We Lack Mongrel

[FuManchu]

Do you believe this controlled aggression resides in the team, or on individuals? Because if it's a team thing, do we then have a chance of creating it ourselves?

I believe you only need a few individuals within the team for it to permeate the culture.

Its a cyclic thing, it comes and goes and some of it may come down the the emphasis a coach might put accross. If MM is concerned about too many undisciplined frees, he might try and instruct the players to tread lightly in certain type situations and then it may go too far the other way. ( not saying thats whats happened, just an example)

Every team can always build it, but it has to start from someone that has it in their nature. Not everyone is born ultra ultra competitive, and that is the catalyst for being a mongrel on the field.

 

[FuManchu]

Either Well Left. I can never remember what happens during a game.
Yes, I think Chapman looked tough and very resilient, and Rooke was annoying too. I was too taken with Mooney's hairband and his missed shots to notice him otherwise.

Is Ling a mongrel, or (God forgive me - he's some mother's son) just very ugly?

Ling is committed to the ball or the task he has been given, not necessarily a mongrel as such. Either way, you'd take his competitiveness

 

[Snag Breac]

A big mongrel gets me going

What doesn't?

 

[well left]

Ling definitely has some mongrel about him but it is directed more at the ball than the man I think.

As a fellow ranga though he really is not helping himself with that hair style. The aim usually for us gingers is the less red the better!

Back on topic, I think we do need a few more hard at it type players. JA has some mongrel, Beams looks like he has a bit of aggression about him but we definitely need a few more. I'd like to see some more aggression in Nathan Brown's game also.

 

[Snag Breac]

Hasn't that hip flask rusted yet, Snag?

It's lentil soup.

Wish I knew how to multi-quote.

 

[Snag Breac]

Every team can always build it, but it has to start from someone that has it in their nature. Not everyone is born ultra ultra competitive, and that is the catalyst for being a mongrel on the field.

So it's the will to power? As with Napoleon? I suppose that's why Buckley will always be our principal champion.

 

[FuManchu]

So it's the will to power? As with Napoleon? I suppose that's why Buckley will always be our principal champion.

Thats a hard one, because I can cite a whole lot of players with more mongrel than Bucks.

I tend to think of mongrel as the willingness to cross the lines of discretion and do anything to win. Whereas I see Bucks more as a professional and pretty much a fair player.

Go have a look at your Dermies, and careys, Ablett snr and Matthews, now they had it all, mongrel and talent. Crossing the line didnt bother them. Its a lot harder to find these days as players are so heavily scrutinised. But one thing in last years GF stood out to me, was Sam Mitchell getting carved up in the first half, had an act of indiscretion on Ablett, I think just to let Ablett know he was still there. I actually thought it was a bit of a defining moment in the game. Mitchell got better in the second half and Ablett seemed to be pushed wider in competeing for the ball.

Its funny, Ablett snr had mongrel, he went everything, the ball, the player, he was a force unto himself, Ablett jnr doesnt snipe

You might see some little acts of sniping today in the guise of a contest, thats about it these days.

 

[Trojan82]

Does 'mongrel' in this sense of the word equal 'In and under players who get their own ball'

Or does mongrel mean intimidating bash and crash types that other players fear?

If its the latter wouldn't one A. Rocca be our biggest 'mongrel'?

If its the former I suppose we are addressing the issue bringing in some tough kids a-la Beams.

I wonder if 'mongrel' is misinterpreted as bash-and-crash type players. I don't think we need this type of player anymore. I think we need the players that wont sidestep a contest, that can tackle hard and force opposition players to really earn there possessions. On the flip side we don't need heaps of them. And I think this comes with maturing bodies. There wont be many AFL players that will sidestep a contest with Beamsy because he's not likely to hurt them. A few more seasons and he definitely will. This goes for a lot of our players including Pendles who doesn't quite have the body to scare opposition players. Its not IMO 'mongrel' that's important its the ability to hurt players that want to compete against them that is far more important. Players that do have the body to hurt others, but don't are of no use (L. Brown?) but players that DO have the stronger bodies, players that DO hurt players and DO have the skills to go along with it....(Judd, Gablett etc.) are ridiculously rare.

