JLT Round 2 vs. Carlton at Casey Fields

[daisycutter 29,338]

4 minutes ago, Akum said:

The options would be Joel Smith, Frost and the two Macs.

Playing positionally as a wingman would be strange to all of them. It's a question of who would adapt relatively well, and who would struggle to adapt. Perhaps T.Mac being the more experienced would adapt best. Then again, he's played all his footy in defence; Frost, for one, has played other positions (KPF, ruck), though not wing.

It's also that we'll lose the most by taking T.Mac out of defence, than any of the others. We'll need tall defenders to match up against Membrey, Bruce & McCartin, though Hibberd could probably help out here. On the other hand, T.Mac could probably hurt them more than the others going the other way, and make Roo have to play more defensively.

T.Mac would probably also be best to match him in the air. Frost might be strong enough, but at this stage probably lacks the footy smarts. This is important, because Saints will use him as an outlet from defence every time, unless a better option presents itself.

Another option could be Watts, who has played wing before, could go with him athletically and could hurt him (and badly!) the other way. Using him would also avoid disrupting our defence. But he will struggle to hold his ground in the air, and will need to be more disciplined than he's used to, and not go ball-chasing. But at this stage I don't think he'll be selected for Round 1.

So I'm betting T.Mac.

But the stakes are high. If we can hold Riewoldt, we take away a huge asset of theirs. And if it forces them to switch Riewoldt to attack

 

 

whoever plays on him needs to sacrifice his game and play close at all times. riewoldt must be under constant physical pressure at all times and not given free space, i'd be leaning towards frost myself

[Lucifers Hero 38,985]

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

but who goes to him? we don't really have a genuine tagger these days, and because of the outside nature of riewoldt's game it needs to someone who can run all day, compete in the air, and tackle strongly.

there's no real option other than to run head to head against him.

i think we'll continue using the zone defence.

I agree.

They won last year because we were not to good at zone defence (early days) and they kept getting the ball out the back.  (Essendon, Port and Sydney did the same).  We have refined the zone and taken a lot of the risk out of it. 

Nonetheless, the real answer is to stop supply to him out of the middle.  Given how strong our mids now are and how we use 'angles' around the ground I reckon we can stop him getting too much of the ball. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Lucifer's Hero

[Dr. Gonzo 23,715]

6 hours ago, A F said:

My feeling is that Jones has improved his kicking again, which is great 

Jones has a bit of a deadly left foot on him these days which is remarkable considering where he came from

[old55 22,826]

Petracca's marking superb.  Good to see him kicking goals too.  We smacked them and there were plenty of reasons to expect that, but we haven't been able to consistently deliver the expected.  There's a lot of decent teams competing for finals but there's also a dearth of great teams.  The sky's the limit this year.

[Skuit 9,965]

Maybe we're keeping the slim-line Pedo.v2 under wraps for a round-one run-with role on Riewoldt?

But I would give the gig to Hunt. He may be giving up 5cms on Nick, but he has a certain scrappy desperation to close and effect a spoil - obviously also has the legs and can do some serious damage going the other way if dragged up to the wing. If Riewoldt works him back deep to gain a body advantage we just have to make sure Hunt has support. 

Probably not the greatest idea, but I feel like Hunt is hungry enough and would relish the challenge. He's also brighter and more co-ordinated than a couple of other options on the table.

[Willmoy1947 3,969]

8 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Macca I'm with you on Tommy.  Has his days but I also noticed Lewis miss a simple pass yesterday under no pressure, Vince turn it over on a kick out and Jones miss a simple target early.  If we had a different Board for each player we could list their mistakes and Tommy wouldn't be the worst.  Just look for the Tom McDonald take a good hard look at yourself thread Dazzle started last year and as you go through it you'll notice a change of heart.  I think Tommy is always a bit rusty at the beginning of the season but I've not got a worry in the world about him.

I'm surprised at the total positiveness after yesterdays game.  I thought it was a bit like the Brisbane game last year that we won by 10 goals.  I thought we were just going.

