Rodney (Balls) Grinter

13 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

The Footy Gods were never going to let us have an easy comfortable finals, but I'm hoping the team have been hardened and motivated by the horror of the last week and are on for the first, of three, steps to redemption and the holy land.

I'm visualising a energised and prolific Demons coming out tonight and putting a collective shiver up the spines of both the Lions and the Pies, while putting the Blues to the sword.

Go Demons

I've got the same feeling.

While I wouldn't say I feel it's that likely, but gee I'd love it if we could actually get off to a flyer in the first quarter for once this year and control the game from start to finish.

Getting a bit over most of our games comming down to the wire this season.

So it's last day of the school term today and instead of free dress, it's wear your footy gear day.

MFC supporters out numbering every other team in the outer east.  This is the future - I love it!

GO THE MIGHTY DEMONS!!

6 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The Jordon/Tomlinson selections are sensible and correct.

The Spargo selection I consider to be a major mistake. I do not like the look of our forward half when we have all of ANB, Chandler, Spargo and Pickett in it. When one of our "talls" is Joel Smith, we are severely undersized against a very good aerial backline.

Largely speaking I agree with those who say these selections aren't going to be the reason we win or lose the game. We will lose this game if we're -9 in CPs at quarter time. And we will not win this game if we continue to move the ball as poorly as we did last week. But, IMO the forward half selections aren't going to assist with the latter. 

Except Spargo is one of the best in the league at hitting a target inside 50 - totally sensible in that regard, trying to rectify the issue that we were so deficient in last week.  I'm also hoping we can play Patracca forward more this week with Jordan in the side as I also think this will help both or goal scoring capasity and inside 50 connection.

27 minutes ago, Garbo said:

I must be the only one here who didn’t rate Hibbos game last week, Elliott showed Hibbo was lacking in pace and  as a result we had to adjust our defence to stop pies exploiting it. I don’t think we will be seeing him again regardless of if we win this week

I didn't quite read it that way, but I suspect that it could be that he's either struggling to fully run out games at the required level and/or finding it that much harder to back up every week that led him to the decision to call it quits.  He was showing the signs of this earlier in the season when he needed to be rested/managed for a game here or there.

Still if he's able to capably play out 3 quarters, or 2 games out of every 3, I think he's still more than handy as a substitute or backup depth, because the thing you know with the Pig is that he's a fierce competitor who won't shirk a contest or leave anything left in the tank doing his bit for the side.

Great call from random St Kilda supporter in a video shown on The Front Bar:

 "Please do something about the umpires, because we don't understand them and they're bloody [censored]"

Couldn't agree more.

20 hours ago, Kozzie4PM said:

These blokes sometimes aren't the cleanest going forward but I tell you what, they never bloody give up. They are the toughest, most talented, most big-hearted team I've ever seen wear red and blue. They are a credit to our club and we're lucky to have them.

Add to that a defense that keeps us in games and gives us the opportunity to win games alot wouldn't still be in.

4 hours ago, John Demonic said:

Me too. Just mocking the "need to beat a BIG4 club in a final" talk. We're only getting that opportunity now for the 2nd time, after many a year. It's quite obvious we need to win this week to dispense with the Spooked talk. No matter who is our opponent.

 

If I recall correctly, we were the team to knock off Collingwood mid season when they were riding high, everyone was suggesting they were undefeatable and we were struggling for consistent form.

I think we're just as capable of beating Carlton now with our backs somewhat to the wall now as we were Collingwood mid season.

This team has grit, determination and ability.

1 hour ago, Die Hard Demon said:

Uninspiring ins.. although happy that Thommo gets to play a final for us. 

Uninsipiring maybe, but flags arn't won by superstars.

All the ins are quality, solid players, more than capable of playing a role in my mind.

Our depth is certainly being tested, but we're still in the flag race because we have it.

2 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Werribee,??

No, Bondi or Coogee beach if the rumors are right 😉

Like the selections and I've got a good feeling about this game. 

A key man down in Brayshaw, I don't think our forward line could have functioned any worse and or we have missed soo many gettable shots at goal.  And yet we nearly still won it.

Listening to the likes of Gawn and Patracca, I think there's a determination and confidence that we can turn our performance last week around, just like we did with our form from around the mid season point when the outside football World was writing us off.

Jordan a no brainer.  Hopefully he plays like a star and cements himself a spot for the rest of the finals series, but even the standard Jordan solid output and gut running is what's required.

Tomlinson has shown enough that he's still more than capable on his day.  Perhaps the retirement announcement from Hibbo during the week was a concession that he can't quite play out a full AFL game at his and/or own standard of intensity and Tommo still can?  Also think Tommo will be playing out of his skin at this chance to play in big finals.

While Spargo's form this season hasn't exactly set the world on fire at times, something that does need to be remembered is that he's amoung the elite in the league at hitting a target inside 50 - something we sorely lacked last week.

