By Michael Gleeson and Jon Pierik
Brodie Grundy was recruited eyes wide open by Melbourne as an elite ruckman. The Demons selected him knowing what he was and what he wasn’t. Now they are asking him to be what he is not: a key forward.
Grundy is not Luke Jackson. Neither is he Jeremy Finlayson, Adam Goodes or David Hale. He is Brodie Grundy, two-time All-Australian ruckman.
The re-education of Brodie Grundy at Melbourne continues under the watchful eye of development coach Mark Williams, as the Demons try to turn the elite ruckman into a dangerous forward target.Credit: Getty Images
Melbourne recruited him because they knew if Max Gawn was injured – as he was earlier this year – they had no one else to ruck. And when Grundy had the job to himself he was very good. The problem for Grundy is that Gawn is better.
They also expected Gawn – and Grundy – to spend more time forward and, between them, be more prolific in front of goal. That has not worked. It should not be overly surprising, as both are elite ruckmen, not elite forwards.
The Demons anticipated having the two best ruckmen in the competition would provide a tactical edge on their competitors; a pairing no team could match. One of the two would get regular opportunities to go up against lesser ruckmen and feed the Demons’ elite midfield.
That logic was sound, but it has not translated to the sort of edge the Demons hoped for. They have not improved their forward potency; the shortcomings up forward that existed last year exist now.
Their answer has been honest in accepting things haven’t worked out as they hoped, and bold in making a mid-season move to recalibrate a high-profile recruit into something he has hitherto not been. They want to make Grundy a better forward.
As Nathan Buckley, who coached Grundy for most of his career including in 2018 and ’19 when he won his All-Australian blazers, said: Grundy is “a ruckman, first and foremost”.
“It’s now Melbourne’s responsibility to work out how they can utilise him. We [footy pundits] think it needs to be week to week, but you need a list across a season,” Buckley said.
The former Magpies coach said Grundy would do what was needed for the team and try to learn how to improve as a forward, but it was not a natural position for him.
Nathan Buckley consoles ruckman Brodie Grundy in 2018 when both were at Collingwood and featured in the documentary Collingwood: From the Inside Out.
“Brodie has been a ruckman through his junior career, he has played forward at times, only to pinch hit, and only to have a breather,” Buckley said.
“He has cut his teeth as a No.1 ruckman. He has had some time in the forward line, and you do need to develop another role, but it’s not natural to him to be playing in that role compared to what we see of him in the ruck.”
For a big man, Grundy has never been a prolific marking player. It was one of the reasons Collingwood traded him at the end of last season.
Across this season Grundy has averaged 2.9 marks a game, ranking him 19th among rucks. Gawn is sixth with 4.4 and Tim English leads the competition with 6.3 marks per game. More importantly, Gawn leads the competition’s rucks for contested marks per game with 2.36. Grundy is ranked 18th on that measure, with less than one per game (0.88).
Grundy ranks 12th among Melbourne players for the times he has been targeted inside forward 50. He has been targeted only 11 times as the sole focus of a forward 50 entry, and kicked one goal from those opportunities. Overall, he has 10 goals from his 16 games this season, which is not a bad return for a ruck, but not enough for a key forward.
It’s easy to understand why Goodwin now wants to make him a better mark-and-goal player because the Demons have tried many others there without the desired results.
Hopefully, the positional pivot works for Grundy and Melbourne, but it would be a surprise if it did.
As Buckley said: “when the music stops, he is a ruckman.”
Thus, it would also not be a surprise if Grundy and the Demons – as others have mooted – decide at year’s end that things haven’t worked out as they planned and mutually agree to part ways.
This might sound premature, but list management is ruthless, and players need to have a similar mindset about the ownership of their own careers.
Returning to the role of No.1 ruckman might appeal to Grundy. Right now, he would be extremely valuable in the marketplace to any club looking for an elite first ruck, probably more valuable than he is to Melbourne as an elite second ruck and unexceptional forward.
Port Adelaide would be an obvious fit if Grundy wanted to move to South Australia, where he grew up. Geelong, who were interested in him at the end of last season, would be an ideal fit, depending on how the Cats view the state of their list redevelopment. So, too, Sydney if he fancied the move north.
The difference between a Grundy trade at the end of this season and 12 months earlier is that he would have Collingwood continuing to pay a portion of his salary and perhaps also contributions from Melbourne. His asking income would no longer be prohibitive for clubs. He would be a more attractive and affordable option to suitors with three clubs potentially sharing the burden of his salary.
Buckley felt it would be tough for Grundy to look for a new club at season’s end.
“He probably had a look at that [Gawn’s hold on the No.1 ruck spot] before he made the decision to come to Melbourne,” Buckley said.
“I don’t know what the conversations would have been, but that’s a big-picture conversation, and Melbourne will have an idea on that, Brodie will have an idea on that. But I know it would be quite unsettling for Brodes to go to another club. I would suspect there is still a fair bit to work itself out before that would be an option.”
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.