BoBo

Tommy was an absolute star in 2018, but that’s really the only season you would call him a ‘gun’

Yes, but once again, he didn’t become a gun forward for the rest of his career. I guess I’m looking for a Mal Michael type career... but going from the backline to the forward line. He played 3-4 season as a key forward and was average... then became a backman and dominated. I don’t think there is a player that’s been mentioned that has played 2+ seasons as a key defender and then gone forward and been an absolute gun player. Point being, it’s weird how there are at least 6-7 players in the last 20 years (that I can name) at least that have done a few average seasons as forwards and then become gun backmen.

The Mal Michael example I would count the same as Howe or Dunn. At Collingwood he was very hit and miss and could never cement himself as a forward. Then went to Brisbane and we all know what he was like as a defender. Michael wasn’t bad up forward but he was obviously way better down back.

At AFL level? I guess I mean they played 1/2 (or a few seasons) their career down back and then the other 1/2 as a gun forward.

I was pretty young when Neitz started so I don’t remember him as a defender! Thank you

This isn’t strictly about Melbourne, just more of a general question, if not allowed, mods please delete and apologies. I can think of quite a few forwards who were Ok or average at best, then get sent down back and turn into absolute guns (Howe and Dunn are prime examples)... BUT... I’m wondering are there any dedicated defenders that went forward and turned into gun forwards? Go dees!

I think the dichotomy of the current AFL being a BIG business that requires monetary decisions to be made but or the feeling of fans for the idea that it's about 'bleeding for the jumper' is very much at play here. If you see the AFL as a business then what the clubs and players do in their decision making is just that, a business decision. Not a lot of room for romanticism. If you see the AFL as being the old school tribalism that requires club loyalty and moves and trades eliciting an emotional response or betrayal then yeah, I can see how people would get [censored] at players for leaving and such. I kind of swing between the two but find trying to fit them both in to be a case of cognitive dissonance.

First posts Peeps so be kind. If the issue is congestion (and making 16 players on the field isn't to peoples liking) and the aim so it make players more tired, why not have a 5 player bench and reduce the amount of bench changes to 48. This way the amount of players on the field spend more time playing and the rest phases for players can be expanded with the 5th player, as their is a 5th player to chop out for key players to rest longer hence (maybe) reducing soft tissue issues. But obviously with fewer changes, Clubs will have to become much more tactical as to which players will need to be rested. If the issue is soft tissue injuries, then logically, you will want to have your mid-field being the one taking the majority of your changes. Kind of a happy medium?