If only this game was at the Adelaide Oval

1 hour ago, binman said:

I reckon this is unfair, titan. 

I never 'spun' Omac's game to suggest it was better than it was. I acknowledged a number of times he had a poor game.

I simply refuted the incorrect claims he was beaten by Georgiades. I did so in as objective a way as possible. i looked at the evidence. In some detail. 

As you did with Tomlinson.

The big difference is that with Omac there was no judgement or opinion required.

The clear, unambiguous FACT is Omac was not on Georgiades for ANY of his three goals. That is not an opinion. It is a verifiable fact.

So not one of those goals could be blamed on omac. Lever maybe, Omac no. But that doesn't seem to suit some people's narratives

Which of course does not mean he didn't play poorly. As i acknowledged, he did, though plenty played worse.

And those that buy the Georgiades narrative perhaps see things so black and white that him being dropped is evidence that narrative is correct - see i told you he got dropped because he got schooled by a kid. Please. 

The situation with Tomlinson is completely different to that of Omac with georgiades.

Let's leave the Daw goal aside and put that one down to not being great at reading the drop of the ball and not automatically protecting the goal side.  A rookie defender's mistake

But with Larkey's first and second goals of the game, as you yourself note it is fact Tomlinson was on him.

On both occasions he was his direct opponent and therefore responsible for preventing him marking. 

He gave away a panicky free kick when caught out of position and then couldn't effect a spoil and so was beaten in a contested marking contest (by the by he was similarly beaten by Himelburg against the crows, another young big he had to be moved off).

Sure AVB gifted the first of those but the fact remains he would not have goaled if not for the free (and may well still have done so even without the 50)

It is your OPINION these goals were not Tomlinson fault. I don't share that opinion, but that's ok, we all see the things differently and apply different metrics.

But facts are a different matter altogether to opinion.

And the facts are larkey kicked two goals on Tomlinosn and georgiades none on Omac.

 

My post wasn't designed to defend Tomlinson, it was an attempt to show how the "facts" can be spun in certain ways.

IMO, your reading of that goal to Georgiadis where OMac leaves him to Lever is as favourable an interpretation of the situation, in OMac's favour, as possible. Fact? Maybe. Opinion? Certainly.

To be clear, the first goal to Daw is as much Tomlinson's fault as Lever's, or anyone else's.

Larkey's second was also substantially Tomlinson's problem, but again, I imagine you defending OMac in the same situation by saying we play a zone defence (see, eg, the Georgiadis goal) and arguing that there's nothing he can do from a quick kick inside 50 if no one's in front of Larkey to stop his lead.

The first goal to Larkey, Tomlinson's free was pretty soft IMO, and I can't help but feel that if it was OMac, you'd have focused on the soft free and vandenBerg's subsequent stupidity to reduce the blame on OMac for that goal, but when it's someone else you focus on the free.

Again: I disagreed with dropping OMac after the Port game and I'm not suggesting Tomlinson is doing any better in terms of one-on-ones or shutting down opponents. 

Interesting that the Herald-Sun had Tom McDonald listed in our best players. I didn't think he was in our best, or our worst half dozen. It will be interesting to see how the structure is managed when Gawn comes back. My gut feel is that Jackson will be "managed" to create a spot for Gawn. 

Haven't read all 7 pages here, so not sure where the TMac consensus(?) has got to (and I also couldn't get the game), but he rates special mention on the Club's 'Stats That Matter' commentary. Changes anyone's position?

Facts are facts. Its funny old world where people think they can have alternative facts. Or that facts can be spun. A post truth world indeed. 

The evidence is irrefutable, even in that first goal that involves the hand off (where the only alternative explanation is that the demons don't in fact employ a zone defence where Omac's role is to be the deepest player).

And the other two are even more black and white. No grey at all. Omac is on Westhoff in both instances. That is a fact, not an opinion.

How someone rates tomlinson's effort on larky are all opinion, and opinion can indeed be spun

I did not 'spin' any facts about Omac. Again i think you are being unfair suggesting i did, but there you go. Each to their own

And you are plain wrong about me blindly supporting Omac to suit my my own narrative. If Larkey (or himmleburg for that matter) had beaten Omac the way he did Tomlinson i would acknowledge it.

