John Crow Batty

Hi all, Newton and Dunn still appear to deliver a combination of some good but mostly bad and ugly. I was impressed by their attitude though in unsuitable conditions. Their body language and desire was excellent. They should be persisted with until at least Watts and Jurrah come up. Their size can also plug holes around the ground.

Milne s a [censored] cat

Thanks 45 for your reply. To Billy, going back to Grinter I still consider him one of my favorite all time players despite some of the things he did. Like Leigh Mathews and Dermie he could dish it out but cop it also. For several seasons he was a marked man and many opposition players tried to take him out severely and failed. If they did hit him he always bounced up quickly and I never seen him down for the count. Thats why they called him "Balls". I always had the impression the Dee's played much better when he was on the field. He never lost his cool or acted like an idiot either. He was not imposing physically, quite average in size but he had enormous hands just like bear paws. Not surprising his specialty was the big round house spoil. If it missed the ball it did real damage.

Hi 45. I don't recall the Free incident. Can you elaborate? In light of Wonnajurrah's initial post to identify the dirtiest player in the AFL and considering all the replies so far I would vote for Dermie as the dirtiest in the AFL history closely followed by Wallis. What weighs in his favor is that in the earlier years acts of extreme violence were still acceptable unlike in todays game. And he featured prominently in many.

I recall, Dermie ended Melbourne's Dean Chiron's career in 1988 with a well executed elbow. Broke his jaw, was severely concussed and never played again. Chiron was no angel himself. He was a mean tough dirty little tagger and well suited to John Northey's game plan.

Hi all, if we go back into history there were 100's of thugs in the game. All on their day as bad as each other. Every team had 3 or 4 of them and also fielded specialist hard men who were only selected for a few games a season. The ones we remember were the ones who had a bit more talent, avoided injury and managed to have long careers. If they had loose heads or not much footy talent most eventually went back to the country or the VFA. Who can remember the rouges gallery at Port Melbounre in the 70's? Today the modern version of these types would be taggers and hard man defenders who's job description will include applying negative tactics. As the rules on violence are so tough and with cameras everywhere they have to be more subtle and not so easily spotted. Their actions can never be as brutal as in the past. So it would be hard to compare them with the legendary hard men of the past. And every side has these types on their lists. Though in regards to Melbourne I think they've been [censored] in this aspect of the game for years. I also agree that Dermie should be added on the list. He was another one like Wallis and Andrews who liked to do just a little bit more than the average thug on the field. I used to get the impression there were some players who actually liked to maim their opposition rather than just take them out of the game. Another few that deserve mention from the end of the golden era for these types in the 70'/80's are Neil Balme, Cowboy Neale, Mick Malthouse, Ricky McLean, Rod Carter, Stewart Gull, John Nicholls. And Laurie Fowler, Gary Baker, Shane Zantuck and Ray Biffin from the Dee's. But I could easily name a dozen more.

Hi Double and Hell. I was at that prelim and saw that hit on Mew too. Agree with you it was crunching. I didn't think Chris Mew would recover but he did. A couple of weeks before the Wallace incident, I saw Grinter clean up a Richmond player who I can't remember in a night game. It was the the most devastating front on brutal tackle I think I've ever seen. Looked like something out of pro wrestling. He didn't get reported or freed and the Richmond player was knocked out cold. I was sitting near the Richmond fans in the old Southern Grandstand and they went absolutely crazy. One thing about Grinter and I also put Dustin Fletcher in the same category too is that they ply their trade at the contest and rarely if ever behind the play. In a way that makes them more dangerous as other players don't know what hits them. Agree with Mal Brown and Carl Ditterich. They were first class butchers but perhaps a little early for this discussion. I saw Carl's last game against Collingwood. Melb got done and all Carl did was go around bashing every opponent he could. Not a memorable exit for him. As for Robbie Muir he was just an out of control psycho chicken. No method in his malice.

