Rodney (Balls) Grinter

12 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

In his interview he ceded to JVR for the crowd 'OOOOOO!'. But I reckon there's space there for 'ROOOOOO!' and 'MOOOOOO!'

And hopefully many, many opportunities for both, on Sunday and in the decade to come!

More like a MOOQOOOsss, more similar to BROOOOOOsss I think, but yeah hope the crowd makes it happen

12 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

The Moose is loose?…………… more like the beast unleashed

22 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I can't see Max and Heath lining up in the same game this year - AT ALL.

If they share the ruck equally, it means we get less production from the best player in our team.

If it's 80-20 in favour of Gawn, then I can't see the point and value of playing Heath - he'll only play about 25% of game time.

On this point, I actually think we're likely to see more of this going forward as well.

Just my take, but I think things have changed somewhat since the Grundy days. At that time, Gawn was what 4 years younger and we were in the window to win another flag mode.

Fast forward to the present day and I even think Gawn would acknowledge that he's closer to the end, we're in a rebuild phase and will be more willing to sacrifice some of Gawns output to get The Moose an opportunity to establish himself.

I also think the 5th bench spot has resulted in more teams playing 2 genuine rucks and I think that actually impacts Gawn's ability to out work a single main ruckman.

I think the Moose also has more potential to impact up forward than Grundy, which is partly why the Grundy experiment failed, because he didn't have much forward ability.

Also as much as I actually really quite liked Petty's impact in the ruck, bringing in Moose will allow Petty to focus on being the quality key backman I think he can be and we need him to be. The past few weeks, he's been a bit of a utility type player, whilst we've had a gallant, but lacking in mobility T Mac down back - it's been a bit half pregnant and I'm not sure that has worked.

22 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I'm expecting the ins to be Jefferson, Laurie and Taylor.

I can't see Max and Heath lining up in the same game this year - AT ALL.

If they share the ruck equally, it means we get less production from the best player in our team.

If it's 80-20 in favour of Gawn, then I can't see the point and value of playing Heath - he'll only play about 25% of game time.

Well we've got Max and Heath in the same side.

Incidentally, even if Gawn doesn't play, it's likely we'll still have Max and Heath play in the same side!

11 hours ago, heath55 said:

Henderson will only get a game if they’re absolutely scraping the bottom of the barrel

Shows more than Laurie IMHO

On 17/04/2026 at 07:27, picket fence said:

Kentfield confirmed Will not play

Yeah, but at least The MOOSE 🫎 has got a gig.

And good on your boy Jeffo - hope he plays well and builds his game at AFL level. I do see the potential there.

No doubt Kentfield will get an opportunity sooner or later.

7 hours ago, manny100 said:

Bench IMO: Windsor, Taylor, Jeffo, Heath, Pickett.

A lot of our team had a shocker last week. Lets hope for a turn around in energy.

Swap out Jeffo for Kentfield and I really like that bench. We need to be maximising guys that really attack the ball. As smart and experienced as Miochek is, I don't really think he brings that kind of energy to our forward line.

Would love to see The Moose smash some packs.

Just now, Dr. Mubutu said:

Isn't it so great that in a competition with even numbers, 10 teams have had a bye by round THREE?

It's an absolute joke and a disgrace.

How do the AFL claim to run an elite competition with such a massive disconnect to the reserves comp.

It's well overdue that someone stood up and took responsibility for this garbage, but I guess the AFL executives are more interested in sampling wine in the Barrossa and selling whatever games they can to the highest bidder than running a proper football competition.

15 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

By the end of the year XT will have replaced TMAC in the 1s. Developing nicely.

Awsome. No need to rush in the first round, fist year draftees in some kind of knee-[censored] reaction.

Will XT actually ever be a 'T Mac replacement' though?

Would be great to have a true rebounding defender with good foot skills though. I love Disco's intercept work and some of the other things he does in the backline, but do feel that he's unreliable, boarding on a turnover merchant by foot at this stage.

12 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

I Feel like someone should put up some defence for TMac. He has been serviceable this season in our wins. Yes he struggled on Saturday but from what I saw the backline was left exposed repeatedly by a midfield that all but went MIA when the heat was on in the last quarters and allowed the bombers mids to deliver repeated balls to their targets under zero pressure. On Saturday he played in front of his man but was penalised for holding his ground under the ball, while his opponent climbed all over his back, then later gave up a mark when given the classic shove in the back. The entire backline looked slow under intense pressure. Yes let’s drop TMac but who comes in?

