1964_2
-
Posts
1,046 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by 1964_2
-
-
On 2/24/2022 at 12:17 PM, Lord Nev said:
You can call it harsh if you wish, but I rate his talent and footy smarts highly and I think he got better as the year went on, which isn't a 'harsh' call IMO given he was playing a completely foreign role for him.
Had a sensational final series, but i think early in the year he was a bit patchy as he found his feet.
Looks like you have been influenced by the media Nev.
SWYL is spot on. Just took people (and the media) a while to recognise the value of his selfless role:- that he performed all year long.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 2/25/2022 at 11:37 AM, Davos said:
I think most of these lists in the lead up to the season will have Petracca as #1, but I think if you polled Melbourne fans most would have Oliver as our best.
Is his dominance somehow underappreciated amongst the football media?
Agree, Oliver number 1 for me.
football media prefer trac, because he has the looks and is more charismatic and likeable.
-
On 2/26/2022 at 2:17 PM, titan_uranus said:
I don't envisage us playing a single game this year with all of May, Lever, Petty and Tomlinson.
IMO, it's one of Petty and Tomlinson for the third tall.
What odds you got for me?
very happily back that all 4 will play together for at least 1 game:- with the condition that they may not all play in the backline.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, S_T said:
When fit, our backline will consist of 7 (a back 6 plus one on the pine as per the GF) of the following 10 players:-
- May (AA and automatic selection)
- Lever (AA and automatic selection)
- Salem (stiff not to be AA and automatic selection)
then 4 of...
- Petty
- Tomlinson
- Smith (missed PF and GF due to injury)
- Hibbo
- Bowey
- Rivers
- Hunt (lost his spot with injury and couldn't win it back)
And we have Turner who by his selection yesterday must be tracking ok.
Going to be very interesting to see who lines up in 19 days.
I'm not sure about that. I thought Petty was a slight improvement on Tomlinson.
Agree with this.
A tough thing to say from a practice match, but based on yesterday for the first time in 12 months Rivers is not a lock.
If all fit
May, Lever, Salem, Petty, Tomlinson, Bowey then Hibbo or Rivers for final spot:- Wouldn't want to play a bad game though, as some incredibly stiff players ready to come in and take your spot.
If Petty and Tomlinson both fit, I do think they both get a game:- if team balance means they cant both play in the backline I do wonder if 1 will be experimented elsewhere on the ground.
-
2
-
1
-
8 hours ago, Fat Tony said:
Super impressive performance by the Dees, even though we were just blowing the cobwebs off.
ANB, Brown, Spargo, Hibberd and TMac were particularly good.
Oliver is becoming a combination of Judd and Cripps.
Petracca was tardy at times but there was no medals to be won yesterday.
Gawn was exceptional up forward.
Our game style seems to have followed on from the finals last year and we are continuing to move the ball with a bit more aggression inside 50.
We have so much depth in every position. Weideman looked great in his cameo. We know what Hunt can do. Smith and Tomlinson are good AFL footballers. Chandler is exciting.
Injuries aside, we are in for another great year.
Well said Tone
"Oliver is becoming a combination of Judd and Cripps" :))))))))))
-
13 hours ago, binman said:
Why is it Tomo's spot to lose? He is not the incumbent.
And as I have noted before Petty played a different role than Tomlinson. More aggressive. Less man on man. More zoning off and more intercepts
It was noticeable at tbe ground tomo has slimmed down and I think that is so he can better play the role the way petty played.
I very much doubt Goody will allow sentiment to cloud his selection decisions. And nor should he
They both trialled for the Petty position yesterday.
Smith played better. Moe athletic more intercepts, more run and more spoils. And with his leap, he has a weapon that tomo doesn't have, or any other defender for that matter.
And it is worth remembering Smith would be a premiership player if not for an ill timed hammy injury, albeit at half back not key defender. So there is no doubt Goody rates him.
Smith easily better yesterday.
But to be fair, Tommo would have just been trying to get through his first game back without injury.
Lets assess this one in a couple of weeks:- My feel is Tommo will easily end up ahead of Smith.
