1 hour ago, DemonOX said:

Better that TMac tries too hard than not at all imo. 

I think we have moved past that a bit.

I think from mid 2014 onwards, our issues on field haven't been related to effort.That was demonstrated in that we didn't get carved up as much as under the previous regime.

I also believe not having the cattle is no longer an excuse (though to my embarrassment, I thought that in 2013). Our age mix is now decent with some decent kids in there. No longer are we relying on VFL top ups or recycled players we got as delisted free agents.

What we need to work on now is maturing young bodies, sharpening up decision making and polishing skills. That will take us from being a 9th to 10th placed team to being a top 8 and then top 4 contender.

Edited February 26, 20178 yr by Colin B. Flaubert
Mangled the English language.

18 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Better that TMac tries too hard than not at all imo. 

Yes but there is a time and a place to take the game on. TMac doesn't always get that right. 

As a key defender he has to nail this decision better

5 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I think we have moved past that a bit.

I think from mid 2014 onwards, our issues on field haven't been related to effort.That was demonstrated in that we didn't get carved up as much as under the previous regime.

I also don't believe not having the cattle is no longer an excuses (though to my embarrassment, I thought that in 2013). Our age mix is now decent with some decent kids in there. No longer are we relying on VFL top ups or recycled players we got as delisted free agents.

What we need to work on now is maturing young bodies, sharpening up decision making and polishing skills. That will take us from being a 9th to 10th placed team to being a top 8 and then top 4 contender.

We're becoming a proper footy club again but we're not shouting that from the rooftops. 

The mantra in a footy club should always be to get the job done with a minimum of fuss and never talk about what you're going to do. 

We played very well yesterday and there were some great signs.  That's all that really matters.

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

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. 

They also only used 4 interchange per half (vs our 8?) and it was their first hit out while we'd played a decent game last week.

I don't think it would've mattered though, even the way we played last week would've torched them yesterday.

2 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I didn't catch the game as I had an engagement in Nagoya. I have seen the highlights. Will watch the replay now.
It seems that we aren't as static. Four or five blokes stream forward after a mark is taken in the fifty. Whether the player with the ball uses the or not is up to them but we are pro active.
Loving it!

They seem to have developed their endurance to a more game ready level so they can double back and cover as well as streaming forward in attack. 

7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They also only used 4 interchange per half (vs our 8?) and it was their first hit out while we'd played a decent game last week.

I don't think it would've mattered though, even the way we played last week would've torched them yesterday.

Yes, I've read Carlton supporters use this excuse.  It doesn't wash with me.  We were so dominant around the contest it didn't matter.

And we were 26 points up at quarter time.

Like Vogon has mentioned, we were scratchy and fumbly, but it's still a work in progress and young players make mistakes.  The easy dropped chest marks do my head in though.

Also, I doubt I've ever seen a great display at Casey Fields.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Wouldn't have thought Tommy Mac would drum up so much conversation after a 9 goal win, but here we are.

Defensively, he's terrific.  Get's led to the ball on occasion but is only rarely beaten in one on one situations, and he is deceptively quick off the mark as well.  It's not often you see a bag of goals kicked on him.

What it comes down to is his decision making.  His kicking is not necessarily that bad, but he almost backs himself too much and at times says to himself 'I can pin point a pass to a teammate 40 metres away through 4 opposition players', when really he should just look for the outlet up the ground to a 50/50 contest.  It's made to look worse than other turnovers as they are in the back half where the damage is far greater.  If he learned to ignore the 'riskier' kicks, especially the ones where he looks to bring the ball in board and you can't help but look away in fear, then discussion around his disposal and 'clangers' wouldn't happen.

But would you rather he take risks that can start a great attacking chain with the occasional stuff up or play it safe and always either slow the play down by going backwards/sideways or go down the line to 50/50 contests? Obviously the coaches know which they prefer; how many coaches would love players that "back themselves in"? Half of their battle is trying to get players in that mindset.

22 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

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.