Agree with alot of what you are saying Re T Mac. He did a great job against Carlton after we lost Disco and were potentually short a tall in the backline and love how the guy keeps putting in and putting his hand up, but I actually thought his lack of mobility looked like a bit of a liabilty against the Suns. It was hard to drop anyone asides from Laurie from such a good team confidence building win, but I feel that if we were being ruthless, then we would have also have bought in a younger more mobile runner in place of T Mac. AMW would be my first guess.

I also like Petty has been doing pinch hitting in the ruck and further up the ground, his marking confidence has returned and I really think he should be covering the other key back position, not T Mac, both for this season and our structure in seasons ahead.

27 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Now I only managed the first quarter and a bit. But there were a number of inconsistent decisions by the men in charge. Admit it would not alter much but… I was incensed when TMac got jumped on his head, then the free went against him, and I think they got a goal .

Symptomatic of what might unfold, really our FD should talk to the umpires why and complain . Quietly or loudly.

Shepherding the umpire indicated I thought. Bollocks !

Totally agree. If he was a forward, then they'd say he was protecting the ball drop for himself. I can partly understand if there were other players in the area that he allowed easier access to the ball through his positioning, but it was a one of one contest.

T Mac then copped a fair push in the back a bit later, which was allowed and again they goaled.

The umpires also had a real crackdown on insufficient intent/deliberate out of bounds which I feel was inconsistent and went mostly against us a key times. Noticed this in other games I've watched this weekend as well to an extent - how are players suposed to react to these changes in interpretation week to week. I had also thought the lassoo rule had done a reasonable job of bringing consistency to the deliberate out of bounds - apparently not.

Beyond all else, I really did think they got some stinkers (probably a bunch of those deliberate decisions) and non paid decisions to us that helped shift the momentum in the 3rd quarter that got them back into the game after we had opened up a bit of a break on them.

Was always going to be hard to make changes from the winning team we had last week, but as much as I'm a huge fan of him, I would have picked T Mac against Essendon. Leaving out Heath, Kentfield and/or AJ was also something of a mistake in my mind.

1 hour ago, Rooooooooooo said:

Yes we were the worse team on the day but we also got completely out coached. Essendon had a completely different game plan to nullify us and Steven king wasn’t quick enough or experienced enough to react. We still played like [censored] though. JVR a huge worry for me

Agree with alot of the above.

I think we relied alot on Melksham firing last week to get us over the line. When he got hobbled early, we didn't really have a forward that looked like taking the game on. Didn’t help that we delivered poorly into forward 50 and let them keep picking it off. But I actually think good, contested forwards would see that happening and somewhat adjust for it.

It's not just Roo that concerns me, I also think Mihocek has equally underdelivered in the past few weeks. I'm not sure that dropping either of them is the answer though. I'd be looking to bring in either AJ, Kentfield or maybe even The Moose for someone with a bit more bash and crash, contested style. Could be wrong, but I suspect Melksham will sit out next week with that ankle.

This loss is the flip side to the wins we've pulled in over the past few weeks.

We have a developing team and all asked for a more attacking game style, which has been embraced and delivered results faster than expected.

When the game style works, we expose our opponents and look like superstars.

When we don't win enough of the footy and/or execute well enough when we have it and the game style falls apart, we get exposed and it looks alot like a lack of effort.

I think at the start of the season, we all expected something of a roller-coaster ride, which is somewhat the thing we're getting. Honestly, I hate the losses and I've lost patience with them and can't tollerate them week after week, because of the history we had 2006 - 2017, but I think we need to accept that looses like today are going to happen.

It's now about how we respond.

7 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

We have a very slim chance.

We could've been 4-1 coming high on confidence and a established way of playing footy.

Hard to see us bringing our best next week. They will be psychologically scarred after today.

I don't nessacerilly disagree, but I also don't think many saw the Carlton or Gold Coast wins coming either.

Will be a big test for King and Co to see how they can turn things around.

6 minutes ago, Dees1911 said:

Yep, they haven't lost to a 0-17 record side, and don't give weak effort like we did today, 40 odd points against freo is acceptable but not to ****house bombers

Makes zero difference when we front up next week against Brisbane.

