I think we need TMac in so that Andrews can go to him.

TMac has the experience and strength to go up against Andrews. Even if TMac occupies Andrews possibly further up the ground could be an advantage.

On 7/20/2020 at 6:36 AM, Dees2014 said:

We can and should, especially as Jackson was recruited as he can play in the ruck, as a key forward, AND as an agile mid fielder especially as he is quick and agile. Play him as a centre or wing and let TMac and the Weid be the key forwards ably assisted by Fritz. 
 

Pretty formidable l reckon, and very difficult to match up on. 

I agree totally Action Jackson should be retained, played a good game for a youngster, will only get better. 

I think we could really stretch Bris and confuse Andrews who to go to with smart ball movement.

If we consider playing with a third tall  does Action have the tank to play on the wing for parts of the game?

Tmac has not played in 2 weeks now so it might be a risk to bring him in, plus im not sold on who should be dropped.

As they say in the classics winning form good form.

Interesting comments from Max and Goody. Rewatched the game last night and it only confirmed my prejudice that Lockhart did all the right things but can execute better at times. We still have brain fades across the field which lead to bad disposal (or throws). Our mid field cohesion was great so I just dont see why we would change that. One of the highlights was Dermie becoming Squirmy at half time. what impressed me was the cohesion we had across the ground. A few things to fix (Cossie needs to learn a solid tackle) but no wholesale changes. 

2 hours ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Hang on. Weren’t you piling into people who questioned Oliver’s disposal the other week? You confuse me.

Yes..and? Oliver offers much more outside of kicking than brayshaw. 

On 7/19/2020 at 11:31 PM, DemonLad5 said:

Wouldn’t be against Tomlinson for Brayshaw.

Tmac comes in if fit. No idea who for

Possibly Melksham?? The only other one I would consider is Jones but not sure for who!??

3 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

He had 1 kick that mongrelled along the ground, hit a forward on the chest in forward 50, had 2 smart handballs that lead to goals, I watched the replay yesterday, without emotion, the most important stat is score involvements, he played ok and not that bad, people like you are bias and see 1 bad kick and think ever kick  is the same. You have no idea.

You didn't watch the replay closely then. I watched it too. and can count about 4  severe kicking errors where he was under no pressure. I don't have issues if he is playing inside mid, but if you're playing on the wing then you need to be able to hit targets. He was hopeless.  

23 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

You didn't watch the replay closely then. I watched it too. and can count about 4  severe kicking errors where he was under no pressure. I don't have issues if he is playing inside mid, but if you're playing on the wing then you need to be able to hit targets. He was hopeless.  

He didn't have a great game but he wasn't hopeless. You are ignoring the good work he has done. His disposal was sloppy at times. You are also going after posters for questioning Oliver who again had very average disposal in this game. 

Brayshaw is not a great wingman but he is clearly better than anything else we have available. You know he will go when it is his turn and you back him to win a 50-50, like against O'Meara in the centre. He is playing a sacrificial role for the benefit of the team and I don't think you get the full picture on a tv screen. 

I’m very encouraged that the likes of TMac and jones etc are not necessarily automatic selections any more.

with these two, plus the likes of Tomlinson, rivers, smith, Anb etc unable to get a game I think we go into the next fixture block (lots of games in a short space of time) in a great position re depth. I really hope that we play the better teams (port, pies, giants) or at least mid road like saints, dogs and bombers (more than likely) towards the end of this period as I think we have better depth than most of these. 

49 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

He didn't have a great game but he wasn't hopeless. You are ignoring the good work he has done. His disposal was sloppy at times. You are also going after posters for questioning Oliver who again had very average disposal in this game. 

Brayshaw is not a great wingman but he is clearly better than anything else we have available. You know he will go when it is his turn and you back him to win a 50-50, like against O'Meara in the centre. He is playing a sacrificial role for the benefit of the team and I don't think you get the full picture on a tv screen. 

This man Dr d knows nothing about football, even the grabber kick went to another Dee, so it did hit the target, many see a kick without seeing the results, many times it not the disposal but the second effortsthat  are more important.

out VDB

In Tmac

My gut feel is that TMac would have had a day out against the Hawks. It's very tough on Jacko but I think Tommy comes in.

It won't happen but I'd also like to see Rivers or Jones for Lockhart.

