1 minute ago, binman said:

I was totally agin selecting Tmac for the roos game but in hindsight see the logic of giving him some time in a real game of AFL football, in a game we should have been very confident to win.

Given there is no VFL games and it is really not possible to organise any meaningful scratch matches (goody said they had dome some work with a SANFL side?) how else could they get miles and match fitness into TMac? And he clearly needs it.

But the bolded bit in the quote is spot on. When he played up forward his defender was running off him at every opportunity. The pies would do exactly the same.And it would hurt us more.

And i'm amazed at any suggestion of him playing down back. Down back, his lack of mobility would be completely exploited and as Tomlinson has shown, with defensive zones and systems it is no easy thing to simply slot into the back six when you have not been training or playing there.

i have been pretty harsh on tmac, perhaps unfairly so. He remains a key player for us and if we make finals and if he can get close to full fitness and his his normal mobility he may prove a difference maker. 

But he is a way off that i reckon. So can't see him play this week if max is fit (and maybe even if he isn't) or the following week. But maybe they might play him against the bombers if they are confident of a win going into that game.

TMac looked like he was getting some form back against Richmond and then early on in the Gold Coast game. I feel he has been a bit unlucky this year in that he has played when our delivery has been woeful. He has also generally played with little support, as we started the restart with only one key forward. While he looked out of very sorts against Port, again the delivery was terrible and our pressure was non existent for that game. (Jackson and Weideman also struggled that night.)

The truth is that TMac might be finished as a footballer, but if we are going to go anywhere this year,  I think we need him to be a good/very good player for us. Without having GPS data and behind the goals vision, it is hard to know if he is covering the ground like he used to. The key thing i like to see from him is that his timing is right for his marks and that he is hitting the drop of the ball at the peak. He did this in the last quarter against North, which was encouraging.

On 8/9/2020 at 9:29 PM, 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 

might be time for Jackson to be rotated out and that works out balance wise. don't run Jackson into the ground with these short breaks. 

7 minutes ago, Bay Riffin said:

might be time for Jackson to be rotated out and that works out balance wise. don't run Jackson into the ground with these short breaks. 

I was thinking that, I just worry that our forward doesn’t seem to click when Tom is in there. Still he could be running on empty young Jacko, though if he was I wasn’t seeing it against North. 

No doubt there will be 2-3 players who need a rest given the condensed fixture.

Hard to say who goes out at this stage, but if Gawn and Viney are fit they are automatic sections. Lockhart as well probably based on his form this year as a stopper.

22 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

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.

 

 

if you analyse his kicking its a low trajectory and his depth perception along with his action is poor for field kicking. kicking into the man on the mark is a specialty for him. but weirdly he kicks dead straight. In cricket parlance he's got the line right but his length is poor. 

In: Gawn, Viney, Lockhart

Out: Harmes, Jones, AVB 

Lockhart a straight swap for Harmes. Lockhart is a better defender and in better form. Harmes has had ample opportunity to show some form as a defender and hasn't done so. If he's not playing the role as a lockdown midfielder there isn't a spot in the side for him.

Tomlinson has struggled as a tall defender. Move TMac into defense and play Tomlinson on a wing in place of Jones. 

Could potentially drop Tomlinson and play AVB on the wing but would prefer to seem them give Tomlinson a run in the position he was recruited for.

The fixture has given us a definite advantage over the collywobbles.

We get to watch there set ups, then they lose players who are being managed or don't get over the niggles. They have there first 4 day turn around (I think), so will be unsure of there energy/intensity levels. 

An advantage but can we wack them.

Be ruthless Dees.

Get some percentage increase while we can.

Wouldn't change the backline. They have been strong and Lockhart may need more time. Looked sore against Adelaide.

In:  Gawn and Viney

Out:  TMac and Spargo

 

Edited August 11, 20204 yr by kev martin

7 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

Uh not quite imo 58 but he's had a very nice debut that's for sure.  Very early days for both of these rookies with only 4 and 14 matches respectively. There's always hope!

Don't discount Marty just yet.  He's elite in the areas that count for a defender including rebound 50s, intercepts and 1%ers.