 

 

I'm already looking past the West Coast game but many others won't ... I've almost seen enough to know what to expect this season.  However, it will interesting to see what sort of a team Goodwin puts out there next Thursday week.

Goodwin plays for keeps by the looks of it so we'll probably be going all out against the Eagles ... but I may be wrong on that.

Weideman is just a young colt who needs time ... I find it impossible to judge him correctly yet.  He does need to extend his arms for marks (chest marks ain't gonna cut it) but again, it's way too early to tell and he just needs more game-time (in the seniors whenever applicable)  We've spent the pennies on him (draft pick number) so we need to find out whether he can play or not.

As for Frost, I like what he brings.  He's got x-factor and the bloke has some serious pace.  He's in my team as well as I don't see him as just another tall key back.

 

Edited February 26, 20178 yr by Macca

13 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Yes, I've read Carlton supporters use this excuse.  It doesn't wash with me.  We were so dominant around the contest it didn't matter.

And we were 26 points up at quarter time.

Agreed, just providing a bit of extra context 

Wondering if it would be a useful set play for Spencer and possibly Gawn to handball off, rather than take a set shot at goal. I'd say the conversion wld increase.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Surprised Alex Neal-Bullen hasn't gotten a mentioned. I thought yesterday he was really super with his defensive and pressure acts on their backs. If he plays another good game against WC then i cannot see why Garlett and Nib can't be our starting small forwards. Im hoping he's watched tapes of Toby Greene who invented himself into that small forward who puts enormous pressure on opposition backs and does a tagging job on the dangerous running half backs.

If he gets a gig round 1 id send him straight to Montagna to do a tagging role.

Also known as Neal Bullen (minus the Alex) according to Danny Frawley.

3 hours 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.

This has been the problem for years. The last two seasons the focus has been on lessening what I would call immature and silly mistakes. Whilst Tommy Mac does provide us great drive and looks to take the game on (something the coaches clearly encourage), a player of his experience still makes too many errors. Vince is the same. Now is it a bit like the Port Adelaide situation, where the plan is simply too high risk, high reward, or does the personnel have to either improve a lot more or change completely? 

I believe we can go deep into September if we can manage to minimise/eradicate these often laughable errors (mostly by foot).

It may well take another year of getting used to this take it on at all costs game plan for it to click with many. A lot of it is about knowing where your teammates will be and then the skill execution becomes far easier.

I wait with interest to see how Tommy Mac and Vince go in particular. My feeling is that Jones has improved his kicking again, which is great and for the most part, we have nothing to worry about with Lewis. OMac is still developing and I give him leeway, but the rest of them must attack and minimise their errors. It's a fine line, but doable if we're going to become a champion team.

Having said all this, Tommy made some errors yesterday, but I felt he was reasonably solid in his decision making.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Wouldn't have thought Tommy Mac would drum up so much conversation after a 9 goal win, but here we are.

Defensively, he's terrific.  Get's led to the ball on occasion but is only rarely beaten in one on one situations, and he is deceptively quick off the mark as well.  It's not often you see a bag of goals kicked on him.

What it comes down to is his decision making.  His kicking is not necessarily that bad, but he almost backs himself too much and at times says to himself 'I can pin point a pass to a teammate 40 metres away through 4 opposition players', when really he should just look for the outlet up the ground to a 50/50 contest.  It's made to look worse than other turnovers as they are in the back half where the damage is far greater.  If he learned to ignore the 'riskier' kicks, especially the ones where he looks to bring the ball in board and you can't help but look away in fear, then discussion around his disposal and 'clangers' wouldn't happen.

Surely though, the coaches are telling him to back himself and not putting any limits on what would be a risky kick and what would be a safer kick. Though I agree with what you're saying, mate.

34 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

But would you rather he take risks that can start a great attacking chain with the occasional stuff up or play it safe and always either slow the play down by going backwards/sideways or go down the line to 50/50 contests? Obviously the coaches know which they prefer; how many coaches would love players that "back themselves in"? Half of their battle is trying to get players in that mindset.

