View Full Version : why did port dump monty
and do you agree with that decision?
portentous
8 Dec 2005, 16:37
Yes. His back is totally stuffed.
crazy_big_al
8 Dec 2005, 16:40
Yes. His back is totally stuffed.
i agree with NAt for once:D
blackdiamond
8 Dec 2005, 16:40
I didn't necessarily agree with the dumping of Monty.
However we do need to bring on the youngsters rather than have all the older players leave at once so sadly Monty formed part of the transition.
I hope that he is successful with his return to the Bulldogs, in most respects a great clubman.
ah. on the website they say since he started footy late, he has 'the body of a 30yo' which I find hilarious becaue the pretext is that we didnt waste a pick on a 32yo because hes as good as a 30yo. :confused: now its a 30yo with a stuffed back :mad:
missionpossible
8 Dec 2005, 16:44
Yes I agree with the decision. In light of what has happened I assume that the timing had more to do with the bulldogs showing interest in him and it becoming relevant that a trade wouldn't be made. Otherwise I confident that he would have been told earlier.
Also dont know why the bulldogs grabbed him as they have a million and one players of his type.
blackdiamond
8 Dec 2005, 16:44
Calling it stuffed is a bit harsh, he still managed to come sixth in the best and fairest and his football got better as the year went on.
Its a tough one.
He had a great year after an injury screwed year in 2004. Finished 6th in our BnF. Probably deserved another season. On the other hand, hes 32, has maybe one year left and Port at the moment doesnt really have anyone ready to take over from him. Wanganeen, Kingsley and Wakelin will also probably retire next year and as blackdiamond said, we probably cant afford all those gone from the defence at once.
So from where I am sitting, it was either give him a one year contract but have him as backup only, which Monty wouldnt have agreed to anyway, or not give him a contract and give him a chance to play another full season at a different club.
Was a great clubman and it probably wasnt handled well. Was dissapointing to see him run his mouth off.
portentous
8 Dec 2005, 16:53
I don't think he'll last the season, especially given he'll be playing at Telstra Dome most weeks. The last thing a suspect back needs is a hard ground.
yeah, I cant see the wisdom in taking him.. I could make a list of 7-8 players vying for a HBF spot, including Rohan smith whose body is in great shape.
plus, we are whining about not being able to afford rookies. what are we paying monty comapred to a new draftee? how many rookies could we list without him?
I think maybe it is more of a political thing. put some pressure on the younguns: 'you wont be slotting into HBF just because its the easiest spot to introduce young players... you have to earn it.' plus eade has been making noises about 'leadership and experience'
not a vote of confidence in rohan smith though, is it?
Considering his back is stuffed, Monty did a pretty good job last year. But when you watch his play, what he's really lost from the time he was an All-Australian defender is his leap. Its gone.
Choco really loved leaping Monty, he was probably the centrepiece of our defensive gameplan from 2001-2004 with his ability to play small, yet intercept errant kicks into the forward line with such regularity. He was an excellent tactical tool.
Like every AFL club, we have about 12837912 wannabe half-back flankers in our reserves side. While Monty is still a fairly solid player, he's not the great tactical tool he was, so Choco must reckon its time to develop a new one.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he tried to shift Motlop to play that role.
As for why the Dogs took Monty, I think you have a lot of pretenders in your defence that need to see what real defenders are meant to play like. He's a team player for a start, he's a smart player, and you don't see him shirk contests.
If anyone should be worried, I'd think it should be Ryan Hargrave.
Considering his back is stuffed, Monty did a pretty good job last year. But when you watch his play, what he's really lost from the time he was an All-Australian defender is his leap. Its gone.
Choco really loved leaping Monty, he was probably the centrepiece of our defensive gameplan from 2001-2004 with his ability to play small, yet intercept errant kicks into the forward line with such regularity. He was an excellent tactical tool.
Like every AFL club, we have about 12837912 wannabe half-back flankers in our reserves side. While Monty is still a fairly solid player, he's not the great tactical tool he was, so Choco must reckon its time to develop a new one.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he tried to shift Motlop to play that role.
As for why the Dogs took Monty, I think you have a lot of pretenders in your defence that need to see what real defenders are meant to play like. He's a team player for a start, he's a smart player, and you don't see him shirk contests.
If anyone should be worried, I'd think it should be Ryan Hargrave.
Good post, plus what has been said in other posts about losing too many experienced players in one year.
crazy_big_al
8 Dec 2005, 18:55
Good post, plus what has been said in other posts about losing too many experienced players in one year.
thats very true. We needed to blood some players back there. either symes, or the grew (if we decide to play him in the back half) also maybe the Lonie ranger
paul scholes
8 Dec 2005, 23:01
Considering his back is stuffed, Monty did a pretty good job last year. But when you watch his play, what he's really lost from the time he was an All-Australian defender is his leap. Its gone.
