AFL Player # 7: Indefatigable Zach Merrett (c) - Baby on the way!

Remove this Banner Ad

Treloar and Neale are the 2 laughable inclusions above Merrett. They’re simply accumulators like Parish. Merrett is damaging.

Merrett could win the Brownlow and miss out on AA. Not that umpire decisions on the Best & Fairest gets me warm and tingly.
 
Treloar and Neale are the 2 laughable inclusions above Merrett. They’re simply accumulators like Parish. Merrett is damaging.

Merrett could win the Brownlow and miss out on AA. Not that umpire decisions on the Best & Fairest gets me warm and tingly.

How'd Merrett's team do?
Didn't make finals.
He had the chance to hit the leading player against the crows to win the game, caked it.
Had the chance to kick the goal and beat gold coast, caked it.

So he wasn't good enough when it mattered.
He had a very good year, but not good enough to offset the narrative that he and the team he leads failed the pressure test.

Neale and Treloars teams both made finals, and they both had very good years, Neale's in particular was huge.

Just because our guy didn't get in doesn't mean you have to tear down those who did to build our guy up.

He makes those two moments I guarantee you he makes it.

He and this team just have to be better.
 
So this was written by a Pies poster who people on that board seem to trust;

"Just a source inside the club.

It's pretty solid,

Bombers are a bit over the click of Stringer Larverde and Merrett.

Merrett is a big **** when around these 2 and Bombers want to move away from it."

"Yeah this person is inside Essendon and it's pretty toxic atm.

Scott just gives you nothing if your not in his best 10 players he barely speaks to you.

If your in the rehab group he won't speak to you.

I'm surprised with Merrett, always thought he would have been a good bloke but sounds like an arseh*le."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

How'd Merrett's team do?
Didn't make finals.
He had the chance to hit the leading player against the crows to win the game, caked it.
Had the chance to kick the goal and beat gold coast, caked it.

So he wasn't good enough when it mattered.
He had a very good year, but not good enough to offset the narrative that he and the team he leads failed the pressure test.

Neale and Treloars teams both made finals, and they both had very good years, Neale's in particular was huge.

Just because our guy didn't get in doesn't mean you have to tear down those who did to build our guy up.

He makes those two moments I guarantee you he makes it.

He and this team just have to be better.

How did West Coast do as a team? Did their performance impact the selection of any of their players?

I thought AA rewarded players individually for their performance, not judged them on their team's success or failure.
 
How'd Merrett's team do?
Didn't make finals.
He had the chance to hit the leading player against the crows to win the game, caked it.
Had the chance to kick the goal and beat gold coast, caked it.

So he wasn't good enough when it mattered.
He had a very good year, but not good enough to offset the narrative that he and the team he leads failed the pressure test.

Neale and Treloars teams both made finals, and they both had very good years, Neale's in particular was huge.

Just because our guy didn't get in doesn't mean you have to tear down those who did to build our guy up.

He makes those two moments I guarantee you he makes it.

He and this team just have to be better.
It’s an individual honour not a team honour. Your AA selection shouldn’t come off the back of whether your side made finals (though obviously you get a higher number from those teams).
 
How did West Coast do as a team? Did their performance impact the selection of any of their players?

I thought AA rewarded players individually for their performance, not judged them on their team's success or failure.
I think team is always going to come into it. Just how an MVP in many US sports requires a media storyline.
Waterman doing what he did in that Eagles team? Pretty extraordinary. Same as McGovern.


It’s an individual honour not a team honour. Your AA selection shouldn’t come off the back of whether your side made finals (though obviously you get a higher number from those teams).

Yes it is individual, but you have to look at the storylines and the way it's spoken about.
We were winning games and because we were winning media had him as the captain of the side, why? Bont maintained the same standard for most of the year, nothing really changed there, yet Merrett was being put as THE guy.
It's a media narrative.
So when our team falls to pieces the narrative is the whole team failed. Zach is a part of that.

He takes those moments I'm speaking of and the team makes finals, hes probably the captain and in the squad over Serong who's team fell in a heap.

Now should the team swing on something so thin?
Probably not, but these awards are all narrative and storyline related.

What annoys me is you look at that side and it's bloody good. But because it's not our guy we tear other players down to put our guy up.
If dons fans would take their blinkers off they would realise the guy doesn't walk on water.
It's understandable he didn't make it.
 
Can someone access this?