-
4
-
-
15 minutes ago, sisso said:
Wonder what the strategy is for the Carlton game I assume we’ll go for the best available “full dress rehearsal” plan?
Make up for the disappointment of winning by less than 100 points, by bouncing back with a 130 point win.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Ugottobekidding said:
Wasn't oliver going to be a blue? 🤣🤣
And Petracca a Pie, with his hero Pendles
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, binman said:
No, not tongue in cheek.
I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.
But in the second half i think she got a few things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things
I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.
Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space.
But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, ironically, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).
If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage.
Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward.
Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.
As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.
At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')
But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.
I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence.
We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.
The doags cared that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.
This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.
There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.
The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front. In both cases our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us.
What Daisy, and all the other commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.
Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more. It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities - they only tow scoring shots in the third, both goals and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.
We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence.
We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second
The dogs lost the game by by not being able to find a way to score more goals in the third quarter. They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.
In fact if anything i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch more often perhaps or try different match ups. Instead they just played into our hand and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.
They were the critical points that needed to be made.
Only point I would add is the team & coaching staff would have had supreme confidence that we would run the game out better.
This confidence allowed us to be patient in the 3rd and not panic when a couple of goals down.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, binman said:
No, not tongue in cheek.
I don't want to bag Daisy as she is fantastic and the best special comments person in the footy media.
But in the second half i think she got a few things wrong. Funnily enough the examples you highlight are two of those things
I hate to say it but BT was right - that kick should have gone to Pickett not Tmac, albeit not for the reason BT said. And curiously for the very reason that Daisy noted a few minutes after that the kick to Tmac was the right option.
Pickett had space in front of him and if he did win the ball he would have swept it forward into our forward line with his electric pace, as he so often does, which would have made it impossible for the dogs defensive zone to properly set up and mids etc to push back and allow a forward like Fritter to lead into space.
But of most significance kozzie was close to the boundary, so if he had not won the ball there was a high chance it would gone over the line for throw in and stoppage, allowing us to set up behind the ball and get our defensive zone set up (which, strangely, was Daisy's argument for why it was right to go to Tmac).
If his opponent wins the contest, they are hard up against the boundary and either have to risk switching (which we are brilliant at defending) or kick down the boundary line, which is how we like it as we set up to cover it and if we can't intercept smash it over the line for a stoppage.
Tmac was central, nearly in the centre corridor and had a man on him (ie not leading up into open space for an easy spot up kick). If the dogs win that contest it is in a very dangerous spot, one that is very hard to defend, as they have three lanes to choose from going forward.
Going to Kozzie near the boundary was the percentage play and as such in line with our tactical model and related team rules. The fact we ended getting a stoppage and were able to to set up behind the ball was lucky.
As for the comment about us going into our shells, that was the one of the things that really rankled for me.
At one point Daisy said we needed to 'rediscover our dare' and later after we had kicked some goals, used the example of one of our players keeping the ball in play rather than letting it go over the line as an example of us doing so, noting it was something we weren't doing in the second (ie before we 'rediscovered our dare')
But that is how we play, and how we always play - indeed there was an example in the second quarter where Gus did a look away over the head handball right on the boundary line rather than take it over as he easily could have.
I posted right after the grand final that Daisy fed into what i think is a false narrative that the dees were looking shaky and came back from the dead, so to speak. I think she got it wrong in the third declaring we desperately needed a goal just for confidence.
We had a poor second quarter. The simple reason why was that they smashed us in contested ball. It was not surprising the dogs lifted their rating in that quarter, but it was really surprising we dropped off. And they were clearly on top.
The doags cared that pressure into the third, but despite them getting the first goal in the third (early) we were matching them in contested ball and had clearly got the game back into the shape we like it to look like. It was back to contest to contest. We had stopped their transition game. And stopped them flicking it around. And stopped allowing unpressured kicks by the like of Daniel. We were back grinding.
This is how we played all season. Absorb opposition pressure, let them take their best shot, and then kick a goal against the run of play and then pile on multiple goals and take the game away from our opponents in a ten minute burst.
There were so many examples through the season of that exact same pattern, and funnily enough examples where that occurred in the third quarter as it did in the GF.