Hi Billy, I agree with you about Wallace. A big hypocrite. He goes out and sues for getting a smack in the chops and needing some dental work. I was at that game and the ball was about six inches from his face after he fumbled it when he got hit. Grinter wasn't even reported. Then he coaches the Bulldogs and cultivates the filthy few namely Libba, Romero, Dimmatina and Co to do worse. I recall that there were media reports in the papers and TV at the time mentioning an unnamed club and a certain unnamed so called hitman which was believed to be Grinter, well at least in my circles. There were several incidents earlier in the season where Grinter farewelled a few opponents off on stretchers. I think the AFL saw the Wallace incident as the last straw and took action against him. I think he got six weeks suspension but likely would have missed more from the hand infection he got from Wallaces filthy mouth.

Yes, Michael Tuck would not be considered big but he was strong. At the time I'm recalling he had been around at Hawthorn for quite a few years and was an established player. I believe he also spent 3 or 4 seasons in the reserves before he got a senior game. Besides he was not your typical skinny kid, he was a freak. I did see Rod Grinter a few times at the Harp Hotel in Kew and even played a game of pool with him. He seemed a decent guy unlike some of the morons who used to hang out there.

Not sure if other clubs did this but Hawthorn had a policy in the 70's to go around all the schools in their zone and pick out the biggest strongest kids they could find even though some couldn't play footy and train them up for a few years before they got a game. I recall Leigh Mathews brother Kelvin(just as tough as his brother) coming around to our school and got the likes of Dipper and a few others to go and train with Hawthorn. They wer'nt interested in skinny kids who could play.

I went to school with Dipper, then known as Bertie. He was a real gentleman and nothing like his football persona. Big and strong as an ox but carried himself with grace. Used to scare all the bullies who had a go at the weaker ones. The dirtiest IMO and not those who have brain explosions which determine some of their actions and in no particular order are Wallis, Andrews, Grinter (the human coathanger but OK off the field), Liberatore, Rhys-Jones, Merrett, Bruns, Millane, Mathews and Lewis. None of these players could ever get away with their game plan in todays game. To pick the baddest I'd say Wallis and Andrews. Both merciless and brutal. Dustin Fletcher is perhaps the sneakiest with the low stuff these days and maybe Scarlett too. I think the old Richmond influence carried on by Sheedy and Northey made some of these guys into what they were. I don't recall Grinter ever being a bad guy before Northey came along.

The bravery of the man is amazing. Just like the bravery he showed in ignoring injury to play a record number of consecutive gains and also mirrored in his selfless work for the community and the club. A true hero if there ever was.

Thanks rookie for the info. Good to see that this system was tried. Looks like it had some support at first but looks like not worth the effort. I still wonder how it will work for the modern game. Good discussion. Cheers all.

Hi all, I don't debunk percentage and it is still a required tool but it does nothing for making a game a better spectacle or contest and getting both sides to play out four quarters of quality football. And thats been the core issue of my whole argument. Interesting to read Prodical Son's comment on the Farrer league. The system made no difference to ladder position so perhaps its just as accurate as percentage to determine position but I'd bet it made a difference to how the games were played out quarter by quarter.

Percentage is of no real value until the later stages of the season and mostly for teams who are very close to each other in the standings and in contention for something they want. Unlike points on the board percentage ebbs and flows for most teams throughout the season unless they are very dominant or very poor. A draw nullifies all value of percentage for a team unless it gets involved in the unlikely situation with another side who had a draw during the season. Dominant teams accumulate whopping percentage but its wasted on them anyway as mostly they don't need it. Poor teams don't have much but can manipulate what they have to farm draft picks. No sense at this stage in playing for percentage and all its variation with such a long tough season still to play. Points are for keeps for the duration and thats all teams want at this stage of the season. Teams have to know where they are at in the grand scheme of things before they can play for the percentage card.