Omac is one of my favorite players, but that does not mean i am blind to his weaknesses or would defend him for no reason. I will however defend him when the criticisms are simply bulltish

1 hour ago, Dr.D said:

We knew from 2018 that he was wayy too good to not make a 17th placed football club. it's clearly Goodwin

Wasn't he injured last year and believe it or not but some forwards need time to develop. I think the Club has done the right thing by him by holding back somewhat and that level of maturity is playing out now. 

3 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Haven't read all 7 pages here, so not sure where the TMac consensus(?) has got to (and I also couldn't get the game), but he rates special mention on the Club's 'Stats That Matter' commentary. Changes anyone's position?

Nothing special, but did his job. Personally, I'd bring Gawn back in for McDonald, even though he probably doesn't deserve to be dropped, he didn't do enough to where he forces the selectors to definitely keep him in. As the above poster said, I feel like they'll rest Jackson for Gawn, too, which is unfortunate.

2 hours ago, binman said:

I reckon this is unfair, titan. 

I never 'spun' Omac's game to suggest it was better than it was. I acknowledged a number of times he had a poor game.

I simply refuted the incorrect claims he was beaten by Georgiades. I did so in as objective a way as possible. i looked at the evidence. In some detail. 

As you did with Tomlinson.

The big difference is that with Omac there was no judgement or opinion required.

The clear, unambiguous FACT is Omac was not on Georgiades for ANY of his three goals. That is not an opinion. It is a verifiable fact.

So not one of those goals could be blamed on omac. Lever maybe, Omac no. But that doesn't seem to suit some people's narratives

Which of course does not mean he didn't play poorly. As i acknowledged, he did, though plenty played worse.

And those that buy the Georgiades narrative perhaps see things so black and white that him being dropped is evidence that narrative is correct - see i told you he got dropped because he got schooled by a kid. Please. 

The situation with Tomlinson is completely different to that of Omac with georgiades.

Let's leave the Daw goal aside and put that one down to not being great at reading the drop of the ball and not automatically protecting the goal side.  A rookie defender's mistake

But with Larkey's first and second goals of the game, as you yourself note it is fact Tomlinson was on him.

On both occasions he was his direct opponent and therefore responsible for preventing him marking. 

He gave away a panicky free kick when caught out of position and then couldn't effect a spoil and so was beaten in a contested marking contest (by the by he was similarly beaten by Himelburg against the crows, another young big he had to be moved off).

Sure AVB gifted the first of those but the fact remains he would not have goaled if not for the free (and may well still have done so even without the 50)

It is your OPINION these goals were not Tomlinson fault. I don't share that opinion, but that's ok, we all see the things differently and apply different metrics.

But facts are a different matter altogether to opinion.

And the facts are larkey kicked two goals on Tomlinosn and georgiades none on Omac.

 Binman Oscar was on Georgiades when he kicked his first goal  froM  the mark he took Oscar was about 2/3 metres behind him and "closest " to him.

It was right in front of me.

 

3 hours ago, rjay said:

It's not about better...it's how they work together.

Oliver, Tac and Brayshaw work better as a grouping.

This is not just an observation on one game.

Even Oliver, Viney and Brayshaw as a group

Even Petracca, Viney and Brayshaw as a group

Two in the guts while brayshaw roves around for handball receive.

But Oliver, Viney and Petracca is something that we want to see less of. Three in the guts would clash into each other.

 

Looking wet for Saturday in Brisbane

Not sure that helps us.

 

Saturday 15 August

Summary

Min 16

Max 25

Shower or two.

Possible rainfall: 5 to 15 mm

Chance of any rain: 60%

Brisbane area

Partly cloudy. Medium (60%) chance of showers, most likely later in the day. Light winds becoming northerly 15 to 20 km/h during the morning.

4 hours ago, Altona-demon said:

Did anyone else think that the midfield didn't miss Gawn that much?  Really Clarry, Petracca, Brayshaw are going to get enough of it, irrespective of ruck dominance.  It almost looked like a weight off their shoulders not worrying about having to run off shoulder for planned tapwork from Gawn - it looked more unpredictable and tbh that worked well.