Gawn was pretty quiet, Weed has taken one contested mark in two games, Harmes and AVB just went, Stretch was quiet, Johnson unsighted, Spencer failed to follow up on last week and ANB is also below AFL standard.  Smith is very enthusiastic and I'm a fan but he was fumbley yesterday.  That's just my take.  We were killing them at quarter time but didn't make much headway after that, particularly in contested possessions and disposals.  We had a couple of avenues to goal and they didn't and it showed.  IMO there is lots of room for improvement and the game wasn't nearly as impressive as last week. I agree with Pro, we won by our minimum margin and if we were on our game as we should have been we'd have won by 100 points.

But the positives, of which there were many, were the pressure we applied to Carlton, Melksham who I thought really played well in the second half, Hogan putting fear into all those around him, Oliver for his continued excellent play, Petracca for starting to really impose himself, the defence working as a team and the generally very good performances of our older brigade.  I liked Viney forward and if he had kicked straight he'd have had 4 or 5 and Hoges in the centre will be interesting.

I think we really need Garlett back and Tyson, Watts and Kent will make us much better.  I like Frost but how does he fit in? And as others have said it's almost inconceivable that Jetta struggles for a spot but he is.  I was warned about it but I didn't believe it.  Now I do.

WCE looked very good early yesterday against Freo and I'll be interested to see how we go in a couple of weeks against a team I think is one of the rare "certainties" for the 8.

 

 

Good points all, and i would add that we are possibly not far away , on that performance to maybe even putting them away by 100. Bearing in mind no% value all the same.

To add two things. One about Frost and one about MacDonald. Frost will fit into the backline with Macca's brother and they, with experience, will do the job. I suggested last year i think, about Hogan on the ball, and it has worked. Give Tom an extra skin tight guernsey and put him in the middle as well in bursts. I think it could work admirably too.

 I really think also we could  see the value of Melksham, with his positioning and visionary handball to advantage, thanks JH, and by the way they looked the two fittest of all those players looking at GC vs E today.

[bjDee 1,249]

Wow. After attending the game and taking a decent squizz all through this thread, the Tommy Mac receptors on my retinas have been blinded by the blast of the post match radioactive fallout / chest puffing exercise.   

At the same time, the Jacky Watts receptors in my eyes have begun to recuperate and recover well.

I wonder are these boys in parallel opposite universes?  Could we clone them into Jack McDonald and Tom Watts and give the site a conniption meltdown?

Well I don't really want to bring the site down, I just wonder if Tom has become the Claytons Jack Watts?

Edited February 26, 2017 by bjDee

[titan_uranus 24,628]

4 hours ago, bing181 said:

Agree, though a more accurate match to describe this kind of cognitive fallacy is the Bandwagon Effect. When it comes to Tom Mac., plenty are on it.

Other biases playing a role here include the Illusory Truth Effect (we equate repetition with truth or increased believability), and the Frequency Illusion (once you notice something, you start to see it everywhere). Though one dud kick from Tom is enough to feed our Confirmation Bias (seeking information that confirms what we already believe, while ignoring information that contradicts it).

Groupthink is a pressure to conform, to not rock the boat. It's suppression of dissenting views, including self-suppression.

All of these cognitive behaviours lead to irrationality in decision-making in a group or social context.

Ahem.

I don't know if there's a term for it, but I think people notice TMac more because he appears to make "large" mistakes (like the one total howler of a kick he'll produce most weeks). 

We have players who make far more frequent mistakes, which can be equally damaging but are less noticeable. The example which comes to mind is Harmes - he butchers the ball, repeatedly missing kicks, but he does most of this at the other end of the ground where, I think, people take less interest in bagging out clangers than they do with TMac who makes his errors whilst in, or close to, the defensive 50.

[Adam The God 29,392]

3 hours ago, Akum said:

The options would be Joel Smith, Frost and the two Macs.

Playing positionally as a wingman would be strange to all of them. It's a question of who would adapt relatively well, and who would struggle to adapt. Perhaps T.Mac being the more experienced would adapt best. Then again, he's played all his footy in defence; Frost, for one, has played other positions (KPF, ruck), though not wing.

It's also that we'll lose the most by taking T.Mac out of defence, than any of the others. We'll need tall defenders to match up against Membrey, Bruce & McCartin, though Hibberd could probably help out here. On the other hand, T.Mac could probably hurt them more than the others going the other way, and make Roo have to play more defensively.

