OSCAR McDONALD

[Undeeterred 2,864]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Led the debating society at college I see

Didn't read my post thoroughly though, I am looking forward to seeing the Weed play at AFL level, but also realise that as a young player he needs to learn the defensive traits that are a must these days, posters are bemoaning the lack of pressure in the oppositions 50 already, so if the Weed doesn't have these traits and gets a game, does he add to the perceived lack of pressure that is there at the moment?

OMac needs weekly exposure to AFL standard forwards

No, I read your post.

And this one that says the same thing.

Weed doesn't have the tools yet to be an AFL forward, so should learn in the VFL. O-Mac doesn't have the tools yet to be an AFL defender, so should learn in the AFL.

Illogical.

I'm not sure you would have been so hot in the debating society either, just quietly.

[Satyriconhome 9,983]

Just now, Undeeterred said:

No, I read your post.

And this one that says the same thing.

Weed doesn't have the tools yet to be an AFL forward, so should learn in the VFL. O-Mac doesn't have the tools yet to be an AFL defender, so should learn in the AFL.

Illogical.

I'm not sure you would have been so hot in the debating society either, just quietly.

You do know the difference between being a forward and being a defender in the modern game of AFL footy? Yes?

An example oft quoted on here is Sam Frost, up forward he looked all lost, yesterday he seemed more at home in defence, played slightly more games than OMac

The Weed is a very talented forward, who can take a good grab and can kick a goal, but you need more than that these days, you need to add forward pressure and tackling etc, assume the FD is reinforcing these traits, read Justin Plapps review to give you a better idea, it is also the Weed's first year

OMac made steady progress last season and was rewarded with a late game or two, so this is his second year

This year the FD has decided it is time to expose him to AFL standard forwards on a weekly basis

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Led the debating society at college I see

Didn't read my post thoroughly though, I am looking forward to seeing the Weed play at AFL level, but also realise that as a young player he needs to learn the defensive traits that are a must these days, posters are bemoaning the lack of pressure in the oppositions 50 already, so if the Weed doesn't have these traits and gets a game, does he add to the perceived lack of pressure that is there at the moment?

OMac needs weekly exposure to AFL standard forwards

Just as Weideman would need weekly exposure to AFL standard backmen, if we're going by your logic.

[Satyriconhome 9,983]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

Just as Weideman would need weekly exposure to AFL standard backmen, if we're going by your logic.

I am not saying that, comprehension skills on a Sunday obviously need a bit of work, if you listen to Roos, ALL young players need to work on the defensive side of the game, this is where they obviously think the Weideman is lacking otherwise he would have been in the Rd 1 team like Oliver (who clearly does not lack in that area), I can't wait to see him in alongside Hogan, but when the FD think he is ready.

OMac is a second year player who has been building his craft and was rewarded with a game or two last year to reward his progress, this year obviously the FD, not me, has decided to further progress him he needs weekly exposure to AFL standard forwards

[Undeeterred 2,864]

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

You do know the difference between being a forward and being a defender in the modern game of AFL footy? Yes?

An example oft quoted on here is Sam Frost, up forward he looked all lost, yesterday he seemed more at home in defence, played slightly more games than OMac

The Weed is a very talented forward, who can take a good grab and can kick a goal, but you need more than that these days, you need to add forward pressure and tackling etc, assume the FD is reinforcing these traits, read Justin Plapps review to give you a better idea, it is also the Weed's first year

OMac made steady progress last season and was rewarded with a late game or two, so this is his second year

This year the FD has decided it is time to expose him to AFL standard forwards on a weekly basis

Fine, but that's not what you said.

I could equally ask whether you are aware of what you need to be a defender. I'd say O-Mac has as many defensive deficiencies to work on as Weed has forward. That's fine, but my point is it is illogical to say that one should learn them in the seniors and one shouldn't.

Let's agree to disagree,

[Undeeterred 2,864]

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

I am not saying that, comprehension skills on a Sunday obviously need a bit of work, if you listen to Roos, ALL young players need to work on the defensive side of the game, this is where they obviously think the Weideman is lacking otherwise he would have been in the Rd 1 team like Oliver (who clearly does not lack in that area), I can't wait to see him in alongside Hogan, but when the FD think he is ready.

OMac is a second year player who has been building his craft and was rewarded with a game or two last year to reward his progress, this year obviously the FD, not me, has decided to further progress him he needs weekly exposure to AFL standard forwards

You can't keep hiding behind the 'FD not me' line as a basis for argument.

This is the same FD that has admitted it was wrong multiple times this season.

[Satyriconhome 9,983]

9 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Fine, but that's not what you said.