It’s this


Basically Laverde and Stringer are after extensions (neither are guaranteed beyond 2025) and have been refused them. Zach has complained about it because they’re two of his close mates.

Grain of salt for me.

McClure has no problems talking shit and blowing stuff out of proportion.

Zach’s no fool and knows there is zero reason why we’d be looking to offer extensions to a 31yo Stringer and 29yo Laverde.
 
The Age article is a response to the McClure thing I think. Apparently Merrett was already slated to have a coffee with Scott and it came up in conversation. It isn't like he marched into the office making demands.

Besides that, they are still contracted for next year, so he's not "losing three mates in the same year". If the mates don't want to see out their existing contracts that's their own choice. The only one he actually lost is Hind and he's only delisted, it's not like they shot him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So this was written by a Pies poster who people on that board seem to trust;

"Just a source inside the club.

It's pretty solid,

Bombers are a bit over the click of Stringer Larverde and Merrett.

Merrett is a big **** when around these 2 and Bombers want to move away from it."

"Yeah this person is inside Essendon and it's pretty toxic atm.

Scott just gives you nothing if your not in his best 10 players he barely speaks to you.

If your in the rehab group he won't speak to you.

I'm surprised with Merrett, always thought he would have been a good bloke but sounds like an arseh*le."
Lines up with the articles that came out today
 
How'd Merrett's team do?
Didn't make finals.
He had the chance to hit the leading player against the crows to win the game, caked it.
Had the chance to kick the goal and beat gold coast, caked it.

So he wasn't good enough when it mattered.
He had a very good year, but not good enough to offset the narrative that he and the team he leads failed the pressure test.

Neale and Treloars teams both made finals, and they both had very good years, Neale's in particular was huge.

Just because our guy didn't get in doesn't mean you have to tear down those who did to build our guy up.

He makes those two moments I guarantee you he makes it.

He and this team just have to be better.
100%.
 
The Age article is a response to the McClure thing I think. Apparently Merrett was already slated to have a coffee with Scott and it came up in conversation. It isn't like he marched into the office making demands.

Besides that, they are still contracted for next year, so he's not "losing three mates in the same year". If the mates don't want to see out their existing contracts that's their own choice. The only one he actually lost is Hind and he's only delisted, it's not like they shot him.
I think that’s what McClure wanted people to think happened.
 
The Age article is a response to the McClure thing I think. Apparently Merrett was already slated to have a coffee with Scott and it came up in conversation. It isn't like he marched into the office making demands.

Besides that, they are still contracted for next year, so he's not "losing three mates in the same year". If the mates don't want to see out their existing contracts that's their own choice. The only one he actually lost is Hind and he's only delisted, it's not like they shot him.
That’s what McClure trying to insinuate with his usual bullshit
 
These things come out and “leak” over plays it. Of course Merret would chat to his mates (Stringer and Lav) about this. They then chat to a mate or sibling … that person drops it to journo to feel big… maybe they feel they’re supporting their mate.

Not only can you not stop players talking to their own team (manager, family, trusted friends etc), they need to get that support as they work through career decisions.
 
These things come out and “leak” over plays it. Of course Merret would chat to his mates (Stringer and Lav) about this. They then chat to a mate or sibling … that person drops it to journo to feel big… maybe they feel they’re supporting their mate.

Not only can you not stop players talking to their own team (manager, family, trusted friends etc), they need to get that support as they work through career decisions.
The Age article quotes two unnamed sources familiar with the conversation between Merrett and Scott, which happened in a cafe. Guessing the leaks were cafe patrons and the sources are Merrett and Scott who don’t want to be quoted directly but don’t want that sort of bullshit flying around.
 
Some of you need to give yourselves an uppercut or 3. Seriously. Was a major factor in winning as many games as we did, but because he didn't do more on top of that, he didn't deserve it?

This, despite being in such ridiculous form for large parts of the season, shouts for him to be not only AA, but AA captain, were growing louder by the round.

I'm out. See you in 2025.
 
The Age article is a response to the McClure thing I think. Apparently Merrett was already slated to have a coffee with Scott and it came up in conversation. It isn't like he marched into the office making demands.

Besides that, they are still contracted for next year, so he's not "losing three mates in the same year". If the mates don't want to see out their existing contracts that's their own choice. The only one he actually lost is Hind and he's only delisted, it's not like they shot him.
He just launched a shitty street wear brand with Laverde si they’ll still be colleagues anyway
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Player # 7: Indefatigable Zach Merrett (c) - Baby on the way!

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top