 

[mdc]

Medhurst, Maxwell and JA all have mongrel. Unfortunately it's midsized mongrel.

Heath Shaw has mongrel but not in a positive way.

Bryan has mongrel, but it's slowmotion mongrel, which doesn't catch anybody off-guard.

 

[FuManchu]

Does 'mongrel' in this sense of the word equal 'In and under players who get their own ball'

Or does mongrel mean intimidating bash and crash types that other players fear?

If its the latter wouldn't one A. Rocca be our biggest 'mongrel'?

If its the former I suppose we are addressing the issue bringing in some tough kids a-la Beams.

I wonder if 'mongrel' is misinterpreted as bash-and-crash type players. I don't think we need this type of player anymore. I think we need the players that wont sidestep a contest, that can tackle hard and force opposition players to really earn there possessions. On the flip side we don't need heaps of them. And I think this comes with maturing bodies. There wont be many AFL players that will sidestep a contest with Beamsy because he's not likely to hurt them. A few more seasons and he definitely will. This goes for a lot of our players including Pendles who doesn't quite have the body to scare opposition players. Its not IMO 'mongrel' that's important its the ability to hurt players that want to compete against them that is far more important. Players that do have the body to hurt others, but don't are of no use (L. Brown?) but players that DO have the stronger bodies, players that DO hurt players and DO have the skills to go along with it....(Judd, Gablett etc.) are ridiculously rare.

I think mongrel is a whole range of things, aggression, willingness to do anything to win the contest and an ability to mentally impose yourself over any contest and any opponent.

A classic case in point, banksy and rhys jones, two mongrels running in the same direction. Now banksy knew what he did was always going to cough up a free, but the act in itself was more than just about the ball, it was a statement. Mongrels make huge statements that are meant to last a long time.

 

[Chase the Ace]

What doesn't?

Not much, I'm usually there with just a smile

 

[The Dawes]

I think mongrel is a whole range of things, aggression, willingness to do anything to win the contest and an ability to mentally impose yourself over any contest and any opponent.

A classic case in point, banksy and rhys jones, two mongrels running in the same direction. Now banksy knew what he did was always going to cough up a free, but the act in itself was more than just about the ball, it was a statement. Mongrels make huge statements that are meant to last a long time.

That's a pretty good definition of what being a mongrel encompasses.

Dermott Brereton is almost the archetypal mongrel - doing almost anything to impose yourself on your opponents.... even down to running through their 3/4 time huddle.

 

[FuManchu]

That's a pretty good definition of what being a mongrel encompasses.

Dermott Brereton is almost the archetypal mongrel - doing almost anything to impose yourself on your opponents.... even down to running through their 3/4 time huddle.

A lot of people bagged Dermie, but what I would have done to have him at Collingwood in his prime. You never died wondering what he was thinking on the field

 

[Rohan Coventry]

You can't have mongrel in the side when you have side steppers such as Tarkyn & Didak being considered senior players.

 

[mattys123]

Honestly, Mongrel as it has been defined in this thread is over rated.

If anything the Nick Maxwell case(s) have shown that, and that real mongrel is just not able to be shown any more on the footy field.

Hawthorn didnt and dont have mongrel, then have a sense of toughness at the ball and whoever has the ball, which pushes the boundaries sometimes, but doesnt fall under the category of mongrel. In Hawthorn's whole side, the only real mongrel type player they have is Campbell Brown, who went within a bees dick of missing half the season if he had of actually hit Wells.

I would prefer a player like Dane Swan above any mongrel in today's game, as real "mongrels" wont last long with the MRP and video reviews they have these days.

So, do we lack mongrel, well probably, but that might not actually be a bad thing.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You can't have mongrel in the side when you have side steppers such as Tarkyn & Didak being considered senior players.

As compared to tough guys with little or no ability such as Bryan and Maxwell??

You're a dead set idiot.

All we need is time. Time for the tough guys to develop skill and time for the skilled guys to develop their bodies.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

As compared to tough guys with little or no ability such as Bryan and Maxwell??