I'd love to see Hibbo be the sub and it's a role he may still be well suited to, but equally I think we'd still get good returns out of Grundy or Schache if they get given the nod.  I think it's highly unlikely we'd have Laurie as sub again based on his lack luster performance last week, but also as we've gone fairly small in the main 22.

12 minutes ago, Dees_In_October said:

Can't speak for Katrina, but I know I get a bit twitchy at the idea of a women's game being a "curtain raiser" for the men's. I think that has a connotation of being less than though I know you don't mean it like that at all. Double headers for sure though. I really liked it when the AFLW practice matches last year were aligned with men's H&A games for double headers.  I think every team should play one double-header early in the season. The problem is that the overlap is with finals so can't be fixtured in advance or to match up teams. And it seems they're (finally) set down this time of year for the season, so they'll want to stick with that for a while.

Thanks that's a better way of expressing it.  If you look at my original post I stated and/or after the men's game, because I did want to avoid the connotation of being just a 'curtain raiser' but probably didn't do that so well.

To be honest, I'd like the opportunity to more conviently watch more the women's games live at the ground.

Buying a club membership should get you membership to both teams.

Getting more exposure via game attendances and hopefully corresponding rise in TV ratings should also booster the justification for more and/or equal pay for the women's players too.

2 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

I could not disagree more.  The crowds that go to AFLW are a very different crowd to AFL.  Many fans attend AFLW over AFL because it is a totally different crowd.  Last Thursday's behaviour by Collingwood supporters is a clear cut example of the kind of behaviour that AFLW fans seek to avoid.  The players also don't want to play second fiddle to the men, they certainly do not want to be regarded as "the reserves" competition.  There are a lot of AFL supporters who treat AFLW as second rate, and still mock, degrade, etc the competition, fans and players. Why would you want to subject AFLW players and fans to that?

 

Katrina I get where you are comming from but I think you have at least partly misinterpreted where I'm coming from and actually show some biases of your own.  I don't think I stated that they should be regarded as the reserves teams.

I've been a big supporter of the rise of the women's competition and my suggestion was more so based on them getting to play at venues and an audience equal to the men's competition.  I look at the second tier ground and small crowds the AFLW play at and think they deserve better and to play on a stage equal to that of the men's team.

There's a bit of elitism in the assertion of different crowds too and I also don't think it's the solution to the issue.  If there unacceptable crowd behavior at the men's AFL games, then that's the issue that needs to be addressed, not insulating the AFLW games from the mass support they should get more exposure to.

P.S. I've never been to watch a Casey game since they cut out the reserves competition, but I don't regard them as unequal or second rate and I'd also gladly have them play more of those games at the major AFL venues, but would prefer they gave that oppertunity to the AFLW comp.

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

There's a big difference bw Salos best and being solid. He is an elite player and your right he came back in such good form he stood out. Lately, not so much.

Agreed, but being the elite player that he is, soild for him is good form for your average player and then he still has that potential up side.

I think his reliable kicking out of defense is also probably something that it structurally pretty import to our backline, contributing tobthat element of stability.

2 hours ago, tiers said:

EJ Whitten's catch cry was "stick it up 'em".

Yeah, maybe, but from what I understand he also played like a thug, so I'm not sure he'd be of much use in the current circumstances.  He'd probably fall in behind the Jono Brown Neanderthal 'can't avoid these incidents in football' brigade.

But I agree with everything else in your other post tiers.

3 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

Agree... although at the same time he's not performing at his best so it's fair to question whether he holds his spot.  A fit Salem is an absolute weapon!

Having said that, from the quotes it doesn't sound like there's any indication that he is at risk of being dropped so obviously the coaches are happy with his output.

It's disappointing in a lot of ways, because he looked red hot when he first came back in mid way through this season and I thought he made a real impact.

If he had have kicked that goal on the run against Carlton a few weeks back it would have made huge difference and it was the sort of kick you'd normally to expect him to nail, but I guess everyone is human.

I think he's been solid of late, but it could be a real boost to us if he can find that other gear we know he's got over the next few weeks and really tear some games apart.

2 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

He had some good VFL too. Hindsight says Jordan would have been better to replace Brayshaw, but the selection committee didn’t have a crystal ball or psychic at their meeting. 🥴

I'm definitely not against Laurie being given a go as a sub in some of the later games during the season.  And yes it's easier in hindsight, but I thought for a final the percentage play was to have Jodan as the sub as Laurie had shown glimpses, but nothing that suggested he could make as solid a contribution for even a quarter in a big game final compared to what Jordan has shown he can deliver in the past.

Hopefully this may be a chance for Jordan to solidify his spot in a finals team as I think he's a player we need to try to retain for the future if he hasn't already 100% committed elsewhere that I fear he might have.

I think the player really missing out of this conversation is Toby Bedford.  I know hindsight is a great thing, but I always saw him as a talent with abbilty that was close to cracking it and I'm sure would be getting a game this season with us.