That's not to say Rivers won't get there and surpass either but i think a little more time is needed at this very early stage (for both) before jumping to the "he's gone past him" conclusion.  They may well end up both being fab players who end up surpassing and taking both flanks at some point.

https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Compare?playerIds=CD_I1009378,CD_I996692&comparisonTab=h2h

Respect your opinion RN and Marty has some skills of an intercept defender IMO, marking and intercepting snd reasonable disposal.  My issue is who does he play best on tall or small. Neither he is not fast enough for mids and smalls and not heavy enough for 2nd or 1st forwards.

More Our best replacement for Jake Lever really without all of Jakes skills.

Rivers is about 3/4/5 years younger and IMO well rounded on all the skills for a half back. Good mark to compete with talls fast enough for smalls great judgement and ball handling plus takes game on with a bounce or two that suits our style of breaking lines. Great kick also disposal wise and length.

At this stage can't play on KPF but in a year or two with pre seasons and natural body building be able to relieve KP backs.

At this  stage of our development games into Trent are of double benefit just like Kossie and Jacko.

With Lockhart starting to develop our defence is becoming a more stable and dependable aggressive unit.

Rivers looks To me as the long range player (200 games) and Marty as a depth 7th or 8th defender when needed.

Petty may be a forward or back but when fit again I  also think he will be a swing player in the key positions.

3 minutes ago, 58er said:

Respect your opinion RN and Marty has some skills of an intercept defender IMO, marking and intercepting snd reasonable disposal.  My issue is who does he play best on tall or small. Neither he is not fast enough for mids and smalls and not heavy enough for 2nd or 1st forwards.

More Our best replacement for Jake Lever really without all of Jakes skills.

Rivers is about 3/4/5 years younger and IMO well rounded on all the skills for a half back. Good mark to compete with talls fast enough for smalls great judgement and ball handling plus takes game on with a bounce or two that suits our style of breaking lines. Great kick also disposal wise and length.

At this stage can't play on KPF but in a year or two with pre seasons and natural body building be able to relieve KP backs.

At this  stage of our development games into Trent are of double benefit just like Kossie and Jacko.

With Lockhart starting to develop our defence is becoming a more stable and dependable aggressive unit.

Rivers looks To me as the long range player (200 games) and Marty as a depth 7th or 8th defender when needed.

Petty may be a forward or back but when fit again I  also think he will be a swing player in the key positions.

All good points 58.  As i said Rivers looks the goods but i haven't given up on Marty just yet.  Regardless, very nice to be building some depth (once Marty recovers that is).

9 minutes ago, kev martin said:

The fixture has given us a definite advantage over the collywobbles.

We get to watch there set ups, then they lose players who are being managed or don't get over the niggles. They have there first 4 day turn around (I think), so will be unsure of there energy/intensity levels. 

An advantage but can we wack them.

Be ruthless Dees.

Get some percentage increase while we can.

Wouldn't change the backline. They have been strong and Lockhart may need more time. Looked sore against North.

In:  Gawn and Viney

Out:  TMac and Spargo

 

No Kev

Locky did not play vs North and was rested ( managed) so 10 day break!

Both Trac and Spargo (esp) deserved their spots again.

Hannan Tommo and Harmes really should go also Melky not doing enough really.

IN Gawn Viney Lockhart 

OUT Hannan Tommo and ( Harmes OR Melky Managed) 

My changes would be the following:

OUT: Tomlinson (meh) can't believed we signed him on a 4 year deal? And Jonesy

IN: Gawn & Viney

T-Mac to play down back!

 

4 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

All good points 58.  As i said Rivers looks the goods but i haven't given up on Marty just yet.  Regardless, very nice to be building some depth (once Marty recovers that is).

Yes let's hope he can put his name up for consideration whatever our season holds.

BTW have been really pleased with Hibbo after such a tough year. He has lost weight is faster and disposal back to 3017/18 level.

These are the games we lose, everything in our advantage and we come out flat as a tack....

Not fussed if Gawn needs and extra week. We have a very winnable run home and Collingwood off a short break no point pushing him.

 

38 minutes ago, 58er said:

Locky did not play vs North and was rested ( managed) so 10 day break!

Yes, sorry meant Adelaide. 

I feel TMac and Spargo were brought in for,  Gawn and Viney.