The games that we have lost - have all been because our midfield has been predictable (and that includes Gawn's tapwork) and been able to be shut down.  In this game, Norf dominated the hitouts (Goldy had 25) yet we had parity or better in clearances - and this is probably the first time our midfield has had to shark in about two years.

I don't know - maybe its food for thought, but are we better team when we have this different look?

Gawn and mids were beaten by lions and port because these teams knew they were going to lose the hitout so they latched tightly onto our mids like glue forcing us to cough up the ball.  It was the same strategy our mids executed against Goldstein and roos mids.
 

The problem with Gawn and mids is the lack of mids protecting their space and anticipating too early. Mids need to learn to hold their space ensuring their opponents don't go into their space and move just after gawn taps it, not before.

Gawn and mids need to get better because Gawn is the best tap ruckman in the league. I would love to see Gawn being more unpredictable by tapping into different spots or even punching the ball away.  Less of tapping ball into tight spaces would be great.

We've beaten the duds now it's time to beat the crud. Seriously tough week at selection, but Harmes must be getting close to dropped. Don't let us down this week Dees if we're going anywhere we should win.

6 minutes ago, Razza13 said:

Gawn and mids were beaten by lions and port because these teams knew they were going to lose the hitout so they latched tightly onto our mids like glue forcing us to cough up the ball.  It was the same strategy our mids executed against Goldstein and roos mids.
 

The problem with Gawn and mids is the lack of mids protecting their space and anticipating too early. Mids need to learn to hold their space ensuring their opponents don't go into their space and move just after gawn taps it, not before.

Gawn and mids need to get better because Gawn is the best tap ruckman in the league. I would love to see Gawn being more unpredictable by tapping into different spots or even punching the ball away.  Less of tapping ball into tight spaces would be great.

You have my vote Razza.

18 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

In Gawn, Viney, Lockhart

Out Hannan, Jones, Harmes

Would say Melksham over Hannan but wont happen. I am willing to have a good look at the three talls when LJ moves like he does IF we play two true smalls in Pickett and Spargo. 

Hannan got us started yesterday, surely he stays in 

@binman I don't want to turn this into another OMac vs Port analysis.

I may have unfairly suggested that, had OMac done what Tomlinson did last night, you'd have defended him, whereas given it was Tomlinson you have attacked Tomlinson quite harshly. But your attack on Tomlinson felt pretty strong and I think isn't inscrutable.

What we can agree on, I think, is this: whether it's Tomlinson, OMac or someone else, there is room for improvement in that third tall defender's role. This week vs Collingwood might not be the week to make a change, but we'll see soon enough.

16 hours ago, Bates Mate said:

Out Micano Man MKII Tomlinson

In Omac. Levers man kicked 4 due to Lever pushing up which he did well but got caught out . Omac can play the lockdown

 

The micano man was good, he always beat Anthony Rocca everytime the Dees  played them.

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by don't make me angry

Just now, don't make me angry said:

The micano man was good, he always beat Anthony Rocca everytime the Dees  played them.

18 hours ago, Tom Dyson said:

Definitely not dropping T'mac on tonights stats (13 disposals, 7 tackles, 3 marks and a goal). You can't drop a man with those numbers. however the three tall forward did not work against port so i'm scratching my head as to what to do. if he does go, i think that would be very stiff. 

which therefore means,

out: Harmes, Tomlinson 

Ins: Viney, Gawn 

No doubt it was a much better game from Tmac and he was good with his tackling. Yet he is still very slow and given he was there to ruck if Max is fine than Tmac has to make way. I want to see jackson and weid up fwd without Tmac.

Unless he plays down back I cant see a spot for him. 

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by leave it to deever

3 hours ago, Flower Magic said:

Minimum changes to a winning side please.

In: Gawn, Viney

Out: Tomlinson, AVB

Play TMac at CHB.

Not a personal attack as I've seen many others call for this... but I'm trying to understand why anyone would think TMac in the backline would be a good idea.  Can you help me out?

