JLT Round 2 vs. Carlton at Casey Fields

[Dante 2,739]

Just watched the replay too and I have a feeling that Weid will be a very good player for us, I'm looking forward to seeing him develop throughout the year. 

He will get more involved and start to clunk a few marks after he gets a few more games under his belt. 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,819]

So was @olisik happy with Trac's goal kicking and game against the Carlscum?  ...He'd bloody well better be 3 goals and umpteen score involvements is pretty decent showing in my book.

Things which impressed me:

1.  Some strong bodywork and marking - always part of his game;

2. Great lateral vision and finding of free team mates inside forward fifty - again something at which he has always excelled and let's face it we had free players everywhere yesterday;

3. The big one for me was that he really nailed all his set shots at goal.  This is the one area where Trac's game has looked a little shaky in the past (think first St Kilda game last year).  That he has his technique and or confidence going in this area is a great sign, because he is so close to the complete package in all other areas.  Opposition team in 2017 watch out and Demons fans, enjoy the side show.  

[Wiseblood 24,637]

15 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

So was @olisik happy with Trac's goal kicking and game against the Carlscum?  ...He'd bloody well better be 3 goals and umpteen score involvements is pretty decent showing in my book.

Things which impressed me:

1.  Some strong bodywork and marking - always part of his game;

2. Great lateral vision and finding of free team mates inside forward fifty - again something at which he has always excelled and let's face it we had free players everywhere yesterday;

3. The big one for me was that he really nailed all his set shots at goal.  This is the one area where Trac's game has looked a little shaky in the past (think first St Kilda game last year).  That he has his technique and or confidence going in this area is a great sign, because he is so close to the complete package in all other areas.  Opposition team in 2017 watch out and Demons fans, enjoy the side show.  

Olisik only posts when we lose, so I doubt he will answer. If he does then I'm sure he has moved on to criticising somebody else. 

[Gator 17,332]

19 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

He'd bloody well better be 3 goals and umpteen score involvements is pretty decent.

4

His ball drop will mean he has bad days in front of goal, but this did feel like somewhat of a breakout game.

[Satyriconhome 10,857]

11 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yes i have played footy. Running defender too. I rarely made diabolical skill errors like he does every game.

So which AFL/VFL team did you play for if you were that good, may I ask?

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

9 minutes ago, ProDee said:

4

His ball drop will mean he has bad days in front of goal, but this did feel like somewhat of a breakout game.

Which ball Pro? ?

[grazman 7,432]

9 hours ago, demon9 said:

These performances feel different, but Saints round 1 still worries me with (especially with how well they play against port in the first half)

You must have watched a different game to me.  I thought Port were absolutely putrid in the first half and their game supports my theory that last year wasn't and aberration, we'll see them continue to slide under Hinkley.  They improved on their woeful skill execution after half time, but I think the problems with their decision making is due to the game plan.  Their bottom six are pretty ordinary and while guys like Westhoff, Hartlett and Dixon are serviceable  they would want to have more impact for what they are getting paid.

I liked Jack Steele's game for the Saints, but I didn't see anything we haven't seen before - McCartin looks to be developing (but Petracca will be better), but their older players are looking very old now.   I would be surprised if they played all of Riewoldt, Gilbert, Montgana, Armitage and Dempster round one.  Carlisle and Brown help structurally down back, but naturally I like our list better than theirs and I think if you are going to shake some monkeys off your back then round one is the best time to do it. 

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

11 hours ago, Macca said:

 

For the record Tom McDonald had 1 clanger and it came when the game was in the bag.  I clanger in a 9 goal victory.  And I lost count of the amount of effective spoils he made.  And that's his main job.

You need to start judging all our players in the same way that you judge Tom McDonald.  

 

Yeh nah look.

 

One thing that is consistently annoying is the misuse of stats and in this case, the clanger stat. A clanger is a direct turnover to an opposition player, a free kick against or a dropped mark or fumble. What is of equal annoyance, is the fact that there are plenty of mis-kicks resulting in non-direct turnovers that are not included as clangers.

For example: A kick that gets to its identified target but not on the full, resulting in a play-on and immense pressure for the player who is now in possession of the ball.

Any mis-kick that doesn't result in a direct turnover, (ie on the chest of the opposition player) is not counted as a clanger.

Nobody is disputing Tom's strengths. So why dispute his weakness?

Go back and watch the game and tell me how many times Tom puts his team mates under unnecessary pressure after making an effective spoil/defensive act or gains possession of the ball in the backline.

