2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

The switch wasn't exactly a great option, I'll give you that, but OMac made a meal of the chest mark though.  Both McDonald boys can take the blame on that one.

Even if Tom has been instructed to take the option when it's there?
We don't know that he hasn't, and it is a philosophical discussion.

The blame falls on Oscar, but all players make mistakes, and he's a kid so he gets further leniency.

 

Just now, Mach5 said:

Even if Tom has been instructed to take the option when it's there?
We don't know that he hasn't, and it is a philosophical discussion.

The blame falls on Oscar, but all players make mistakes, and he's a kid so he gets further leniency.

 

True.  Can't argue with that.  On one hand he might have done it to open up the play a bit and get it away from the congestion, but on the other hand you think that going long down the line in the conditions was always the best option.  

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

True.  Can't argue with that.  On one hand he might have done it to open up the play a bit and get it away from the congestion, but on the other hand you think that going long down the line in the conditions was always the best option.  

Common convention, yes.

But without risks of that ilk, we were never going to have a chance.

 

15 hours ago, Night Crawler said:

I dont think I was watching the same incident.

Here it is at 3:15 mark. http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-06-19/highlights-sydney-swans-v-melbourne

Rohan was about 15 - 17meters away and Omac dropped a complete sitter. Wet or not. That was Omacs fault. 

At the point where OMac was trying to mark (around his body rather than front on) Rohan was only 4-5m away from him and bearing down. You simply can't say he wasn't under pressure. Nor can you say Rohan was 15-17m away.

There is also inferred pressure. His numbskull brother just kicked it to him directly in front of goal on a wet day.

45 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

At the point where OMac was trying to mark (around his body rather than front on) Rohan was only 4-5m away from him and bearing down. You simply can't say he wasn't under pressure. Nor can you say Rohan was 15-17m away.

There is also inferred pressure. His numbskull brother just kicked it to him directly in front of goal on a wet day.

Thats one of most stupid things Ive seen for a while. . Dicey even on a dry day.  I mean  Oscar , my name's 'fumbles" Mcdonald !!   but in the wet...really. This clearly illustrates the limited capacity of some players to reason...not to think...but reason.   Had Oscar even managed to take it cleanly what was the next disposal ?  He was already a 'marked' man by Rohan.

I agree with those that suggest you cant blame results necessarily on one play  but good ol' Tommy has THE knack for doing things at just the wrong moment...or  to be more correct do things that later become defined as THE moment games turn for the worse. If there's sliding doors players he often is the one to slam it shut !!

He needs governance down there.  He needs a real #1 back to teach/mentor/instruct.. Maybe then he's worth keeping

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Common convention, yes.

But without risks of that ilk, we were never going to have a chance.

 

It was the wrong risk at the wrong time. TMac repeats it often. Last year he was trying to take the game on too much and gettnig caught or turning it over. That seems to have been reduced but similar brain fades like this one happen way too often. 

Kicking the ball across goal like that is risky on a dry day. Insane on a wet day.  

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It was the wrong risk at the wrong time. TMac repeats it often. Last year he was trying to take the game on too much and gettnig caught or turning it over. That seems to have been reduced but similar brain fades like this one happen way too often. 

Kicking the ball across goal like that is risky on a dry day. Insane on a wet day.  

You also rightly an aspect which was complicit in the stupidity of this play i.e it wasnt even executed well.

Elements that contributed to this inglorious stuff up. :

The weather.. very wet, ball slippery. Vision a bit impeded with rain

Tmac took an eternity to decide.

O mac was in the wrong place he needed to be further away towards forward of the pocket...Standing near the square only gave a "kick to the keeper" as best possible outcome...then stuffed.

Tmacs kick poor... too weighted  and too high. Omac had to turn and lose sight of ball.. Not good day for that.

Opposition player running at Oscar... O mac must have heard the splash splash footsteps !!

The sensible kick was straight back up the coast and allow ball to be thumped over line...Its So old school , tried and tested its not funny.

When ever Tommy tries to get cute...cue the "stuff up"

6 hours ago, The Reverend said:

Why is it that Demonland seems to insist on having a "whipping  boy" every year? Last year it was Watts and before that we've had a succession of easy targets that give the keyboard heroes on here the opportunity to stick the boots in. Yeah, everyone's entitled to their opinion on here but sometimes it gets ridiculous. If anybody thinks TMac cost us the game yesterday they're kidding themselves. There were plenty of inept performances out there. He wasn't Robinson Crusoe!

-Yes , the whipping boys this year are the Mac's, last year it was Jack Grimes/Watts, the year before we were still complaining about Mark Nield although Matt Jones/Dean Terlich got a good mention.

I just about lose count of how many forward thrusts are interupted/intercepted by TMac.

OMac showed a lot of promise yesterday and was NOT the only person to make a mistake. He gets criticised for not bodying up against bigger bodies. HE IS LEARNING just like Tmac was 3 years ago and we were getting excited about having a potential KPD. He is only 22 and OMacis 19 ,

Max the magnificent took a while and some recovery time to come good.