Yeah Essendon were absolute puss against North 2 weeks ago and I'd personally hoped that would continue, but it didn't. They showed signs against the Dogs last week amd we just happened to be their mark this week.

Too bad, tough shiiiit. Move on.

What do you want - us to flagellate ourselves for the rest of the season?

32 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Unfortunately part of the old Melbourne is still there

Honestly, I think we need to move on from this kind of narrative.

It's not a winning formula.

We're in a semi rebuild, but even last season's premiers and grand finalists are getting mixed results this time of year.

I'm supper [censored] with the result and think it's a massive opportunity missed. But in all honesty, at this point, it's just one game. The coaching group and the team have already moved on from this as a loss and are just thinking how we can beat the reigning premier's next week, which I think we can and look forward to being there to watch it.

With a bit of perspective, I know I'd still rather be 3 & 2 this season, than 1 & 4 and / or 1 & 17.

Still think we can beat Brisbane at the MCG next week. We lost. Reset, reload and let's keep moving forward towards another premiership.

3 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Official Danger game. Any hint of complacency and we will get done. Bring out out all the cliches. Keep the [censored] lid on, no drinking any bathwater of any kind least of all your own. https://demonland.com/forums/topic/67214-pregame-rd-05-vs-essendon/?do=findComment&comment=2767825

Obviously they didn't heed my warning 5 days ago..

Saw it comming, but honestly thought we were past this kinda [censored]

10 minutes ago, Dee-tonator said:

The ultimate reality check for a recently over-hyped team with glaring weaknesses.

Just a few examples, against low-standard opposition:

Both Picketts need to bring more than spectacular cameos.

TMac well off the pace as middle age approaches.

Tholstrup - brains needed as well as enthusiasm.

Lever - once a defensive rock, now a pebble.

Van Rooyen - one good game so far in five.

Windsor - so much hype, so little delivery.

Sharp - the Lions saw his limitations.

Midfield - what midfield?

Rivers - apparently not good enough even to feature in King's selection frame.

And so on for all the others except the mighty Max, without whom we would (shudder!) be even worse.

And since there is currently almost no squad depth, I'd say our coach now faces a King-sized selection headache.

And if any of this is proved wrong in coming weeks, I would be absolutely delighted to confess my poor judgment.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Add Cully to that. Got a new contract during the week and did almost nothing today.

Upon reflection of my previous post, I think it's ridiculous that we expect old Max to dominate for us every week. We've come to rely and depend on this far too much and other teams work it out.

We simply must play young Max Heath next week. I don't care if he only takes 4 marks and has 5 possessions for the game, we need someone to take the physical and physiological heat off Gawn as well as developing an alternative for the future. The Moose 🫎 is the man for the job - time we give him a go.

9 minutes ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

How could they have such work rate both ways and attack with the ball and at the man and then put up that.

Great to see TMac and Melksham to 250 but they both need to go (Salem not far behind).

Lindsay, Windsor, Culley too reactive and just waited timidly for Essendon to win the ball. JVR has used most of the tickets he built up round 1.

Our lack of shifting to a man on man to stop there short kicks and also the lack of manning up Robert’s both poor from a coaching viewpoint.

How King and we respond next week will be interesting to watch.

Add to that, Langford often gets lauded for his good games, but doesn't get called out in his ordinary ones - today was one of them.

Was also very disappointed in Langdon, Sparrow, Chandler, Steele, Gawn and co that should have done far more.

I do think umpiring, momentum and the footy Gods were against us today but this was a game we should absolutely have won, but didn't.

8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Yeah what is Gary so excited about Traitor (LOL not really)

No, I hear you. Fair enough that he tries to be impartial, but he so often goes so far the other way that it seems like he actually enjoys seeing us get beaten.

Just shut the F#@*k in those moments Gary.

8 minutes ago, Dees1911 said:

Tmac horrible, too old to be playing every week, been out marked by kids.

Good servant too club, but don't see how it helps us long term, especially when we get flogged by ****less side in comp

He was crucified by the umpires early. Paid against for shepherding where a forward would be lauded for protecting the ball drop and then not called when he got shoved square in the back. His mobility isn't what it was, but when you take his contested strength away through atrocious umpiring, what can he do.

We haven't played well, but the umpires absolutely crucified us in the 3rd quarter. Tom Mc Donald curled from the start of the game.