break. If Fullerton is worth a list spot, surely THIS is the moment!
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Cranky Franky said:
It usually doesn't work. Goodie has made a career of bringing players straight back in after injury or too early & it usually fails.
Salem - fail Bowey - fail Petty- fail
McAdam - fail
Not a pretty record.
Guess the odds are in favour by now
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:
To assist the debate here is the law.
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player from the Defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the Attacking Team’s Goal Posts, and the Player:
(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.
The umpire has decided that (c) applied, and not (b) as the Geelong players go passive....
Rewarding the player that doesn’t go after the ball.
The Geel player slowed and threw his arms out, instead of chasing to tackle. Poor sportsmanship and poor decision imv.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:
And if any further proof was needed.....Geelong were absolutely gifted 4 goals from the umpires in the 2nd and 3rd quarters in the game against Essendon.
Worst was the call of deliberate crossing the goal line by an Essendon player when there were two, yes two Geelong players inside the goal square at the same time.
And Brad Scott called them out on it.
As did Clarkson.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Redleg said:
Yes it did. Joe kicked it off the ground, after all our defenders had gone forward, due to them seeing May mark it.
You are absolutely correct Red. I think I blocked that passage from memory. That was a horrible decision.
It was the last qtr dropped mark on the wing, that was perhaps a 50/50 call, I was thinking of.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Docs Demons said:
I was there last night, and it is very clear we do not get a good go from the umpires. Chatted with a guy from the cheer squad and he said we have to kick 2-3 goals extra a game to cover for umpires. He is dead set correct. Not sure if a few of our players back chat them but something is seriously wrong. 3 examples that resulted in Lions goals were dead set wrong. Camerons first goal, one of our players got checked off the ball by Daniher and went flying. No free. A couple involving May with his mark over on the wing and paid a mark and we set up down field for his kick only for a 2nd Umpire calling a block on Hipwood because he threw his arms up in the air. We were in no position to cover the change and another goal to Lions. Worst one was in the last when May clearly took the mark, had his arms chopped and it was called play on. Down they go and kick another goal to level the scores.
Even some Lions supporters near me agreed they got a good run of it. We need to front the AFL via President and CEO but of course we will be good little kids and shut up.
Lastly our President is alive. Saw here going into a corporate suite last night.
Glad the president exists !
Totally agree about the May mark. But I don’t think that ended as a goal? I think it was Joe D who missed from only about 30m out.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Hellaintabadplacetobe said:
Nibblers was a free every day of the week.
The problem is, it will only get paid once a month, if that, whilst very similar plays will be a throw in.
Agree with this. It was just a bit awkward the way he tapped the ball as he landed.
His instinct was to play too defensively, as was the whole team the entire qtr. That’s a problem for Goody. I actually think he’s a good coach, getting better every year. To me, he relies too much on system (a defensive first system) and sometimes you have to back the players ability and instincts to attack. He needs to back the individual, especially at the end of games when the system breaks down from uneven fatigue.
But regarding the umpires, Goody’s not someone with media authority. Some coaches will say that “umpiring is a tough job, but that was a tough call with a minute left”. That sets off the media as a talking point for the weekend.
I believe the umpires are trying to be fair, but there’s a human nature to see a champion team/player and give the benefit of the doubt. We don’t have that. We’re instead the team that’s always made an example of.
The past week it was May. That made me angry. Very angry to see him shamed.
Goody isn’t the right person to speak up. But somebody at the club needs to. It can be done with respect, but without it we lose respect.
-
6
-
-
-
1
-
-
Just now, Lord Travis said:
[censored] football. [censored] 2024. Shut the league down.
Umpiring disgrace.
The entire way through. Disgusted.
If this were a different club they’d be talking about it.
-
1
-
-
-
43 minutes ago, Roost it far said:
I find myself unable to stop rueing the Petty, Melksham and Brayshaw injuries at the end of last year. I reckon we'd be holding a second Cup and sitting comfortably inside the top 4 right now had those 3 never got injured. Instead the Pies are holding another Cup, Brayshaw has retired, Petty is a shadow and Melksham hasn't fired a shot. So tonight I sit and watch a game against and up and coming young team and can't decide whether i care more about 2024 or about the draft for 2025. Then there's the salt being ground into my wounds by watching Grundy and JJ ripping it up for the top team who can't buy an injury and are flying, Dane Swan's in the HOF and Carlton and Essendon are both above us. Sheesh that's some depressing football mood right there.
