MacDonald For Whom?

[rpfc 27,591]

Given my fondness for polls and the, apparent, imminent arrival of Joel MacDonald I wanted to look at where this player would find himself in our 22 and whether, all things considered (injuries), he is in the best 22.

Edited November 20, 2009 by rpfc

[jacey 333]

Given my fondness for polls and the, apparent, imminent arrival of Joel MacDonald I wanted to look at where this player would find himself in our 22 and whether, all things considered (injuries), he is in the best 22.

I had pegged Jmac senior as back pocket but jmac junior coming + with Brock leaving and no free ball, Jmac senior might have to go back to the centre role.

Grimes should be centre. Bennell and Strauss to take the second spot and while the other rotates wing.

And i'm not sure why Rivs is compared to Jmac in previous threads. I've let known my concerns with Rivs but Jmac is no threat. Rivs is defensively far superior to Jmac and is better then him playing tight or loose 3rd. Totally different roles. Jmac will play small and provide the rebound.

He should be best 22 2010 but 2012, who knows?

[Gorgoroth 12,337]

If he does come to Melbourne, we already have a Jmac who we call Junior, does that mean we call him Junior's junior?

[rpfc 27,591]

And i'm not sure why Rivs is compared to Jmac in previous threads. I've let known my concerns with Rivs but Jmac is no threat. Rivs is defensively far superior to Jmac and is better then him playing tight or loose 3rd. Totally different roles. Jmac will play small and provide the rebound.

You know what?

You make a lot of sense, I guess they do play different roles.

Completely different.

But I'll let the people decide.

[rpfc 27,591]

If he does come to Melbourne, we already have a Jmac who we call Junior, does that mean we call him Junior's junior?

That, or Joel.

[titan_uranus 22,668]

Rivers and MacDonald do not play the same role. One is a rebounding defender, the other is a floating third tall. Both can (and probably will, in Round 1) fit into the same defence.

I said that MacDonald will take Bruce's spot in defence. Frees Bruce up to move up the ground. MacDonald is probably better at rebounding than Bruce anyway.

Haven't yet worked out who gets dropped from my original consideration of the 22 to make way for Joel.

Edited November 20, 2009 by titan_uranus

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,294]

This is the most hilarious poll of all time. :D

[H_T 2,941]

This is the most hilarious poll of all time. :D

Why ?

[Dee tention 611]

Joel could sit in for Garland, Bruce or Grimes.

Grimes to the midfield and Garland, Bruce forward.

[Gorgoroth 12,337]

That, or Joel.

BORING!

We need to give them stupid nick-names

[Matt Demon 1,387]

As the poll suggests Mcdonald could play a defender and Grimes will be introduced to the middfield. Mcdonald was playing well for Brisbane so would easily fit into our best 22.

[rpfc 27,591]

This is the most hilarious poll of all time. :D

You might be reading between the lines...

But it's an important discussion never-the-less.

[71 Molloy 266]

BORING!

We need to give them stupid nick-names

JJ?

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

Mcdonald was playing well for Brisbane so would easily fit into our best 22.

He was playing so well that they give him the ass. I think he will be a waste of a pick. He will just be another Wheatley, too small for a key post and not talented enough to be a damaging rebounding defender.

[H_T 2,941]

You might be reading between the lines...

But it's an important discussion never-the-less.

He might well be....

Guess I was just trying to stimulate the "topic" in this thread.

[Tatu 416]

I see Macdonald as a potential tagger, running from midfield to defence.

[hoopla 418]

Why ?

Because it is artificial to select a defence without nominating a midfield, a game plan,a rotation plan - and an opponent etc .... and it calls for a direct comparison between two entirely different types of players - Rivers and MacDonald

It also assumes that rain hail or shine MacDonald is in our best 22 - which is far from proven. Don't forget that Brisbane which lacks experienced defenders is letting this bloke go......

If anything the only thing this strange poll shows is that MacDonald does not fill an obvious need - except the need for depth - unless he has leadership qualities etc - which would only make Brisbane's decision even more puzzling.