Choco really loved leaping Monty, he was probably the centrepiece of our defensive gameplan from 2001-2004 with his ability to play small, yet intercept errant kicks into the forward line with such regularity. He was an excellent tactical tool.
Like every AFL club, we have about 12837912 wannabe half-back flankers in our reserves side. While Monty is still a fairly solid player, he's not the great tactical tool he was, so Choco must reckon its time to develop a new one.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he tried to shift Motlop to play that role.
As for why the Dogs took Monty, I think you have a lot of pretenders in your defence that need to see what real defenders are meant to play like. He's a team player for a start, he's a smart player, and you don't see him shirk contests.
If anyone should be worried, I'd think it should be Ryan Hargrave.
pretenders in defence? Port would have brian harris back in adelaide in a flash.
Yes, when discussing the likely use of Monty, a half-back flanker, at the Dogs, I clearly would be bagging the fullback.
PowerKat
9 Dec 2005, 08:45
Reading between the lines so to speak, of the so-called dispute with Tredrea as far as attitude goes (there was a mention of him being one to not take training so seriously), this may have been a contributing factor in the decision (if there was any truth in that). IIRC he was the only player other than Tredders to be mentioned in that article and I'm probably drawing a long bow here, but that may also partly explain Monty's parting shot.
Considering his back is stuffed, Monty did a pretty good job last year. But when you watch his play, what he's really lost from the time he was an All-Australian defender is his leap. Its gone.
Choco really loved leaping Monty, he was probably the centrepiece of our defensive gameplan from 2001-2004 with his ability to play small, yet intercept errant kicks into the forward line with such regularity. He was an excellent tactical tool.
Like every AFL club, we have about 12837912 wannabe half-back flankers in our reserves side. While Monty is still a fairly solid player, he's not the great tactical tool he was, so Choco must reckon its time to develop a new one.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he tried to shift Motlop to play that role.
As for why the Dogs took Monty, I think you have a lot of pretenders in your defence that need to see what real defenders are meant to play like. He's a team player for a start, he's a smart player, and you don't see him shirk contests.
If anyone should be worried, I'd think it should be Ryan Hargrave.
hagreave is improving incrementally. he had a solid year this year. eade rates him highly because of his versatility.
however, we have signed silvagni and wellman as assistant coaches, so you dont need to be einstein to see where eade is going. Im getting the feeling monty has been drafted almost as a playing assistant coach.
*PAFC*13
9 Dec 2005, 08:59
Old man in a rebuilding list.
Considering his back is stuffed, Monty did a pretty good job last year. But when you watch his play, what he's really lost from the time he was an All-Australian defender is his leap. Its gone.
Choco really loved leaping Monty, he was probably the centrepiece of our defensive gameplan from 2001-2004 with his ability to play small, yet intercept errant kicks into the forward line with such regularity. He was an excellent tactical tool.
Like every AFL club, we have about 12837912 wannabe half-back flankers in our reserves side. While Monty is still a fairly solid player, he's not the great tactical tool he was, so Choco must reckon its time to develop a new one.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he tried to shift Motlop to play that role.
As for why the Dogs took Monty, I think you have a lot of pretenders in your defence that need to see what real defenders are meant to play like. He's a team player for a start, he's a smart player, and you don't see him shirk contests.
If anyone should be worried, I'd think it should be Ryan Hargrave.
Well articulated Porthos and for once, I see a detailed analysis without the pessimistic/cynical slunt that characterise most of your posts. I may just add that in a belatedly planned succession plan, Monty was the most vulnerable of our players over 30 and his position is easier to fill than say a more versatile Kingas. Personally i would have shoved Bish out before Monty and I think he survived only because he's got a year to run on his contract.
Monty was the most vulnerable of our players over 30 and his position is easier to fill than say a more versatile Kingas.I very much disagree on that. Monty as an accountable backman is much harder to replace with the current players on our list, as opposed to Kingsley as a free running half-back/wingman.
The only football reason you'd give Monty the shove ahead of Kingsley is injury or conditioning.
I very much disagree on that. Monty as an accountable backman is much harder to replace with the current players on our list, as opposed to Kingsley as a free running half-back/wingman.
The only football reason you'd give Monty the shove ahead of Kingsley is injury or conditioning.
We will agree to disagree then because I think Kingsley is very useful as a HBF and even more effectively as a depth midfield rotations player. Put it this way:
Pound for pound HBF: Monty wins hands down
Pound for pound midfield rotations: Kingsley wins hands down
Pound for pound HBF vs Midfield priority needs at Port: Midfield wins outright.
