4 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

 

Yes.

I believe it is fact that at present, Oscar is not playing to the required standard but is hanging on to his position due some circumstantial variables that are out of the clubs control at this point in time.

Do I believe that the club see a future for Oscar? Yes. Clearly.

Was that a contributing factor to him being played ahead of both the completely untried Keilty and the old, last-year-of-his-contract Pederson during the JLT series? Of course.

Was it also a contributing factor in regards to the club deciding not to bring in another key defender over the off-season to allow Oscar to continue to develop his body and craft at VFL level? Yes, clearly. 

Coaches at times put unwavering faith into young players and clearly at the end of last year, Goody had some decisions to make surrounding list management. They decided not to pick up a proven AFL level key defender and we have Oscar holding up a key position pillar in our defence. In my eyes, that was a risk, because they're hoping Oscar will improve dramatically and whilst we're one game into the season, I have seen nothing to suggest he's gone up a level on last year. His last JLT game against West Coast and his game on Sunday haven't been at a AFL standard.

I'm not here to bag Oscar, but I'm concerned about the weaknesses he's displayed over the past two games and I'm genuinely unsure if both Tom and Oscar will perform consistently enough for us to really be a contender in the future. 

Did you advocate we pick up Nathan Brown? Yes you did.

How did he work out for the Saints on Saturday? You tell me.

Jack Watts must have enjoyed Oscars game...

2 hours ago, mo64 said:

And just to balance things, Lewis made just as many mistakes as O Mac. But in his postgame interview with Matt Burgin, he wasn't happy with the number of turnovers he made. It's reassuring that one of our leaders has higher expectations than our supporters.

I'm sure if O Mac was interviewed he wouldn't have been happy with his turnovers either...I'm pretty sure he would also have higher expectations as would the coaches.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

It's a discussion forum. 

Exactly.

As opposed to a banging-on-about-my-pet-hobby-horse-every-chance-I-get-and-then-some thread.

Tiresome, repetitive, shallow and tedious, and for the most part, OT.

3 minutes ago, Stinga2 said:

Jack Watts must have enjoyed Oscars game...

Ha, I agree. He had a poor game. Him and goody were at pains to say he played well but zero tackles/pressure acts. No intensity or aggression especially in the first half. 

He better improve this week

6 hours ago, binman said:

What is FACT is that you stated that Omac is not up to the required standard.

For the sake of the argument lets say Goodwin agrees with your assessment of OMac. If that were the case goodwin could have instead selected either keilty (who played Omac's role very successfully for much of last year) or pederson, who has lost 10kgs in order, in his words, to be come more mobile. Pederson is an experienced AFL player who is fit and has played CHB before.  This was must win game - as both Bernie and Lewis (and any number of commentators) said post game a potential 8 point game that could well set up our season. Are you honestly saying Goodwin would, in these circumstances, pick a player not up to AFL standard?

What is fact is that since being first selected by Roos (and Goodwin who would have had a major say in selection last year) OMac has not been dropped once. What is also fact is that he was selected in all 3 of the JLT games, games in which Goodwin made it clear he was picking his best 22.

Goodwin had the the opoportunity to give someone else a chance in the JLT and didn't. What was interesting in this regard is that he elected to bring in Hannan and jetta, who didn't play JLT, showing he was prepared to drop players. And he didn't drop OMac. 

What is fact is Omac continues to be selected every week, suggesting he is a lock for best 22. it also suggests Goodwin does not agree with your assessment that Omac is not up to the required standard.

To be honest STMJ i think you are confusing FACT and SUPPOSITION.

We've also been told over the preseason that Omac and Frost were competing for the one spot. Frost is injured.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

We won on Saturday. So what!!!! If you want the team to be contesting finals, you would accept that there is still room for improvement.

You're right in one case. O Mac didn't get towelled up in one-on-one costs. He actually won more contests than lost. His problem is the numerous howlers he made when under little to no pressure. If you want examples, I'm happy to give them, because I've watched the replay 3 times. 

And just to balance things, Lewis made just as many mistakes as O Mac. But in his postgame interview with Matt Burgin, he wasn't happy with the number of turnovers he made. It's reassuring that one of our leaders has higher expectations than our supporters.

Nobody is saying that OMac is fine as he is, or that he doesn't need to improve on his mistakes. Least of all Oscar himself, I'd expect.