I could equally ask whether you are aware of what you need to be a defender. I'd say O-Mac has as many defensive deficiencies to work on as Weed has forward. That's fine, but my point is it is illogical to say that one should learn them in the seniors and one shouldn't.

Let's agree to disagree,

I am afraid to say that is exactly what I said.

8 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

You can't keep hiding behind the 'FD not me' line as a basis for argument.

This is the same FD that has admitted it was wrong multiple times this season.

I agree, but at least the FD are 'men" (is that still politically correct) to put their hand up when they are wrong, something you don't see very often on here

Playing young players has to be one of the most inexact sciences, Roos has admitted as much

Personally the only deficiencies I think OMac has are experience and 10kgs, he will fix up the first playing on AFL standard forwards each week, and Misson will fix the other

As for the Weed any young player can kick a goal (or at least should be able to), not all can pressure and cause a turnover and easy goal, this has to be learnt as a forward, especially a first year player, some on here still continually have a go at Hogan for not doing this very thing, does he need to go back to the VFL to learn it again, or has the FD learnt from this themselves and are insuring that Weed has the traits ingrained when he finally makes his AFL bow

Edited June 5, 2016 by Satyriconhome

[Axis of Bob 10,250]

I haven't read the to and fro of the last page, but the Oscar vs Weideman thing is ridiculous.

Oscar is a second year defender who had consistently performed well in the VFL for the past season. He has shown ability in the AFL before, fills a need as a mobile zoning key defender and his will improve filling that role at AFL level. He is replacing someone who is clearly struggling with the new game plan.

Weideman is a first year player who is coming off a limited preseason, and barely played at all last year due to injury. He has shown good signs at VFL level, but no more than that. Currently he'd be filling the role of Watts, who is performing well at AFL level.

The argument is ridiculous.

[Macca 16,173]

The alternatives to O-Mac just aren't there so the argument to play him at Casey is largely futile anyway (unless Frost really comes on)  Dunn keeps getting overlooked and if they were going to play him they would have done so by now ... Pedersen is not really a KPD either.  Lumumba & Garland are better suited to smaller forwards.

Frost is already in the side and as a KPD,  he is unproven ... and there is no one else.  Frost might push Oscar out but probably not right now - we need to see a bit more of Frost and I reckon that's how the MC will see things as well.

Those opposed to Oscar playing right now are better off embracing the idea and seeing where it all takes us.  It looks fairly obvious that the MC are going to keep playing him - judge him down the track when we've got a much bigger sample size (60-70 games is a decent benchmark unless a player is obviously not good enough to reach that number of games)

Anyway, we may well chase a KPD (or other experienced talented players) in the off-season but that's for next year ... for the here & now, we're doing what we're doing with an eye to the future.  I see it as exciting times and am enjoying seeing a number of our our new players trying to forge a path for themselves. 

Oscar was decent yesterday without being great but I reckon he is tracking quite nicely for someone who has only played 6 games.  My argument is for opportunity rather than thinking Oscar is going to be some sort of world-beater.  We drafted him knowing that we were going to give him a chance to prove himself - as night follows day, that's what we're doing.

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Macca

[Undeeterred 2,864]

37 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I haven't read the to and fro of the last page, but the Oscar vs Weideman thing is ridiculous.

Oscar is a second year defender who had consistently performed well in the VFL for the past season. He has shown ability in the AFL before, fills a need as a mobile zoning key defender and his will improve filling that role at AFL level. He is replacing someone who is clearly struggling with the new game plan.

Weideman is a first year player who is coming off a limited preseason, and barely played at all last year due to injury. He has shown good signs at VFL level, but no more than that. Currently he'd be filling the role of Watts, who is performing well at AFL level.

The argument is ridiculous.

Nobody is arguing against any of that.

But perhaps it's worth reading before weighing in so you know what you're arguing against.

The guts of it, as I read Saty's collective posts, is that Weidemann should learn his craft in the twos, and that Oscar McDonald should learn it in the ones, despite neither being ready in their respective positions.

It doesn't matter how many seasons they've played, or the stage of their development. 

Anyway, I'm done with this one.

[Mach5 4,482]

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

If that's the case, why aren't we playing Weideman and Hulett as well?

 

I would have thought that was pretty obvious: because we don't currently have better options for the role Oscar is playing.

 

If Dunn and/or Garland were performing as expected, then I believe they'd be picked instead. Clearly this is related to obeying particular instructions as opposed to just pure overall performance, but overall I think he's doing just about as well as the other 2 have been recently.

[stuie 7,374]

I think a few that are weighing in late are missing the point.