I can take him or leave him

[1858 224]

If anything the only thing this strange poll shows is that MacDonald does not fill an obvious need - except the need for depth

I think you need to extrapolate how MacDonald will serve us to over the next 3 or 4 years rather than just looking at our list for the next 5 minutes of next year and thinking hmmm, where will I put him?

Even if your assumption was correct (which I disagree with btw), to discard defensive depth from being an obvious need doesn't make sense to me. Defensive depth is a very important aspect to any club's list as long as the players involved are not list cloggers and can adequately do the job required. MacDonald is no slouch and will give us many options going forward as to how we use some of our other mid height defenders. He isn't competing against any of our 190cm+ players although I beleive he could at least fill in for 1 if they were injured. Of the stocks around his height, there is Grimes and Bell. It has been mentioned time and time again by many posters (and the club also) that Grimes is likely to be groomed as a genuine midfielder and we all know where Bell is at. From this pov a pretty obvious purpose is emerging for getting MacDonald. Even Strauss at 185cm is being touted as midfield material even though he will probably start from hbf.

The options that Bailey will gain from having a reliable/experienced 187cm running defender over the next 3 or 4 years will be massive IMO. MacDonald is also a good defender in his own right. Our defence has developed in many areas but we are yet to establish a solid run/rebound from defence style of play which I think we will focus on next year. This is such a huge part of the modern game and MacDonald's experience will help us with this as the majority of our defensive runners are still young and learning to gel. The younger runners could also benefit from playing along side of him and become better players. I should say though that I thought Warnock started to improve in this area which was pleasing for a taller defender.

Edited November 21, 2009 by 1858

[titan_uranus 22,668]

Don't forget that Brisbane which lacks experienced defenders is letting this bloke go......

From the reports I've read he requested a trade, which didn't happen, so he asked to be delisted to move back to Victoria.

[hoopla 418]

I think you need to extrapolate how MacDonald will serve us to over the next 3 or 4 years rather than just looking at our list for the next 5 minutes of next year and thinking hmmm, where will I put him?

I agree.... that is why I thought that this was an unhelpful poll!

If he is a strong team-orientated character ( I hope he is... I am asking the question?) then he should be an asset over the next few years - although his value will fall over time as our youngsters develop and mature.

Edited November 21, 2009 by hoopla

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,294]

Why ?

A 7 part poll which could have been easily been handled as a discussion? People get a bit poll happy on here. For what its worth I think he will play half back in the role previously allocated to either Grimes or Morton as they will push further up the ground. Likely back 6 assuming all are fit:Garland, Warnock, Rivers, Joel McDonald, Frawley and Green. Grimes, Morton, Bennell and Junior to rotate at times and Martin and Strauss likely to get game time their at some stage in the year.

Edited November 21, 2009 by big_red_fire_engine

[hoopla 418]

From the reports I've read he requested a trade, which didn't happen, so he asked to be delisted to move back to Victoria.

If that is true why is has he been talking to Fremantle?

I still reckon that if Brisbane really valued him as a player and mentor, they would have fought harder to keep him.... or to ensure they got something back in a trade

[1858 224]

I agree.... that is why I thought that this was an unhelpful poll!

If he is a strong team-orientated character ( I hope he is... I am asking the question?) then he should be an asset over the next few years - although his value will fall over time as our youngsters develop and mature.

1) Fair enough, although I think some insight did come out of it.

