4 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

I think you've missed the point I was making.  Nobody in footy gets everything right but those who spend their entire life in footy at the highest level talking to other people who spend their life in footy at the highest level will get things right more often, I'd contend much more often, than those that don't.  They are at the top end because they get things right, those that fail to get things right at the top level won't be there long.  They also have much more information.  For example can you tell me how Bernies toe is?  They know, you're guessing.

My point is when you have an opinion that differs from those who are heavily involved in the game then rather than just saying they are wrong you should question your own position.  There are more absolutes. STMJ should ask himself why the two coaches at the last match thought Tyson was in the best 6 or 8 players of the 44 who played.

As for the collective wisdom of Demonland getting it correct many many times I agree.  I've also seen the collective wisdom of Demonland get it wrong many many times.

I'm not dismissing others views.  I'm inviting posters to entertain the views of others and give weighting to the experience of those offering the opinion.  I personally give more weight to coaches than posters.  You may differ.

All of this is absolutely right VP - I'm not even at the lowest level compared to the informed opinions you refer to; but that said my eyes (as bad as they are) don't lie either: Tom Mac is a [censored] kick of the football. This is not fake news, nor will a coach ever come out and admit this.

13 minutes ago, Freak said:

Are we really in a need to rush back Hogan anyway? It's a serious question. He has not shaken his negative attitude and anyone who has played competitive sport knows how profound a negative team mate can have on the rest of the team.  His last 12 games of football he has averaged 0.75 goals a game. UNDER A GOAL A GAME. 

 

No, it isn't  serious question. Kicked three last game, and we're much better with him. Ask his teamates if they think he is a 'negative' influence on the team.

3 minutes ago, small but forward said:

All of this is absolutely right VP - I'm not even at the lowest level compared to the informed opinions you refer to; but that said my eyes (as bad as they are) don't lie either: Tom Mac is a [censored] kick of the football. This is not fake news, nor will a coach ever come out and admit this.

Truth be told...he's a very mixed kick of the footy. Have seen him deliver some nice passes. Have seen him butcher a monty.

2 hours ago, rjay said:

I agree with what you say to a degree 'Webber' ...but unfortunately there is now so much information out there and so many differing opinions from educated, experienced, qualified authorities.

Now there may be a lot of reasons for this including but not limited to the $'s, prestige, spin etc. etc involved.

Another is the changing science on a subject, which of course will happen as new information comes to hand.

Certainly all science is fluid rjay, but a lot less than non-scientists would believe. The problem currently, and it's a very dangerous  trend, is that poorly informed opinion is too often mistaken as evidence, and presumption given the same weight as fact. 

Everyone including the coaches will agree that it would be great if TMac could kick more reliably.  But people miss the key point - he's doing what the coaches want - playing "fearless footy".  Clarkson at Hawthorn is on record saying he wanted players to try to execute difficult kicks and not to worry when they missed, but keep trying.  TMac is following team rules.  There's a reason Billy Stretch was dropped and he's a much better kick.

1 hour ago, Freak said:

Are we really in a need to rush back Hogan anyway? It's a serious question. He has not shaken his negative attitude and anyone who has played competitive sport knows how profound a negative team mate can have on the rest of the team.  His last 12 games of football he has averaged 0.75 goals a game. UNDER A GOAL A GAME. 

 

lol

40 minutes ago, Webber said:

Certainly all science is fluid rjay, but a lot less than non-scientists would believe. The problem currently, and it's a very dangerous  trend, is that poorly informed opinion is too often mistaken as evidence, and presumption given the same weight as fact. 

Yep, it's very dangerous and often hard to sift through...

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lol

Then again....under a goal a game (even if ) would be preferable to no goals a game 

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Pretty sure he's thinking of Ben Kennedy

Just choked on my coffee. Hell no.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Any thoughts as to who ?

I dont think they are at the MFC yet bb.

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

I dont think they are at the MFC yet bb.

You might well be right.

There's definitely a spot up for grabs. No one's made it theirs yet.

Add to shopping list .

7 minutes ago, old dee said:

Just choked on my coffee. Hell no.

Safely with no coffee nor any other chokable element at hand I had actually wondered where he might be in current thinkings . Seems he still needs to work on things according to Plapp. So your inbibing is safe for now Old

A contributor of a goal or two a game would be most welcome.

Ok... 14 pages and now Wednesday night

It seems Hogan will play

So who goes out for Hogan? Most posts seem to be suggesting a small.... JKH or ANB which is interesting.

