Didn’t play at senior level for Melbourne but improved as a tall defender with Casey for most of the season. Is only 20 years old and could get another year to prove his worth - Luke Holmesby melbournefc

Games MFC 2010 0 Total 3 Goals MFC 2010 0 Total 1

Games CSFC 2010 18 Goals CSFC 2010 5

Without a senior appearance this year, TMac would have to be hanging on to his place on the list by a tenuous thread.

Delist and redraft as a rookie a la Meesen and Newton of last year looks like a possible way to go.

Without a senior appearance this year, TMac would have to be hanging on to his place on the list by a tenuous thread.

Delist and redraft as a rookie a la Meesen and Newton of last year looks like a possible way to go.

I think he's gone.

We have upgraded two rookies and are running out people to delist.

Spots on the senior list are running out. Unfortunately for TMac he's uncontracted and I'd think unlikely to hold his spot, which sucks. Isn't in the team for the China game either.

Hopefully we can pick him up again in the rookie draft. I really do think he's a promising young player who could make it.

Spots on the senior list are running out. Unfortunately for TMac he's uncontracted and I'd think unlikely to hold his spot, which sucks. Isn't in the team for the China game either.

Hopefully we can pick him up again in the rookie draft. I really do think he's a promising young player who could make it.

Agree- rookie spot for him ONLY..IMO.

Agree- rookie spot for him ONLY..IMO.

I wouldn't bother rookie listing him. He might make it, but so might a million other players out there and I would've thought that even if he did, the best we'd get would be a dime a dozen good-ordinary player.

Just a textbook delisting for mine. Open up the spot for a player with a higher payoff.

I'd delist him and re-rookie him if still available.

He has shown glimpses, which is more than some; he was taken as a bottom-age draftee; and we'll likely have a full rookie list to fill.

Nasher is right in part, but I think he deserves another chance, albeit a rookie one.

He has shown glimpses, which is more than some; he was taken as a bottom-age draftee; and we'll likely have a full rookie list to fill.

Nasher is right in part, but I think he deserves another chance, albeit a rookie one.

With an end goal of him becoming what? I agree that he's shown glimpses and in a completely fair world he should be given the chance to extrapolate on that (I thought that's what his 1 year contract was for this year) - but life's not fair and I don't think "he deserves another chance" is reason enough to keep a player on the list. To be worth retaining on the rookie list when they have failed as a senior player, the player in question has to have some quality - a trick, if you will, that will bring high reward if it comes off. Otherwise you're risking missing out on another Jordie McKenzie just so you can hold on to an ordinary player.

Examples of the qualities I'm talking about: Michael Newton has a high leap and goal kicking potential. John Meesen had size and athleticism. Tom McNamara has... ?

To be worth retaining on the rookie list when they have failed as a senior player, the player in question has to have some quality

I was going to say then why the hell did Meesen and Newton get rookied this year?? I know part related to contract, but sure as hell neither offered any quality at all.

With an end goal of him becoming what? I agree that he's shown glimpses and in a completely fair world he should be given the chance to extrapolate on that (I thought that's what his 1 year contract was for this year) - but life's not fair and I don't think "he deserves another chance" is reason enough to keep a player on the list. To be worth retaining on the rookie list when they have failed as a senior player, the player in question has to have some quality - a trick, if you will, that will bring high reward if it comes off. Otherwise you're risking missing out on another Jordie McKenzie just so you can hold on to an ordinary player.

Examples of the qualities I'm talking about: Michael Newton has a high leap and goal kicking potential. John Meesen had size and athleticism. Tom McNamara has... ?

Tommy Mac is a young mobile tall with decent disposal that offers nothing more than depth at this stage.

Depth in case of extensive injury problems.

With the pillaging of the drafts this year by GC17 & GWS18, there is a lot less chance of finding decent rookie list candidates, with every team looking for rough diamonds in the VFL, the SANFL, the WAFL, the VFA, even the GDFL.

Based on that, I'd give McNamara another year, but as a rookie, considering whoever we replace him with is unlikely to be of the same quality.

With an end goal of him becoming what? I agree that he's shown glimpses and in a completely fair world he should be given the chance to extrapolate on that (I thought that's what his 1 year contract was for this year) - but life's not fair and I don't think "he deserves another chance" is reason enough to keep a player on the list. To be worth retaining on the rookie list when they have failed as a senior player, the player in question has to have some quality - a trick, if you will, that will bring high reward if it comes off. Otherwise you're risking missing out on another Jordie McKenzie just so you can hold on to an ordinary player.

Examples of the qualities I'm talking about: Michael Newton has a high leap and goal kicking potential. John Meesen had size and athleticism. Tom McNamara has... ?

Oh please, the chances that we replace McNamara with 'another Jordie McKenzie' are low.