The two best examples were the round 17 Port game and the round 23 Cats game, where both teams were on top but couldn't score enough to, in the Cat's case put us away and in Port's case get in front. In both cases our opponents could only manage 2 goals (same for the dogs), despite throwing everything they had us.
What Daisy, and all the other commentators, should have been all over is that the dogs simply had to get more reward for their effort in the third quarter.
Two goals was never going to be enough, particularly because we had such a huge fitness advantage. We were always going to score a goal and all evidence was that once we did we would pile on more. It is important to note in this context that it is not like the dogs missed any easy shots or failed to take their opportunities - they only tow scoring shots in the third, both goals and perhaps only 2 or 3 other deep inside 50s that might have resulted in a score.
We didn't win it becuase we 'rediscovered our dare' or scored a goal to get our confidence back. We never lost our dare or our confidence.
We won the game by absorbing the dog's pressure and getting our pressure levels back to where it needed to be, after it had dropped right off in the second
The dogs lost the game by by not being able to find a way to score more goals in the third quarter. They simply had to get get the lead out to 5 plus goals, and even then i am confident we would have reeled them in.
In fact if anything i'd argue the dogs needed to show more dare in the third. They needed to take more risks, switch more often perhaps or try different match ups. Instead they just played into our hand and did the same thing over and over, largely trying to engineer a goal from a inside 50 ground ball, which is their go to.
They were the critical points that needed to be made.
Great post. Probably the best GF summary I have read
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, picket fence said:
I find it totally amazing that crowds are welcome at Casey Fields for the womens series, but gates are locked and I cannot get into Casey Fields to watch training, having to obtain a second hand view from outside the fence. I'm often the ONLY person there. Also you see contractors working inside the ground at these times as well. I'm triple vacced and wear a mask. Staggering really!
What kind of view are we talking from outside the fence picket?
-
16 minutes ago, Deeman said:
Change of venue for tomorrow’s scheduled training session from Casey Fields to Sorrento Recreational Reserve. There will be a short craft session followed by a two kilometre time trial to the Sorrento Hotel to celebrate the first anniversary of the infamous bonding session of last year recreating an afternoon of pokies, ponies and [censored] [Memo to email that [censored] Warner to remind him that it’s “bonding” not “bondage”].
Max and Goody are also running a book for the 2k time trials.
Nibbler - $1.7
eddy Langdon - $2.3
TMac - $2.8
As they say:- don’t change a winning formula!
-
1
-
-
On 1/30/2022 at 6:43 AM, 58er said:
Completely disagree DM
To lose one of your players you st RV building a dynasty and to be ready to take over from Maxy roiled be hard to take.
One crazy Demonlander ( he will know who he is/was) posted a similar sentiment after we lost a game in 2020 ( or it may have been 2019) saying we round get XXX on the trade for Clarry.As events have proved there is only ONE Clarry and he is so special he just may be our greatest player ever ( if Trac doesn't claim it). Some players are harder to replace than others and we know why. No one comes near their best and they are match winners! They take over games and NO ONE can challenge them. Eg The Granny.
Yes Clarry has solved his issues with handball and disposal etc. and is now the elite player who he always looked he would become. Maximum impact and ferocious attack on the ball with an over the top attitude NOT TO LOSE.
He often goes his hardest in the last quarter but to be fair it's all the time.
So saying 2 picks will replace Dogga is far too simplistic he is special and a champion who wins games already with his unique competitive style Great ball skills and pace that 199cm players don't have and his team first attitude plus he rarely if ever fumbles.
We don't know how it will be if we have to replace Dogga ( like Clarry) but you don't know how valuable he is until you don't have him!!
Thats why Eagles were bloody lucky they got Josh Kennedy for Judd but that's rare rather than the norm.
Completely agree!
certainly not a given that we would be adequately compensated for the value of Jacko if he wanted to go home
-
On 12/2/2021 at 1:14 PM, TeamPlayedFine39 said:
Hello everyone!
I hope it’s alright by the mods that I use a thread to promote my new Melbourne Football Club Podcast. In the spirit of the many ‘TV re-watch podcasts’, my friends and I have started re-watching all the 2021 Melbourne matches and reviewing them in the context of the season as a whole.