 

7 minutes ago, Skuit said:

We've also been told over the preseason that Omac and Frost were competing for the one spot. Frost is injured.

Who told us that?

9 hours ago, Akum said:

Nobody is saying that OMac is fine as he is, or that he doesn't need to improve on his mistakes. Least of all Oscar himself, I'd expect.

 

No im certainly not. Of course he still needs to develop and improve. Jones makes that point in this excellent piece from radio tgis morning when responding to a question from jimmy bartel about how well the mac bros work together

He also makes the point that he and  his brother are the twin pillars down back and work togeher very well.

If you dont likw omac you better get used to seeing him week in and week out

https://embeds.audioboom.com/publishing/playlist/v4?bg_fill_col=%23ecefef&boo_content_type=channel&data_for_content_type=3381427&image_option=small&link_color=%2358d1eb&player_theme=light&src=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.audioboom.com%2Fchannels%2F3381427%2Faudio_clips%3Finclude_child_channels%3D1#Nathan Jones - Inner Sanctum Tuesday 27th March 2017

So I see a few people have talked up Keilty as a possible replacement for O.Mac
Two things I want to say;

1) Yes Oscar made some sloppy errors and more than a couple of bad decisions, but if you look at his stats he didn't do too bad, he is still developing don't forget.

2) Keilty had a great run of form during last years VFL season, and can out mark O.Mac probably 9/10 times, but Dec needs at least another preseason in him before he is ready for the pace of the AFL. The step-up from VFL to AFL is huge, and Keilty's tank just isn't there yet. If his form is really good this year then he might get a call up, but as I said, he needs another pre season behind him before he really hits his stride. 
 

42 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Ha, I agree. He had a poor game. Him and goody were at pains to say he played well but zero tackles/pressure acts. No intensity or aggression especially in the first half. 

He better improve this week

He was fine. And I'm not a fan. 

If his chase on Riewoldt wasn't a pressure act then it's another stupid stat. 

He flew for the ball and contributed to the win. Not everyone can star. 

4 hours ago, binman said:

Who told us that?

I may have made it up. But I thought it came directly from Oscar at some stage?

Omac had a good game had 1 bad qtr, so did the whole team,  after that he was a 6 out of 10, haters will hate, even Bambi has haters,  someone did shoot Bambi. 

14 hours ago, ickey_11 said:

I would like to see:

Spencer come in for Smith and play ruck/forward, Watts to take Smith's role in the backline;

Tyson in for Vince.

I was also thinking this.

11 hours ago, DemonAndrew said:

until such a time as we see the casey report, only ones that make sense are tyson and kent in - they're clear best 22 players.

structurally it'll change our side quite a bit, but other than levi and weitering - and potentially harry mckay - carlton don't play overly tall but instead rely upon small forwards to kick their goals, alongside mids and kreuzer pushing forward.

B: Jetta - T McDonald - Melksham
HB: Hunt - O McDonald - Salem
C: Lewis - Jones - Stretch
HF: Petracca - Hogan - Brayshaw
F: Watts - Weideman - Garlett
Foll: Gawn - Oliver - Viney
I/C: Tyson - Kent - Hannan - Neal-Bullen
Emerg: Bugg - Spencer - Harmes

??

I would agree that playing at his best Kent would be "best 22". But his inconsistency means that for mine he's not an automatic selection (when fit). I don't think we can afford to play someone who my or may not "turn up" on the day if we have better options. I suspect Hannan has his spot at the moment. And based on one game, Hannan would hold onto his spot ahead of Kent until Kent shows he's a better and more consistent option.

From my understanding none of our ready made  replacement defensive talls are ready - Wagner or Frost.

I seems the popular thinking is Tyson and one of Bugg or Kent.

That would mean a bit of patch up job down back if they bring in Harry McKay - 200cm.

Weitering can mark as can Casboult - these two will get the Mac boys on them. I suspect that if we don't bring in a tall then Carlton will try and stretch us defensively and have McKay down forward as well - Watts or Weideman may need to pinch hit down back if they go very tall down forward. 