Perfect summation
-
14 hours ago, Heart Beats True said:
PICK 7 - CALEB WINDSOR (Melbourne)
"It's bloody awesome. I can't believe it. I did not expect to be a top 10 pick. I'm so grateful for the opportunity they've given me. Probably the best feeling ever when all my best mates jumped on me when I got my name called out. Half of my family goes for [the Demons] so I know a bit about them! Obviously want to play my first game, stay in the team and win a premiership. I play on the wing and I pride myself on my pace and my defensive pressure."
Love this quote “stay in the team and win a premiership”
He has a personality. Sure, needs to back it up, but I enjoy when they display some ambition and honesty.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, demoncat said:
I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer
But surely they need to split pick 1 right?
Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years
The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1
Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…
Spot on.
No doubt WC are holding out for us to trade with North. I’m guessing a leak of our offer for pick 3 comes out before the draft. And it’ll be a deal North will refuse.
Maybe we’ll find a way to move up slightly. Geel or Hawthorn with our f1.
Either way, I agree we’re more likely to benefit from a single elite pick than WC or North who need many to build.
-
1
-
-
-
8 minutes ago, Redleg said:
I think North will get 1 but it will take getting 6 off us for 3.
2,6 and more will give WC a guaranteed Curtin and another high pick plus more.
WC won’t reject that.
However we must keep 11 to get another good player.
6 and F1 is plenty for 3 and should get that deal done, which will see North pass it on and be part of deal for 1.
We should keep 1 and ask for one of North late first rounders back and bundle it with 11 to get a bit higher.
This would effectively be North giving 2 and 3 for 1.
Don’t think they can do that.
We’d have to give 6+11. Imagine we’d ask for 15 back as well. Which they won’t do.
So if we get to draft night, what are the chances of WC accepting our offer? What compels us to deal with North before their pick 3?
-
2
-
-
Edited by No10
InaccurateThis is maybe a brilliant strategy. We’ve put our best offer. North are low balling.
Why our position is so smart imv, is that WC are naturally holding out for the best offer from North.
The question is: what’s North’s best offer without us trading with them? I’d say it’s 2+15+17 for P1
Is that better than 6, 11, 42 and F1? Perhaps slightly but also depends on what players WC want and where they think they’ll fall. And I doubt North would give that up, given their huge delisting numbers.
It’s a brilliant play because we’ve given WC our best offer.
But we will have undoubtedly simultaneously made an offer for 3. This one however a low ball. I’d guess 6 + 11 for 3 + 15.
North need our 6 and 11 to make the deal they want with WC. Which you’d assume is what everyone has floated here many times.
But we’ve made the squeeze play.
WC have our best offer, eventually North will stop low-balling and give them theirs.
But we can squeeze, we can hold out on facilitating the 3 club swap.
We can even hold until after WC make their No 1 selection before we budge on our swaps with North. If we want 3, wait to then. It’s smart.-
9
-
-
2 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:
In my view the best 4 players in this draft are Harley Reid, Zane Duursma, Colby McKercher and Riley Sanders, the fact we can almost certainly get Sanders with our pick 6 does make just keeping those picks appealing. if we could bring in Sanders and add some key back depth with Murphy i think that's a really solid outcome with these two picks.
having said that i think trading up is a very real possibility
In that order? You’d take Duursma over McKersher?
I have no idea, but they seem the likely two we’d choose from.
I also don’t mind holding 6 and 11. It seems a fairly even trade going to 3 and 18.
-
Free to Air TV Losing Money and Shedding Jobs - What does that mean for footy?
in Melbourne Demons
I seem to be alone here. I very much like the 7 coverage and the anti-siphoning laws seem well balanced.
Advertising revenue is down significantly globally. It won’t necessarily stay down or continue that trajectory.