T.Mac would probably also be best to match him in the air. Frost might be strong enough, but at this stage probably lacks the footy smarts. This is important, because Saints will use him as an outlet from defence every time, unless a better option presents itself.

Another option could be Watts, who has played wing before, could go with him athletically and could hurt him (and badly!) the other way. Using him would also avoid disrupting our defence. But he will struggle to hold his ground in the air, and will need to be more disciplined than he's used to, and not go ball-chasing. But at this stage I don't think he'll be selected for Round 1.

So I'm betting T.Mac.

But the stakes are high. If we can hold Riewoldt, we take away a huge asset of theirs. And if it forces them to switch Riewoldt to attack

I reckon well still go with the zone. We seem determined to play this way. At least, this is how we'll start, I believe. Depending on the area of the ground that Riewoldt is playing in, our players will take turns playing on him. I hope we've studied the tapes from last year though, because Riewoldt is a very smart player.

[daisycutter 29,338]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

Maybe we're keeping the slim-line Pedo.v2 under wraps for a round-one run-with role on Riewoldt?

But I would give the gig to Hunt. He may be giving up 5cms on Nick, but he has a certain scrappy desperation to close and effect a spoil - obviously also has the legs and can do some serious damage going the other way if dragged up to the wing. If Riewoldt works him back deep to gain a body advantage we just have to make sure Hunt has support. 

Probably not the greatest idea, but I feel like Hunt is hungry enough and would relish the challenge. He's also brighter and more co-ordinated than a couple of other options on the table.

hmmmmm, hunt, yes it does have some merit. like to see rooey slip away from hunt

[Demon Jack 6,741]

4 hours ago, Pipefitter said:

Anyone else think ANB is best 22 at the moment?

I like ANB and he played well yesterday, but I can't see him making the cut with the likes of Tyson, Watts, Garlett and Jetta set to return. Doesn't have enough tricks to maintain a spot. Very handy depth though.

[bing181 8,951]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't know if there's a term for it, but I think people notice TMac more because he appears to make "large" mistakes (like the one total howler of a kick he'll produce most weeks). 

Availability Heuristic: vivid events effect our judgement more than less-memorable events. It's why we think shark attacks are a greater risk than falling coconuts.

Also, the difference in how we assess the seriousness of back vs forward line clangers reflects our inbuilt aversion to loss in comparison to equivalent gain. Turnovers in the backline are potentially much more costly.

There's a PhD in Behavioural Economics here for someone.

(Agree about Harmes.)

[Macca 16,627]

6 hours ago, bing181 said:

Availability Heuristic: vivid events effect our judgement more than less-memorable events. It's why we think shark attacks are a greater risk than falling coconuts.

Also, the difference in how we assess the seriousness of back vs forward line clangers reflects our inbuilt aversion to loss in comparison to equivalent gain. Turnovers in the backline are potentially much more costly.

There's a PhD in Behavioural Economics here for someone.

(Agree about Harmes.)

A missed shot at goal from a very gettable position followed by a coast-to-coast goal from the opposition is effectively an 11 point swingaround.  Or 12 points if the gettable shot at goal misses completely.

Not sure how many times that happens on average per game but a hell of a lot of easy chances are missed over the course of a season.  'Opportunity cost' can result in losses as we found out once or twice last season.

 

[Uncle Fester 2,843]

7 hours ago, bing181 said:

Availability Heuristic: vivid events effect our judgement more than less-memorable events. It's why we think shark attacks are a greater risk than falling coconuts.

Also, the difference in how we assess the seriousness of back vs forward line clangers reflects our inbuilt aversion to loss in comparison to equivalent gain. Turnovers in the backline are potentially much more costly.

There's a PhD in Behavioural Economics here for someone.

(Agree about Harmes.)

Lost me... Is he a shark or a coconut? When I lived in Darwin palm fronds took out more tourists than crocs. Those buggers were deadly from 10 meters up.

 

But seriously... we have a great backman. And backmen live under the worst pressure. A forward kicks 1.5 and we say 'if only'. A back man saves 10 goals and then screws up in a howler it's all we talk about. Tmac is a blessing to our club and we'd be a lot worse off without him.