I would opt for Pedersen as I do believe we are one tall short - Pedo lets us keep our preferred forward structure if Carlton go with 3 talls forward.(I know nothing about Declan K to know if he is in the mix or not)

All this Oscar bagging is odd to me. Considering how few games he's played, and how tall players always take longer to develop, I think Oscar's trajectory and early career form is actually really exciting. Particularly considering the clear simpatico he has with his brother. In a few years, we'll be talking about them as MFC legends in the vein of the Febey brothers. 

5 minutes ago, Webber said:

All this Oscar bagging is odd to me. Considering how few games he's played, and how tall players always take longer to develop, I think Oscar's trajectory and early career form is actually really exciting. Particularly considering the clear simpatico he has with his brother. In a few years, we'll be talking about them as MFC legends in the vein of the Febey brothers. 

It is clear to me that there are 2 project players in the team at present - Omac and The Weed.  Whilst they are both making some errors and will sometimes have quieter weeks it is obvious they are part of the plans going forward and unless they are horrible will be given a little leeway. Did Omac have some "moments" last week - absolutely. However he was assigned one the games best and  lowered his colors - he had a shakey start but he was not alone and the whole team contributed to us being 4 goals down at Qtr time. As someone else said, he was isolated and that was a team defense problem that was rectified after qtr time. As we got our defense right ( and dominated around the ball), he was then ok after that - his game was not below AFL standard. 

Why is Mckenna not considered for inclusion? Fits into bag 6 as mid size tall as required. Good pre season. Physically ready. 

I think Tyson and Mckenna would be the best fit as ins.

4 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Why is Mckenna not considered for inclusion? Fits into bag 6 as mid size tall as required. Good pre season. Physically ready. 

I think Tyson and Mckenna would be the best fit as ins.

McKenna is 186cms and light - giving away a minimum of 10kg to any of the below

weitering 195cm, Casboult 201 cm, Harry McKay 200 cm (he kicked 4 in the reserves last week and is probable).

Who is your 3rd tall to play on one of these 3 ?

 

 

5 minutes ago, nutbean said:

McKenna is 186cms and light - giving away a minimum of 10kg to any of the below

weitering 195cm, Casboult 201 cm, Harry McKay 200 cm (he kicked 4 in the reserves last week and is probable).

Who is your 3rd tall to play on one of these 3 ?

 

 

I would be stoked if they went with three talls. Aside from the 2 Macs I would not try to match up on them, would just run off them all match

2 minutes ago, fndee said:

I would be stoked if they went with three talls. Aside from the 2 Macs I would not try to match up on them, would just run off them all match

That's spot on. If you can stop quick supply into their forward line, we should have enough numbers behind the ball to limit contested marks by their talls. We should be able to generate more scoring on the rebound than they'll generate with an additional tall.

3 minutes ago, fndee said:

I would be stoked if they went with three talls. Aside from the 2 Macs I would not try to match up on them, would just run off them all match

That is the sort of thinking that can land you in trouble.

Weitering took 7 marks as a tall forward and kicked three last week from limited chances in a fairly putrid performance by Carlton.

The only thing Casboult can do is mark and he does that very well.

McKay's game is built on marking.

You absolutely need someone with some height to combat their only real asset - marking. If you bring in two smaller players then you will have to swing Watts or Weed back on the the third tall.

11 hours ago, DubDee said:

Ha, I agree. He had a poor game. Him and goody were at pains to say he played well but zero tackles/pressure acts. No intensity or aggression especially in the first half. 

He better improve this week

Disagree. Goodwin just mentioned what he liked about his game. He did his job as a second ruck and the critical area Goodwin mentioned was flying for marks. Watch Garletts crumb in the third quarter. Watts flew in the far pocket and palmed the ball down to Garlett who snapped a good goal. He brought the ball to ground a few times against a tall defence so our crumbers relished that.

He sort of reminds me of Dal Santo under Thomas who finally dropped him for being soft and he slowly but surely worked his way back and learnt to be more competitive for his style of play.

He played the team role so a tick for Watts.

27 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Why is Mckenna not considered for inclusion? Fits into bag 6 as mid size tall as required. Good pre season. Physically ready. 

I think Tyson and Mckenna would be the best fit as ins.

Has he done anything to warrant selection?  Just because he might play in a similar position does not mean he is an automatic inclusion.  If the club felt he was ready then that's fine, which is what we saw with Hannan, but we've seen nothing to suggest that McKenna is in the same boat.