Conversely, while he's racked up some big stats and maybe even some great games at Casey, I've yet to see Laurie look like making much of an impact at AFL level.  Doubt he'll get picked again this year, so I think it will need to be a big off season for him this year and him needing to reinvent himself to find himself a role in the side.  If he doesn't, I think he'll suffer the same fate as Baker.

In retrospect, I'm actually quite frustrated that Laurie was picked to be the sub last week, as even any of Grundy or Tomlinson or even Schache would have given us a whole lot more output than what Laurie did and if neither are selected in the main team, I hope they are at least sub over Laurie.  I think it's pretty much a given Bradshaw will be replaced by Jordan this week as I think we can be pretty confident he'll give a solid/reliable performance even if his best is not as outstanding as some of his peers that have kept him out of the side.

Nothing against Laurie personally, it's just my observations of him over the past season when he's been given game time.

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Courage doesn't come into it. They have a short-term commercial agenda and don't care much about the long term. They figure someone else will take over handling the lawsuits and the lack of kids taking up the sport.

Yeah, don't know about that one - is suspending Maynard really going to translate to less bums on seats or eyeballs on TV?  If anything the controversy has gained them more media attention.

Anyways, I think we are splitting hairs here Sue.  The issue is that the AFL are shirking the big picture issue in favour of hoping to make the issue go away in the short term.  You think it's dominated by commercial interests, I call it a lack of cougrage, conviction and integrity in the way they have acted with respects to protecting the head in just about all previous instances and scenarios in the past 3 to 4 years.

Honestly, I think the best solution to this is to play AFLW games as curtain raisers and/or straight after the men's games on the main AFL grounds.

There's now 18 AFLW games and having them play to the same audiences as the men's would be great.  It's a big commitment for people to attend x2 separate competitions when they play at different days/times & venues.

Ever since they got rid of the reserves, the pre-game entertainment at AFL games has sucked.  Conversely I always loved watching the end of the reserves games and I'm sure I'd likewise enjoy watching the AFLW games, if not more.

16 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Despite all the talk of launching here, it isn't rocket science.

I'm sure the AFL are fully aware of all this, they just don't have the courage to take the actions the situation demanded.

11 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

If recent trends are followed, penalties will be extreme for incidents occurring during preseason and the first few rounds of the home and away. From that point forward certain perpetrators will be given special treatment to allow the AFL to showcase their big ticket stars rather than have them sitting in the stands suspended. By the last third of the season the application of the penalties for this action will be completely inconsistent and will depend entirely on the players and teams involved and what the impact will be on the clubs that the AFL will want to see in finals contention (to maximise profits). 

During finals, anything goes, unless you are a no name, rookie from one of the interstate or smaller Victorian clubs.

If the Maynard incident had occurred in round one this year, he would have been suspended, I have no doubt.

Spot on.

The AFL are a joke.  What's happened here is way worse than Cripps last season.

Eddy is a bloody half back flanker.  I'd love nothing more than for GWS to win this weekend and then go on to smash Collingwood and knock them out (metaphorically speaking) in a prelim.

Thanks @Mel Bourne, but not a great time to bump the thread 😂

Let's just make it clear - if Collingwood decide to put up an appeal on legal grounds to an AFL tribunal decision that rubs out Maynard for 2 weeks or more, what they are actually signalling to the rest of the league is that "Collingwoods premiership chances and our players are more important than anyone else's getting perminant brain damage".

I know Collingwood are one of the 'big clubs', but the AFL should be putting a very hard word on them not to legally appeal the tribunal decision, as should the AFLPA.

8 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Brown's point was clear, he believed Maynard wasn't guilty because as yet the AFL hasn't come down on poorly executed smothers as it has with bumps and tackles. He's wrong but it's not the worst opinion going around.

The AFL has made it pretty clear that whatever the action, it's principal has about taking reasonable care to protect the head.

Does there need to be a rule or explicit precedent to every 'football action' that if carelessly executed makes significant contact to the head?

This point seemed to be lost almost completely on Buckley and Brown.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Very few Melbourne supporters thought what Kosi did in round 2 was ok. I also haven’t seen a single person on this site suggest Roo should get off after he elbowed McStay in the head. 
Of course every supporter base is biased, but Melbourne fans don’t go around calling injured players weak, or wishing them or their family traumatic brain injuries. Ffs. 

I actually do think Roo was stiff in so far as the contact was both on the more incidental side, I actually don't think it was intentional (i.e. I think he was instinctively putting his arm out to protect himself/His space or for ballance and McStay also happened to be down low) and McStay also wasn't evaluated as having received concussion.

But given the borderline case and stance that the AFL's stance on protecting the head, I don't think it's worth arguing the toss with the AFL and the MGC have supported this stance by the AFL.

Conversely Maynard did KO the guy - to me that's automatically easily degree higher consequence than JVR .  If the tribunal uphold the suspension, which I'm almost sure they will, I think Collingwood need to think long and hard about going the legal option and I think it is a very poor reflection on them as a club if they do.