I wouldn't label either as bonafide tough guys.

Bryan is a fringe player & hasn't shown much toughness at the ball.
Maxwell has little ability & seems to excell in taking cheap shots. Don't think that's an example of tough.

Toughness is a trait I've seen in Millane, Brown & Burns, not potting smaller opponents like Maxwell does.

 

[Optimax]

I wouldn't label either as bonafide tough guys.

Bryan is a fringe player & hasn't shown much toughness at the ball.
Maxwell has little ability & seems to excell in taking cheap shots. Don't think that's an example of tough.

Toughness is a trait I've seen in Millane, Brown & Burns, not potting smaller opponents like Maxwell does.

Ah shit now you are just quoting stuff from opposition trolls

When maxwell broke his leg on Jon Browns head that was a cheap shot on smaller player?

When he and hall squared up in 07 and had each other by the throat cheap shot on a smaller player?

When maxwell and soloman made a bee line at each other in 07 at the G cheap shot against a smaller player?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Toughness is a trait I've seen in Millane, Brown & Burns.

They would not have won the flag without outside receivers like Morwood, Russell, Wright, Barwick, Francis and Daicos moving the ball quickly and skillfully. It takes all types. As you know.

Not to mention that Millane Kelly Brown Banks Kerrison Shaw and others from that 1990 team would not get a game under todays rules. They'd be on permanent suspension. Not sure if you noticed but times have changed.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[DNine]

You are dead right, perhaps we should play in the morning, alot of guys get mongrels in the mornings.

 

[Snag Breac]

I feel we're groping towards a defintion of "mongrel" here - slowly but surely.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

They would not have won the flag without outside recievers like Francis

Tony Francis wasn't an outside receiver. Got his own ball & was tough at the ball, his tackle in the 2SF against Essendon changed the entire complextion of the game. He also stood up to much bigger players.

Daicos

Not sure if that's another good example. Daicos never played up the field in 90', he was exclusively in the forward 50. He also battled against bonafide full backs like SOS & Martyn, not flankers, which is toughness in another extreme.

Not sure these are the best examples on your part. None of them hear footsteps like Didak & Lockyer do.

 

[Optimax]

Tony Francis wasn't an outside receiver. Got his own ball & was tough at the ball, his tackle in the 2SF against Essendon changed the entire complextion of the game. He also stood up to much bigger players.

Kicked someone in his first match did scooter, now i loved the bloke but kicking someone on the turf is a cheap shot worthy of a sniper

Not sure if that's another good example. Daicos never played up the field in 90', he was exclusively in the forward 50. He also battled against bonafide full backs like SOS & Martyn, not flankers, which is toughness in another extreme.

Not sure these are the best examples on your part. None of them hear footsteps like Didak & Lockyer do.

Now i really loved this bloke and still have a signed photo of him on my wall.

But i remember on one occasion quite clearly at vic park within minutes of the first bounce he elbowed a sydney player in the mouth and knocked out all of his front teeth. The bloke bled that much that his sydney jumper no longer had any white on it. Elbow when someone doesnt expect it is a cheap shot

They were pther occasions that someone considered purely a ball player laid waste to anothers face.

But hey selective memory, also i am not in any way diminshing eithers career both scotter and diacs were childhood heroes. I just emember fondly everything the did

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Ok heres another way of looking at it.

Round 1 - dudded by the umpires
Round 2 - won by 9 goals
Round 3 - we lost because three players kicked 2 goals 9 behinds between them.

Lack of mongrel hasnt cost us a game this season. Lack of poise, skill and luck has. In fact we've had to drop some of our "mongrel" type players such as Bryan and Toovey because they simply were not skilled enough to win a contest.

All the mongrel stats (clearances etc) say we are competitive.

 

[Rohan Coventry]

But i remember on one occasion quite clearly at vic park within minutes of the first bounce he elbowed a sydney player in the mouth and knocked out all of his front teeth. The bloke bled that much that his sydney jumper no longer had any white on it. Elbow when someone doesnt expect it is a cheap shot

That was Craig Kelly on Ben Doolen & it was a front on charge...