19 hours ago, chook fowler said:

Healy seems to have rediscovered his connection to the Dee's. Seems on board at the moment - fair weather friend?

To be fair I think he knew more than most how utterly lost and at war we were in the Bailey/ Neeld eras. He probably knew the size of the change needed and agitated through the press for it. I didn't like it at the time as it seemed everyone was sticking the boot in but, in hindsight, we were a club that needed booting. At least he's on board...unlike that purple idiot who is still kicking us every chance he gets. 

 

1 hour ago, Wells 11 said:

To be fair I think he knew more than most how utterly lost and at war we were in the Bailey/ Neeld eras. He probably knew the size of the change needed and agitated through the press for it. I didn't like it at the time as it seemed everyone was sticking the boot in but, in hindsight, we were a club that needed booting. At least he's on board...unlike that purple idiot who is still kicking us every chance he gets. 

 

i doubt he's on board in the true sense. he has always seen himself as a swannie

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Its more that it seems he turns it over either at crucial times or when the attempted pass was beyond him.

When he plays within his limits he is usually good.

Agree.  Needs to know what NOT to do , when not to keep running, when that swirly G breeze just might nudge that kick along the line which often sail perilously close  ( if not ) over the boundary.

Keep it Simple Tommy.  If youre going to do those switch kicks..better to weight it a little heavy than light , cos those pesky oppo forwards just love to cut those off and if you kick it past  our player a tad, at  worst the ball is OUR goal side of him to run onto.  I know.,..its all complicated stuff  ....well...actually  its not !!

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

 This is such a nonsense.

I am big critic of some of Tom's decision making and very iffy disposal but let's get it into context.

Firstly, I find him very frustrating as the brain fades are horrible and he does make poor decisions and dispose poorly at times.

Some perspective please -  he turned it over a few times on Sunday  - he kicked out from fullback straight to opposition ( why on earth he took a kick out is beyond me). He also had 25 disposals of which you could count 5 that were horrible and that is way too many but to suggest that "he is more than likely to turn it over or make the wrong decision" is absolute nonsense.

Now if you asked if i preferred that Tom give the easy dish off to Salem,Vince or Jetta who rarely if ever dispose poorly then the answer is a resounding yes but lets get his disposal into some sort of context.

If you think this is nonsense you have never been in a review session.  I will guarantee that Tom McDonald is the oppositions out man the bloke that if he gets it 25 times will turn it over 5 times which will directly result in a score.  Teams identify the weakest link they can't cover everyone but they identify who they have to cover and Tom wouldn't be one. 

The another 5 touches will be him changing his mind 5 times and putting someone under extreme pressure with a get the ball off me disposal.

Sorry, he needs to be told you are a key defender, not a third man up, stop the key forward kicking goals and taking marks, destroy the contest get the ball to ground and beat your man one on one.  Simplify the game for him, don't think do

15 minutes ago, drdrake said:

If you think this is nonsense you have never been in a review session.  I will guarantee that Tom McDonald is the oppositions out man the bloke that if he gets it 25 times will turn it over 5 times which will directly result in a score.  Teams identify the weakest link they can't cover everyone but they identify who they have to cover and Tom wouldn't be one. 

The another 5 touches will be him changing his mind 5 times and putting someone under extreme pressure with a get the ball off me disposal.

Sorry, he needs to be told you are a key defender, not a third man up, stop the key forward kicking goals and taking marks, destroy the contest get the ball to ground and beat your man one on one.  Simplify the game for him, don't think do

i did notice on our kick outs the doggies comtinually left McDonald by himself in the back pocket with plenty of space. I thought it was smart thinking. he was in the wrong position as he would get it and they would hem him into the pocket and he would usually kick long down the line. meanwhile they kicked out and were happy to zig zag out with perfect little kicks and try and split us open. they would inch by inch weave through us. if only he learnt to kick !!

 

 

15 minutes ago, Bay Riffin said:

i did notice on our kick outs the doggies comtinually left McDonald by himself in the back pocket with plenty of space. I thought it was smart thinking. he was in the wrong position as he would get it and they would hem him into the pocket and he would usually kick long down the line. meanwhile they kicked out and were happy to zig zag out with perfect little kicks and try and split us open. they would inch by inch weave through us. if only he learnt to kick !!

 

 

That's not necessarily a Tom thing. A lot of teams leave the pockets open, and do then force you to kick long. Any good zone will do this

The Doggies used this little known technique called the Diamond Offence whereby they corral the defender , zoning him, until he turns it over 

13 hours ago, drdrake said:

If you think this is nonsense you have never been in a review session.  I will guarantee that Tom McDonald is the oppositions out man the bloke that if he gets it 25 times will turn it over 5 times which will directly result in a score.  Teams identify the weakest link they can't cover everyone but they identify who they have to cover and Tom wouldn't be one. 