This isn't a player comparison between Weideman and McDonald, and it's not even about how Dunn and/or Garland are performing, it's about what is best for the development of Oscar McDonald. Why is he seemingly the only one that we want to throw in the deep end? Most posters seem happy to develop our young players at a slow and steady rate, with plenty of VFL with a taste of AFL when ready, so why does that get thrown out the window for one player?

 

[Axis of Bob 10,250]

1 hour ago, Undeeterred said:

Nobody is arguing against any of that.

But perhaps it's worth reading before weighing in so you know what you're arguing against.

The guts of it, as I read Saty's collective posts, is that Weidemann should learn his craft in the twos, and that Oscar McDonald should learn it in the ones, despite neither being ready in their respective position.

That was the argument I was making. To say it doesn't matter what their stage development is, is incorrect. There is a good reason why they should be looked at differently, which is why any argument linking them is ridiculous.

I think the major difference for you is that I'm making the argument, not Saty.

[Binmans PA 26,225]

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

To sum up this thread:

Group 1: "I don't think Oscar McDonald should be the in team at the moment, he needs more time to develop at Casey and there are better ready-made options available."

Group 2: "What do you mean Oscar McDonald is a dud, will never make it and we should delist now before the end of the season?"

Group 3 is surely: "Oscar McDonald should be given time at the elite level and will develop best there."

Reading between the lines of some posts suggesting that we're apparently losing games now by playing him, I'd proffer there's no way his inclusion is costing us games.

5 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I don't mind Oscar getting games at the moment.

I'd dearly love to have got the win, but I'm wholeheartedly unconvinced that Dunn or Garland would have done a better job, and OMac will be so much better next year for the experience he is getting this year.

He needs to fill out, increase his core strength and make better quicker decisions, but he'll get there.

Spot on, mate.

[kallangurdemon 470]

When he is worth a game he should get a game .At the moment he is a long way short of this .On a brighter note he is the only one of yesterdays 22 who clearly is not of AFL standard.

 

[Binmans PA 26,225]

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

There is another group here that believes getting some games into quality but inexperienced kids is better in the long term than playing experienced but average players in the short term.

It's got nothing to do with 'not wanting to win', or 'reverting to Mark Neeld or Dean Bailey', or 'mediocrity', or 'accepting losing'. It's got everything to do with building a solid playing group in the next few years, when our real chance for a premiership occurs (which let's face it won't be in 2016 or probably 2017). Like everyone, I'd like to play finals this year, but I still have my sights set on future ambitions. I don't want to be Richmond and become a shooting star, only to have it all crash down to earth because of delusions about progress and the state of the list.

Short-term pain for long-term gain.

Agreed. There certainly seems to be this pervasive fear amongst some Melbourne supporters (understandable too given our past mistakes) that history is repeating itself with the FD's determination to play younger players. But there is some grey here and I trust this FD a lot more than I did Neeld or Bailey's teams.

Edited June 5, 2016 by AdamFarr

[The Sailing Demon 379]

I noticed yesterday that O'Mac doesn't have the confidence of his team mates, a few times he was semi-open and the player with the ball over looked him as a first option and tried a bit of a more outlandish option to get the ball to someone with a bit better conviction.

The kid has 22 possessions at around 70% efficiency so he is far from the ogre we are all making him out to be but he NEEDS to be in the VFL for further development, considering we have guys like Grimes, ANB in the VFL racking up 30+ games week in week out and still aren't in the squad the fact that O'Mac is there does confuse me a little.

Would like to see him dropped for Dunn this week and have Dunn take up his 2014 role in being the last man back being a goal square sweeper with his big body.

[TRIGON 4,719]

Reports from Casey that Dunn has a hamstring injury

[Binmans PA 26,225]

4 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Gee don't get me started on an answer to that question Clint, I could fill pages, to paraphrase the psychiatrist in Fawlty Towers "there is a whole convention agenda here"

A basic premise is that it is a public forum, and as such is open to a poster/person who has a particular opinion repeating it ad infinitum in the hope it will eventually wear down fellow posters to such an extent that they will  agree with it. It is also a forum where other posters may have differing opinions and as long as they are able to lucidly express why they have that opinion, they should be able to express it, without opening themselves up to denigration or ridicule (take note the Stigga)

You think OMac shouldn't be in the team at present, fine, we know, and you have expressed why you think that, I, for one, don't agree, my reasoning, we need a replacement for Lynden Dunn, the sooner we get the experience into Oscar for one, the better, the FD seems to be of this opinion as well

I think a lot of posters' issue with you Satyr is that if all your posts were like the above, they wouldn't have reason to call you out. Their issue and mine too, is that the majority of your posts target other posters for expressing their own opinions, lucidly or otherwise. 