Even  the great Buddy made some mistakes ( maybe we could trade for him as I am sure the Swansland people get frustrated at him some times..

And so did some of our forwards fail to adjust to the conditions.

Yeah Tom sold his brother up the river on that one!  Was a dry weather move- no mark is regulation in that rain, so close to goal too.  Stupid move 

7 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Thats one of most stupid things Ive seen for a while. . Dicey even on a dry day.  I mean  Oscar , my name's 'fumbles" Mcdonald !!   but in the wet...really. This clearly illustrates the limited capacity of some players to reason...not to think...but reason.   Had Oscar even managed to take it cleanly what was the next disposal ?  He was already a 'marked' man by Rohan.

I agree with those that suggest you cant blame results necessarily on one play  but good ol' Tommy has THE knack for doing things at just the wrong moment...or  to be more correct do things that later become defined as THE moment games turn for the worse. If there's sliding doors players he often is the one to slam it shut !!

He needs governance down there.  He needs a real #1 back to teach/mentor/instruct.. Maybe then he's worth keeping

Nail. Head. 

for all you complainers - can you imagine our team/list/defensive stocks without either Mcdonalds? scary thought...

8 minutes ago, mattjm said:

for all you complainers - can you imagine our team/list/defensive stocks without either Mcdonalds? scary thought...

Can easily imagine it without Oscar. He has only played a handful of games and now you are saying he is indespensible??

Bit of overreach don't you think??

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

It was the wrong risk at the wrong time. TMac repeats it often. Last year he was trying to take the game on too much and gettnig caught or turning it over. That seems to have been reduced but similar brain fades like this one happen way too often. 

Kicking the ball across goal like that is risky on a dry day. Insane on a wet day.  

Surely the defensive coach would b telling him 2 remove this risky plays. Maybe he is overconfident & not footy smart.

Just now, samcantstandya said:

Surely the defensive coach would b telling him 2 remove this risky plays. Maybe he is overconfident & not footy smart.

I guess they are telling him to try and switch play whenever possible. But as many have pointed out the execution was woeful on a wet day and put his brother under pressure without an obvious play on to open up the fat side of the ground

25 minutes ago, mattjm said:

for all you complainers - can you imagine our team/list/defensive stocks without either Mcdonalds? scary thought...

Strange point. If we didn't have either of the McDonald's our list management team would ensure that we'd have two different key defenders, and they could either be better or worse...

30 minutes ago, mattjm said:

for all you complainers - can you imagine our team/list/defensive stocks without either Mcdonalds? scary thought...

Sheeit we might actually be more responsible and accountable in defence!!?

On 19/06/2016 at 5:37 PM, KrazyJay said:

Why even risk it on a day like today? Up the line all day long in the p155ing down rain

Totally agree. I watched the game at a pub and when he was weighing up his options said out loud 'don't cross it!'.

And then he did. Ugh

15 minutes ago, binman said:

Totally agree. I watched the game at a pub and when he was weighing up his options said out loud 'don't cross it!'.

And then he did. Ugh

I was waiting for my neighbours to call the cops 

I twisted off like a psych patient!

1 hour ago, mattjm said:

for all you complainers - can you imagine our team/list/defensive stocks without either Mcdonalds? scary thought...

that assumes nothing fills the void. But thats like suggesting we'd play with only 16 on the field. If they weren't there there'd be someone else so there's nothing scary about it at all.

They're hardly the double act of the century  ( or maybe they are  )

43 minutes ago, binman said:

Totally agree. I watched the game at a pub and when he was weighing up his options said out loud 'don't cross it!'.

And then he did. Ugh

How long did it take him also ??  a contributing factor to the debacle.

1 hour ago, samcantstandya said:

Surely the defensive coach would b telling him 2 remove this risky plays. Maybe he is overconfident & not footy smart.

 

46 minutes ago, binman said:

Totally agree. I watched the game at a pub and when he was weighing up his options said out loud 'don't cross it!'.

And then he did. Ugh

Sitting behind the goals i thought the same thing.  It was awkward delivery in the wet,  and the moment he turned to kick it, I thought that was going to happen. 

 

It was a "chest mark" but it was an awkward one and a poorly executed option. 

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

Sitting behind the goals i thought the same thing.  It was awkward delivery in the wet,  and the moment he turned to kick it, I thought that was going to happen. 

 

It was a "chest mark" but it was an awkward one and a poorly executed option. 

Only a Chest mark if kicked to him...not over him 

Not only did he telegraph the intention, he did it in slo mo !!....then MISSED !!

2 hours ago, Django said:

Strange point. If we didn't have either of the McDonald's our list management team would ensure that we'd have two different key defenders, and they could either be better or worse...

and who do you suggest thats gettable atm?

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

that assumes nothing fills the void. But thats like suggesting we'd play with only 16 on the field. If they weren't there there'd be someone else so there's nothing scary about it at all.

They're hardly the double act of the century  ( or maybe they are  )

so do you think garland and dunn holding down fb and chb would be a better replacement?