The another 5 touches will be him changing his mind 5 times and putting someone under extreme pressure with a get the ball off me disposal.

Sorry, he needs to be told you are a key defender, not a third man up, stop the key forward kicking goals and taking marks, destroy the contest get the ball to ground and beat your man one on one.  Simplify the game for him, don't think do

The weakness in your argument is that Tmac is not the weakest link. He absolutely can turn it over - he absolutely can make the wrong decisions and that is what is stopping him going to the next level. But he intercept marks and attacks.

You absolutely suggest that they don't cover him but i don't see that. When he goes to the back pocket no one covers him or Vince or Jetta or whoever else goes to the pocket as that is how defensive zones are set - teams regularly give up the back pocket as suggested by another poster.

However his biggest strength is he is willing to run and attack. Yes - he turns it over on occasions and most of the time he doesn't. 

Watching the replay again - two of Redpaths marks Tmac actually stayed down and let Gawn spoil which he did not do successfully - another of his marks was against Jetta. 

Don't misunderstand me, Tmac frustrates the hell out of me because he when he turns the ball over it can be under little pressure and miss the target by a mile. But when he keeps it simple he is valuable as attested to by Demonlanders having Tmac in the top 5 in 4 games so far this season.

 

(some stats that do matter - second most marks behind Hogan, relatively low clanger count and highest 1% count in the team by a lot - his "horrible" is overstated because when he does do something "horrible" it looks truly horrible)

 

Edited May 19, 20169 yr by nutbean

9 hours ago, nutbean said:

The weakness in your argument is that Tmac is not the weakest link. He absolutely can turn it over - he absolutely can make the wrong decisions and that is what is stopping him going to the next level. But he intercept marks and attacks.

You absolutely suggest that they don't cover him but i don't see that. When he goes to the back pocket no one covers him or Vince or Jetta or whoever else goes to the pocket as that is how defensive zones are set - teams regularly give up the back pocket as suggested by another poster.

However his biggest strength is he is willing to run and attack. Yes - he turns it over on occasions and most of the time he doesn't. 

Watching the replay again - two of Redpaths marks Tmac actually stayed down and let Gawn spoil which he did not do successfully - another of his marks was against Jetta. 

Don't misunderstand me, Tmac frustrates the hell out of me because he when he turns the ball over it can be under little pressure and miss the target by a mile. But when he keeps it simple he is valuable as attested to by Demonlanders having Tmac in the top 5 in 4 games so far this season.

 

(some stats that do matter - second most marks behind Hogan, relatively low clanger count and highest 1% count in the team by a lot - his "horrible" is overstated because when he does do something "horrible" it looks truly horrible)

 

Not sure I understand your post, you basically have agreed with everything I'm saying.  My point is he can't kick at AFL standard, no good one on one but great at being third man up.

Run and attack I don't think there is any Melbourne support that doesn't think Oh no what will Tom do with the ball when he gets it.

28 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Not sure I understand your post, you basically have agreed with everything I'm saying.  My point is he can't kick at AFL standard, no good one on one but great at being third man up.

Run and attack I don't think there is any Melbourne support that doesn't think Oh no what will Tom do with the ball when he gets it.

My point is you are overstating the extent of his howlers  - i rewatched last night  - 3 kicks he wish he could take again  - that's 88% efficiency and the running himself into trouble was absent this week. His decision making this week was good and you are right - it can be heart in the mouth when he gets and that is because it does look horrible but you look at the times he has the ball and he runs into to trouble or  he turns it over - it is overstated. It just looks horrible when he does it.

I think part of his problem is that he looks so cumbersome it exacerbates the problem. I love Jack Viney but gee wizz can he can turn the ball over  - but absolutely no mention is made of it ( except rjay pointed it out this week). Our skipper this year has been turning it over a lot more than his last two years - no mention has been made of it.  

Your blanket statement that he can't kick at AFL is not supported by the facts. No good one on one is not supported by the facts. 

He turns it over too much  - yes but if you want to label that he can't kick/dispose at AFL standard then either can Jones, Tyson or Viney ( and I am talking about their disposal under little pressure - not in the heat of the contest). He gets beaten one on one on occasions yes  - he is not as good body on body as others but is a better intercept mark than most. But to  suggest that he is no good would imply he gets beaten most times one on one and that is not the case.

I agree with you on his weaknesses you have rightly pointed out - I disagree with how you overstate it - if his kicking was below AFL standard and no good one on one - he wouldn't get a game. He is the first picked because what he brings to the table vastly outweighs his deficiencies - however his deficiencies, unless corrected will stop him reaching the elite level.