My changes are not about form, as I thought both did well against North, more about team cohension.

Agree about Melksham, but I think he is a Goody favourite. I expected a "lead by example" last week but was disappointed in his output.

Can barely beat his one on ones, they used to be his speciality. 

Thought Hannan's game was OK, he was looking clean especially early in the game though faded.

I like Harmes as a footballer, wouldn't drop him, best 22.

Unsure about Tomlison. Difficult to match up on and is versatile, but decision making, speed and touches. A bit like Hannan and goes missing in the game.

 

Edited August 11, 20204 yr by kev martin

I think Bennell, Spargo and Kossie are vying for 2 positions - all three warrant a spot but I don't think we can fit them in, and it's not at the expense of Hannan IMV. I'll leave this one to the professionals.

TMac unfortunately makes way for Maxy. If Jackson needs a rest, then TMac takes his role - but only if. 

Viney for Harmes, for me, who isn't having his best year. Agree with the negative commentary on AVB, who has been a bit undisciplined, however I'd keep him in against the pies and fine him for every brain fart.

I'm loving how the backline is gelling at the moment, as does my boy. No changes down back please. Sorry Lockhart, yes you're having a good year but I think we need to let Rivers run (pun intended). I reckon they'll have him back in though, reading between the lines of Goody's presser.

I wonder if lever will be an out given he put his right hand behind his back after the game and didn’t shake hands with it. 

Gawn Viney Lockhart Bennell

TMac Harmes Jones vdB

thankyou for coming to my tedtalk

29 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I think Bennell, Spargo and Kossie are vying for 2 positions - all three warrant a spot but I don't think we can fit them in, and it's not at the expense of Hannan IMV. I'll leave this one to the professionals.

TMac unfortunately makes way for Maxy. If Jackson needs a rest, then TMac takes his role - but only if. 

Viney for Harmes, for me, who isn't having his best year. Agree with the negative commentary on AVB, who has been a bit undisciplined, however I'd keep him in against the pies and fine him for every brain fart.

I'm loving how the backline is gelling at the moment, as does my boy. No changes down back please. Sorry Lockhart, yes you're having a good year but I think we need to let Rivers run (pun intended). I reckon they'll have him back in though, reading between the lines of Goody's presser.

I think Harmes played mainly or even wholly in defence against North. 

Tmac is cooked I'm afraid 

If Gawn doesn't get up he stays in, but if Gawn is right then Tmac is gone

I'd get AVB out too, between him and Jones at least Jones has his covered in the IQ dept. Both are pretty average but I'd go with Jones (yes AVB is a hard nut, but do we need more of them?) 

AVB also does some really average things. 

Harmes stays for now. Had a stinker. I'm sure he knows that and he could bounce back if someone lets him know he needs to step up this week 

In what sense has Tomlinson "struggled" as a key defender? Has he bad a bag kicked on him or been thoroughly beaten? I haven't seen it. 

Furthermore, Langdon aside, he's the only MFC player I see regularly receive the ball with some space ahead of him. Stays in the team for mine. 

In Gawn out Tmac pretty simple.

A question to all those wanting TMac to return to defence: Why?

As I recall he was a bit of a liability with his disposal when he was playing back there. He also lacked agility and acceleration. I do not believe he  has improved any of those elements of his game and has not been part of the defensive structure at the club for a number of years. 

We have built a bit of understanding and stability in the back 50 and I believe that the introduction of TMac back there would screw up the defence that is beginning to look good.

If he cannot make it these days at a forward then changes have to be made.

Would not be surprised if they rest Jackson this week.

3 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

if you analyse his kicking its a low trajectory and his depth perception along with his action is poor for field kicking. kicking into the man on the mark is a specialty for him. but weirdly he kicks dead straight. In cricket parlance he's got the line right but his length is poor. 

The reason TMac kicks straight is that he has worked the key factors of kicking:

he has a straight run up

he places the ball on his foot rather than the Petracca second storey drop

he has minimal sideways movement in his kicking leg - it starts online and because he typically leans forward  his leg almost always goes goes straight towards goal. He is almost straight legged from the 6 oclock position to 11 oclock

Its a very economic motion with very little than can go wrong. Quite differnet from his ordinary field kicking when he was in defence.