Jump to content

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm not really a fan of digging up the past.

But, in this instance, let's do it.

There is not one single post criticising the contract.

It's actually saddening reading that thread. It was June 2018, we'd just won six in a row. It's like a time capsule back to a much happier era. Feels like an eternity ago.

I was in Fiji for work at the time and I was pumped when I heard the news and was able to download and listen to a podcast with him on it as I was driving back to my hotel. He was a big hope for us and to lock him away for another contract was huge. 

 
3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

It's actually saddening reading that thread. It was June 2018, we'd just won six in a row. It's like a time capsule back to a much happier era. Feels like an eternity ago

Just read through that tread. All that hope and optimism. Who'd want to be a footy supporter!

 
17 hours ago, adonski said:

He will get picked up. Screenshot this, quote it, retweet it.

Betoota ??

Edited by picket fence


6 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

I’d like to keep him as a CHB. 

If we can’t trade him, I agree.

Then we can have Lever as the third tall where he can focus on intercept marking.

 

  • Author
13 minutes ago, Uncle Fester said:

I’d like to keep him as a CHB. 

A big part of the reason we moved him forward was his horrendous disposal.

The last few years there's been a big focus on making our backline more 'safe'. In 2018 and 2019 our points conceded from back half turnovers was a massive issue.

I very much doubt that we would move TMac to the backline again given that.

 

If he can't find a new team there's always more podcasts with the Institute of Public Affairs waiting for him.

11 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

A big part of the reason we moved him forward was his horrendous disposal.

The last few years there's been a big focus on making our backline more 'safe'. In 2018 and 2019 our points conceded from back half turnovers was a massive issue.

I very much doubt that we would move TMac to the backline again given that.

iirc the main reason we moved him fwd was because Hogan and Watts were injured and we had no tall fwds.  About the same time Max was injured and Pederson, our back up fwd, was in the ruck.

The back half turnovers in 2018/2019 don't rest with Tom as he didn't play in defence.

If he stays we will need to make the best of the situation.  imv the 3rd tall position is between Smith, TMc Donald and Petty.  If Tom earns his spot back I have no problem him playing in defence.  Our back 6 is much much stronger now than in 2017 - 2019.


  • Author
9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

iirc the main reason we moved him fwd was because Hogan and Watts were injured and we had no tall fwds.  About the same time Max was injured and Pederson, our back up fwd, was in the ruck.

The back half turnovers in 2018/2019 don't rest with Tom as he didn't play in defence.

If he stays we will need to make the best of the situation.  imv the 3rd tall position is between Smith, TMc Donald and Petty.  If Tom earns his spot back I have no problem him playing in defence.  Our back 6 is much much stronger now than in 2017 - 2019.

Yep, that's why I didn't say his disposal issues were the only reason he was moved forward.

The point about the back half turnovers is we've actively changed the backline, moved and removed players, to make it more reliable from a ball use perspective. Think we all agree TMac's disposal out of the backline was poor yeah? Hence, I doubt we would move him back there as it goes against what they've worked so hard on changing over the last few years. Our backline is stronger because of who we've moved out and who we've replaced them with. We're going backwards if we start inserting those poor users back in there again.

IMO he'll play forward or he won't play. In saying that, I still think he won't be with us next year anyway.

If you want to go back to see how his disposal in the backline was perceived have a read here:

 

Edited by Lord Nev

TMac cannot play a key defensive role again 

Please do not go there. If he stays, he fights for a forward spot

17 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Yep, that's why I didn't say his disposal issues were the only reason he was moved forward.

The point about the back half turnovers is we've actively changed the backline, moved and removed players, to make it more reliable from a ball use perspective. Think we all agree TMac's disposal out of the backline was poor yeah? Hence, I doubt we would move him back there as it goes against what they've worked so hard on changing over the last few years. Our backline is stronger because of who we've moved out and who we've replaced them with. We're going backwards if we start inserting those poor users back in there again.

IMO he'll play forward or he won't play. In saying that, I still think he won't be with us next year anyway.

If you want to go back to see how his disposal in the backline was perceived have a read here:

 

So you want to hang him for poor disposal in a practice match on a windy day when he was just 23 y.o in a team that couldn't defend, contest or attack...ok...

I'm not saying his disposal skills were good but they weren't as bad as people make out. 

And I'm not saying he is a walk up starting 22.  But if he is with us he deserves the right and the respect to fight for a spot.

  • Author
Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

So you want to hang him for poor disposal in a practice match on a windy day when he was just 23 y.o in a team that couldn't defend, contest or attack...ok...

I'm not saying his disposal skills were good but they weren't as bad as people make out. 

And I'm not saying he is a walk up starting 22.  But if he is with us he deserves the right and the respect to fight for a spot.

Mate, if you read through that thread you'll see the majority of Demonland talking about how bad TMac's disposal is.