I'm not saying don't take the risks, just that he needs to choose the appropriate time to take them.  It feels like he takes too many for a player in the back half.  Yes, I'm sure the coaches want him to back himself as often as he can, but that doesn't mean he needs to take unnecessary, kamikaze kicks that result in a bad turnover and leaves us on the back foot.

53 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

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.

What we are seeing now is a team that not only now plays like team, but is getting even contributions all over the ground without having to rely on brilliant individual performances (aside from Petracca).

Even if the skills weren't great at times (I thought kicking was pretty good for the most part), the pressure and structure that the team is able to maintain for four quarters is what excited me.

I really hope we persist with two ruckmen, we can't keep running Gawn into the ground and he was so dangerous when resting forward, even if Spencer doesn't dominate.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes but there is a time and a place to take the game on. TMac doesn't always get that right. 

As a key defender he has to nail this decision better

I'm not sure there is under Goodwin's game plan. I think it's on all the time. That also makes decision making easier, because if everyone knows you're going to go as soon as you get it, there should be support runners or kicking options.

4 minutes ago, A F said:

I'm not sure there is under Goodwin's game plan. I think it's on all the time. That also makes decision making easier, because if everyone knows you're going to go as soon as you get it, there should be support runners or kicking options.

Not sure about that. Makes it a little predictable for our opposition in planning

but we wait and see. Sure beats the hell out of the last decade...

1 hour 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 post, VP. I see Melksham as the one keeping Jetta out at this stage. The McDonald's, Hibberd, Lewis and even Jones are probably ahead. Jetta is a better defender, but Melksham is a better creator. If Jetta gets back in he has to provide more drive than he did last year. I think he improved as the year wore on in this respect, but obviously Goodwin is looking for more.

Edited February 26, 20178 yr by A F

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...)

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not sure about that. Makes it a little predictable for our opposition in planning

but we wait and see. Sure beats the hell out of the last decade...

That may be, but it's also harder to set up a structure that stops this if we move it quick enough. I think the opposition will simply look to back themselves to win the game, rather than plan for their own turnovers and try to stop us on the rebound.

I think this is where our midfield gives us a great weapon and why Goodwin keeps saying we're building from the contest out. If we win that midfield contest, we get inside 50s. If we lose the clearance, our zone defence nullifies the attack and repels immediately, catching the opposition off guard.

Where we become predictable and manageable is when we slow the game down and the opposition has time to set up.

Edited February 26, 20178 yr by A F

2 minutes ago, 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...)

Is there?  I've thought, on the whole, it's been a pretty good discussion.

16 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Is there?  I've thought, on the whole, it's been a pretty good discussion.

Fair point - I do like a bit of drama with my sit-com.

54 minutes ago, A F said:

That may be, but it's also harder to set up a structure that stops this if we move it quick enough. I think the opposition will simply look to back themselves to win the game, rather than plan for their own turnovers and try to stop us on the rebound.

I think this is where our midfield gives us a great weapon and why Goodwin keeps saying we're building from the contest out. If we win that midfield contest, we get inside 50s. If we lose the clearance, our zone defence nullifies the attack and repels immediately, catching the opposition off guard.

Where we become predictable and manageable is when we slow the game down and the opposition has time to set up.

Fair comments, i am not against attacking  football at all, i just think you have to factor in the opposition sometimes ( Have a plan B) ready to also activate at the right moments

21 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Fair comments, i am not against attacking  football at all, i just think you have to factor in the opposition sometimes ( Have a plan B) ready to also activate at the right moments

Good point Wyl ... yesterday we were at times a bit clumsy entering our forward line.  It's the main reason why we didn't win by a lot more.  I'm not upset about only winning by 9 goals but the margin flattered them.  And it's not often that we get to say that.

Working our way into better scoring opportunities often requires patience but not necessarily by holding up play.  Our running patterns and running routes that our players took yesterday was something we haven't seen a lot of previously.  It had a professional look about it.