Does Oscar Mac hold his place?

Has Wagner done enough to replace Melksham

Will Stretch return?

Would hate to be a selector because I have no real idea given the up and down form of this team.

I get the inkling Wags is close, but not quite there. Might be named and sit as emergency. 

 

1 hour ago, Freak said:

Are we really in a need to rush back Hogan anyway? It's a serious question. He has not shaken his negative attitude and anyone who has played competitive sport knows how profound a negative team mate can have on the rest of the team.  His last 12 games of football he has averaged 0.75 goals a game. UNDER A GOAL A GAME. 

 

Mate, if the context of an ill father whilst choosing to sign a contract with a club on the other side of the country isn't enough for compassion or forgiveness at behaviour that isn't useful - then you my friend are one of the most judgemental and unrealistic observers of humans under stress. Context of job description shouldn't necessitate how you manage grief...

55 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Everyone including the coaches will agree that it would be great if TMac could kick more reliably.  But people miss the key point - he's doing what the coaches want - playing "fearless footy".  Clarkson at Hawthorn is on record saying he wanted players to try to execute difficult kicks and not to worry when they missed, but keep trying.  TMac is following team rules.  There's a reason Billy Stretch was dropped and he's a much better kick.

While TMac is our most important defender, he vastly overrates his skill level and should be taking the easy option more often than he does. I think his ball use has been worse this year.

I viewed Stretch's omission as being partly a rest, partly getting more run into the side after a six-day break, partly Bugg's great form in the VFL and partly not winning or squaring one-on-one contests against Richmond. I doubt it was him being too safe with his ball use.

Selection this week poses a dilemma IMO. Hogan will come in at the expense of either Oscar McDonald or a small. I liked our backline with the extra tall player, particularly given our undersized ruck situation, so I would probably swap Hogan for JKH. It leaves us a slower side, but we are still obviously stronger for Hogan coming back. Otherwise no additional changes.

26 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I get the inkling Wags is close, but not quite there. Might be named and sit as emergency. 

 

I agree that he is close, but there is no way I can see him being the non-playing emergency after being injured and not playing for so long. 

1 minute ago, leehow said:

I agree that he is close, but there is no way I can see him being the non-playing emergency after being injured and not playing for so long. 

well immediately after writing I suspected that idea would be brooched..   The devil and the deep blue as it were.    You might be tempted to slot him in....but then who goes out ??  possibly not the straight forward thing some might suppose.

He'll probably be played in the magoos as you suspect...and be even closer  to a recall after.

2 hours ago, Freak said:

Are we really in a need to rush back Hogan anyway? It's a serious question. He has not shaken his negative attitude and anyone who has played competitive sport knows how profound a negative team mate can have on the rest of the team.  His last 12 games of football he has averaged 0.75 goals a game. UNDER A GOAL A GAME. 

 

If he wants to play than YES

25 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

Selection this week poses a dilemma IMO. Hogan will come in at the expense of either Oscar McDonald or a small. I liked our backline with the extra tall player, particularly given our undersized ruck situation, so I would probably swap Hogan for JKH. It leaves us a slower side, but we are still obviously stronger for Hogan coming back. Otherwise no additional changes.

Last week we played O Mac and Frost so I assume we played T Mac as an extra (somewhere) or did I miss a backman who was absent last week.

So many changes !!

If Hogan wants to play....He will be selected without hesitation.

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by leave it to deever

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Last week we played O Mac and Frost so I assume we played T Mac as an extra (somewhere) or did I miss a backman who was absent last week.

So many changes !!

We ran with the three talls down back and a seven man backline at times. It was designed so McDonald could effectively be loose and take the ruck in defence and it allowed Pedersen to sneak forward. It was a clever plan. 

Edited May 3, 20178 yr by Fat Tony
spelling

1 minute ago, Fat Tony said:

We ran with the three talks down back and a seven man backline at times. It was designed so McDonald could effectively be loose and take the ruck in defence and it allowed Pedersen to sneak forward. It was a clever plan. 

Thanks fat Tony... I thought that might be the case

As an aside what was the difference with Hurley's positioning in the first and second half. In the first half he was loose in our defence but he seemed far less effective in the second half.

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Thanks fat Tony... I thought that might be the case

As an aside what was the difference with Hurley's positioning in the first and second half. In the first half he was loose in our defence but he seemed far less effective in the second half.

It didnt appear to me that his positioning changed much at all...Our delivery and closeting of the ball did.