The main himself has opined about it: "Sometimes as a defender I was so worried about making mistakes. The pressure that comes with being a full back or centre-half back can be overwhelming at times, and I tend to get overly frustrated with myself and it costs me." 

Stress-free Dee relishing his shot up forward

Absolutely he will fight for a spot, as will everyone else. If he earns a shot he should 100% be picked. But IMO, given the reasons I've outlined about the backline philosophy, it will be as a forward.

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

So you want to hang him for poor disposal in a practice match on a windy day when he was just 23 y.o in a team that couldn't defend, contest or attack...ok...

I'm not saying his disposal skills were good but they weren't as bad as people make out. 

And I'm not saying he is a walk up starting 22.  But if he is with us he deserves the right and the respect to fight for a spot.

His disposal out of defence was very poor. We want to get better next year. Tom is not a defender

He can fight for a spot up forward 


38 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

If he stays we will need to make the best of the situation.  imv the 3rd tall position is between Smith, TMc Donald and Petty.  If Tom earns his spot back I have no problem him playing in defence.  Our back 6 is much much stronger now than in 2017 - 2019

One of the main issues (amongst many) I have with him staying and fighting it out for the lesser roles is he’ll stunt the development of younger players like Petty who are the future. Likewise trying to convert him into a winger when we should be giving Baker a run to see what he’s made of. Up forward Jackson is the future and should be playing as 3rd tall.

If he stays he’s cover for injuries or emergencies. Otherwise he’ll see out his days at Casey.

As I’ve said before there is no role for TMac at the club. Very unfortunate how things worked out but its best for the MFC and TMac to part ways. The club needs to acknowledge the situation and just move him on. Pay a chunk of his salary and be done with it. If Tom is happy to collect his fat paycheck he needs to know that he’ll be playing in the 2’s. No shoe-horning or re-purposing. We have youngers who deserve a go. Tom has had his chance.

6 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

One of the main issues (amongst many) I have with him staying and fighting it out for the lesser roles is he’ll stunt the development of younger players like Petty who are the future. Likewise trying to convert him into a winger when we should be giving Baker a run to see what he’s made of. Up forward Jackson is the future and should be playing as 3rd tall.

If he stays he’s cover for injuries or emergencies. Otherwise he’ll see out his days at Casey.

As I’ve said before there is no role for TMac at the club. Very unfortunate how things worked out but its best for the MFC and TMac to part ways. The club needs to acknowledge the situation and just move him on. Pay a chunk of his salary and be done with it. If Tom is happy to collect his fat paycheck he needs to know that he’ll be playing in the 2’s. No shoe-horning or re-purposing. We have youngers who deserve a go. Tom has had his chance.

perfectly said... word for word

thats why im glad to see hannan go and i would have been ok with jones wrapping up.

realistically nibbler, hunt and vanders shouldnt see a single minute of senior footy going forward. spargo, bedford, sparrow, jordon deserve a chance to cement their places. it was so unfair on toby to play 1 game and then get immediately dropped. i thought his pressure on their rebound was good and a run of even 3 games in the 1s we woulda reaped the benefits. petty is our next CHB and should be there from round 1. tomlinson and smith should start at casey

If we must, Tmac can remain as depth should May, Lever, Thomo, Rivers, Salem, Hibbert, Jetta/Lockhart, Harmes and Hore all go down with injuries. Its possible....

Edited by Moonshadow

10 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Is there any reason why he can't be the depth ruckman?

To be brutally frank, I would rather we keep Mitch Brown in that instance.
More mobile and better football smarts. 


5 hours ago, Uncle Fester said:

I’d like to keep him as a CHB. 

May makes an excellent forward

On 11/4/2020 at 12:47 PM, Dr.D said:

but mcdonald was a crap defender when he was at his peak! did you not watch him play?  a terrible decision maker with no composure. Fast forward 5 years and now he is twice as slow!

Crap defender? Bloody nonsense. He was third and 5th in our B and F as a key defender. A weakness in short passing out of defence but an excellent defender otherwise . Did much more for us in defence than Lever has done  thus far 

 
4 hours ago, Turner said:

perfectly said... word for word

thats why im glad to see hannan go and i would have been ok with jones wrapping up.

realistically nibbler, hunt and vanders shouldnt see a single minute of senior footy going forward. spargo, bedford, sparrow, jordon deserve a chance to cement their places. it was so unfair on toby to play 1 game and then get immediately dropped. i thought his pressure on their rebound was good and a run of even 3 games in the 1s we woulda reaped the benefits. petty is our next CHB and should be there from round 1. tomlinson and smith should start at casey

Bloody hell! Petty at CHB?The club want to play him forward 

12 hours ago, Billy said:

Why was it a mistake?

At the time he was a terrific player that had just come off a 50 goal season at Full Forward and was still a very capable Full Back, not to mention as a 2nd mobile ruckman

He has been loyal & stuck with us, injures are a [censored].

He kicked 50 goals  plus, having missed the first 5 games due to injury


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 0 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 47 replies