1 hour ago, DemonOX said:

I think we need TMac in so that Andrews can go to him.

TMac has the experience and strength to go up against Andrews. Even if TMac occupies Andrews possibly further up the ground could be an advantage.

100% agree with this.  Andrews is flying and would eat Weid and Jackson alive.  
 

Jackson definitely showed glimpses but now with a bit more confidence going forward, T Mac comes in.

No change unless through injury.

Would like to see Tom Mac but it generally means all his opponents in the air are labelled "has great closing speed".

If you're bringing in TMac for Jackson, what part of Jackson's game on Sunday do you point to in order to give him an understanding on why he's being dropped?

Jackson stays in to Ruck the forward half, which allows Max to sit a kick back,  to help build the wall to hold it in our forward half. Tommy can’t do that as easily as Jackson, despite Tom being a better forward. So as some have said it’s between TMac and Weid, or TMac and OMac, or ... I’d not suggest TMac for VDB as it’s that forward (mid) pressure that VDB brings that makes the Max a kick back work so well... 

be interesting what they decide 

Edited July 21, 20205 yr by PaulRB

2 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

I agree totally Action Jackson should be retained, played a good game for a youngster, will only get better. 

I think we could really stretch Bris and confuse Andrews who to go to with smart ball movement.

If we consider playing with a third tall  does Action have the tank to play on the wing for parts of the game?

Tmac has not played in 2 weeks now so it might be a risk to bring him in, plus im not sold on who should be dropped.

As they say in the classics winning form good form.

I would drop Lockhart and put Harmes on the HBF to make room for TMac. Harmes would have to play closer to his opponent than he is used to, but it is not as though his performance has been stellar this year anyway. It may give him a chance to make a case for his retention in the long term aka finals!  
 

Personally, as we get our run on game going so well demonstrated at the weekend, Harmes place will be questioned by others performances and his lack of pace may seem superfluous. Rotation of smart opponents on Andrews may well unsettle him, aspecially if max spends some time there. 
 

I think the tactics for the Lions is quick ball movement and one on one pressure, both of which are are our DNA  when we are at our best. And now at last, we have the list t o deliver on these.. 

Go Dess! Very exciting!

 

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

100% agree with this.  Andrews is flying and would eat Weid and Jackson alive.  
 

Jackson definitely showed glimpses but now with a bit more confidence going forward, T Mac comes in.

Curious what makes you think that Andrews would go to TMac over Weid? If Andrews takes the number one forward, then he'll go to Weid regardless of TMac being in the team. If I were Brisbane, I wouldn't be fussed playing the second key defender (McStay is it?) on him.

 

Play TMac on a wing? - has a great tank

8 minutes ago, #11-TonyAnderson said:

Play TMac on a wing? - has a great tank

...he certainly turns like one!!  

Seriously why put him on the wing ahead of Tomlinson who is basically the same size, has the same aerobic capacity, and is as good aerially? and is a much better two way runner and quicker than TMac.

Just to be clear... I'm not anti TMac, even though I am questioning a lot of people trying to include him this week. I think having a full list of players and many in good form has not helped him in terms of timing of the injury. Playing him ahead of Jackson or Weid would send the team the wrong message given how they both played on the weekend. 

If we can't play him as ahead of the other two forwards he shouldn't be included in the team, it's pretty simple.

If AvB is injured like some have suggested, TMac shouldn't automatically come in to fill the vacant spot, we should select the player most suited to play that role in the team, that might be ANB (only one initial difference) but it could be Rivers, or Swallow, Jordon, Tomlinson or Jones...

 

TMac would make a good trade to Hawthorn to be with his other ex-teammates. He should now be battling his brother for a possie in the backline. His days as a key forward are behind him. Look to the future.

 

3 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

I would drop Lockhart and put Harmes on the HBF to make room for TMac.

 

 

Harmes is back to his natural spot  in the midfield and we are winning games.   Surely Goodwin does not move him to the backline again, hes wasted there.

2 - 15mm rain forecast for Sunday. Certainly ain’t playing all of the talls. 

4 hours ago, Ouch! said:

Curious what makes you think that Andrews would go to TMac over Weid? If Andrews takes the number one forward, then he'll go to Weid regardless of TMac being in the team. If I were Brisbane, I wouldn't be fussed playing the second key defender (McStay is it?) on him.

 

If Andrews goes to Weid that will be a win for us