Whether it's playing on when he doesn't need to, executing poorly or making the wrong decision, he does it too often for my liking. And the best teams will absolutely make us pay for it during the season if he doesn't calm the fark down.

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[Maldonboy38 6,400]

Out all day yesterday and only got to look at replay this morning. The Dees looked very sharp but I honestly think the game was meaningless. Bolton seems to have a very "practice match" mentality about the preseason games, and the whole match looked like bruise-free footy. A whole heap of our players looked very good, but apart from some extra confidence for our young brigade, we dont have any more understanding of our starting 22 for round 1, or how we will be in comparison to others teams. 

 Very enjoyable though. 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

15 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

Yeh nah look.

 

One thing that is consistently annoying is the misuse of stats and in this case, the clanger stat. A clanger is a direct turnover to an opposition player, a free kick against or a dropped mark or fumble. What is of equal annoyance, is the fact that there are plenty of mis-kicks resulting in non-direct turnovers that are not included as clangers.

For example: A kick that gets to its identified target but not on the full, resulting in a play-on and immense pressure for the player who is now in possession of the ball.

Any mis-kick that doesn't result in a direct turnover, (ie on the chest of the opposition player) is not counted as a clanger.

Nobody is disputing Tom's strengths. So why dispute his weakness?

Go back and watch the game and tell me how many times Tom puts his team mates under unnecessary pressure after making an effective spoil/defensive act or gains possession of the ball in the backline.

Whether it's playing on when he doesn't need to, executing poorly or making the wrong decision, he does it too often for my liking. And the best teams will absolutely make us pay for it during the season if he doesn't calm the fark down.

 

I didn't see yesterday's match but I do recall a few examples of this last year Steve. One in particular where he played on unnecessarily from HB southern side of the G, then suddenly decided to switch for no apparent advantage that I could see (almost like he was on Auto 'must switch no matter what' pilot), missed a relatively easy target who was leading into space to try and provide the option (after he saw him switch!). His mis kick was easily intercepted and the opposition ran into an easy goal and the crowd went nutso. I have a feeling we were holding our own (in general play / confidence) to that point. When it happened I seem to recall it gave the opposition a massive boost and kick started their confidence a little and deflated ours somewhat. Was pretty early in the match also. Bombers maybe?

 A great athlete and solid spoiler/defender but running off your defender isn't going to help much and will leave you very exposed the other way if you struggle to hit targets often enough or choose the wrong time to do so putting yourself and team mates around you under uneccesary pressure as you say. If he hasn't started to reduce these type of brain fades and poor skill executions by now I would be getting pretty concerned if I was on the coaching side. Hopefully he has improved in this area on last year. If so then he may even snag an All Australian guernsey. Massive potential upside if he gets it right more often here.

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

50 minutes ago, grazman said:

You must have watched a different game to me.  I thought Port were absolutely putrid in the first half and their game supports my theory that last year wasn't and aberration, we'll see them continue to slide under Hinkley.  They improved on their woeful skill execution after half time, but I think the problems with their decision making is due to the game plan.  Their bottom six are pretty ordinary and while guys like Westhoff, Hartlett and Dixon are serviceable  they would want to have more impact for what they are getting paid.

I liked Jack Steele's game for the Saints, but I didn't see anything we haven't seen before - McCartin looks to be developing (but Petracca will be better), but their older players are looking very old now.   I would be surprised if they played all of Riewoldt, Gilbert, Montgana, Armitage and Dempster round one.  Carlisle and Brown help structurally down back, but naturally I like our list better than theirs and I think if you are going to shake some monkeys off your back then round one is the best time to do it. 

 

A round one win will be huge and probably the biggest indication of all that we are going to have a very big year. Beating the Cats at Etihad would also be nice revenge for the 100pt belting.

[Melb16 493]

All 3 of their first half goals started with us having possession in their 50. Skill error/wrong decision led to us giving them the ball and kicking a goal. They did not score 1 single goal from an attacking chain for the entire half whereas the majority of ours were just that.

Tidy that up and were in for some good times.

[Skuit 10,031]

Beliefs I'm ready to admit may well be misguided (after two whole preseason games): Harmes and Vanders will make it. Jetta is a walk-up start.

Beliefs I'm in no way ready to part with: Tmac commits regular and horrendous errors of judgement and execution.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

4

His ball drop will mean he has bad days in front of goal, but this did feel like somewhat of a breakout game.

Without trying to sound like a certain someone, his ball drop yesterday compared to what I saw at training a couple of months ago was completely different.

[Gator 17,332]

47 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The Dees looked very sharp but I honestly think the game was meaningless. Bolton seems to have a very "practice match" mentality about the preseason games, and the whole match looked like bruise-free footy.