 

*Spoken as the rep of the defenders: CHB, Keeper, and Goalie

[ex52k2 238]

Can somebody  answer  me  this.  During  the  second  qtr  Thomas  took  a  mark  on  the  behind  line, theirs, [ I thought  it  was  thru  before  he  marked  it]   He  then  walked     over  the  line  and  played  on  over  the  out  of  bounds  line.

I  thought  if  you  went  over  the  behind  line  you  had  to  come  back  into  play  between  the  posts  NOT  around  the  point  post.  The  gaol  was  allowed.

Am  I  reading  this  rule  right?    

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

As soon as you point out a 'fault' that a particular player possesses, you get what seems like this recurring nightmare of a merry-go-round of posts.

It starts as a simple, "McDonald is still making too many errors in dangerous parts of the ground, he needs to address this". 

To which you get the typical, "Everyone makes errors, you clearly hate the guy, he tries his best" response. 

The response provides no critical analysis.

So the next few posts become a conversation between someone who is pointing out a glaringly obvious weakness that a really strong defender possesses and someone who is vehemently denying this weakness and accuses the poster of "hating" that payer for critiquing this area of his game.

Then along come the rest of the gang who have most likely cast a quick eye over the thread, seen some Tom McDonald talk, and chime in themselves with the old; 

"All this garbage talk about him is nit picking...yep he will make some mistakes but I'm happy we've got him."

"This should have been retitled the TMAC thread - there is so much outrage - perhaps he is non deserving of a spot in the lineup anymore"

Etc Etc Etc.

 

I could identify and criticise any turnover from Saturday made by any particular player, whether it's Nathan Jones or Bernie Vince who both gave away two easy goals from turning it over inside our defensive 50. The reason I don't is because 8 times out of 10, they hit their target/make the right decision under heat. (Pressure).

Unless Tom McDonald is under absolutely no opposition pressure and literally has a teammate who is completely on their own to kick or handball to, he is generally no better than a 50/50 when it comes to choosing the correct target, executing the skill under pressure or making a right or wrong call as to when to play on from a mark. I repeat, that is when there is pressure.

Now, Goody, (as posters have suggested) may indeed be giving him the 'freedom' to pick and choose the moments in which to play on etc. But the decision making process is completely and wholeheartedly his. And as a supporter who wants the team to be conceding less goals from turnovers in their back half, I'm simply pointing out that I want him to greatly improve in this area. Both his decision making and the execution of the skill need to improve.

The only way he'll become the AA defender that posters hope he'll become is if he visibly improves in these areas. Not in one game or two games. But consistently over the entirety of the season.

 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

19 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you didn't,  I played at Amateur level and I missed targets, tackles, etc

VAFA?

Div 4?

Thirdsies?

They'd allow that.

 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

1 hour ago, ex52k2 said:

Can somebody  answer  me  this.  During  the  second  qtr  Thomas  took  a  mark  on  the  behind  line, theirs, [ I thought  it  was  thru  before  he  marked  it]   He  then  walked     over  the  line  and  played  on  over  the  out  of  bounds  line.

I  thought  if  you  went  over  the  behind  line  you  had  to  come  back  into  play  between  the  posts  NOT  around  the  point  post.  The  gaol  was  allowed.

Am  I  reading  this  rule  right?    

That's how interpret the rule as well. eg. when a defender takes a make on the last line in the goal square. If he wants to play on or proceed to kick it he can't run around the goal post and out between the behinds. He has to exit between the posts he entered.

[rjay 24,611]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

As soon as you point out a 'fault' that a particular player possesses, you get what seems like this recurring nightmare of a merry-go-round of posts

All good to discuss 'steve', but it's not just pointing out a fault.

It's the endless pointing out of the same fault that I take issue with.

 

[P-man 13,366]

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

As soon as you point out a 'fault' that a particular player possesses, you get what seems like this recurring nightmare of a merry-go-round of posts.

It starts as a simple, "McDonald is still making too many errors in dangerous parts of the ground, he needs to address this". 

To which you get the typical, "Everyone makes errors, you clearly hate the guy, he tries his best" response. 

The response provides no critical analysis.