We’ve just released Episode 1: Melbourne v Fremantle at the MCG, where we reminisce about the lead-up to 2021, the match itself, review the votes and debate our favorite Demons to wear the Number 1 guernsey.
Listeners are welcome to watch the whole match, highlights or simply rely on their memory of each of our games this year.
Hopefully a little bit informative…
Hopefully a little bit funny…
Please follow us on Instagram @ deewatch_podcast
Thanks!
Great idea. Thanks!
-
1
-
-
On 1/26/2022 at 3:43 PM, Demonstone said:
It must be a fun life, waiting for someone to make a spelling mistake on a forum, so you can call them out.
Well done to you
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:
Where’s the girlfriend we were all hoping he’d have by now?????
Am hearing there is a que forming :- but given the wobbly teeth, it may take 2 flags to seal the deal.
-
6
-
-
25 y.o
I have no words. Just sadness.
RIP Harley
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:
It's the year that brought us more Covid, climate change problems, Trump and the protests in Washington, Putin's continuing belligerence, Xi's continuing belligerence, working and learning from home, Craig Kelly and Clive Palmer, protests and a Melbourne Premiership.
So, all in all, a pretty good year*.
Happy New Year to all. Let 2022 be a repeat of the Year of the Demons
*Note: I appreciate that this has been a hard year for many. Please appreciate the tongue in cheek nature of this post.
The 2022 flag will be better than 2021 :- lets make this club a powerhouse again!
This is only the beginning
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, buck_nekkid said:
At Christmas lunch I asked my nutter Hawks MIL if she could just pop the GF replay on the telly. Went down as expected, made me a happy man. Had to suck down years of their smug [censored]. Nice to put a cats bum look on the old girls face!
This is fantastic!
I feel opposition supporters are partly happy for us winning this year :- it won’t be until we dominate in 2022, that we really start to annoy them
-
2
-
2
-
-
GF replay was on Foxtel this morning, and I watched it start to finish & post game!
still more tears
the win has made me realise how much the bad years actually effected me! I think I use to kid myself ie “it’s only footy, who cares” during our lean times.
BUT, clearly it was a big negative drag.
Don’t want to take anything for granted. Who knows how long this successful phase will last :- need to soak up every experience, and enjoy every minute!
-
4
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, Jaded No More said:
I’m in charge of bringing the cheese platter for Christmas lunch today. My Richmond mad in laws are gonna love the Melbourne premiership cheese board I’m gonna bring to the occasion.
Melb vs Richmond being replayed on Foxtel now :- best you let the in-laws know
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:
Disagree.
Crows was the best game Oliver has played in his career IMO.and the best home and away performance by any of our players this year.
Just because Clarry has the ability to get 10 possy’s in 10 minutes, doesn’t mean he has gone missing when gets 6-7 possessions in a quarter.
-
2
-
-
On 12/21/2021 at 7:26 AM, Chook said:
Our entire midfield (including Oliver) went missing for large chunks of that game.
Disagree.
Crows was the best game Oliver has played in his career IMO.and the best home and away performance by any of our players this year.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, picket fence said:
Jeerlong still making excuses! As if they dont. Now under the guise of explaining to the moggie members about players being ill on eve of our Preliminary final thrashing of them. Still sounds like a weak attempt to excuse what for them was a pitiful performance. No wonder they are my most hated team. Cry me a river and wallow in your own sullage Jeerlong!
Hopefully the players are reminded of these excuses from Geelong before the next time we play/destroy them.
-
1
-
Angus Brayshaw Re-Signs Until 2028
in Melbourne Demons
Posted · Edited by 1964_2
A point that has been missed, is that going to a weaker club doesn’t automatically make you a better player:- Even if you are given more opportunity, such as a starting inside mid.
Maybe staying at Melb, on a wing, in a successful team, with excellent structure, actually allows him to have a better career, vs being a starting inside mid at a struggling team such as St.Kilda or Hawthorn or whoever. Albeit retiring with less $$ than he would have if he departed.