McNamara offers very good disposal and pace for someone of his height, and can play forward or back. I also think it's wrong to say he's failed at AFL level when he's had just 3 games.

Oh please, the chances that we replace McNamara with 'another Jordie McKenzie' are low.

Sure they're low, but the chances of finding a player just as good as McNamara are very high. Like I said, low risk, low pay-off. I don't see the point.

McNamara offers very good disposal and pace for someone of his height, and can play forward or back. I also think it's wrong to say he's failed at AFL level when he's had just 3 games.

You're right. Poor old Isaac Weetra only got two games to show his wares too. By your logic, he didn't fail either then.

If we delisted him we'd only rookie him if we thought he was the best available player at our pick, which is possible, he's spent time on our list and knows our system and we know him, but we're under no obligation - it's pretty simple isn't. We had an obligation to Newton and Meesen because they were contracted - completely different situation.

You're right. Poor old Isaac Weetra only got two games to show his wares too. By your logic, he didn't fail either then.

No, by my logic Isaac Weetra played 2 poor AFL games, then got delisted. McNamara has played 3 AFL games, one of which he looked very good in. Stark difference.

No, by my logic Isaac Weetra played 2 poor AFL games, then got delisted. McNamara has played 3 AFL games, one of which he looked very good in. Stark difference.

Can't really remember this guy but noticed the 2 games he did play in we lost by 95 and 104 points, I'm guessin' nobody played well on those days, so probably hard done by to be judged on those two games alone. Then again as I said don't remember him playing..

Still a decent prospect IMO.

Was a potential top 25 pick in his draft year.

Tommy Mac is a young mobile tall with decent disposal that offers nothing more than depth at this stage.

Depth in case of extensive injury problems.

With the pillaging of the drafts this year by GC17 & GWS18, there is a lot less chance of finding decent rookie list candidates, with every team looking for rough diamonds in the VFL, the SANFL, the WAFL, the VFA, even the GDFL.

Based on that, I'd give McNamara another year, but as a rookie, considering whoever we replace him with is unlikely to be of the same quality.

Agree with that 25. Tom is still young, and to some extent, injuries have interrupted his development during his short career. IMO he's shown enough to warrant a one year 'lifeline' on the rookie list, a la Danny Hughes in some ways. It may, or may not work out, but has more chance of succeeding than punting on a 100:1 shot late in a compromised rookie draft.

Agree with that 25. Tom is still young, and to some extent, injuries have interrupted his development during his short career. IMO he's shown enough to warrant a one year 'lifeline' on the rookie list, a la Danny Hughes in some ways. It may, or may not work out, but has more chance of succeeding than punting on a 100:1 shot late in a compromised rookie draft.

He has far far more to offer than the four rookied this year - Newton, Meesen ("special reasons" for both) and Hughes and WhoHealy.

I would be very disapppointed were he to just drift off into the ether.

I got to see Tmac play SANFL for the Panthers, he was probably a better player than A. Davey and Carlisle who came out of the same team. He just needs a fair chance. It would be unfortunate to see him flourish in another team who will take the punt on him. Just my honest opinion.

As rpfc said, we're running out of people to delist. It's a choice of pick 50-odd or TMac.

Nasher also makes a good point regarding TMac's upside.

That said, I liked the look of him as linkman type versus North, I think it was.

Delist and rookie if available.

If not, it won't be the biggest loss.

So Cheney gets carted off and Tommy Mac stays (perhaps). Cheney was the most talented of the VFL group that couldn't crack into the AFL team regularly.

Tom will probably get delisted I would think.

Tom doesn't have the same limitations Cheney had.

No matter how good Cheney got, he was never going to get faster or taller.

I'm often amazed at the way posters regard Fetta, as if he were a champion we should have never let go.

Tom doesn't have the same limitations Cheney had.

No matter how good Cheney got, he was never going to get faster or taller.

I'm often amazed at the way posters regard Fetta, as if he were a champion we should have never let go.

One word: Potential. It's a big word but Cheney had it - moreso than Tommy Mac to be honest.

Cheney may have lacked a bit of pace, but gee he is more talented and skillful than McNamara as proven in the VFL and the fact that he managed to at least force his way into the Dees lineup a couple of times - McNamara was never considered.

One word: Potential. It's a big word but Cheney had it - moreso than Tommy Mac to be honest.

Cheney may have lacked a bit of pace, but gee he is more talented and skillful than McNamara as proven in the VFL and the fact that he managed to at least force his way into the Dees lineup a couple of times - McNamara was never considered.

You are kidding...

You've just displayed your complete lack of understanding of the term "potential".

Cheney's very problem is that he seems capable, but lacks any potential for improvement.

Some people... honestly!

ps. McNamara has also played senior games.

He is a victim of us having too many decent tall defenders.

When we are screaming out for another decent small/mid defender, why is it that Cheney could only manage a couple of lacklustre games before being traded?