2) That is most probable but would also (I imagine) be part of the plan so far as he would be there not only as a good defender but also to help the younger runners improve. IMO our defence is quite good with the sheer talent of players. 1 on 1 situations, we are improving. Getting the ball to a neutral or possesion situation we are improving. Third tall up we are improving and we are becoming quite strong. But when I look at a (IMO) benchmark team such as Adelaide and their run from defence which is their main form of attack, we don't even come close. I thought given the circumstances, Bennell played very well this year and Grimes stood up very well too. The problem is that we don't have the system that other clubs have and we don't have enough runners full stop who can work together from half back - well not this year anyway. I consider MacDonald's influence on this aspect of our game as significant as Ball's influence could have been on our extraction work in the middle. Obviously MacDonald is not the same calibre of player as Ball (or many other defenders for that matter) but he helps us in an area where we are lacking. Until we establish our defensive run then we won't be finals material. If we can do this without having to "rob Peter to pay Paul" so to speak ie not drag back our mids to help out then we become more effective - Adelaide have done this whilst leaving most of their promising young mids in the guts. I'll probably get laughed at for this, but for someone that we get in the PSD who isn't a top tier name and more a safe option than anything else, he still could be one of our most important acquisitions going forward. This was not aimed at you either hoopla, just me thinking out aloud so to speak.

[hoopla 418]

1) Fair enough, although I think some insight did come out of it.

2) That is most probable but would also (I imagine) be part of the plan so far as he would be there not only as a good defender but also to help the younger runners improve. IMO our defence is quite good with the sheer talent of players. 1 on 1 situations, we are improving. Getting the ball to a neutral or possesion situation we are improving. Third tall up we are improving and we are becoming quite strong. But when I look at a (IMO) benchmark team such as Adelaide and their run from defence which is their main form of attack, we don't even come close. I thought given the circumstances, Bennell played very well this year and Grimes stood up very well too. The problem is that we don't have the system that other clubs have and we don't have enough runners full stop who can work together from half back - well not this year anyway. I consider MacDonald's influence on this aspect of our game as significant as Ball's influence could have been on our extraction work in the middle. Obviously MacDonald is not the same calibre of player as Ball (or many other defenders for that matter) but he helps us in an area where we are lacking. Until we establish our defensive run then we won't be finals material. If we can do this without having to "rob Peter to pay Paul" so to speak ie not drag back our mids to help out then we become more effective - Adelaide have done this whilst leaving most of their promising young mids in the guts. I'll probably get laughed at for this, but for someone that we get in the PSD who isn't a top tier name and more a safe option than anything else, he still could be one of our most important acquisitions going forward. This was not aimed at you either hoopla, just me thinking out aloud so to speak.

No 1858 - that's fine ....and your thinking is sound ( and perhaps more realistic than we sometimes tend to be at this time of the year)

A lot of it comes down to our options - and to our willingness to take a risk with our last pick. If we get as many injuries as we had last year - and he stays fit - we'll all look back in 12 months time and complement BP and IH for some very astute recruiting/ list management. If Strauss, Cheney,Bennell, McNamara and etc etc all develop he might have to spend some time at Casey. How's your crystal ball?

[Footynut 302]

No 1858 - that's fine ....and your thinking is sound ( and perhaps more realistic than we sometimes tend to be at this time of the year)

A lot of it comes down to our options - and to our willingness to take a risk with our last pick. If we get as many injuries as we had last year - and he stays fit - we'll all look back in 12 months time and complement BP and IH for some very astute recruiting/ list management. If Strauss, Cheney,Bennell, McNamara and etc etc all develop he might have to spend some time at Casey. How's your crystal ball?

IMO reality is that he is nothing like Rivers and gives us more body strength at the right age for our list.

We all get so excited as 'how will he fit in' and 'how will he get a game' and 'will he be in the best 22?'

The answer is simple 'yes'

We so easily forget that every year we are hammered with injuries and or players in and out of form.

Reality - Junior will miss many games this year as his body slows down.

Grimes will be freed up to take part in learning how to be part of our mid field.

Bruce may even be able to take some time up forward. Remember the days Bruce was able to do that!

Strauss doesnt have to be under pressure if he is struggling to come on at anytime through the year.

Its a long long year - reality is we may only have our 'best' team on the ground for anything from 0-22 rounds......Our young players cant and wont play every week. We need hardened bodies to be able to maintain consistancy in performance and compete.

There we go now you can all jump in and rip what Ive said to shreds.......