 

In my view, TMac is a terrible field kick.  Potentially this is more decision making.  But when he used to play in defence, TMac used to take it upon himself to take the low percentage kick into the corridor that only our best kicks could pull off regularly.  If he didn't do that, he try and run around someone and get caught regularly.  The benefit of playing him forward was that he could use his endurance and he could kick straight and was a revelation in late 2017 and 2018 with his goal kicking.

 

Since then he's had numerous injuries.  He seems to still have the endurance but appears to have lost some speed and agility.  His tackle count last night indicated his effort and desire but he will be a liability in defence at the moment with ball in hand and when defending.

And finally I think our defence is functioning pretty well at the moment... don't see how he could improve it.

 

 

35 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

@binman I don't want to turn this into another OMac vs Port analysis.

I may have unfairly suggested that, had OMac done what Tomlinson did last night, you'd have defended him, whereas given it was Tomlinson you have attacked Tomlinson quite harshly. But your attack on Tomlinson felt pretty strong and I think isn't inscrutable.

What we can agree on, I think, is this: whether it's Tomlinson, OMac or someone else, there is room for improvement in that third tall defender's role. This week vs Collingwood might not be the week to make a change, but we'll see soon enough.

Fair call titan.

Perhaps i was too harsh on Tomlinson. I actually rate him as player, but obviously don't see him down back. And that is not supposed to be a big knock on him. At least Smith trained as back in the preseason. As far as i know Tomlinson didn't and playing as a key defender is no easy gig.

I think it is entirely possible Goody played him down there in these last two games to get some proper match time into him.

They may well not see Omac as the solution to the third tall, but i'd be shocked if they are thinking tomlinson might be.  But if they wanted to give him some game time and had other positions covered it would make sense to play him down there against two of the bottom sides.

I suspect he will replace Jones on the wing. Not sure if that means Omac comes back in, but i hope so. Not sure what the alternative would be.

They may well play only two bigs in defence this week but not sure if that is feasible going forward.

6 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree that Tomlinson looked better when he was higher up the ground.

Our defence rests heavily on May and Lever working well together. I'm increasingly warming to the notion that the improvement we saw when OMac was brought back was coincidental, not causative, and that as May and Lever have gelled together and both lifted their games, we've done better.

However, I think structurally we're better with a third defender playing the role OMac was playing. Right now, OMac's the best player on our list for that role. Tomlinson offers more in offence but that doesn't make sense for the role we're talking about. Smith is more athletic but again, that doesn't make sense for the role we're talking about (plus, unlike OMac and Tomlinson, Smith is untrustworthy).

Maybe long-term Petty is this player. Until then, I still think structurally we never should have dropped OMac, but form-wise he wasn't offering much more than Tomlinson, and Tomlinson wasn't as bad as the goals in the first quarter suggested he might have been.

If we persist with Tomlinson this week vs Collingwood, I will be very keen to see how the defence holds up in a significantly sterner test than Adelaide/North. 

Some may have forgotten but... IMHO Marty tops all three in defence when he is fit and on (2021 all going well).

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by Rusty Nails

I really liked Tommy Mac’s game

5 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

I really liked Tommy Mac’s game

Interesting that he lead the pressure acts and tackles. Hard to see him up forward

HF: MELKSHAM, JACKSON, PICKETT

F: T.MCDONALD, WEIDEMAN, FRITSCH

Looks too top heavy. I wonder if they will consider him at CHB. Dropping Tomlinson he was once a great CHB beating the best CHF's around before he was our number 1 forward.

30 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Some may have forgotten but... IMHO Marty tops all three in defence when he is fit and on (2021 all going well).

Are you talking about Marty Hore? Too small.

I think TMac is a clear out for mine. 

Despite a good performance, there is no where else for him to realistically play without expensing a better fit. 

Langdon aside, I also think no one has shown more than Nathan Jones in that wing/HFF role. So he stays for mine.

In: Gawn, Viney 

Out: TMac, Sparrow 

Sparrow has been good too, but he's the first out in terms of like-for-like with Viney. Otherwise we're getting players OOP