Hi all, I do think percentage has flaws and perhaps not that rated at least early in the season as shown by the example posted by titan. Percentage is a simple separation of teams with equal points and does not make for better games. As I said previously percentage can be skewed by a couple of blowouts either way and make or ruin a season. Teams can negate percentage for their rivals with negative play. It's value is also variable to weather conditions which may only affect certain games. Teams that play in better home conditions will have an advantage. Bonus points will reward sustained efforts for trying to win over an entire season. It may be possible for a team to finish ahead of a rival with less wins but it would also demonstrate that that team tried harder to win all year and played more consistent good football. Teams have try their best in every game to ensure they get the extra points and not the opposition. Agree that weighing the points spread is something that has to be determined to ensure the fairest and most deserving outcome. cheers

Thanks all, to Nostradamus, yes Rugby was getting too defensive and introduced bonus points to combat it. But the AFL is going the opposite. The game is getting ultra attacking too loose and big deficits kill many games as spectacles and contests after half time. I'd like to see most games played out to the finish. This will discourage negative strategies and encourage positive play for the whole game. A couple of scenarios. 1) A team leads by 80 points at 3/4 time. They eventually win by 64 points. The other side made a net gain of 16 points. Now this happens because the winner slows down or the loser plays better for pride. Sometimes a combination of both but more likely winning sides are shutting down. The game is effectively over. Fans switch off or leave early. The 4 points are already won at the break. With bonus points for the taking both sides can improve their standing. Also sides getting thrashed just give up because there is nothing to play for. 2) Late in the season, one team needs a win over its rival 4 points above it to make the finals. But is 8 percentage points behind on the ladder. Impossible to make up the deficit with a win. If their were bonus points to play for then the game will be played out to the death. 3) To maintain ladder position or leapfrog a rival side even though loosing will stimulate play in irrelevant games to gain extra points to enhance or maintain position. Further no team can make the finals by loosing and collecting only bonus points throughout the season. Winners will always get a minimum of 5 points. But losers can only get a maximum of 3 if they win 3 quarters in a game which is quite rare. And how satisfying it will be to see your side collecting the maximum 8 points by winning all four quarters. I don't think applying the bonus point system to past games for evaluation is useful as games were never played with bonus points at stake to begin with and the data will be false. Perhaps this system could be tried in a lesser competition to see how it works. As for tradition, I am a big fan of it but not when it is illogical, inspires no passion and inhibits the game from developing. A tradition I like to see maintained or revived is to play out the game for 4 quarters with passion. Aussie footy used to be a game where players were expected to give a 100% winning commitment for 4 quarters unlike soccer where soft playing for a draw is Ok or Gridiron where they have the unwritten code of "don't rub it in" when a side gets a lead of 30 or so points. In rugby they play for 80 minutes but a significant large proportion of the time players are just standing around in uncredited stopages. But the critical advantages of the other codes is that they are entrenched worldwide sports. Aussie Rules is a loner in an insignificant corner of the world. It will need constant innovation and stimulation to keep it the best game in the world and ensure its survival. Cheers all

Thanks all. I admit tradition did enter my mind but then again these days tradition counts for not much. There have been so many changes in the past 30 years. The game is not what it was then and is always evolving. An aspect of the game that needs improving is game quality time. It's my impression that teams don't play out 4 quarters anymore if they don't have to. Teams are saving themselves for next week and some games remind me of dud cricket matches where the game is virtually over after one innings.

Hi all, not sure if this has been discussed before but has anyone else considered a bonus points system for AFL games? Rugby Union have a bonus points system and it has made their code far more exciting. This idea is simple and i wonder if it has ever been considered before in football circles. My idea is that clubs still receive 4 points for a win but also points are given for each quarter won. Under this system winning clubs can receive between a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 8 points for a win. Losers can receive between 0 to 3 points for a game. One for each quarter won and half for tied quarters. Under this system for the last round, Collingwood would have received 5.5 points against Melbourne's 2.5. In contrast St Kilda would have received 8 points against Nth Melbourne's 0. These totals more accurately reflect how the game was played though of course it will never be perfect. The advantages of this system are; Less junk time in the game. Dominant teams have an incentive to play the game out for maximum return. Losing teams have an incentive to battle the game out and salvage some points. Rewards effort and reduces the luck factor. Unlucky losers receive some reward for their efforts. Good sides maximise their value. More fairly reflects how the game was played. Fairer ladder position. Over the course of a season bonus points will more realistically reflect better teams with similar ladder standings. Reduces the the value of percentage which can be misleading as it may reflect one or two blowouts for the season either way. Adds interest in the game. All the various posibilities in point scoring will add much unpredictability and interest to a game and ladder position variables. Will increase competition between rivals at the end of the season as 1 or 2 extra points may be critical to ladder positions irrespective to who they are playing. As for negatives I can't think of any at this stage so if anyone can think of some then please contribute. Any other opinions on this idea? Cheers

I recall Rodney Grinter doing a similar thing in a tight game against West Coast in 1990. He would be the last player one would consider to have this kind of intestinal meltdown. I'm sure this event will eat into Bennell's guts and we will likely never see it again.