They were just about at their strongest minus Cripps, Armfield and maybe one or two others.

I don't think Bolton would have said go easy or not to take too many risks that are going to result in injury.  More likely we were playing a bottom two team and the one I've picked for the wooden spoon this year.

We did what good sides do against poor ones.  I don't think Clarkson thought it was "meaningless" every time the Hawks thumped us preseason at Casey Fields.  It was an important part of their preparation for the real stuff.  Yesterday was the same for us. 

[Gator 17,332]

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Without trying to sound like a certain someone, his ball drop yesterday compared to what I saw at training a couple of months ago was completely different.

It may have been.

It's still too high, which leaves room for error.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Without trying to sound like a certain someone, his ball drop yesterday compared to what I saw at training a couple of months ago was completely different.

Saty.

You sound like that Saty guy.

[bananas 428]

Only watched the first half of the replay, but one thing I've noticed that has gone uncommented about on here, is the excellent pressure put on Carlton as they rebounded out of their defensive 50 by our makeshift half forwards. Neal-Bullen in particular was great with tackles, pressuring, smothering, and just generally making a nuisance of himself, but JKH, Harmes and vandenBerg all had moments of defensive excellence too.

I'll still be surprised if ANB plays round one, but at this point I won't be *that* surprised.

[Macca 16,961]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

Yeh nah look.

 

One thing that is consistently annoying is the misuse of stats and in this case, the clanger stat. A clanger is a direct turnover to an opposition player, a free kick against or a dropped mark or fumble. What is of equal annoyance, is the fact that there are plenty of mis-kicks resulting in non-direct turnovers that are not included as clangers.

For example: A kick that gets to its identified target but not on the full, resulting in a play-on and immense pressure for the player who is now in possession of the ball.

Any mis-kick that doesn't result in a direct turnover, (ie on the chest of the opposition player) is not counted as a clanger.

Nobody is disputing Tom's strengths. So why dispute his weakness?

Go back and watch the game and tell me how many times Tom puts his team mates under unnecessary pressure after making an effective spoil/defensive act or gains possession of the ball in the backline.

Whether it's playing on when he doesn't need to, executing poorly or making the wrong decision, he does it too often for my liking. And the best teams will absolutely make us pay for it during the season if he doesn't calm the fark down.

 

No, you're wrong and you're another poster who's bias is quite apparent.  Any turnover or clanger in any part of the ground can result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition.  The chain of possessions that can result from a mistake in the forward line is a case in point.   Even a missed shot at goal from a very gettable opportunity is a good example. 

If all the clangers & turnovers from all our players were highlighted then you'd have a point but like many here, you'd rather be lazy and highlight the scoring opportunities that don't involve longer chains of disposal. 

The levels of bias against Tom McDonald is ridiculous for the above reasons.  It's you and the likes of you who need to go back and watch the games more closely. 

Besides all that, when considering the gamestyle that the coaches are asking Tom to play,  it's small wonder he doesn't turn the ball over more ... unless you demand 'lace-out' on every occasion.  A player who calls for the ball has an obligation to get it too - if you've played the game you'd know that.

He's your player, start giving him the support that he deserves.  Lose the hate.

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

43 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I didn't see yesterday's match but I do recall a few examples of this last year Steve. One in particular where he played on unnecessarily from HB southern side of the G, then suddenly decided to switch for no apparent advantage that I could see (almost like he was on Auto 'must switch no matter what' pilot), missed a relatively easy target who was leading into space to try and provide the option (after he saw him switch!). His mis kick was easily intercepted and the opposition ran into an easy goal and the crowd went nutso. I have a feeling we were holding our own (in general play / confidence) to that point. When it happened I seem to recall it gave the opposition a massive boost and kick started their confidence a little and deflated ours somewhat. Was pretty early in the match also. Bombers maybe?

 

 

Lols.

I distinctly remember that also and it was indeed against Essendon in that god-awful 'get-around the players' game. I'm sure a Tom defender will bob up and some stage today and go on to say, "Oh yeh, it's alllllll Tom McDonald's fault for that one kick. That's why we lost isn't it. Isn't it!" 

Nah. It's not. Obvs.

But [censored] like that only gets the ball rolling for opposition side, especially when they have a 45,000 strong crowd there. They are called 'momentum changers'.

Agree with your second paragraph though. If I was Goody, I'd say; 

"Listen Tommy. You do your best work when you spoil, intercept mark and make desperate defensive acts that kill the ball for us. When you're in possession of the ball, just relax and try and spot up a simple target. We've got Vince, Lewis and Hibberd back there for support so try and get the ball in their hands. Don't be a d*ck and try to take the world on. Just be smart. You know you could be an AA defender if you made smart and simple decisions with the ball?"