Therefore Kingsley wins as the player you keep because he has an advantage in an area the club is weak. Simple
We do not have a lack of players that like getting the ball loose on a flank and sometimes forget what they're doing when they've got the ball.
Kingsley is not a true midfielder, he is a generic flanker with ordinary disposal and ordinary marking ability, and none of that is something we lack.
Accountable defender vs Generic flanker - Defender wins.
We do not have a lack of players that like getting the ball loose on a flank and sometimes forget what they're doing when they've got the ball.
Kingsley is not a true midfielder, he is a generic flanker with ordinary disposal and ordinary marking ability, and none of that is something we lack.
Accountable defender vs Generic flanker - Defender wins.
Disagree again: Kingas is more than just a flanker, he makes a decent contribution to our midfield stocks and does get the footy. If you can, bring up his stats from the last 2 years and you will see what i mean. While focussing on his midfield defficiencies porthos you have actually ignored my fundamental argument that Kingsley's versatility, however limited, actually offers Port that bitb more than what Monty could offer as a solid HBF
Disagree again: Kingas is more than just a flanker, he makes a decent contribution to our midfield stocks and does get the footy.I'm pretty sure that thats what flankers are meant to do. That is the role of a flanker.
If you can, bring up his stats from the last 2 years and you will see what i mean.I would suggest that you show me what you mean, because just looking at his stats tells very little.
While focussing on his midfield defficiencies porthos you have actually ignored my fundamental argument that Kingsley's versatility, however limited, actually offers Port that bitb more than what Monty could offer as a solid HBFSimply put, I disagree and Monty's 6th placing in the club B&F also disagrees. Also...
Players on list that can fill these roles
Monty
Confidently: Shaun Burgoyne, Michael Wilson, Gavin Wanganeen. Daniel Motlop
Feasibly: Ezard, Lower, Shattock
Kingsley
Confidently: Shaun Burgoyne, Dom Cassisi, Stuart Dew, Michael Pettigrew, Nathan Lonie, Peter Walsh, Daniel Motlop
Feasibly: Ebert, Eckermann, Ezard, Surjan, Symes, Thomson, Ware, Pearce
Handyandy
9 Dec 2005, 14:30
Great player, bad attitude.
I read an article in the melbourne press where Clarkson harshly criticized monty for being an unaccountable type of player. The treadrea leak was also very damaging to the club. And then the spray he gave the club showed poor judgement.
I'm pretty sure that thats what flankers are meant to do. That is the role of a flanker.
I would suggest that you show me what you mean, because just looking at his stats tells very little.
Simply put, I disagree and Monty's 6th placing in the club B&F also disagrees. Also...
Players on list that can fill these roles
Monty
Confidently: Shaun Burgoyne, Michael Wilson, Gavin Wanganeen. Daniel Motlop
Feasibly: Ezard, Lower, Shattock
Kingsley
Confidently: Shaun Burgoyne, Dom Cassisi, Stuart Dew, Michael Pettigrew, Nathan Lonie, Peter Walsh, Daniel Motlop
Feasibly: Ebert, Eckermann, Ezard, Surjan, Symes, Thomson, Ware, Pearce
Regardless, rightly or wrongly, the Club's view was that at this point in time, Kingas is more valuable to the club than Monty. I'm one of those that share the club' view as well
Oh, he is (though its a close call), but its because of Montgomery's deterioration (and possibly off-field stuff?), when compared to Kingsley's resilience to injury and solid fitness. Last I checked, Kingers is two years younger too.
Of course, none of those are the issues that you said gave Kingsley the edge over Montgomery, so I'm not sure how stating the club's overall view supports your argument at all.
I'm with Porthos.
A Monty without his trademark leap, while still a more than useful player, is not what we need.
A Monty with his trademark leap intact would be one of the first re-contracted.
If we kept him, he would play all 22 games plus whatever finals we have. Choco does not believe in keeping "ex-first team players in the background.
When you add it all up, it was a logical time for him to go.
I wish him all the best at the Doggies.
I'm with Porthos.
A Monty without his trademark leap, while still a more than useful player, is not what we need.
A Monty with his trademark leap intact would be one of the first re-contracted.
If we kept him, he would play all 22 games plus whatever finals we have. Choco does not believe in keeping "ex-first team players in the background.
When you add it all up, it was a logical time for him to go.
I wish him all the best at the Doggies.
Me too. Unless he gets his leap back.
dreamkillers
9 Dec 2005, 20:07
The decision to dump Monty wasn't based on his age, his back or form but what went on behind the scenes at the club........which a few have hinted at it here except I'll add it wasn't just the one occasion.
It was also bought up in posts on our board earlier in the year where there was an issue with a player but the article at the time didn't name them.