If you want your posts to have any resonance, let others have their turn to express themselves too, without being personally attacked by you for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Edited June 5, 2016 by AdamFarr

[Satyriconhome 9,983]

12 minutes ago, AdamFarr said:

I think a lot of posters' issue with you Satyr is that if all your posts were like the above, they wouldn't have reason to call you out. Their issue and mine too, is that the majority of your posts target other posters for expressing their own opinions, lucidly or otherwise. 

If you want your posts to have any resonance, let others have their turn to express themselves too, without being personally attacked by you for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

Adam, thank you for the constructive feedback, but you would be better addressing it to somebody who actually cares.

This is a public forum, hence I can do what I like, within the boundaries that the moderators set, if I didn't get attacked each time I post something footy related, normally by the same 'trolls', perhaps what you say would resonate more with me.

This is a discussion about Oscar Mc, you will notice we had quite a bit of discussion between myself and another couple of posters that was quite good, with us not agreeing, which occurs on a public forum, but we were all allowed to express the opinion.

Maybe you need to aim your CC more at that great comedic talent Wiseblood who seems not to be able to resist taking a potshot no matter what I post

 

Just for the record by the way when you say a lot of posters issue, think you are slightly over exaggerating there, it is a small vocal minority who tend to treat Demonland like their personal feifdom and don't take kindly to being told that the bold opinions they are expressing may be different to those held by the majority of MFC supporters

As I am recognizable and don't hide behind a nickname, it's nice to have strangers coming up to me at games and telling me to keep the 'bastards' honest on Demonland

 

Excuse the constant editng, not a fan of smarfphenes

Edited June 5, 2016 by Satyriconhome

[titan_uranus 22,454]

5 hours ago, picket fence said:

And in the wet he was even slower. Ok here goes, Package him and his brother up and see what the market will offer!!

And reduce our key defensive stocks to...who...?

4 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

A cheap shot.

What I am seeing is another round of culling blokes with 100-200 games experience because they are 'not good enough for the future' and bringing in a raft of kids.

My personal view too is that these kids are the best batch we've had, but that's not the point.

We are sacrificing wins here and now, this season, in a season where we are trying to keep Hogan and Tom McDonald and entice across players like Prestia and Hurley.

If we put 10-11 wins on the board, we might have a chance of getting them.

But no A-grader in their right mind is going to fall for this continual development rubbish and be sold on the story that maybe, in a few years, we will have a finals team for them to play in.

When will we learn???

Who are you referring to?

Grimes is clearly out of favour but has played 98 games and hasn't been a regular in the side for a couple of years now.

Dunn is also out of favour but has never been a leader in his time here and given he appears equally, or less, capable of implementing the current game plan, what's the difference?

Who else?

We also get Melksham (114 games) into the side next year.

My personal view is that OMac isn't good enough to hold his spot right now but with Dunn and Garland now injured, I suspect OMac will keep playing. 

I also don't necessarily think that replacing OMac with Dunn would automatically get us more wins than you think we'll get with OMac.

[Undeeterred 2,864]

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

That was the argument I was making. To say it doesn't matter what their stage development is, is incorrect. There is a good reason why they should be looked at differently, which is why any argument linking them is ridiculous.

I think the major difference for you is that I'm making the argument, not Saty.

Wrong. 

On point - on what basis should they not be looked at differently?

If you're saying, for example, that the hole in our defence is bigger and therefore we don't have the luxury of letting Oscar McDonald play twos, that's different. But to say different players should develop in different teams for no reason is incorrect.

[bing181 8,169]

There's not much wrong with O'Mac that a) improved skills under pressure and b) a bigger body won't fix. 

In the absence of anyone else, happy to see him playing, and I just don't know who people think would or should take his place or who he's keeping out. Dunn is not the answer, as his continual non-selection confirms.

[beelzebub 22,225]

22 minutes ago, bing181 said:

In the absence of anyone else,

for the moment...this trumps all.. He's a lucky boy 

[Moonshadow 16,238]

Perhaps the FD think OMac is either a) ready to be played at AFL level or b) the best option of our remaining tall backs. Or a bit of both. Maybe they think he'll develop quicker at AFL level. I'd rather see him play a mix of AFL and VFL, but only if we had the cattle to support that. I don't think we do. 

On a miserably wet day that wouldn't have suited a inexperienced tall backman, I thought he wasn't as bad as many on here have painted him to be. He got 22 at 70% effective on a wet track. He'll improve as he gains strength and makes smarter and quicker decisions.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Moonshadow