I too remember 87 well. It was the most exciting time for the club since 64. Northey took over when the club was a rabble at its lowest and it took him half a season to get the players to play tough disciplined accountable footy. But it all came to nothing although Melbourne became regular finals contenders. If they did beat Hawthorn in 87 they would have faced a firing and fresh Carlton side who eventually crushed Hawthorn. I doubt they could have beaten Carlton. Melbourne's best player Robbie Flower would have missed the GF due to injury if they made it. They were considered over achievers at the time due to lack of star players. IMO they had their best chance in 1990 when they were widely considered flag favorites at the start o the finals but blew it against West Coast and were eliminated. Another example is Brisbane who started 2001 in average fashion after a lowly few years but then surged and won I think the last 14 games of the season to kick start their great premiership run. But they had star players to make good on their claims. If Bailey can get Melbourne to play disciplined accountable footy and get his game plan going then there is hope but it a big call for this year. At least this time the Dee's have potential star quality in their line up. The big plus about yesterday was that they played the committed disciplined footy required to build confidence. I loved the way they moved the ball around. Skills still lacking but it is surprising how skills improve once there is confidence.

Play Dunn, Newton and Miller until they drop or least until we get a full fit list.

The missed free on the rugby tackle on Bennell most likely cost us the game. Hoist the umpires by their pettard.

Great effort and commitment by all the players all day. Fantastic final surge in the last minute. All that was lacking was coolness to finish the job. Disagree with the harsh criticism of Bennell. Gave the forward line sparkle despite some errors. He will learn from this and deserves another chance. The umpires really stuffed it up by not giving him a free when he was rugby tackled late. That changed the course of the game and assisted the pies to get in front. Pettard and Jamar were great. Most importantly the game was played mostly on Melbourne's terms for the duration. Something rarely seen in the last few years. There is some light at the end of the tunnel.

Hi all, I have been a Demons supporter for over forty years. I grew up in Collingwood but always followed the Demons. It was very tough being a Dee's supporter in Collingwood then. One of my earliest childhood memories was when I was given a 2 pound note by a drunken Melbourne supporter after the 64 GF when I was sitting on a fence near the MCG after the GF. I've been a Demons member on and off for over 30 years including the Redlegs at one stage. Not a current member, now very busy and never around for many games. I manage to attend 2 or 3 a year. I have been reading this forum for a few months now and I was surprised to find that there are so many passionate supporters here. I don't know many first hand in my social circles so I don't discuss footy much. What motivated me to join this was last weeks game against the Hawks. I watched the game in a pub in Darwin amongst a group of neutral fans. What interested me was that most of them didn't rate Hawthorn much but how they commented on how bad Melbourne was. Can they get any worse? The reality hit home for me as no doubt many here already feel. A few thoughts on the current situation. Commitment. Without mentioning names, I get the impression there are a few players that may be cursing their luck at being involved with such a mediocre club. I think it reflects in their performances and attitude. Newton, Miller and Dunn. It appears these guys are the current whipping boys for many of the current ills. As we are all now resigned that this is will be another development year and with many good players still out with serious injuries or not fully fit then I believe they should be given every chance to prove themselves in the short term. Play them for five or six weeks irrespective of form. Dunn midfield, Miller CHF and Newton FF. No chopping and changing. While no expert on strategy and tactics it appears to me the Melbourne game plan is overly ambitious. Players not up to it and zero confidence to match. Keep it more simple, basic and accountable just like Northey did when he became coach. Once players can demonstrate more confidence then develop the game plan further. Cheers all and I hope we see a vastly better performance today.