Edited February 25, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[dazzledavey36 54,861]

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

So which AFL/VFL team did you play for if you were that good, may I ask?

Don't want to tell you otherwise you'll be asking me for nude snapchats.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

No, you're wrong and you're another poster who's bias is quite apparent.  Any turnover or clanger in any part of the ground can result in a scoring opportunity for the opposition.  The chain of possessions that can result from a mistake in the forward line is a case in point.   Even a missed shot at goal from a very gettable opportunity is a good example. 

If all the clangers & turnovers from all our players were highlighted then you'd have a point but like many here, you'd rather be lazy and highlight the scoring opportunities that don't involve longer chains of disposal. 

The levels of bias against Tom McDonald is ridiculous for the above reasons.  It's you and the likes of you who need to go back and watch the games more closely. 

Besides all that, when considering the gamestyle that the coaches are asking Tom to play,  it's small wonder he doesn't turn the ball over more ... unless you demand 'lace-out' on every occasion.  A player who calls for the ball has an obligation to get it too - if you've played the game you'd know that.

He's your player, start giving him the support that he deserves.  Lose the hate.

 

Hate? lol.

You are the one vehemently defending him. So much so that you think I hate him haha. So really, the bias is coming from you. Should I say you love him?

Everyone knows decision making, disposal skills and execution are of far more importance when inside your defensive half and especially inside your defensive 50. Obviously the best chance for an opposition side to score is from a turnover close to their goal. Surely that is a given? You are bringing in pointless other information that holds no relevance to what I'm talking about which is the need for Tom to make better decisions and to show more composure with the ball in hand. You can bet your bottom dollar that in the review for the game, Tom will be spoken to about the need for this. 

I haven't once bagged him and I certainly don't hate him. But I definitely think that he needs to show much greater consistency in his kicking and decision making.

You're either a McDonald relative, the guy himself or you don't wish for our team to improve by debating these facts.

That's cool.

 

[Macca 16,961]

12 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

"Listen Tommy. You do your best work when you spoil, intercept mark and make desperate defensive acts that kill the ball for us. When you're in possession of the ball, just relax and try and spot up a simple target.

But you're not Goodwin ... perhaps you could send him off an email stating the preferred style of play that you want Tom to play. 

You and others just don't get it ... Tom is being asked specifically to play the way he is and that's the way it's going to be.  There's going to be the odd error in the process - that stands to reason.  In half the games he plays he makes no glaring errors - you and others need to start acknowledging that. 

A simple target ... what 15 metres backwards or something like that?  You won't win games of footy trying to be too careful - we tried that under Neeld & the result was a spectacular failure.

Tom sets up an enormous amount of scoring opportunities for the team and often he is the instigator of a long line of possessions.  You haven't noticed?

[Skuit 10,031]

32 minutes ago, Melb16 said:

All 3 of their first half goals started with us having possession in their 50. Skill error/wrong decision led to us giving them the ball and kicking a goal. They did not score 1 single goal from an attacking chain for the entire half whereas the majority of ours were just that.

Tidy that up and were in for some good times.

I suspect now that we're not going to even bother. I thought last year Roos was quite stubborn in not being reactive. We won and lost almost every match entirely on our own terms. A training year: focus on executing the game-plan. But now I think they've concocted a game-plan based on some home-spun tactical wisdom. Score more goals than the other team and you win almost every time. If our diamond-defence and derring-do consistently creates two scoring shots to one, who gives a flying if we keep turning it over and the opposition continues to boot goals from the goal-square. Expect a year ahead marked by some periods of crazy brilliance and others of high frustration.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

But you're not Goodwin ... perhaps you could send him off an email stating the preferred style of play that you want Tom to play. 

You and others just don't get it ... Tom is being asked specifically to play the way he is and that's the way it's going to be.  There's going to be the odd error in the process - that stands to reason.  In half the games he plays he makes no glaring errors - you and others need to start acknowledging that. 

A simple target ... what 15 metres backwards or something like that?  You won't win games of footy trying to be too careful - we tried that under Neeld & the result was a spectacular failure.

Tom sets up an enormous amount of scoring opportunities for the team and often he is the instigator of a long line of possessions.  You haven't noticed?

That's a rediculous statement Macca. There's no need for an email. Goody would be all over this site On the look out for some finer points within all the amazing posts. Never underestimate the power of a solid D'land thread sir!