So the next few posts become a conversation between someone who is pointing out a glaringly obvious weakness that a really strong defender possesses and someone who is vehemently denying this weakness and accuses the poster of "hating" that payer for critiquing this area of his game.

Then along come the rest of the gang who have most likely cast a quick eye over the thread, seen some Tom McDonald talk, and chime in themselves with the old; 

"All this garbage talk about him is nit picking...yep he will make some mistakes but I'm happy we've got him."

"This should have been retitled the TMAC thread - there is so much outrage - perhaps he is non deserving of a spot in the lineup anymore"

Etc Etc Etc.

 

I could identify and criticise any turnover from Saturday made by any particular player, whether it's Nathan Jones or Bernie Vince who both gave away two easy goals from turning it over inside our defensive 50. The reason I don't is because 8 times out of 10, they hit their target/make the right decision under heat. (Pressure).

Unless Tom McDonald is under absolutely no opposition pressure and literally has a teammate who is completely on their own to kick or handball to, he is generally no better than a 50/50 when it comes to choosing the correct target, executing the skill under pressure or making a right or wrong call as to when to play on from a mark. I repeat, that is when there is pressure.

Now, Goody, (as posters have suggested) may indeed be giving him the 'freedom' to pick and choose the moments in which to play on etc. But the decision making process is completely and wholeheartedly his. And as a supporter who wants the team to be conceding less goals from turnovers in their back half, I'm simply pointing out that I want him to greatly improve in this area. Both his decision making and the execution of the skill need to improve.

The only way he'll become the AA defender that posters hope he'll become is if he visibly improves in these areas. Not in one game or two games. But consistently over the entirety of the season

We need a mic dropping emoticon for posts like this.

Nailed it, steve.

[dazzledavey36 52,828]

4 minutes ago, P-man said:

We need a mic dropping emoticon for posts like this.

Nailed it, steve.

[P-man 13,366]

23 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It was the "Neal" that made me realise he had no idea.

It's also clear from watching the replay that they were commentating off a TV and weren't actually at the ground.

This was actually highly amusing. Talked up his season last year with confidence, labelling him an underrated player. Like he knew what he was talking about. Then proceeded to refer to him as "Neal" or "Bullen" lol

Dunstall let slide slide the first time Frawley wrongly referred to score involvements as score assists. He corrected it the second time.

The commentators tend to be reluctant to correct the mistakes of their colleagues so they don't look stupid. The cost of them saving a bit of face is the viewer/listener receiving wrong information.

Edited February 27, 2017 by P-man

[Biffen 12,839]

My 2 cents on Tmac .

He was woeful in his disposal at the beginning and gets better every year.

Had a cracking start to 2016 and I'm sure he will improve again.

In a pack situation when he gathers it he tends to burst into tacklers a fair bit but he has a good long (20-30m) handball.

Has stopped using the long handball as much as he did but its not a bad trick to have from HB.

Lots of players give away goals from a bad switch kick.

At least we aren't hugging the boundary ,and we have the ability to score again quickly from the middle.

We all hate to see a sh!tty kick get intercepted-it deflates us all which is why a longer, wider option is always better if the heat is on around the ball in play. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,648]

On 26/02/2017 at 2:19 PM, Danelska said:

This should have been retitled the TMAC thread - there is so much outrage - perhaps he is non deserving of a spot in the lineup anymore (at the top of the page that is...)

I suspect the concern about Tom McDonald's disposal is coloured by his ungainly kicking action. Every time he kicks the ball it just seems amazing that it actually goes roughly where it's meant to. Without checking any stats, I suspect his kicks hit their targets in roughly similar proportion as some of the better looking kicks who just happen to miss targets quite regularly (such as Viney). 

[DeeSpencer 24,768]

I can somewhat live with the turnovers with Tom. What still upsets me is since his hot start to 2015 I'm yet to see him play with the same power. 

His spoils lack conviction, his marks aren't strong, he isn't pushing forwards off the ball and his tackling is meek. Watching Weitering sell him candy and walk by him was very disappointing. 

He had one really nice athletic spoil going back with the flight but that's about it. Otherwise his game was mainly just hard work, which is nice, but it doesn't beat the best forwards.

In the 3rd preseason game I want to see some power.