 

(not sure we are going to agree on this so i will leave - we both agree on the problems  - we just differ on the extent of it)

Edited May 19, 20169 yr by nutbean

I said he can't kick at AFL standard, didn't say he couldn't kick, lets see how he goes this week but I reckon Brisbane will get 2 goals directly from a McDonald turnover or brain fade.  That includes when he runs himself into trouble and puts a team mate under enormous pressure.  Would be more goals but I think Brisbane will only kick 8 goals for the match.

The issues that many continue to not see or won't accept are twofold ....

T-Mac is a good to very good player but not A grade - the vast majority of players (across the league) are worse than that so it's not really a fault.  He was drafted at pick 53 for a reason - he's got some flaws in his game but from a drafting perspective, he's a been a huge win for us (Lucas Cook was drafted at pick 12 in that very same draft year)

His good points far outweigh his flaws though ... last week he was one of our best but many here stubbornly refused to acknowledge that because of the 1 or 2 transparent errors that he made ... what about all the errors that others made with "fumbling" last week? - it must have happened over 50 times in the game (much like the St Kilda game)

If we were to highlight all the fumbles (or the non clean possession and then average/poor disposal & decision making) then every single player would be being critiqued harshly ... that's apart from the players continually not playing in front or going half-hearted at the ball.  All faults if looked at in the same way ... again, the focus unfairly goes onto 1 player when it's a "team" issue.

The other issue is the movement ahead of McDonald when he has the ball in his hands ... the player calling for the ball has an obligation to get the ball - it's not always the other way around.  A recipient cannot be flat-footed or jogging.  Sprint to position and make yourself a real target.

Often Tom has 1 option only when he should have a multitude of options - when he does have a multitude of options (which should be always) he doesn't turn the ball over.  That's the way I see it.  He had 25 touches last week and nearly every one of his possession ended up in the hands of one of our players (unless he was forced to kick to a contest)

Our players are still lazy on occasions and that's why the turnovers will continue to happen ... so don't shoot the messenger so much.  We need to continually create position and options and until we do that, we won't become a top side.  There's cause and effect and we're looking at the end result rather than why errors occur.

T Mac needs to be the 2 nd defender.not the 1st. We need some with better decision making to relieve Tom of this burden .

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

T Mac needs to be the 2 nd defender.not the 1st. We need some with better decision making to relieve Tom of this burden .

Good luck trying to get hold of the 1st defender bub.

We'll either have to draft one in (and then cross our fingers and wait 3-5 years) or trade one in (what club would let go of a B+ or better KPD?)  Until then we'll have to make do with what we've got ... and hope that O-Mac, Frost or another player can somehow become a gun KPD. 

I don't share the frustration that many seem to have with Tommy Mac - without him we'd be far worse off.  Dunn & Garland are our next best options and both of them are far more flawed than T-Mac.  One can't even get a game and the other is struggling to cement a spot.   We're ok for shorter defenders and distributors off half-back but our backline (whether we play as a zone back there or not) is not a true strength.  Sometimes we're good but often we're not.

We just have to keep turning the list over and develop what we've got in the meantime.

 

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

T Mac needs to be the 2 nd defender.not the 1st. We need some with better decision making to relieve Tom of this burden .

Agree Bub, bringing in a quality defender to act as the cornerstone of our defence would not only improve our back-line overall, but free up McDonald to utilise his strengths more.

Whether that's bringing in a Sam Day, Steven May, Hurley or Marchbank (given time - and a cheaper option too), it should be a high priority come trade time.

52 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Agree Bub, bringing in a quality defender to act as the cornerstone of our defence would not only improve our back-line overall, but free up McDonald to utilise his strengths more.

Whether that's bringing in a Sam Day, Steven May, Hurley or Marchbank (given time - and a cheaper option too), it should be a high priority come trade time.

I think this is the key...Allow Tom to play a more natural unincumbered ( by too many awkward decisions ) game.I think the talents he does have will fir in well as part of a more balanced unit rather than having him picvotal

And in the meantime a few of our other backmen could get amongst it and help out T-Mac (Jetta aside)

Tommy gets to a stack of contests, has physical presence, spoils as well as the best, intercepts constantly, reads the play very well and is a leader in the backline.  And he gets a lot of the ball for a key back.  One of our smaller backs should be feeding off him constantly - perhaps even more than one player could do that. 

How many other backmen have we got that has all those attributes? None.  As good as Jetta has been there are things that T-Mac can do that Jetta can't do (like play on a tall talented power forward or other types of key forwards)

 

 

Edited May 21, 20169 yr by Macca